[Prec. per data] [Succ. per data] [Prec. per argomento] [Succ. per argomento] [Indice per data] [Indice per argomento]
[Nonviolenza] La biblioteca di Zorobabele. 534
- Subject: [Nonviolenza] La biblioteca di Zorobabele. 534
- From: Centro di ricerca per la pace Centro di ricerca per la pace <centropacevt at gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 07:21:49 +0200
***************************
LA BIBLIOTECA DI ZOROBABELE
***************************
Segnalazioni librarie e letture nonviolente
a cura del "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Supplemento a "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" (anno XXIII)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, tel. 0761353532, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 534 dell'11 agosto 2022
In questo numero:
1. Due tristezze, due proposte
2. Human Rights Council - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Opinion No. 7/2022 concerning Leonard Peltier (United States of America) (parte seconda e conclusiva)
3. Tre lettere per Leonard Peltier
4. Alcune pubblicazioni di Lucio Magri
5. Alcune pubblicazioni di Dario Paccino
1. REPETITA IUVANT. DUE TRISTEZZE, DUE PROPOSTE
Il 25 settembre si votera' per il rinnovo del Parlamento italiano.
Ed ancora una volta saranno esclusi dal voto milioni di persone che in Italia vivono, lavorano, crescono i loro figli, fanno un gran bene al nostro paese.
Milioni di persone che continuano a subire nel nostro paese un regime di apartheid, una violenza razzista istituzionale che e' strettamente connessa ed effettualmente complice della violenza razzista e schiavista e assassina dei poteri criminali e del regime dei predatori e della corruzione.
Cosa si attende ancora a riconoscere il diritto di voto a tutte le persone che in Italia vivono?
Cosa si attende ancora a far cessare il regime della segregazione razzista nel nostro paese?
Lo chiediamo dal secolo scorso: una persona, un voto.
*
Il 25 settembre si votera' per il rinnovo del Parlamento italiano.
Ed anche i sassi sanno che la prima e piu' urgente iniziativa politica e legislativa e' opporsi alla guerra, avviare il disarmo e la smilitarizzazione, passare dalla folle e sanguinaria "difesa" armata alla necessaria ed urgente ed unica ragionevole difesa popolare nonviolenta, iniziare una politica internazionale di pace con mezzi di pace che convochi l'umanita' intera all'universale solidarieta' per far cessare tutte le uccisioni e cooperare per la salvezza dell'intero mondo vivente.
Una politica internazionalista, una politica dell'umanita', una politica della salvezza comune di tutte e tutti.
Il programma di Guenther Anders e di Ernesto Balducci, il programma di Rosa Luxemburg e di Simone Weil, il programma di Virginia Woolf e di Hannah Arendt, il programma di Primo Levi e di Aldo Capitini, il programma di Mohandas Gandhi e di Luce Fabbri.
Cosa si attende ancora a capire che il tempo e' poco e la strage e' in corso?
Cosa si attende ancora a capire che e' in pericolo l'esistenza dell'umanita' intera?
Solo la pace salva le vite, e salvare le vite e' il primo dovere.
Solo la nonviolenza costruisce la pace, libera tutte le oppresse e tutti gli oppressi, appronta gli strumenti e l'orizzonte di senso necessari alla salvezza comune di quest'unica umana famiglia e di quest'unico mondo vivente.
*
In questa grottesca, triste e trista campagna elettorale queste due indispensabili parole di verita', questi due prioritari impegni programmatici vorremmo sentire enunciati e sottoscritti da chi si candida a fare le leggi con l'impegno di contrastare il fascismo che torna, che in larga misura e' gia' qui:
1. una persona, un voto;
2. pace, disarmo, smilitarizzazione subito.
2. REPETITA IUVANT. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION: OPINION NO. 7/2022 CONCERNING LEONARD PELTIER (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (PARTE SECONDA E CONCLUSIVA)
[Dal sito dell'Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani (www.ohchr.org) riprendiamo e diffondiamo questo importante documento]
Discussion
70. The Working Group thanks the parties for their submissions, which raise several preliminary matters.
71. First, the Working Group has previously adopted an opinion in relation to Mr. Peltier. In opinion No. 15/2005, adopted on 26 May 2005, the Working Group found that the information provided was not sufficient to conclude that the "allegedly longer time before the grant of parole than usually required would have made the prison sentence being served by Mr. Peltier arbitrary" (para. 9). Furthermore, Mr. Peltier was given an opportunity to raise all the complaints listed in the communication before the national appellate courts which, in well-reasoned decisions, dismissed them (para. 10). Noting that it is not mandated to be a substitute appellate court, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Peltier's detention was not arbitrary.
72. The source seeks a new opinion based on the change in Mr. Peltier's circumstances. According to the source, since the initial opinion was adopted, information has come to light regarding a pattern of procedural and substantive injustice against Mr. Peltier during his parole proceedings. His detention has been prolonged by parole officials who have departed from guidelines and failed to follow regulations pertaining to the granting of parole.
73. The Working Group has adopted more than one opinion on the same case when the circumstances have changed or there are new issues warranting further consideration (22). In the present case, the Working Group considers it appropriate to adopt a new opinion, noting that almost 17 years have passed since opinion No. 15/2005 was adopted. While the initial petition focused on evidentiary and other problems at trial and the longer sentence resulting from the denial of parole, the current submission alleges new violations of Mr. Peltier's rights during his parole proceedings. Moreover, Mr. Peltier's health has reportedly deteriorated since the original opinion was adopted, and his medical conditions place him at high risk of death from COVID-19 complications. The Working Group wishes to consider whether these conditions might have affected Mr. Peltier's ability to participate in his parole proceedings. Lastly, the Working Group added category V to its methods of work in 2010, allowing it to consider allegations of detention on discriminatory grounds (23). Given the alleged anti-Native American bias during Mr. Peltier's parole proceedings, the Working Group will consider whether his ongoing detention is arbitrary under this category.
74. Second, the Working Group has clarified in its jurisprudence that it is mandated to consider allegations of arbitrary detention when an individual is seeking release through parole proceedings (24). While the consideration of parole often takes place years after the trial and appellate proceedings, the grant or denial of parole has an impact on whether an individual remains in detention, thus falling within the Working Group's mandate. Parole proceedings must be conducted in accordance with international standards (25). The denial of parole may result in a sentence being arbitrary under article 9 of the Covenant (26).
75. Third, as the Working Group emphasized in opinion No. 15/2005, its purpose is not to substitute itself for the national authorities (27). It refrains from examining matters that are for the national authorities to determine. In the present case, this includes whether aiding and abetting is a separate offence under United States law, the sufficiency of the evidence against Mr. Peltier, and whether his conduct has been exemplary during his incarceration. Rather, the Working Group will consider whether the process adopted by the Parole Commission in considering parole in Mr. Peltier's case met international standards. While Mr. Peltier's detention was not arbitrary in 2005, it may have become arbitrary as it progressed over time.
76. In determining whether Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case of breach of the international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source's allegations (28).
*
Category I
77. According to the source, Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it is prolonged. The source compares Mr. Peltier's sentence with the average time served by individuals sentenced by federal courts to life imprisonment for murder before they were released on parole, which was 8.8 years in 1985 and 27.4 years in 2015 (29). Mr. Peltier has been incarcerated for nearly half a century. During its 2016 visit to the United States, the Working Group identified disproportionate sentencing as a systemic problem that places defendants at high risk of arbitrary detention (30). The Government did not address these allegations.
78. While the sentence currently being served by Mr. Peltier is extremely long and appears to be significantly longer than those being served in similar cases in which other detainees were granted parole, the Working Group is not convinced that this renders his detention arbitrary and without legal basis. The two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment imposed on Mr. Peltier – whether imposed for an offence categorized as murder or aiding and abetting – relate to the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were shot with a firearm, an extremely serious offence. By contrast, the Working Group has found detention to be arbitrary because it is based on a disproportionate sentence when the underlying offence related to the exercise of a right rather than a crime (31), or when a heavy sentence is imposed for a minor offence (32).
