[Prec. per data] [Succ. per data] [Prec. per argomento] [Succ. per argomento] [Indice per data] [Indice per argomento]
[Nonviolenza] Non muoia in carcere Leonard Peltier. 18
- Subject: [Nonviolenza] Non muoia in carcere Leonard Peltier. 18
- From: Centro di ricerca per la pace Centro di ricerca per la pace <centropacevt at gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 09:02:37 +0200
************************************
NON MUOIA IN CARCERE LEONARD PELTIER
************************************
Foglio a sostegno dell'appello a scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' conceda la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier
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 XXV)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 18 del 30 agosto 2024
Sommario di questo numero:
1. "Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier". Estremo un appello al Presidente Biden
2. Che fare adesso per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier
3. In agosto e settembre numerose iniziative pubbliche di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier in varie citta' d'Italia
4. Human Rights Council - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Opinion No. 7/2022 concerning Leonard Peltier (United States of America) (parte seconda e conclusiva)
1. REPETITA IUVANT. "RESTITUISCA LA LIBERTA' A LEONARD PELTIER". ESTREMO UN APPELLO AL PRESIDENTE BIDEN
Presidente Biden,
prima del termine del suo mandato lei puo' compiere un gesto che tutte le persone di volonta' buona attendono ormai da molti anni da parte della presidenza degli Stati Uniti d'America: la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano difensore del suo popolo e di tutti i popoli oppressi, difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani, difensore della Madre Terra.
Leonard Peltier e' gravemente malato e dopo quasi mezzo secolo di ingiusta detenzione non gli resta molto tempo da vivere.
Leonard Peltier e' stato condannato per un delitto che non ha commesso: e' stato definitivamente dimostrato che le testimonianze contro di lui erano false e che le prove contro di lui erano altrettanto false.
Dal carcere Leonard Peltier lungo mezzo secolo ha sostenuto con la parola e con la testimonianza, con l'esempio e con la solidarieta' concreta nella misura in cui gli e' stato possibile esprimerla, innumerevoli iniziative nonviolente in difesa dei popoli e delle persone cui venivano negati i diritti piu' elementari, in difesa del mondo vivente minacciato di irreversibili devastazioni.
Personalita' come Nelson Mandela, come madre Teresa di Calcutta, come Desmond Tutu, come Rigoberta Menchu', come il Dalai Lama, come papa Francesco, hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
Movimenti umanitari come Amnesty International e il Movimento Nonviolento hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
Istituzioni rappresentative come l'Onu (che sulla vicenda di Leonard Peltier si e' pronunciata attraverso una commissione giuridica ad hoc) e come il Parlamento Europeo (fin dagli anni Novanta, ed ancora qualche anno fa con il compianto suo Presidente David Sassoli) hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
*
Presidente Biden,
in questo tempo attraversato da orrori indicibili, da guerre e devastazioni inaudite, in cui non solo l'intera umana famiglia ma l'intero mondo vivente - quest'unico mondo vivente che conosciamo nell'intero universo - sono minacciati di distruzione per responsabilita' di poteri folli e scellerati, la liberazione di Leonard Peltier costituirebbe un messaggio di speranza e un'epifania di bene a conforto e sostegno dell'umanita' intera.
La liberazione di Leonard Peltier sarebbe per ogni persona di volonta' buona e per ogni civile consorzio e legittimo istituto fedeli all'umanita' una viva gioia e un impulso potente a continuare ad operare per la pace che salva le vite, per il bene comune che ogni essere umano riconosce e raggiunge e soccorre e preserva, che nessuna persona abbandona al dolore e alla morte.
