the confusions are not added nor they are annulled. They just multiply.
The political asylum concession or extradition of Italian Cesare Battisti is dividing Brazil and his more important Tribunal.
Here some of the conclusions the one that arrived of what read, I saw and I heard on this that has everything to be it more brute lawsuit never judged by the Brazilian Tribunal (STF).
HYPOTHESIS 1
For political motivations or to believe that he had them, Battisti commits crimes in Italy and he flees.
Their crimes are judged and he is condemned by default.
The applied legislation to the case Battisti for the Italy Justice doesn't give any relevance to the political motivations of the actions that he committed. Just the results of their actions were judged. Battisti was treated don't as political activist, but as a common criminal.
HYPOTHESIS 2
Battisti denies that it has committed the crimes that were imputed him. This denial has political relevance, because to the time the own Italian State also participated in the dirty war. Agents of the secret service of Italy practiced attacks that were attributed to the left groups and they were unpunished. The State infiltrated secret agents in the left groups to collect information about their activities, but it didn't restraint attacks drifted before they be practiced.
THE CONCESSION OF ASYLUM
The action that granted political asylum Battisti adopts as motivation the non validity of the condemnatory sentences uttered by the Italian Justice.
THE JUDGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN TRIBUNAL (STF)
The Minister that uttered the vote for the annulment of the asylum concession and it authorized the extradition of Battisti adopted the theory that the imposed condemnations Battisti for the Italy Justice are juridically valid and effective and they could not have been unknown for the Brazilian authority. When judging what could not be judged, the Justice Minister of Brazil committed an illegality and this illegality can be appreciated by the Tribunal (STF). The judgement of the case Battisti still didn't end. Four members of the Tribunal voted for for the annulment of the action that granted the political asylum and they granted the extradition request and 3 voted for for the validity of the granted asylum.
THE CONFUSIONS
The first confusion is due to Battisti. He didn't defend his innocence before the Italy Justice. He preferred to flee and his absence in the lawsuit doesn't invalidate the condemnations by itself because the default is an institute recognized by the Italian legislation (for the Brazilian also).
The second confusion is due to the Brazilian Justice Minister. When basing the asylum concession the two hypothesis that I got up should just be approached. This because the asylum concession is a POLITICAL action and no JURIDICAL.
In reason of the POLITICAL nature of the institute of the asylum, the aspects specifically JURIDICAL of the condemnations of Battisti in Italy they were irrelevant. The defendant's political motivations were not judged by the Italian Justice. Battisti was just judged as a common criminal. Like this, as the own Italian State refused to recognize the juridical relevance of the defendant's political motivations or it considers these irrelevant ones, the asylum concession it would not justify because the sentences are disable but why are valid exactly.
In reason of treating political actions as police cases Italy, for consequence, it tried to impede that other States granted political asylum to political activists. The Italian authorities knew what were doing, they were aware that the activists treaties as common criminals could not receive political asylum. Like this, it would be quite justifiable the asylum concession in the case Battisti. After all, Brazil can grant to foreigner the political treatment that his own State if refused to give him.
Battisti denies to have committed the crimes. His denial has political relevance and it would also justify the asylum. The imputed actions Battisti (and that they resulted in condemnations for common crimes) they happened in a disrupted political context, in that the agents of the own State committed crimes and they were unpunished.
The third confusion is a consequence of the second confusion. The Brazilian Tribunal (STF) could not judge the POLITICAL motivation of the concession of the asylum. It decided to judge the JURIDICAL aspects of the action that it granted the asylum exactly because the inept Brazilian Justice Minister preferred to judge the condemnatory sentences of Battisti juridically to recognize that the same ones are not exactly obstacles to the asylum concession because the political nature of the defendant's actions was not judged or they were considered irrelevant.
But the confusion of the STF is larger of the than it seems. When judging an administrative action the Judge it doesn't owe if it detains their political and personal motivations or to the reasons that were given. That is a truism. But in a such big universe of confusions the truisms need to be repeated and repeated and repeated. In Brazil the Judge's mission is to do to accomplish the Law in the concrete case that was submitted him. The asylum concession is a POLITICAL action and his POLITICAL nature doesn't assume JURIDICAL outlines just because a Brazilian Justice Minister adopted the wrong reasons to base the administrative action that it granted it.
The fourth confusion is due to the press. The Brazilian press doesn't want Battisti to be in Brazil. Therefore, it sees himself in the contingency of reinforcing the confusion that is being committed by STF. Confusion this that will become jurisprudence. In the future nobody condemned by common crime can ask political asylum in Brazil. If the Brazilian jurisprudence contaminates decisions in other countries the own institute of the ASYLUM it will have been buried. In yours it cuts will be written:
HERE one MORE VICTIM OF THE EVIL JOURNALISM
As in other cases, the confusions are not added nor they are annulled. They just multiply.