79. However, the disparity between Mr. Peltier's sentence and the average time served by other federal inmates for comparable offences may suggest that the process adopted by the Parole Commission was flawed, or that Mr. Peltier's continued detention was the result of discrimination. These issues are considered under categories III and V.
80. In addition, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it is indefinite. It is indefinite because, even though the Government has admitted that it cannot prove that Mr. Peltier committed the murders for which he was incarcerated, the Parole Commission continues to detain him on the alternate theory that he aided and abetted the murders. Mr. Peltier was never found guilty of this offence at trial. In its response, the Government states that aiding and abetting is not a stand-alone crime. Mr. Peltier was convicted of first-degree murder, either by personally committing the murders or by aiding and abetting in their commission. The Government presented the first-degree murder case to the jury on two alternate theories that Mr. Peltier personally murdered the two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, or that he aided and abetted in the commission of the murders by handing over his firearm to another person who pulled the trigger. According to the Government, that theory of guilt has never changed.
81. As noted above, the question of whether aiding and abetting is a separate offence under United States law is not a matter which the Working Group is competent to determine. Moreover, given the conflicting arguments presented by the source and the Government as to whether Mr. Peltier was convicted of first-degree murder by aiding and abetting, the Working Group is not in a position to make any finding on this matter. As a result, the Working Group is unable to conclude that Mr. Peltier is being detained indefinitely for a crime for which he has never been found guilty. Moreover, according to the Government, Mr. Peltier may apply at any time for reconsideration of his parole, suggesting that his detention is not indefinite (33).
82. Lastly, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it serves no legitimate purpose. Mr. Peltier suffers from significant health problems and his next parole hearing will not be held until 2024, when he will be almost 80 years old. Mr. Peltier poses no threat and there is no legitimate purpose to continue his detention. The Government did not address this submission.
83. The source has established a credible case that Mr. Peltier is experiencing significant health issues and is at high risk of COVID-19 complications. However, the Working Group is not convinced that his detention lacks legal basis. The legal basis for Mr. Peltier's detention remains his conviction at trial, confirmed on appeal, that he was responsible for the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents (34). His deteriorating health and advancing age may, however, be relevant in assessing whether he can effectively participate in his parole proceedings, as discussed below.
84. For these reasons, the Working Group is unable to find that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category I.
*
Category III
85. The source argues that the cumulative effect of the procedural deficiencies during Mr. Peltier's parole proceedings renders his continued detention arbitrary. The right to due process applies during parole proceedings, and violations of that right may render the detention arbitrary under category III (35).
86. According to the source, the Parole Commission implemented a procedure in 1977 requiring that prisoners with no minimum sentence be informed of their presumptive parole release date. Mr. Peltier was never informed of this date, as required. In 1981, the Parole Commission updated its mechanism for evaluating prisoners for parole, but Mr. Peltier was not evaluated according to the new standard. When the Sentencing Reform Act was implemented in 1984, Mr. Peltier was one of the prisoners who, by law, should have received a release date during the five-year transition period established under the legislation. This release date would have been in 1992, but Mr. Peltier has never been given a release date.
87. The Government asserts that Mr. Peltier was sentenced seven years before Congress abolished parole in 1984 for all federal inmates, and he is one of the very few federal inmates eligible for parole hearings. He has had several full and interim parole hearings and was legally represented at all of them. While the Government states that the Parole Commission applied federal parole standards, notably, it did not directly address the alleged failure by the Commission to comply with its own standards and procedures.
88. The Working Group recalls that consideration for parole must be carried out in accordance with the law (36). The source has presented a credible case for the argument, which was not rebutted by the Government, that Mr. Peltier was not afforded his rights under applicable law and procedures, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
89. In addition, the source alleges that irregularities occurred during Mr. Peltier's parole hearings. In 1995, the examiner found that the evidence did not support Mr. Peltier's murder conviction and concluded that his incarceration was unfounded. The Parole Commission ignored this conclusion, accepting the recommendation of a second examiner, who was not present at the hearing, to deny parole. In June 2000, the examiner did not read or examine arguments from Mr. Peltier's lawyers, and recommended that parole be denied before the hearing was concluded. Furthermore, before Mr. Peltier's second full parole hearing in July 2009, his lawyer informed him that the Government had said that it would not oppose parole. A representative of the Parole Commission had also indicated that Mr. Peltier would be considered a suitable candidate for parole, but he was again denied parole (37). The Government did not address these allegations. Taken together, these irregularities suggest that the Parole Commission did not objectively and substantively consider whether parole should be granted to Mr. Peltier, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The Commission does not appear to have acted in an impartial manner in the present case.
90. The source further alleges that the Parole Commission has ignored Mr. Peltier's exemplary behaviour while incarcerated and his medical needs in favour of continued reliance on an unchanging factor, namely, his past convictions. In 2009, the examiner for Mr. Peltier's most recent parole hearing relied exclusively on his convictions. The Government asserts that Mr. Peltier's conduct has not been exemplary, referring to his escape from prison and armed robbery. It did not, however, address the allegation that the Parole Commission only considered Mr. Peltier's past convictions, rather than his current behaviour.
91. The Working Group has stated that, when considering parole, the relevant criteria must be the detainee's conduct while serving his or her sentence (38). In the present case, the Working Group is of the view that the consideration by the Parole Commission of factors unrelated to Mr. Peltier's current conduct – such as his conviction, which was already taken into account during sentencing – has resulted in his ongoing detention for a longer period than other detainees convicted of similar offences, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
92. In addition, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's due process rights have been violated because the Parole Commission is not under the control of a judicial authority. However, the Government states that numerous challenges by Mr. Peltier to the denial of parole have been reviewed by federal judges. The Working Group finds no violation on this issue.
93. Lastly, the source claims that the authorities have violated Mr. Peltier's right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment through the use of solitary confinement and the withholding of medical care. Cumulatively, Mr. Peltier has spent over five years in solitary confinement and has been placed in solitary confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bureau of Prisons failed to ensure that he had access to surgery and has not taken adequate steps to protect him from COVID-19. In response, the Government states that Mr. Peltier was last held in the Special Housing Unit in May 2018. Mr. Peltier continues to receive appropriate medical care to address his medical conditions, including during lockdowns.
94. The Working Group recalls that solitary confinement may amount to torture (39). It must be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible, subject to independent review and authorized by a competent authority (40). Similarly, the withholding of medical treatment may amount to torture or ill-treatment (41). According to article 10 (1) of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and dignity, including receiving appropriate medical care (42). States should treat detainees over 60 years of age and those with underlying health conditions as vulnerable to COVID-19, refraining from holding them in facilities where the risk to their life is heightened and implementing early release schemes whenever possible (43).
95. The Working Group is not convinced that Mr. Peltier is able to effectively participate in his parole proceedings (44), even with the assistance of his lawyers. His next parole hearing is due to be held in 2024, when he will be almost 80 years old. It is unlikely that this will be a realistic opportunity for Mr. Peltier, an elderly detainee in ill health, to seek parole and to benefit from due process. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons.
96. The Working Group finds that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category III.
*
Category V
97. The source claims that Mr. Peltier has been subjected to anti-Native American bias throughout the parole process. In its 1995 interim decision, the Parole Commission referred to the death of more than 60 indigenous people on the Pine Ridge Reservation between 1973 and 1975 as a conflict between law enforcement and Native American "militants". In May 1998, the examiner suggested that it was appropriate to continue to detain Mr. Peltier because the actual killer appeared to have been someone from his indigenous group. Furthermore, Mr. Peltier's parole and clemency applications have been strongly opposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which appears to have an interest in the case not only because of the death of its two agents, but also owing to Mr. Peltier's former activism on indigenous rights with the American Indian Movement (45). As noted above, Mr. Peltier has served a significantly longer sentence than others granted parole for similar offences. The Government did not address these allegations.
98. The Working Group concludes that Mr. Peltier continues to be detained because he is Native American, contrary to articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. The Government has expressed its understanding in relation to articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant that distinctions based on factors such as race or national or social origin are permitted when they are rationally related to a legitimate government objective.46 However, the Government has not explained how the present case was compatible with articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant or its understanding of these provisions.