*
Presidente Biden,
conceda la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Viterbo, 11 agosto 2024
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo e' una struttura nonviolenta attiva dagli anni '70 del secolo scorso che ha sostenuto, promosso e coordinato varie campagne per il bene comune, locali, nazionali ed internazionali. E' la struttura nonviolenta che negli anni Ottanta ha coordinato per l'Italia la piu' ampia campagna di solidarieta' con Nelson Mandela, allora detenuto nelle prigioni del regime razzista sudafricano. Nel 1987 ha promosso il primo convegno nazionale di studi dedicato a Primo Levi. Dal 2000 pubblica il notiziario telematico quotidiano "La nonviolenza e' in cammino". Dal 2021 e' particolarmente impegnato nella campagna per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
* * *
Allegato primo. Per scrivere al Presidente Biden:
Per scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America e' sufficiente collegarsi al sito della Casa Bianca alla pagina web: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Compilare quindi gli item successivi:
- alla voce MESSAGE TYPE: scegliere Contact the President
- alla voce PREFIX: scegliere il titolo corrispondente alla propria identita'
- alla voce FIRST NAME: scrivere il proprio nome
- alla voce SECOND NAME: si puo' omettere la compilazione
- alla voce LAST NAME: scrivere il proprio cognome
- alla voce SUFFIX, PRONOUNS: si puo' omettere la compilazione
- alla voce E-MAIL: scrivere il proprio indirizzo e-mail
- alla voce PHONE: scrivere il proprio numero di telefono seguendo lo schema 39xxxxxxxxxx
- alla voce COUNTRY/STATE/REGION: scegliere Italy
- alla voce STREET: scrivere il proprio indirizzo nella sequenza numero civico, via/piazza
- alla voce CITY: scrivere il nome della propria citta' e il relativo codice di avviamento postale
- alla voce WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? [Cosa vorresti dire?]: scrivere un breve testo (di seguito una traccia utilizzabile):
"Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
le scriviamo per chiederle di concedere la grazia presidenziale a Leonard Peltier.
Come lei sa, Leonard Peltier ha gia' subito 48 anni di carcere per un delitto che non ha commesso.
E' vecchio, e' gravemente malato, le sue patologie non possono essere adeguatamente curate in carcere.
La sua liberazione e' stata chiesta da Nelson Mandela, da madre Teresa di Calcutta, dal Dalai Lama, da papa Francesco, da Amnesty International, dal Parlamento Europeo, dall'Onu, da milioni di persone di tutto il mondo.
Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
conceda la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Distinti saluti".
* * *
Allegato secondo. Per saperne di piu':
Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
Segnaliamo alcuni materiali di documentazione in lingua italiana disponibili nella rete telematica:
https://sites.google.com/view/viterboperleonardpeltier/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetralla-per-peltier-2021/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetrallaperpeltier2022/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetrallaperleonardpeltier2023/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetralla-per-peltier-2024/home-page
Segnaliamo anche alcune pubblicazioni a stampa in italiano e in inglese particolarmente utili:
- Edda Scozza, Il coraggio d'essere indiano. Leonard Peltier prigioniero degli Stati Uniti, Erre Emme, Pomezia (Roma) 1996 (ora Roberto Massari Editore, Bolsena Vt).
- Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Penguin Books, New York 1992 e successive ristampe; in edizione italiana: Peter Matthiessen, Nello spirito di Cavallo Pazzo, Frassinelli, Milano 1994.
- Leonard Peltier (con la collaborazione di Harvey Arden), Prison writings. My life is my sun dance, St. Martin's Griffin, New York 1999; in edizione italiana: Leonard Peltier, La mia danza del sole. Scritti dalla prigione, Fazi, Roma 2005.
- Jim Messerschmidt, The Trial of Leonard Peltier, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, 1989, 2002.
- Bruce E. Johansen, Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement, Greenwood, Santa Barbara - Denver - Oxford, 2013 e piu' volte ristampata.
Segnaliamo inoltre che nella rete telematica e' disponibile una notizia sintetica in italiano dal titolo "Alcune parole per Leonard Peltier":
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2022/03/msg00001.html
Sempre nella rete telematica e' disponibile anche una piu' ampia ed approfondita bibliografia ragionata dal titolo "Dieci libri piu' uno che sarebbe bene aver letto per conoscere la vicenda di Leonard Peltier (e qualche altro minimo suggerimento bibliografico)":
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2022/09/msg00064.html
Ancora nella rete telematica segnaliamo una lettera "ad adiuvandum" alla "United States Parole Commission" del 22 giugno 2024:
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2024/06/msg00055.html
Segnaliamo infine l'attuale sito ufficiale del Comitato di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier, il "Free Leonard Peltier Ad Hoc Committee": www.freeleonardpeltiernow.org
2. REPETITA IUVANT. CHE FARE ADESSO PER LA LIBERAZIONE DI LEONARD PELTIER
Come e' noto, la "United States Parole Commission" ha negato la "liberta' sulla parola" a Leonard Peltier, ed ha fissato la prossima udienza al 2026. Gli avvocati di Leonard Peltier hanno gia' annunciato che ovviamente interporranno appello avverso questa decisione.
Come e' noto Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, e' detenuto da 48 anni in un carcere di massima sicurezza per un delitto che non ha commesso; la sua condanna si baso' su "testimonianze" false e su "prove" altrettanto false. E' anziano (ha quasi 80 anni) e gravemente malato, e le sue plurime patologie non possono essere curate adeguatamente in regime carcerario. Numerosissime personalita' benemerite dell'umanita', associazioni benefiche come Amnesty International, istituzioni democratiche di tutto il mondo - in primis l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo - chiedono la sua liberazione.
*
Che fare?
Occorre perseverare lungo tutte e tre le vie che possono portare alla liberazione di Leonard Peltier:
1. la richiesta al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere la "grazia presidenziale";
2. la richiesta al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere il "rilascio compassionevole";
3. la richiesta alla "United States Parole Commission" di concedere la "liberta' sulla parola".
*
Alcune indicazioni pratiche
a) Per scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America:
aprire la pagina ad hoc nel sito: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ e seguire le indicazioni li' contenute.
Proposta di testo:
Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
e' consuetudine che avvicinandosi il termine del mandato quadriennale il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America conceda la grazia ad alcuni detenuti.
La preghiamo di voler concedere la grazia al signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Voglia gradire distinti saluti.
b) Per scrivere al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America:
aprire la pagina ad hoc nel sito: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice e seguire le indicazioni li' contenute.
Proposta di testo:
Egregio Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America,
la preghiamo di voler concedere il "rilascio compassionevole" ("compassionate release") al signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Voglia gradire distinti saluti.
c) Per scrivere alla "United States Parole Commission":
usare l'indirizzo e-mail: USParole.questions at usdoj.gov
Proposta di testo:
Egregie signore ed egregi signori della "United States Parole Commission",
pur consapevoli della vostra recente decisione, ci permettiamo di sollecitare ulteriormente una tempestiva riconsiderazione della situazione del signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Vogliate gradire distinti saluti.
*
d) Per informare gli avvocati che assistono Leonard Peltier:
usare gli indirizzi e-mail: ksharp at sanfordheisler.com, jenipherj at forthepeoplelegal.com
Proposta di testo:
Egregia avvocata, egregio avvocato,
vi informiamo che abbiamo scritto al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America, al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America, alla "United States Parole Commission", le lettere il cui testo alleghiamo.
Vogliate gradire distinti saluti.
*
Tre consigli a chi vuole esprimere e promuovere la solidarieta'
I. La prima forma di solidarieta' e' la conoscenza
- occorre studiare adeguatamente tanto i fatti quanto il contesto;
- occorre far circolare l'informazione, avendo cura che sia un'informazione precisa ed incontrovertibile;
- occorre promuovere altre adesioni all'impegno, avendo cura che ci si attenga scrupolosamente al fine della liberazione di Leonard Peltier e che la metodologia sia rigorosamente nonviolenta;
- soprattutto: occorre far sentire la propria voce direttamente alle istanze istituzionali concretamente preposte alla decisione sulla liberazione di Leonard Peltier; e farla sentire in modo adeguato: ovvero comprensibile e persuasivo. Non serve, ed e' anzi dannosa, la retorica d'accatto, ignorante e stereotipata, che ovviamente non convince nessuno.
E' semplicemente indispensabile la lettura di tutti i seguenti testi:
- Ward Churchill e Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, South End Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988, 2002, Black Classic Press, Baltimore 2022.
- Ward Churchill e Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States, South End Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1990, 2002, Black Classic Press, Baltimore 2022.
- Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, Beacon Press, Boston 2014.
- Steve Hendricks, The Unquiet Grave: The FBI and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country, Thunder's Mouth Press, New York 2006.
- Bruce E. Johansen, Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement, Greenwood, Santa Barbara - Denver - Oxford, 2013 e piu' volte ristampata.
- Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Penguin Books, New York 1992 e successive ristampe.
- Jim Messerschmidt, The Trial of Leonard Peltier, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, 1989, 2002.
- Leonard Peltier (con la collaborazione di Harvey Arden), Prison Writings: My Life is my Sun Dance, St. Martin's Griffin, New York 1999.
- Michael E. Tigar, Wade H. McCree, Leonard Peltier, Petitioner, v. United States. U.S. Supreme Court transcript of record with supporting pleading, Gale MOML U.S. Supreme Court Records, 1978 e successive ristampe.
- Joseph H. Trimbach e John M. Trimbach, American Indian Mafia: An FBI Agent's True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement (AIM), Outskirts Press, Denver 2009.
II. La prima forma di azione nonviolenta e' la parresia
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' contrastando la violenza del potere;
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' alle istituzioni per ottenere il rispetto del diritto e della morale;
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' come atto politico che invera l'esercizio della democrazia.
Leonard Peltier e' innocente. Leonard Peltier e' in pericolo di morte. Leonard Peltier deve essere liberato.
Nella vicenda di Leonard Peltier si compendia e si testimonia la condizione imposta dalla violenza etnocida, genocida ed ecocida del potere colonialista, imperialista e razzista a tutti i popoli oppressi, all'umanita' intera e all'intero mondo vivente.
La liberazione di Leonard Peltier significa quindi riconoscere il diritto alla vita non solo di ogni persona innocente e di ogni popolo oppresso, ma di tutti gli esseri umani in quanto tali, dell'umanita' intera, di tutti gli esseri viventi e dell'intero mondo vivente.
III. Il tempo e' poco, agire ora
La vecchiaia e le patologie di Leonard Peltier rendono urgente l'impegno per la sua liberazione.
Occorre scrivere ora ai soggetti istituzionali che hanno il potere di restituirgli la liberta'.
Occorre promuovere ora ogni iniziativa nonviolenta adeguata a far crescere l'impegno per la sua liberazione.
Occorre attivare i mezzi d'informazione per ottenere ora la massima attenzione possibile dell'opinione pubblica.
*
Free Leonard Peltier.
Non muoia in prigione un uomo innocente.
Mitakuye Oyasin.
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Viterbo, 7 luglio 2024
3. INIZIATIVE. IN AGOSTO E SETTEMBRE NUMEROSE INIZIATIVE PUBBLICHE DI SOLIDARIETA' CON LEONARD PELTIER IN VARIE CITTA' D'ITALIA
Nei mesi di agosto e settembre sono previste numerose iniziative pubbliche di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier in varie citta' d'Italia.
Iniziative sono gia' previste a Firenze, Genova, Milano, Napoli, Roma, Viterbo.
Per informazioni contattare Andrea De Lotto del "Comitato di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier" (e-mail: bigoni.gastone at gmail.com) e il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo (e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com).
4. 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 nuovamente 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.
************************************
NON MUOIA IN CARCERE LEONARD PELTIER
************************************
Foglio a sostegno dell'appello a scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' conceda la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier
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 XXV)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 18 del 30 agosto 2024
*
Informativa sulla privacy
Alla luce delle normative europee in materia di trattamento di elaborazione dei dati personali e' nostro desiderio informare tutti i lettori del notiziario "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" che e' possibile consultare la nuova informativa sulla privacy: 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, invece, 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
NON MUOIA IN CARCERE LEONARD PELTIER
************************************
Foglio a sostegno dell'appello a scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' conceda la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier
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 XXV)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 18 del 30 agosto 2024
Sommario di questo numero:
1. "Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier". Estremo un appello al Presidente Biden
2. Che fare adesso per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier
3. In agosto e settembre numerose iniziative pubbliche di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier in varie citta' d'Italia
4. Human Rights Council - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Opinion No. 7/2022 concerning Leonard Peltier (United States of America) (parte seconda e conclusiva)
1. REPETITA IUVANT. "RESTITUISCA LA LIBERTA' A LEONARD PELTIER". ESTREMO UN APPELLO AL PRESIDENTE BIDEN
Presidente Biden,
prima del termine del suo mandato lei puo' compiere un gesto che tutte le persone di volonta' buona attendono ormai da molti anni da parte della presidenza degli Stati Uniti d'America: la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano difensore del suo popolo e di tutti i popoli oppressi, difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani, difensore della Madre Terra.
Leonard Peltier e' gravemente malato e dopo quasi mezzo secolo di ingiusta detenzione non gli resta molto tempo da vivere.
Leonard Peltier e' stato condannato per un delitto che non ha commesso: e' stato definitivamente dimostrato che le testimonianze contro di lui erano false e che le prove contro di lui erano altrettanto false.
Dal carcere Leonard Peltier lungo mezzo secolo ha sostenuto con la parola e con la testimonianza, con l'esempio e con la solidarieta' concreta nella misura in cui gli e' stato possibile esprimerla, innumerevoli iniziative nonviolente in difesa dei popoli e delle persone cui venivano negati i diritti piu' elementari, in difesa del mondo vivente minacciato di irreversibili devastazioni.
Personalita' come Nelson Mandela, come madre Teresa di Calcutta, come Desmond Tutu, come Rigoberta Menchu', come il Dalai Lama, come papa Francesco, hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
Movimenti umanitari come Amnesty International e il Movimento Nonviolento hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
Istituzioni rappresentative come l'Onu (che sulla vicenda di Leonard Peltier si e' pronunciata attraverso una commissione giuridica ad hoc) e come il Parlamento Europeo (fin dagli anni Novanta, ed ancora qualche anno fa con il compianto suo Presidente David Sassoli) hanno chiesto la sua liberazione.
*
Presidente Biden,
in questo tempo attraversato da orrori indicibili, da guerre e devastazioni inaudite, in cui non solo l'intera umana famiglia ma l'intero mondo vivente - quest'unico mondo vivente che conosciamo nell'intero universo - sono minacciati di distruzione per responsabilita' di poteri folli e scellerati, la liberazione di Leonard Peltier costituirebbe un messaggio di speranza e un'epifania di bene a conforto e sostegno dell'umanita' intera.
La liberazione di Leonard Peltier sarebbe per ogni persona di volonta' buona e per ogni civile consorzio e legittimo istituto fedeli all'umanita' una viva gioia e un impulso potente a continuare ad operare per la pace che salva le vite, per il bene comune che ogni essere umano riconosce e raggiunge e soccorre e preserva, che nessuna persona abbandona al dolore e alla morte.
*
Presidente Biden,
conceda la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Viterbo, 11 agosto 2024
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo e' una struttura nonviolenta attiva dagli anni '70 del secolo scorso che ha sostenuto, promosso e coordinato varie campagne per il bene comune, locali, nazionali ed internazionali. E' la struttura nonviolenta che negli anni Ottanta ha coordinato per l'Italia la piu' ampia campagna di solidarieta' con Nelson Mandela, allora detenuto nelle prigioni del regime razzista sudafricano. Nel 1987 ha promosso il primo convegno nazionale di studi dedicato a Primo Levi. Dal 2000 pubblica il notiziario telematico quotidiano "La nonviolenza e' in cammino". Dal 2021 e' particolarmente impegnato nella campagna per la liberazione di Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
* * *
Allegato primo. Per scrivere al Presidente Biden:
Per scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America e' sufficiente collegarsi al sito della Casa Bianca alla pagina web: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Compilare quindi gli item successivi:
- alla voce MESSAGE TYPE: scegliere Contact the President
- alla voce PREFIX: scegliere il titolo corrispondente alla propria identita'
- alla voce FIRST NAME: scrivere il proprio nome
- alla voce SECOND NAME: si puo' omettere la compilazione
- alla voce LAST NAME: scrivere il proprio cognome
- alla voce SUFFIX, PRONOUNS: si puo' omettere la compilazione
- alla voce E-MAIL: scrivere il proprio indirizzo e-mail
- alla voce PHONE: scrivere il proprio numero di telefono seguendo lo schema 39xxxxxxxxxx
- alla voce COUNTRY/STATE/REGION: scegliere Italy
- alla voce STREET: scrivere il proprio indirizzo nella sequenza numero civico, via/piazza
- alla voce CITY: scrivere il nome della propria citta' e il relativo codice di avviamento postale
- alla voce WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? [Cosa vorresti dire?]: scrivere un breve testo (di seguito una traccia utilizzabile):
"Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
le scriviamo per chiederle di concedere la grazia presidenziale a Leonard Peltier.
Come lei sa, Leonard Peltier ha gia' subito 48 anni di carcere per un delitto che non ha commesso.
E' vecchio, e' gravemente malato, le sue patologie non possono essere adeguatamente curate in carcere.
La sua liberazione e' stata chiesta da Nelson Mandela, da madre Teresa di Calcutta, dal Dalai Lama, da papa Francesco, da Amnesty International, dal Parlamento Europeo, dall'Onu, da milioni di persone di tutto il mondo.
Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
conceda la grazia a Leonard Peltier.
Restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier.
Distinti saluti".
* * *
Allegato secondo. Per saperne di piu':
Leonard Peltier e' un illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, da 48 anni prigioniero innocente.
Segnaliamo alcuni materiali di documentazione in lingua italiana disponibili nella rete telematica:
https://sites.google.com/view/viterboperleonardpeltier/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetralla-per-peltier-2021/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetrallaperpeltier2022/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetrallaperleonardpeltier2023/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/vetralla-per-peltier-2024/home-page
Segnaliamo anche alcune pubblicazioni a stampa in italiano e in inglese particolarmente utili:
- Edda Scozza, Il coraggio d'essere indiano. Leonard Peltier prigioniero degli Stati Uniti, Erre Emme, Pomezia (Roma) 1996 (ora Roberto Massari Editore, Bolsena Vt).
- Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Penguin Books, New York 1992 e successive ristampe; in edizione italiana: Peter Matthiessen, Nello spirito di Cavallo Pazzo, Frassinelli, Milano 1994.
- Leonard Peltier (con la collaborazione di Harvey Arden), Prison writings. My life is my sun dance, St. Martin's Griffin, New York 1999; in edizione italiana: Leonard Peltier, La mia danza del sole. Scritti dalla prigione, Fazi, Roma 2005.
- Jim Messerschmidt, The Trial of Leonard Peltier, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, 1989, 2002.
- Bruce E. Johansen, Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement, Greenwood, Santa Barbara - Denver - Oxford, 2013 e piu' volte ristampata.
Segnaliamo inoltre che nella rete telematica e' disponibile una notizia sintetica in italiano dal titolo "Alcune parole per Leonard Peltier":
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2022/03/msg00001.html
Sempre nella rete telematica e' disponibile anche una piu' ampia ed approfondita bibliografia ragionata dal titolo "Dieci libri piu' uno che sarebbe bene aver letto per conoscere la vicenda di Leonard Peltier (e qualche altro minimo suggerimento bibliografico)":
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2022/09/msg00064.html
Ancora nella rete telematica segnaliamo una lettera "ad adiuvandum" alla "United States Parole Commission" del 22 giugno 2024:
https://lists.peacelink.it/nonviolenza/2024/06/msg00055.html
Segnaliamo infine l'attuale sito ufficiale del Comitato di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier, il "Free Leonard Peltier Ad Hoc Committee": www.freeleonardpeltiernow.org
2. REPETITA IUVANT. CHE FARE ADESSO PER LA LIBERAZIONE DI LEONARD PELTIER
Come e' noto, la "United States Parole Commission" ha negato la "liberta' sulla parola" a Leonard Peltier, ed ha fissato la prossima udienza al 2026. Gli avvocati di Leonard Peltier hanno gia' annunciato che ovviamente interporranno appello avverso questa decisione.
Come e' noto Leonard Peltier, l'illustre attivista nativo americano difensore dei diritti umani di tutti gli esseri umani e dell'intero mondo vivente, e' detenuto da 48 anni in un carcere di massima sicurezza per un delitto che non ha commesso; la sua condanna si baso' su "testimonianze" false e su "prove" altrettanto false. E' anziano (ha quasi 80 anni) e gravemente malato, e le sue plurime patologie non possono essere curate adeguatamente in regime carcerario. Numerosissime personalita' benemerite dell'umanita', associazioni benefiche come Amnesty International, istituzioni democratiche di tutto il mondo - in primis l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo - chiedono la sua liberazione.
*
Che fare?
Occorre perseverare lungo tutte e tre le vie che possono portare alla liberazione di Leonard Peltier:
1. la richiesta al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere la "grazia presidenziale";
2. la richiesta al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America di concedere il "rilascio compassionevole";
3. la richiesta alla "United States Parole Commission" di concedere la "liberta' sulla parola".
*
Alcune indicazioni pratiche
a) Per scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America:
aprire la pagina ad hoc nel sito: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ e seguire le indicazioni li' contenute.
Proposta di testo:
Egregio Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America,
e' consuetudine che avvicinandosi il termine del mandato quadriennale il Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America conceda la grazia ad alcuni detenuti.
La preghiamo di voler concedere la grazia al signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Voglia gradire distinti saluti.
b) Per scrivere al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America:
aprire la pagina ad hoc nel sito: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice e seguire le indicazioni li' contenute.
Proposta di testo:
Egregio Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America,
la preghiamo di voler concedere il "rilascio compassionevole" ("compassionate release") al signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Voglia gradire distinti saluti.
c) Per scrivere alla "United States Parole Commission":
usare l'indirizzo e-mail: USParole.questions at usdoj.gov
Proposta di testo:
Egregie signore ed egregi signori della "United States Parole Commission",
pur consapevoli della vostra recente decisione, ci permettiamo di sollecitare ulteriormente una tempestiva riconsiderazione della situazione del signor Leonard Peltier, detenuto da quasi mezzo secolo, ormai quasi ottantenne, affetto da gravissime patologie che non possono essere curate in regime carcerario, la cui liberazione e' stata richiesta da personalita' illustri come Nelson Mandela, madre Teresa di Calcutta, il Dalai Lama, papa Francesco e da istituzioni come l'Onu e il Parlamento Europeo.
Vogliate gradire distinti saluti.
*
d) Per informare gli avvocati che assistono Leonard Peltier:
usare gli indirizzi e-mail: ksharp at sanfordheisler.com, jenipherj at forthepeoplelegal.com
Proposta di testo:
Egregia avvocata, egregio avvocato,
vi informiamo che abbiamo scritto al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America, al Procuratore Generale degli Stati Uniti d'America, alla "United States Parole Commission", le lettere il cui testo alleghiamo.
Vogliate gradire distinti saluti.
*
Tre consigli a chi vuole esprimere e promuovere la solidarieta'
I. La prima forma di solidarieta' e' la conoscenza
- occorre studiare adeguatamente tanto i fatti quanto il contesto;
- occorre far circolare l'informazione, avendo cura che sia un'informazione precisa ed incontrovertibile;
- occorre promuovere altre adesioni all'impegno, avendo cura che ci si attenga scrupolosamente al fine della liberazione di Leonard Peltier e che la metodologia sia rigorosamente nonviolenta;
- soprattutto: occorre far sentire la propria voce direttamente alle istanze istituzionali concretamente preposte alla decisione sulla liberazione di Leonard Peltier; e farla sentire in modo adeguato: ovvero comprensibile e persuasivo. Non serve, ed e' anzi dannosa, la retorica d'accatto, ignorante e stereotipata, che ovviamente non convince nessuno.
E' semplicemente indispensabile la lettura di tutti i seguenti testi:
- Ward Churchill e Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, South End Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988, 2002, Black Classic Press, Baltimore 2022.
- Ward Churchill e Jim Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States, South End Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1990, 2002, Black Classic Press, Baltimore 2022.
- Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States, Beacon Press, Boston 2014.
- Steve Hendricks, The Unquiet Grave: The FBI and the Struggle for the Soul of Indian Country, Thunder's Mouth Press, New York 2006.
- Bruce E. Johansen, Encyclopedia of the American Indian Movement, Greenwood, Santa Barbara - Denver - Oxford, 2013 e piu' volte ristampata.
- Peter Matthiessen, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Penguin Books, New York 1992 e successive ristampe.
- Jim Messerschmidt, The Trial of Leonard Peltier, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, 1989, 2002.
- Leonard Peltier (con la collaborazione di Harvey Arden), Prison Writings: My Life is my Sun Dance, St. Martin's Griffin, New York 1999.
- Michael E. Tigar, Wade H. McCree, Leonard Peltier, Petitioner, v. United States. U.S. Supreme Court transcript of record with supporting pleading, Gale MOML U.S. Supreme Court Records, 1978 e successive ristampe.
- Joseph H. Trimbach e John M. Trimbach, American Indian Mafia: An FBI Agent's True Story About Wounded Knee, Leonard Peltier, and the American Indian Movement (AIM), Outskirts Press, Denver 2009.
II. La prima forma di azione nonviolenta e' la parresia
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' contrastando la violenza del potere;
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' alle istituzioni per ottenere il rispetto del diritto e della morale;
- occorre prendere la parola e dire la verita' come atto politico che invera l'esercizio della democrazia.
Leonard Peltier e' innocente. Leonard Peltier e' in pericolo di morte. Leonard Peltier deve essere liberato.
Nella vicenda di Leonard Peltier si compendia e si testimonia la condizione imposta dalla violenza etnocida, genocida ed ecocida del potere colonialista, imperialista e razzista a tutti i popoli oppressi, all'umanita' intera e all'intero mondo vivente.
La liberazione di Leonard Peltier significa quindi riconoscere il diritto alla vita non solo di ogni persona innocente e di ogni popolo oppresso, ma di tutti gli esseri umani in quanto tali, dell'umanita' intera, di tutti gli esseri viventi e dell'intero mondo vivente.
III. Il tempo e' poco, agire ora
La vecchiaia e le patologie di Leonard Peltier rendono urgente l'impegno per la sua liberazione.
Occorre scrivere ora ai soggetti istituzionali che hanno il potere di restituirgli la liberta'.
Occorre promuovere ora ogni iniziativa nonviolenta adeguata a far crescere l'impegno per la sua liberazione.
Occorre attivare i mezzi d'informazione per ottenere ora la massima attenzione possibile dell'opinione pubblica.
*
Free Leonard Peltier.
Non muoia in prigione un uomo innocente.
Mitakuye Oyasin.
Il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo
Viterbo, 7 luglio 2024
3. INIZIATIVE. IN AGOSTO E SETTEMBRE NUMEROSE INIZIATIVE PUBBLICHE DI SOLIDARIETA' CON LEONARD PELTIER IN VARIE CITTA' D'ITALIA
Nei mesi di agosto e settembre sono previste numerose iniziative pubbliche di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier in varie citta' d'Italia.
Iniziative sono gia' previste a Firenze, Genova, Milano, Napoli, Roma, Viterbo.
Per informazioni contattare Andrea De Lotto del "Comitato di solidarieta' con Leonard Peltier" (e-mail: bigoni.gastone at gmail.com) e il "Centro di ricerca per la pace, i diritti umani e la difesa della biosfera" di Viterbo (e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com).
4. 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 nuovamente 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.
************************************
NON MUOIA IN CARCERE LEONARD PELTIER
************************************
Foglio a sostegno dell'appello a scrivere al Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America affinche' conceda la grazia che restituisca la liberta' a Leonard Peltier
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 XXV)
Direttore responsabile: Peppe Sini. Redazione: strada S. Barbara 9/E, 01100 Viterbo, e-mail: centropacevt at gmail.com
Numero 18 del 30 agosto 2024
*
Informativa sulla privacy
Alla luce delle normative europee in materia di trattamento di elaborazione dei dati personali e' nostro desiderio informare tutti i lettori del notiziario "La nonviolenza e' in cammino" che e' possibile consultare la nuova informativa sulla privacy: 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, invece, 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. 5308
- Next by Date: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 5309
- Previous by thread: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 5308
- Next by thread: [Nonviolenza] Telegrammi. 5309
- Indice: