Cesare Battisti (born 1954) - Public Opinion

Public Opinion

Cesare Battisti denied having committed any of the murders he has been sentenced for. The circumstances of his sentence have been put in question. A movement claiming Battisti's innocence is active in the media and in public opinion (especially in France). Among the most vocal supporters of Battisti, writers Fred Vargas, Valerio Evangelisti and Bernard-Henri Lévy consider that the trials conducted in Italy were marked by irregularities. These alleged irregularities involved the use of torture (Battisti's French lawyers have not used this peculiar charge, the violation of article 3 ECHR, in their rejected claim to ECtHR), and the misuse of witnesses: according to Battisti's supporters, witnesses against Battisti were either affected by mental troubles, or were "collaboratori di giustizia", (that is, defendants testifying against other defendants in order to benefit from a reduced sentence. Those peculiar witnesses are also used by French justice, i.e. art. 132-78 French Code Penal). Battisti's supporters also claim that ballistic analysis and graphological expertises used in Italian court cases do in fact, contrary to what the Courts considered, exonerate Battisti.

Most of public opinion in Italy disagrees with those views, and Battisti's arrest in Brazil has been commented upon favourably in the media. Rifondazione Comunista, however, considers that he should not be extradited, as he would not be granted the right to a new trial. In France, supporters of Battisti, such as Gilles Perrault, have called this arrest, a few weeks before the April 2007 presidential election, an "electoral feat," closely timed by the then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for the UMP conservative party. François Bayrou, candidate for the UDF right-of-center party, has called for a new trial, as have members of the left-wing.

Defenders of Battisti, among whom the Human Rights League (LDH), consider that France's decision to extradite Battisti was illegal, since Battisti would not have the right to a new trial, after having been judged in absentia.

But the alleged right to a new trial is not a sufficient guarantee for the defendant, as clearly ruled the ECtHR in the case of Krombach v. France, application no. 29731/96, and also article 6 of ECHR, the juridical ground of Battisti's claim against extradition, doesn't prescribe a new trial. ECHR establishes that there is not an absolute right to a new trial, after a trial in absentia. Battisti's claim concerned the defendant's knowledge of the trial, and Battisti's lawyers argued that the defendant had not been in a position to know that in Italy there was a trial against him and so his rights had been violated.

The Union syndicale des magistrats (USM, the largest trade union of French judges) has supported the fairness of the Italian trial in absentia and has also confirmed the legality of Battisti’s condemnation:

"L'USM condamne le procédé consistant, dans une perspective purement idéologique, à discréditer une décision de justice rendue par une cour d’assises italienne, dans le strict respect des règles de procédure pénale (appel et cassation) s’agissant d’un accusé en fuite mais défendu à tous les stades de la procédure conformément au droit italien en vigueur."

Translation : "The USM condemns the procedure consisting in discrediting, in a purely ideological perspective, a justice decision emitted by an Italian Assizes Court, in strict respect of penal legal procedures (appeals and "Cassation"), in the case of a defendant not appearing in Court but defended in each and every stage of procedure in accordance with Italian prevailing legislation."