99. The Working Group finds that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category V and refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
*
Concluding remarks
100. The Working Group does not condone the killing of law enforcement officers and this opinion should not be understood as in any way minimizing the gravity of the events that took place in 1975 in South Dakota, which led to Mr. Peltier's conviction. However, States must afford due process to defendants at all stages of a criminal matter, including parole proceedings, in accordance with the Covenant, violations of which have been identified in the present case (47).
*
Disposition
101. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Leonard Peltier, being in contravention of articles 2, 7 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1), 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories III and V.
102. The Working Group requests the Government of the United States to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Peltier without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
103. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the risk to Mr. Peltier's health, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Peltier immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law (48). In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure the immediate release of Mr. Peltier.
104. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Peltier and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.
105. In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, for appropriate action.
106. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
*
Follow-up procedure
107. In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a) Whether Mr. Peltier been released and, if so, on what date;
(b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Peltier;
(c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Peltier's rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of the United States with its international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
108. The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working Group.
109. The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the abovementioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
110. The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken (49).
[Adopted on 30 March 2022]
*
Note
22 See e.g. opinions No. 42/2019, No. 89/2017, No. 50/2014, No. 12/2010 (A/HRC/16/47/Add.1, p. 71, and A/HRC/16/47/Add.1/Corr.1), and No. 46/2008 (A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, p. 130).
23 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (e). The Working Group was established in 1991, and added category V in 2010, after some violations allegedly occurred. However, Mr. Peltier remains in detention and the alleged violations are ongoing and fall within its mandate. See opinion No. 69/2019, para. 50.
24 See opinions No. 32/2016, No. 23/2013, No. 34/2000 and No. 31/1999 (E/CN.4/2001/14/Add.1, p. 28); and A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 48 and 60.
25 Opinions No. 23/2013, para. 26; and No. 34/2000, para. 23.
26 De Leon Castro v. Spain (CCPR/C/95/D/1388/2005), para. 9.3; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 20 (noting that parole must not be denied on grounds that are arbitrary within the meaning of art. 9). While the United States ratified the Covenant on 8 June 1992, article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applied to parole proceedings before that date, and the alleged violations are ongoing.
27 Opinions No. 15/2021, para. 93; No. 46/2020, para. 62; and No. 64/2019, para. 89.
28 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
29 It is not clear whether the 27.4 years cited by the source has been doubled to serve as an appropriate point of comparison with Mr. Peltier's two consecutive life sentences.
30 A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 50, 60–61 and 88.
31 See e.g. opinions No. 48/2012, paras. 18–19 (10 years' imprisonment for exercising the freedom of _expression_); and No. 41/2008 (A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, p. 105), paras. 11, 16 and 18 (sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment for five minutes of dancing and unfurling a flag in non-violent political protest).
32 See e.g. opinion No. 40/2016, para. 44 (8 years' imprisonment followed by 5 years of house arrest for photojournalism and spraying graffiti on a public school).
33 In opinion No. 22/2004 (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.1, p. 10), cited by the source, an individual was held for an unspecified period with no apparent means of seeking release (para. 11).
34 In opinion No. 7/2017, cited by the source, the Working Group stated that there was no legitimate reason for detaining an elderly man with health problems, but did not find that this, of itself, rendered his detention arbitrary (paras. 44–45).
35 Opinion No. 34/2000, para. 23.
36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 20.
37 Opinion No. 34/2000, para. 23 (finding that the denial of parole following statements by the authorities that parole would be granted was a factor rendering the detention arbitrary).
38 Ibid.
39 General Assembly resolution 68/156, para. 28; A/66/268, para. 71; A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 63–65 and 93 (g); CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5, para. 20; and CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para. 20.
40 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), rule 45; and opinions No. 61/2020, para. 85; and No. 52/2018, para. 79 (d).
41 Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.8.
42 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
43 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 11 (A/HRC/45/16, annex II), paras. 15–16.
44 Opinions No. 70/2019, para. 74; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 29/2017, para. 63.
45 A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, para. 93 (referring to Mr. Peltier's case as the criminalization of indigenous dissent).
46 See https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src="">.
47 Opinions No. 62/2020, para. 77; and No. 59/2020, para. 52.
48 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I).
49 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.
3. REPETITA IUVANT. TRE LETTERE PER LEONARD PELTIER
I. Appello alla Presidente del Parlamento Europeo, on. Roberta Metsola: president at ep.europa.eu
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
il suo indimenticabile predecessore, il Presidente David Sassoli, si impegno' affinche' il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America compisse un atto di clemenza che restituisse la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e della Madre Terra, da 46 anni detenuto innocente nelle carceri statunitensi a seguito di un processo-farsa in cui fu assurdamente condannato per un crimine che non ha mai commesso sulla base di "prove" false e di "testimonianze" altrettante false, come successivamente ammisero i suoi stessi accusatori e giudici. Nonostante la sua innocenza sia ormai da tutti riconosciuta, Leonard Peltier continua ad essere detenuto.
Con un intervento pubblicato su twitter e una dichiarazione alla stampa di cui e' disponibile la registrazione video il Presidente Sassoli il 23 agosto 2021 espresse pubblicamente la richiesta al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Nel suo tweet del 23 agosto 2021 il Presidente Sassoli scriveva, in italiano e in inglese:
"Inviero' una lettera alle autorita' statunitensi chiedendo clemenza per Leonard Peltier, attivista per i diritti umani dell'American Indian Movement, in carcere da 45 anni.
Spero che le autorita' accolgano il mio invito. I diritti umani vanno difesi sempre, ovunque".
"I will send a letter to the US authorities asking for clemency for Leonard Peltier. A human rights activist of the American Indian Movement, he has been imprisoned for 45 years.
I hope the authorities will take up my invitation. Human rights must be defended always, everywhere".
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
gia' nel 1994 e poi ancora nel 1999 il Parlamento Europeo delibero' risoluzioni per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier.
Qui di seguito si trascrive integralmente la Risoluzione del Parlamento Europeo dell'11 febbraio 1999 (pubblicata sulla Gazzetta ufficiale n. C 150 del 28/05/1999 pag. 0384, B4-0169, 0175, 0179 e 0199/99):
"Risoluzione sul caso di Leonard Peltier
Il Parlamento europeo,
- vista la sua risoluzione del 15 dicembre 1994 sulla grazia per Leonard Peltier (GU C 18 del 23.1.1995, pag. 183),
A. considerando il ruolo svolto da Leonard Peltier nella difesa dei diritti dei popoli indigeni,
B. considerando che Leonard Peltier e' stato condannato nel 1977 a due ergastoli dopo essere stato estradato dal Canada, benche' non vi fosse alcuna prova della sua colpevolezza,
C. considerando che Amnesty International ha ripetutamente espresso le proprie preoccupazioni circa l'equita' del processo che ha condotto alla condanna di Leonard Peltier,
D. considerando che il governo degli Stati Uniti ha ormai ammesso che gli affidavit utilizzati per arrestare e estradare Leonard Peltier dal Canada erano falsi e che il Pubblico ministero statunitense Lynn Crooks ha affermato che il governo degli Stati Uniti non aveva alcuna prova di chi aveva ucciso gli agenti,
E. considerando che dopo 23 anni trascorsi nei penitenziari federali, le condizioni di salute di Leonard Peltier si sono seriamente aggravate e che secondo il giudizio di specialisti la sua vita potrebbe essere in pericolo se non ricevera' adeguate cure mediche,
F. considerando che le autorita' penitenziarie continuano a negargli adeguate cure mediche in violazione del diritto umanitario internazionale e i suoi diritti costituzionali,
G. rilevando che Leonard Peltier ha esaurito tutte le possibilita' di appello concessegli dal diritto statunitense,
1. insiste ancora una volta affinche' venga concessa a Leonard Peltier la grazia presidenziale;
2. insiste affinche' Leonard Peltier sia trasferito in una clinica dove possa ricevere le cure mediche del caso;
3. ribadisce la sua richiesta di un'indagine sulle irregolarita' giudiziarie che hanno portato alla reclusione di Leonard Peltier;
4. incarica la sua delegazione per le relazioni con gli Stati Uniti di sollevare il caso di Leonard Peltier iscrivendolo all'ordine del giorno del prossimo incontro con i parlamentari americani;
5. incarica il suo Presidente di trasmettere la presente risoluzione al Consiglio, alla Commissione, al Congresso statunitense e al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America".
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta gia' da molti anni da prestigiose istituzioni, innumerevoli associazioni democratiche, milioni di persone di tutto il mondo tra cui illustri personalita' come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, Desmond Tutu e numerosi altri Premi Nobel.
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
dia seguito all'iniziativa del Parlamento Europeo e del Presidente Sassoli, e chieda al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di compiere finalmente l'atto di clemenza che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
*
II. Appello al Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite, on. Antonio Guterres: sgcentral at un.org
Egregio Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite, on. Antonio Guterres,
uniamo la nostra voce a quella di quanti hanno gia' chiesto un suo intervento presso il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' compia un atto di clemenza restituendo la liberta' a Leonard Peltier attraverso lo strumento giuridico della grazia presidenziale.
Chiediamo questo suo intervento perche' la vicenda di Leonard Peltier riguarda l'umanita' intera.
Come Lei gia' sapra', Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano, generoso e coraggioso difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e della Madre Terra, da 46 anni detenuto per delitti che non ha commesso.
Gli stessi suoi accusatori che ne ottennero la condanna al termine di uno scandalosissimo processo-farsa basato su cosiddette "prove" dimostratesi assolutamente false e su cosiddette "testimonianze" dimostratesi anch'esse assolutamente false, hanno successivamente riconosciuto che la condanna e la conseguente detenzione di Leonard Peltier e' ingiusta e persecutoria, insensata e disumana, ed hanno chiesto loro stessi la sua liberazione.
Eppure, nonostante che la sua innocenza sia ormai certezza condivisa dall'umanita' intera, Leonard Peltier - ormai anziano e con gravi problemi di salute - continua ad essere detenuto per delitti che non ha mai commesso.
Sicuramente ricordera' che la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta da milioni di persone di tutto il mondo, tra le quali figure luminose come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, Desmond Tutu.
Ricordera' sicuramente anche che la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta da innumerevoli istituzioni, tra le quali il Parlamento Europeo con ben due risoluzioni fin dagli anni '90 del secolo scorso.
Ci e' particolarmente grato ricordare anche l'iniziativa del compianto Presidente del Parlamento Europeo, on. David Sassoli, recentemente deceduto, che il 23 agosto 2021 scriveva, in italiano e in inglese:
"Inviero' una lettera alle autorita' statunitensi chiedendo clemenza per Leonard Peltier, attivista per i diritti umani dell'American Indian Movement, in carcere da 45 anni. Spero che le autorita' accolgano il mio invito. I diritti umani vanno difesi sempre, ovunque".
"I will send a letter to the US authorities asking for clemency for Leonard Peltier. A human rights activist of the American Indian Movement, he has been imprisoned for 45 years. I hope the authorities will take up my invitation. Human rights must be defended always, everywhere".
Gli sforzi di milioni di esseri umani, l'impegno di innumerevoli associazioni - tra cui in primo luogo Amnesty International -, il voto di autorevolissime istituzioni, non hanno ottenuto fin qui che Leonard Peltier venisse liberato.
Occorre evidentemente un'iniziativa ulteriore.
Sia Lei, che rappresenta l'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite, quindi l'istituzione rappresentativa di tutti i paesi e i popoli del mondo, a promuovere questa iniziativa.
Sia Lei a chiedere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di restituire la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
*
III. Un invito a tutte le persone di volonta' buona, alle associazioni democratiche, alle istituzioni sollecite del bene comune dell'umanita', affinche' si adoperino per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier
Fratelli e sorelle,
a tutte e tutti chiediamo un impegno, nelle forme che riterrete adeguate, affinche' sia restituita la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Vi proponiamo di scrivere lettere sia direttamente al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America, nelle cui mani e' il potere di concedere la grazia che restituisca finalmente la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, sia alle istituzioni, alle organizzazioni ed alle personalita' che riterrete possano trovare maggior ascolto da parte della Casa Bianca, sia ai mezzi d'informazione affinche' cessi il silenzio sulla vicenda e sulla testimonianza di Leonard Peltier e sulla lotta sua e dei popoli nativi in difesa dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente.
Ma soprattutto vi chiediamo tre cose: di informare e coscientizzare le persone con cui siete in contatto, di voler voi stessi approfondire la conoscenza della vicenda di Leonard Peltier, di mettervi in contatto sia con lui che con il comitato internazionale di solidarieta' che lo sostiene.
L'indirizzo postale di Leonard Peltier e' nel sito dell'International Leonard Peltier Defense Committe (www.whoisleonardpeltier.info). Per contattare il comitato internazionale di solidarieta' inviare una e-mail a: contact at whoisleonardpeltier.info
Grazie di cuore per quanto vorrete fare.
4. SEGNALAZIONI. ALCUNE PUBBLICAZIONI DI LUCIO MAGRI
- Lucio Magri, Considerazioni sui fatti di maggio, De Donato, Bari 1968, Manifestolibri, Roma 2018, pp. 176.
- Lucio Magri, Il sarto di Ulm. Una possibile storia del Pci, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2009, pp. 456.
- Lucio Magri, Alla ricerca di un altro comunismo. Saggi sulla sinistra italiana, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2012, pp. 288 (+ 16 pp. di repertorio fotografico).
5. SEGNALAZIONI. ALCUNE PUBBLICAZIONI DI DARIO PACCINO
- Dario Paccino, Arrivano i nostri, Edizioni Avanti!, Milano 1956.
- Dario Paccino, Domani il diluvio, Calderini, Bologna 1970.
- Dario Paccino, L'imbroglio ecologico, Einaudi, Torino 1972.
- Dario Paccino, L'ombra di Confucio, Einaudi, Torino 1976.
- Dario Paccino, Il diario di un provocatore, I libri del no, Roma 1977.
- Dario Paccino, La teppa all'assalto del cielo, I libri del no, Roma 1978.
- Dario Paccino, La trappola della scienza, La Salamandra, Milano 1979.
- Dario Paccino, I colonnelli verdi e la fine della storia, Pellicani, Roma 1990.
- Dario Paccino, La guerra chiamata pace, Pellicani, Roma 1992.
- Dario Paccino, Gli invendibili, Datanews, Roma 1994.
- Dario Paccino, Manuale di autodifesa linguistica, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1996.
- Dario Paccino, con Luigi Josi e Gian Marco Martignoni, Il libero schiavo di Maastricht, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1997.
- Dario Paccino (a cura di), L'ultima volta, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1997.
- Dario Paccino, Euro kaputt, Odradek, Roma 2000; Il padrone. L'apocalisse, Notiziario Cdp, Pistoia 2003.
- Dario Paccino, I senzapatria. Resistenza ieri e oggi, Biblioteca Franco Serantini, Pisa 2006.
***************************
LA BIBLIOTECA DI ZOROBABELE
***************************
Segnalazioni librarie e letture nonviolente
a cura del "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Supplemento a "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" (anno XXIII)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, tel. 0761353532, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 534 dell'11 agosto 2022
*
Informativa sulla privacy
E' possibile consultare l'informativa sulla privacy a questo indirizzo: https://www.peacelink.it/peacelink/informativa-privacy-nonviolenza
Per non ricevere piu' il notiziario e' sufficiente recarsi in questa pagina: https://lists.peacelink.it/sympa/signoff/nonviolenza
Per iscriversi al notiziario l'indirizzo e' https://lists.peacelink.it/sympa/subscribe/nonviolenza
*
L'unico indirizzo di posta elettronica utilizzabile per contattare la redazione e' centropacevt at gmail.com
LA BIBLIOTECA DI ZOROBABELE
***************************
Segnalazioni librarie e letture nonviolente
a cura del "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Supplemento a "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" (anno XXIII)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, tel. 0761353532, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 534 dell'11 agosto 2022
In questo numero:
1. Due tristezze, due proposte
2. Human Rights Council - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Opinion No. 7/2022 concerning Leonard Peltier (United States of America) (parte seconda e conclusiva)
3. Tre lettere per Leonard Peltier
4. Alcune pubblicazioni di Lucio Magri
5. Alcune pubblicazioni di Dario Paccino
1. REPETITA IUVANT. DUE TRISTEZZE, DUE PROPOSTE
Il 25 settembre si votera' per il rinnovo del Parlamento italiano.
Ed ancora una volta saranno esclusi dal voto milioni di persone che in Italia vivono, lavorano, crescono i loro figli, fanno un gran bene al nostro paese.
Milioni di persone che continuano a subire nel nostro paese un regime di apartheid, una violenza razzista istituzionale che e' strettamente connessa ed effettualmente complice della violenza razzista e schiavista e assassina dei poteri criminali e del regime dei predatori e della corruzione.
Cosa si attende ancora a riconoscere il diritto di voto a tutte le persone che in Italia vivono?
Cosa si attende ancora a far cessare il regime della segregazione razzista nel nostro paese?
Lo chiediamo dal secolo scorso: una persona, un voto.
*
Il 25 settembre si votera' per il rinnovo del Parlamento italiano.
Ed anche i sassi sanno che la prima e piu' urgente iniziativa politica e legislativa e' opporsi alla guerra, avviare il disarmo e la smilitarizzazione, passare dalla folle e sanguinaria "difesa" armata alla necessaria ed urgente ed unica ragionevole difesa popolare nonviolenta, iniziare una politica internazionale di pace con mezzi di pace che convochi l'umanita' intera all'universale solidarieta' per far cessare tutte le uccisioni e cooperare per la salvezza dell'intero mondo vivente.
Una politica internazionalista, una politica dell'umanita', una politica della salvezza comune di tutte e tutti.
Il programma di Guenther Anders e di Ernesto Balducci, il programma di Rosa Luxemburg e di Simone Weil, il programma di Virginia Woolf e di Hannah Arendt, il programma di Primo Levi e di Aldo Capitini, il programma di Mohandas Gandhi e di Luce Fabbri.
Cosa si attende ancora a capire che il tempo e' poco e la strage e' in corso?
Cosa si attende ancora a capire che e' in pericolo l'esistenza dell'umanita' intera?
Solo la pace salva le vite, e salvare le vite e' il primo dovere.
Solo la nonviolenza costruisce la pace, libera tutte le oppresse e tutti gli oppressi, appronta gli strumenti e l'orizzonte di senso necessari alla salvezza comune di quest'unica umana famiglia e di quest'unico mondo vivente.
*
In questa grottesca, triste e trista campagna elettorale queste due indispensabili parole di verita', questi due prioritari impegni programmatici vorremmo sentire enunciati e sottoscritti da chi si candida a fare le leggi con l'impegno di contrastare il fascismo che torna, che in larga misura e' gia' qui:
1. una persona, un voto;
2. pace, disarmo, smilitarizzazione subito.
2. REPETITA IUVANT. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION: OPINION NO. 7/2022 CONCERNING LEONARD PELTIER (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (PARTE SECONDA E CONCLUSIVA)
[Dal sito dell'Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani (www.ohchr.org) riprendiamo e diffondiamo questo importante documento]
Discussion
70. The Working Group thanks the parties for their submissions, which raise several preliminary matters.
71. First, the Working Group has previously adopted an opinion in relation to Mr. Peltier. In opinion No. 15/2005, adopted on 26 May 2005, the Working Group found that the information provided was not sufficient to conclude that the "allegedly longer time before the grant of parole than usually required would have made the prison sentence being served by Mr. Peltier arbitrary" (para. 9). Furthermore, Mr. Peltier was given an opportunity to raise all the complaints listed in the communication before the national appellate courts which, in well-reasoned decisions, dismissed them (para. 10). Noting that it is not mandated to be a substitute appellate court, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Peltier's detention was not arbitrary.
72. The source seeks a new opinion based on the change in Mr. Peltier's circumstances. According to the source, since the initial opinion was adopted, information has come to light regarding a pattern of procedural and substantive injustice against Mr. Peltier during his parole proceedings. His detention has been prolonged by parole officials who have departed from guidelines and failed to follow regulations pertaining to the granting of parole.
73. The Working Group has adopted more than one opinion on the same case when the circumstances have changed or there are new issues warranting further consideration (22). In the present case, the Working Group considers it appropriate to adopt a new opinion, noting that almost 17 years have passed since opinion No. 15/2005 was adopted. While the initial petition focused on evidentiary and other problems at trial and the longer sentence resulting from the denial of parole, the current submission alleges new violations of Mr. Peltier's rights during his parole proceedings. Moreover, Mr. Peltier's health has reportedly deteriorated since the original opinion was adopted, and his medical conditions place him at high risk of death from COVID-19 complications. The Working Group wishes to consider whether these conditions might have affected Mr. Peltier's ability to participate in his parole proceedings. Lastly, the Working Group added category V to its methods of work in 2010, allowing it to consider allegations of detention on discriminatory grounds (23). Given the alleged anti-Native American bias during Mr. Peltier's parole proceedings, the Working Group will consider whether his ongoing detention is arbitrary under this category.
74. Second, the Working Group has clarified in its jurisprudence that it is mandated to consider allegations of arbitrary detention when an individual is seeking release through parole proceedings (24). While the consideration of parole often takes place years after the trial and appellate proceedings, the grant or denial of parole has an impact on whether an individual remains in detention, thus falling within the Working Group's mandate. Parole proceedings must be conducted in accordance with international standards (25). The denial of parole may result in a sentence being arbitrary under article 9 of the Covenant (26).
75. Third, as the Working Group emphasized in opinion No. 15/2005, its purpose is not to substitute itself for the national authorities (27). It refrains from examining matters that are for the national authorities to determine. In the present case, this includes whether aiding and abetting is a separate offence under United States law, the sufficiency of the evidence against Mr. Peltier, and whether his conduct has been exemplary during his incarceration. Rather, the Working Group will consider whether the process adopted by the Parole Commission in considering parole in Mr. Peltier's case met international standards. While Mr. Peltier's detention was not arbitrary in 2005, it may have become arbitrary as it progressed over time.
76. In determining whether Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case of breach of the international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source's allegations (28).
*
Category I
77. According to the source, Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it is prolonged. The source compares Mr. Peltier's sentence with the average time served by individuals sentenced by federal courts to life imprisonment for murder before they were released on parole, which was 8.8 years in 1985 and 27.4 years in 2015 (29). Mr. Peltier has been incarcerated for nearly half a century. During its 2016 visit to the United States, the Working Group identified disproportionate sentencing as a systemic problem that places defendants at high risk of arbitrary detention (30). The Government did not address these allegations.
78. While the sentence currently being served by Mr. Peltier is extremely long and appears to be significantly longer than those being served in similar cases in which other detainees were granted parole, the Working Group is not convinced that this renders his detention arbitrary and without legal basis. The two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment imposed on Mr. Peltier – whether imposed for an offence categorized as murder or aiding and abetting – relate to the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were shot with a firearm, an extremely serious offence. By contrast, the Working Group has found detention to be arbitrary because it is based on a disproportionate sentence when the underlying offence related to the exercise of a right rather than a crime (31), or when a heavy sentence is imposed for a minor offence (32).
79. However, the disparity between Mr. Peltier's sentence and the average time served by other federal inmates for comparable offences may suggest that the process adopted by the Parole Commission was flawed, or that Mr. Peltier's continued detention was the result of discrimination. These issues are considered under categories III and V.
80. In addition, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it is indefinite. It is indefinite because, even though the Government has admitted that it cannot prove that Mr. Peltier committed the murders for which he was incarcerated, the Parole Commission continues to detain him on the alternate theory that he aided and abetted the murders. Mr. Peltier was never found guilty of this offence at trial. In its response, the Government states that aiding and abetting is not a stand-alone crime. Mr. Peltier was convicted of first-degree murder, either by personally committing the murders or by aiding and abetting in their commission. The Government presented the first-degree murder case to the jury on two alternate theories that Mr. Peltier personally murdered the two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, or that he aided and abetted in the commission of the murders by handing over his firearm to another person who pulled the trigger. According to the Government, that theory of guilt has never changed.
81. As noted above, the question of whether aiding and abetting is a separate offence under United States law is not a matter which the Working Group is competent to determine. Moreover, given the conflicting arguments presented by the source and the Government as to whether Mr. Peltier was convicted of first-degree murder by aiding and abetting, the Working Group is not in a position to make any finding on this matter. As a result, the Working Group is unable to conclude that Mr. Peltier is being detained indefinitely for a crime for which he has never been found guilty. Moreover, according to the Government, Mr. Peltier may apply at any time for reconsideration of his parole, suggesting that his detention is not indefinite (33).
82. Lastly, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary because it serves no legitimate purpose. Mr. Peltier suffers from significant health problems and his next parole hearing will not be held until 2024, when he will be almost 80 years old. Mr. Peltier poses no threat and there is no legitimate purpose to continue his detention. The Government did not address this submission.
83. The source has established a credible case that Mr. Peltier is experiencing significant health issues and is at high risk of COVID-19 complications. However, the Working Group is not convinced that his detention lacks legal basis. The legal basis for Mr. Peltier's detention remains his conviction at trial, confirmed on appeal, that he was responsible for the death of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents (34). His deteriorating health and advancing age may, however, be relevant in assessing whether he can effectively participate in his parole proceedings, as discussed below.
84. For these reasons, the Working Group is unable to find that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category I.
*
Category III
85. The source argues that the cumulative effect of the procedural deficiencies during Mr. Peltier's parole proceedings renders his continued detention arbitrary. The right to due process applies during parole proceedings, and violations of that right may render the detention arbitrary under category III (35).
86. According to the source, the Parole Commission implemented a procedure in 1977 requiring that prisoners with no minimum sentence be informed of their presumptive parole release date. Mr. Peltier was never informed of this date, as required. In 1981, the Parole Commission updated its mechanism for evaluating prisoners for parole, but Mr. Peltier was not evaluated according to the new standard. When the Sentencing Reform Act was implemented in 1984, Mr. Peltier was one of the prisoners who, by law, should have received a release date during the five-year transition period established under the legislation. This release date would have been in 1992, but Mr. Peltier has never been given a release date.
87. The Government asserts that Mr. Peltier was sentenced seven years before Congress abolished parole in 1984 for all federal inmates, and he is one of the very few federal inmates eligible for parole hearings. He has had several full and interim parole hearings and was legally represented at all of them. While the Government states that the Parole Commission applied federal parole standards, notably, it did not directly address the alleged failure by the Commission to comply with its own standards and procedures.
88. The Working Group recalls that consideration for parole must be carried out in accordance with the law (36). The source has presented a credible case for the argument, which was not rebutted by the Government, that Mr. Peltier was not afforded his rights under applicable law and procedures, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
89. In addition, the source alleges that irregularities occurred during Mr. Peltier's parole hearings. In 1995, the examiner found that the evidence did not support Mr. Peltier's murder conviction and concluded that his incarceration was unfounded. The Parole Commission ignored this conclusion, accepting the recommendation of a second examiner, who was not present at the hearing, to deny parole. In June 2000, the examiner did not read or examine arguments from Mr. Peltier's lawyers, and recommended that parole be denied before the hearing was concluded. Furthermore, before Mr. Peltier's second full parole hearing in July 2009, his lawyer informed him that the Government had said that it would not oppose parole. A representative of the Parole Commission had also indicated that Mr. Peltier would be considered a suitable candidate for parole, but he was again denied parole (37). The Government did not address these allegations. Taken together, these irregularities suggest that the Parole Commission did not objectively and substantively consider whether parole should be granted to Mr. Peltier, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The Commission does not appear to have acted in an impartial manner in the present case.
90. The source further alleges that the Parole Commission has ignored Mr. Peltier's exemplary behaviour while incarcerated and his medical needs in favour of continued reliance on an unchanging factor, namely, his past convictions. In 2009, the examiner for Mr. Peltier's most recent parole hearing relied exclusively on his convictions. The Government asserts that Mr. Peltier's conduct has not been exemplary, referring to his escape from prison and armed robbery. It did not, however, address the allegation that the Parole Commission only considered Mr. Peltier's past convictions, rather than his current behaviour.
91. The Working Group has stated that, when considering parole, the relevant criteria must be the detainee's conduct while serving his or her sentence (38). In the present case, the Working Group is of the view that the consideration by the Parole Commission of factors unrelated to Mr. Peltier's current conduct – such as his conviction, which was already taken into account during sentencing – has resulted in his ongoing detention for a longer period than other detainees convicted of similar offences, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
92. In addition, the source claims that Mr. Peltier's due process rights have been violated because the Parole Commission is not under the control of a judicial authority. However, the Government states that numerous challenges by Mr. Peltier to the denial of parole have been reviewed by federal judges. The Working Group finds no violation on this issue.
93. Lastly, the source claims that the authorities have violated Mr. Peltier's right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment through the use of solitary confinement and the withholding of medical care. Cumulatively, Mr. Peltier has spent over five years in solitary confinement and has been placed in solitary confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bureau of Prisons failed to ensure that he had access to surgery and has not taken adequate steps to protect him from COVID-19. In response, the Government states that Mr. Peltier was last held in the Special Housing Unit in May 2018. Mr. Peltier continues to receive appropriate medical care to address his medical conditions, including during lockdowns.
94. The Working Group recalls that solitary confinement may amount to torture (39). It must be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible, subject to independent review and authorized by a competent authority (40). Similarly, the withholding of medical treatment may amount to torture or ill-treatment (41). According to article 10 (1) of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and dignity, including receiving appropriate medical care (42). States should treat detainees over 60 years of age and those with underlying health conditions as vulnerable to COVID-19, refraining from holding them in facilities where the risk to their life is heightened and implementing early release schemes whenever possible (43).
95. The Working Group is not convinced that Mr. Peltier is able to effectively participate in his parole proceedings (44), even with the assistance of his lawyers. His next parole hearing is due to be held in 2024, when he will be almost 80 years old. It is unlikely that this will be a realistic opportunity for Mr. Peltier, an elderly detainee in ill health, to seek parole and to benefit from due process. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons.
96. The Working Group finds that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category III.
*
Category V
97. The source claims that Mr. Peltier has been subjected to anti-Native American bias throughout the parole process. In its 1995 interim decision, the Parole Commission referred to the death of more than 60 indigenous people on the Pine Ridge Reservation between 1973 and 1975 as a conflict between law enforcement and Native American "militants". In May 1998, the examiner suggested that it was appropriate to continue to detain Mr. Peltier because the actual killer appeared to have been someone from his indigenous group. Furthermore, Mr. Peltier's parole and clemency applications have been strongly opposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which appears to have an interest in the case not only because of the death of its two agents, but also owing to Mr. Peltier's former activism on indigenous rights with the American Indian Movement (45). As noted above, Mr. Peltier has served a significantly longer sentence than others granted parole for similar offences. The Government did not address these allegations.
98. The Working Group concludes that Mr. Peltier continues to be detained because he is Native American, contrary to articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. The Government has expressed its understanding in relation to articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant that distinctions based on factors such as race or national or social origin are permitted when they are rationally related to a legitimate government objective.46 However, the Government has not explained how the present case was compatible with articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant or its understanding of these provisions.
99. The Working Group finds that Mr. Peltier's detention is arbitrary under category V and refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
*
Concluding remarks
100. The Working Group does not condone the killing of law enforcement officers and this opinion should not be understood as in any way minimizing the gravity of the events that took place in 1975 in South Dakota, which led to Mr. Peltier's conviction. However, States must afford due process to defendants at all stages of a criminal matter, including parole proceedings, in accordance with the Covenant, violations of which have been identified in the present case (47).
*
Disposition
101. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Leonard Peltier, being in contravention of articles 2, 7 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1), 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories III and V.
102. The Working Group requests the Government of the United States to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Peltier without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
103. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the risk to Mr. Peltier's health, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Peltier immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law (48). In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure the immediate release of Mr. Peltier.
104. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Peltier and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.
105. In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, for appropriate action.
106. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible.
*
Follow-up procedure
107. In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a) Whether Mr. Peltier been released and, if so, on what date;
(b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Peltier;
(c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Peltier's rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of the United States with its international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
108. The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working Group.
109. The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the abovementioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
110. The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken (49).
[Adopted on 30 March 2022]
*
Note
22 See e.g. opinions No. 42/2019, No. 89/2017, No. 50/2014, No. 12/2010 (A/HRC/16/47/Add.1, p. 71, and A/HRC/16/47/Add.1/Corr.1), and No. 46/2008 (A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, p. 130).
23 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (e). The Working Group was established in 1991, and added category V in 2010, after some violations allegedly occurred. However, Mr. Peltier remains in detention and the alleged violations are ongoing and fall within its mandate. See opinion No. 69/2019, para. 50.
24 See opinions No. 32/2016, No. 23/2013, No. 34/2000 and No. 31/1999 (E/CN.4/2001/14/Add.1, p. 28); and A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 48 and 60.
25 Opinions No. 23/2013, para. 26; and No. 34/2000, para. 23.
26 De Leon Castro v. Spain (CCPR/C/95/D/1388/2005), para. 9.3; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 20 (noting that parole must not be denied on grounds that are arbitrary within the meaning of art. 9). While the United States ratified the Covenant on 8 June 1992, article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applied to parole proceedings before that date, and the alleged violations are ongoing.
27 Opinions No. 15/2021, para. 93; No. 46/2020, para. 62; and No. 64/2019, para. 89.
28 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
29 It is not clear whether the 27.4 years cited by the source has been doubled to serve as an appropriate point of comparison with Mr. Peltier's two consecutive life sentences.
30 A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 50, 60–61 and 88.
31 See e.g. opinions No. 48/2012, paras. 18–19 (10 years' imprisonment for exercising the freedom of _expression_); and No. 41/2008 (A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, p. 105), paras. 11, 16 and 18 (sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment for five minutes of dancing and unfurling a flag in non-violent political protest).
32 See e.g. opinion No. 40/2016, para. 44 (8 years' imprisonment followed by 5 years of house arrest for photojournalism and spraying graffiti on a public school).
33 In opinion No. 22/2004 (E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.1, p. 10), cited by the source, an individual was held for an unspecified period with no apparent means of seeking release (para. 11).
34 In opinion No. 7/2017, cited by the source, the Working Group stated that there was no legitimate reason for detaining an elderly man with health problems, but did not find that this, of itself, rendered his detention arbitrary (paras. 44–45).
35 Opinion No. 34/2000, para. 23.
36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 20.
37 Opinion No. 34/2000, para. 23 (finding that the denial of parole following statements by the authorities that parole would be granted was a factor rendering the detention arbitrary).
38 Ibid.
39 General Assembly resolution 68/156, para. 28; A/66/268, para. 71; A/HRC/36/37/Add.2, paras. 63–65 and 93 (g); CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5, para. 20; and CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para. 20.
40 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), rule 45; and opinions No. 61/2020, para. 85; and No. 52/2018, para. 79 (d).
41 Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.8.
42 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
43 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 11 (A/HRC/45/16, annex II), paras. 15–16.
44 Opinions No. 70/2019, para. 74; No. 59/2019, para. 69; and No. 29/2017, para. 63.
45 A/HRC/36/46/Add.1, para. 93 (referring to Mr. Peltier's case as the criminalization of indigenous dissent).
46 See https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src="">.
47 Opinions No. 62/2020, para. 77; and No. 59/2020, para. 52.
48 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I).
49 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.
3. REPETITA IUVANT. TRE LETTERE PER LEONARD PELTIER
I. Appello alla Presidente del Parlamento Europeo, on. Roberta Metsola: president at ep.europa.eu
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
il suo indimenticabile predecessore, il Presidente David Sassoli, si impegno' affinche' il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America compisse un atto di clemenza che restituisse la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e della Madre Terra, da 46 anni detenuto innocente nelle carceri statunitensi a seguito di un processo-farsa in cui fu assurdamente condannato per un crimine che non ha mai commesso sulla base di "prove" false e di "testimonianze" altrettante false, come successivamente ammisero i suoi stessi accusatori e giudici. Nonostante la sua innocenza sia ormai da tutti riconosciuta, Leonard Peltier continua ad essere detenuto.
Con un intervento pubblicato su twitter e una dichiarazione alla stampa di cui e' disponibile la registrazione video il Presidente Sassoli il 23 agosto 2021 espresse pubblicamente la richiesta al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Nel suo tweet del 23 agosto 2021 il Presidente Sassoli scriveva, in italiano e in inglese:
"Inviero' una lettera alle autorita' statunitensi chiedendo clemenza per Leonard Peltier, attivista per i diritti umani dell'American Indian Movement, in carcere da 45 anni.
Spero che le autorita' accolgano il mio invito. I diritti umani vanno difesi sempre, ovunque".
"I will send a letter to the US authorities asking for clemency for Leonard Peltier. A human rights activist of the American Indian Movement, he has been imprisoned for 45 years.
I hope the authorities will take up my invitation. Human rights must be defended always, everywhere".
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
gia' nel 1994 e poi ancora nel 1999 il Parlamento Europeo delibero' risoluzioni per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier.
Qui di seguito si trascrive integralmente la Risoluzione del Parlamento Europeo dell'11 febbraio 1999 (pubblicata sulla Gazzetta ufficiale n. C 150 del 28/05/1999 pag. 0384, B4-0169, 0175, 0179 e 0199/99):
"Risoluzione sul caso di Leonard Peltier
Il Parlamento europeo,
- vista la sua risoluzione del 15 dicembre 1994 sulla grazia per Leonard Peltier (GU C 18 del 23.1.1995, pag. 183),
A. considerando il ruolo svolto da Leonard Peltier nella difesa dei diritti dei popoli indigeni,
B. considerando che Leonard Peltier e' stato condannato nel 1977 a due ergastoli dopo essere stato estradato dal Canada, benche' non vi fosse alcuna prova della sua colpevolezza,
C. considerando che Amnesty International ha ripetutamente espresso le proprie preoccupazioni circa l'equita' del processo che ha condotto alla condanna di Leonard Peltier,
D. considerando che il governo degli Stati Uniti ha ormai ammesso che gli affidavit utilizzati per arrestare e estradare Leonard Peltier dal Canada erano falsi e che il Pubblico ministero statunitense Lynn Crooks ha affermato che il governo degli Stati Uniti non aveva alcuna prova di chi aveva ucciso gli agenti,
E. considerando che dopo 23 anni trascorsi nei penitenziari federali, le condizioni di salute di Leonard Peltier si sono seriamente aggravate e che secondo il giudizio di specialisti la sua vita potrebbe essere in pericolo se non ricevera' adeguate cure mediche,
F. considerando che le autorita' penitenziarie continuano a negargli adeguate cure mediche in violazione del diritto umanitario internazionale e i suoi diritti costituzionali,
G. rilevando che Leonard Peltier ha esaurito tutte le possibilita' di appello concessegli dal diritto statunitense,
1. insiste ancora una volta affinche' venga concessa a Leonard Peltier la grazia presidenziale;
2. insiste affinche' Leonard Peltier sia trasferito in una clinica dove possa ricevere le cure mediche del caso;
3. ribadisce la sua richiesta di un'indagine sulle irregolarita' giudiziarie che hanno portato alla reclusione di Leonard Peltier;
4. incarica la sua delegazione per le relazioni con gli Stati Uniti di sollevare il caso di Leonard Peltier iscrivendolo all'ordine del giorno del prossimo incontro con i parlamentari americani;
5. incarica il suo Presidente di trasmettere la presente risoluzione al Consiglio, alla Commissione, al Congresso statunitense e al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America".
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta gia' da molti anni da prestigiose istituzioni, innumerevoli associazioni democratiche, milioni di persone di tutto il mondo tra cui illustri personalita' come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, Desmond Tutu e numerosi altri Premi Nobel.
Gentilissima Presidente del Parlamento Europeo,
dia seguito all'iniziativa del Parlamento Europeo e del Presidente Sassoli, e chieda al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di compiere finalmente l'atto di clemenza che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
*
II. Appello al Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite, on. Antonio Guterres: sgcentral at un.org
Egregio Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite, on. Antonio Guterres,
uniamo la nostra voce a quella di quanti hanno gia' chiesto un suo intervento presso il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' compia un atto di clemenza restituendo la liberta' a Leonard Peltier attraverso lo strumento giuridico della grazia presidenziale.
Chiediamo questo suo intervento perche' la vicenda di Leonard Peltier riguarda l'umanita' intera.
Come Lei gia' sapra', Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano, generoso e coraggioso difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e della Madre Terra, da 46 anni detenuto per delitti che non ha commesso.
Gli stessi suoi accusatori che ne ottennero la condanna al termine di uno scandalosissimo processo-farsa basato su cosiddette "prove" dimostratesi assolutamente false e su cosiddette "testimonianze" dimostratesi anch'esse assolutamente false, hanno successivamente riconosciuto che la condanna e la conseguente detenzione di Leonard Peltier e' ingiusta e persecutoria, insensata e disumana, ed hanno chiesto loro stessi la sua liberazione.
Eppure, nonostante che la sua innocenza sia ormai certezza condivisa dall'umanita' intera, Leonard Peltier - ormai anziano e con gravi problemi di salute - continua ad essere detenuto per delitti che non ha mai commesso.
Sicuramente ricordera' che la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta da milioni di persone di tutto il mondo, tra le quali figure luminose come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, Desmond Tutu.
Ricordera' sicuramente anche che la liberazione di Leonard Peltier e' stata chiesta da innumerevoli istituzioni, tra le quali il Parlamento Europeo con ben due risoluzioni fin dagli anni '90 del secolo scorso.
Ci e' particolarmente grato ricordare anche l'iniziativa del compianto Presidente del Parlamento Europeo, on. David Sassoli, recentemente deceduto, che il 23 agosto 2021 scriveva, in italiano e in inglese:
"Inviero' una lettera alle autorita' statunitensi chiedendo clemenza per Leonard Peltier, attivista per i diritti umani dell'American Indian Movement, in carcere da 45 anni. Spero che le autorita' accolgano il mio invito. I diritti umani vanno difesi sempre, ovunque".
"I will send a letter to the US authorities asking for clemency for Leonard Peltier. A human rights activist of the American Indian Movement, he has been imprisoned for 45 years. I hope the authorities will take up my invitation. Human rights must be defended always, everywhere".
Gli sforzi di milioni di esseri umani, l'impegno di innumerevoli associazioni - tra cui in primo luogo Amnesty International -, il voto di autorevolissime istituzioni, non hanno ottenuto fin qui che Leonard Peltier venisse liberato.
Occorre evidentemente un'iniziativa ulteriore.
Sia Lei, che rappresenta l'Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite, quindi l'istituzione rappresentativa di tutti i paesi e i popoli del mondo, a promuovere questa iniziativa.
Sia Lei a chiedere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di restituire la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
*
III. Un invito a tutte le persone di volonta' buona, alle associazioni democratiche, alle istituzioni sollecite del bene comune dell'umanita', affinche' si adoperino per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier
Fratelli e sorelle,
a tutte e tutti chiediamo un impegno, nelle forme che riterrete adeguate, affinche' sia restituita la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Vi proponiamo di scrivere lettere sia direttamente al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America, nelle cui mani e' il potere di concedere la grazia che restituisca finalmente la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, sia alle istituzioni, alle organizzazioni ed alle personalita' che riterrete possano trovare maggior ascolto da parte della Casa Bianca, sia ai mezzi d'informazione affinche' cessi il silenzio sulla vicenda e sulla testimonianza di Leonard Peltier e sulla lotta sua e dei popoli nativi in difesa dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente.
Ma soprattutto vi chiediamo tre cose: di informare e coscientizzare le persone con cui siete in contatto, di voler voi stessi approfondire la conoscenza della vicenda di Leonard Peltier, di mettervi in contatto sia con lui che con il comitato internazionale di solidarieta' che lo sostiene.
L'indirizzo postale di Leonard Peltier e' nel sito dell'International Leonard Peltier Defense Committe (www.whoisleonardpeltier.info). Per contattare il comitato internazionale di solidarieta' inviare una e-mail a: contact at whoisleonardpeltier.info
Grazie di cuore per quanto vorrete fare.
4. SEGNALAZIONI. ALCUNE PUBBLICAZIONI DI LUCIO MAGRI
- Lucio Magri, Considerazioni sui fatti di maggio, De Donato, Bari 1968, Manifestolibri, Roma 2018, pp. 176.
- Lucio Magri, Il sarto di Ulm. Una possibile storia del Pci, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2009, pp. 456.
- Lucio Magri, Alla ricerca di un altro comunismo. Saggi sulla sinistra italiana, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2012, pp. 288 (+ 16 pp. di repertorio fotografico).
5. SEGNALAZIONI. ALCUNE PUBBLICAZIONI DI DARIO PACCINO
- Dario Paccino, Arrivano i nostri, Edizioni Avanti!, Milano 1956.
- Dario Paccino, Domani il diluvio, Calderini, Bologna 1970.
- Dario Paccino, L'imbroglio ecologico, Einaudi, Torino 1972.
- Dario Paccino, L'ombra di Confucio, Einaudi, Torino 1976.
- Dario Paccino, Il diario di un provocatore, I libri del no, Roma 1977.
- Dario Paccino, La teppa all'assalto del cielo, I libri del no, Roma 1978.
- Dario Paccino, La trappola della scienza, La Salamandra, Milano 1979.
- Dario Paccino, I colonnelli verdi e la fine della storia, Pellicani, Roma 1990.
- Dario Paccino, La guerra chiamata pace, Pellicani, Roma 1992.
- Dario Paccino, Gli invendibili, Datanews, Roma 1994.
- Dario Paccino, Manuale di autodifesa linguistica, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1996.
- Dario Paccino, con Luigi Josi e Gian Marco Martignoni, Il libero schiavo di Maastricht, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1997.
- Dario Paccino (a cura di), L'ultima volta, Arterigere - Il lavoratore oltre, Varese 1997.
- Dario Paccino, Euro kaputt, Odradek, Roma 2000; Il padrone. L'apocalisse, Notiziario Cdp, Pistoia 2003.
- Dario Paccino, I senzapatria. Resistenza ieri e oggi, Biblioteca Franco Serantini, Pisa 2006.
***************************
LA BIBLIOTECA DI ZOROBABELE
***************************
Segnalazioni librarie e letture nonviolente
a cura del "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Supplemento a "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" (anno XXIII)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, tel. 0761353532, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 534 dell'11 agosto 2022
*
Informativa sulla privacy
E' possibile consultare l'informativa sulla privacy a questo indirizzo: https://www.peacelink.it/peacelink/informativa-privacy-nonviolenza
Per non ricevere piu' il notiziario e' sufficiente recarsi in questa pagina: https://lists.peacelink.it/sympa/signoff/nonviolenza
Per iscriversi al notiziario l'indirizzo e' https://lists.peacelink.it/sympa/subscribe/nonviolenza
*
L'unico indirizzo di posta elettronica utilizzabile per contattare la redazione e' centropacevt at gmail.com
- Prev by Date: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 4559
- Next by Date: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 4560
- Previous by thread: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 4559
- Next by thread: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 4560
- Indice: