AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 1981 oS ar | Italy of Amnesty Intemationa’s main con- ae cers inthe pat yearhave been the length of detention of people held pending the investigation pot y es tically motivated crimes, and the be DAR» E> | impstonment of conscientious of jects is Italian law permits people sus- pected of serious erimes to be held fortwo years and eight wrote a each judicial stage from arest to the outcome of the final anpeal ‘Amnesty Intemational considers that suspects have been held for judicial investigation for excessive. periods, especially as: many suspects were released after prolonged detention without ever having been broughtto tral. Amnesty Intemational was therefore consemed that where people were heldawating trial for there extended pened there was a risk of detention on polical grounds rathes then oh reasonable suspicion. Most detentions with which Amnesty Intemational has been concemed during the year were of people suspected af crimes of subversive association (Article 270) and partirpation In an nemed band (Article 306). Amnesty Inemnatonal was concemed athe uncles and tenuous nature ofthe evidence which was frequently held to justify their prolonged detention In many instances the ogael charges were dropped only to be replaced immediately with new charges. This enabled the judicial authorities to keep people in what mounts to preventive detention for lengthy perios while remaining wwthin the awAMNESTY - INTERNATIONAL REPORT 1981 305 The main focus of this concern was the continued detention without trial under judicial investigation of groups of people arrested on 7 April #979 and after in connection with the political movement known as Autonomia Operaia Organizzata, Organized Workers’ Autonomy. Since December 1980 the charge against a number of defendants in the "7 April” case of involvementin the kidnapping and murder of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro has been withdrawn, However all the defendants faced charges of subversive association and forming or participating in an armed band. A third charge, “armed insurrection against the powers ofthe state”, (Article 284), has been brought against some of the defendants, It carries a life sentence and its use was unprecedented. The major part ofthe judicial investigation, based in Rome, into the Autonomia Operaia Organizzata has been completed and 69 alleged “‘autonomists” have been committed for trial. However the trial date has not yet been announced, even though the defendants have been in custody for up to 25 months. Mario Dalmaviva, arrested on 7 April 1979, began a hunger-strike in Fossombrone maximum security prison on 12 January 1981, After ‘period of 20 months in detention he was demanding to be put on trial and to be transferred from a “special” to an ordinary prison, He described himself as a “communist without adjectives and without a party”, and expressed his opposition to armed struggle. On2 February 1981 Amnesty International wrote to Adolfo Sart, Minister of Justice, urging a fair and prompt trial, Amnesty Inter. national acknowledged the gravity of the charges against Mario Dalmaviva and thatit could not at that stage evaluate all the evidence, however its preliminary investigations had not established any substantive evidence against Mario Dalmaviva and it pointed out ther the defendant had denied involvement in terrorist activity. Amnesty Intemational was concerned that Mario Dalmaviva and his co. defendants, including Luciano Ferrari-Bravo and Lauso Zagato, hed been in detention for nearly two years without trial Furthermore Ferrari-Bravo had not even been interviewed in the previous 19 months by the investigating judge. The Minister was asked for information about the health of Mario Dalmaviva and the judicial Position of all three prisoners. No reply has been received. ‘Among a group of “7 April” cases investigated by Amnesty Inter- national were those of Luciano Ferrari-Bravo, Alisa Del Re. Ales. sandro Serafini, Guido Bianchini and Massimo Tramonte. These last four were rearrested in January 1981 and subjected to a separate judicial investigation based in Padua. These four prisoners had been Feleased in 1979 by order of the investigating judge of Padua because of lack of evidence. In some cases the judge referred to the mass ofAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 1981 lence that had been gathered as “largely favourable” to the defendants, and he stated “that they had never been involved in specific acts of violence”. In others he observed that no proof could be found of links between the defendants and the acts of violence that had been carried out in the Paduan region. However the release orders were contested by the prosecuting authorities who appealed to the Corte di Appello, the Court of Appeal, arguing that evidence against. the defendants existed, and their appeal was upheld. The defence appeal against the verdict was rejected by the Corte di Cassazione, the highest court, and the defendants were rearrested in January 198] and imprisoned. Dr Carmela di Rocco, a fifth defendant rearrested in January 1981 after having been released for lack of evidence in July 1979, was again released by the investigating judge because of ill health and her need for special hospital care, However a third warrant for her arrest has since been issued by the Deputy Prosecutor of Padua, On purely humanitarian grounds Amnesty International inter. vened in the case of another “7 April” defendant, Oreste Scalzone, and asked the judicial authorities for information about his health, He ‘was not adopted as a prisoner of conscience but Amnesty Inter. national was concemed about several specialist reports which stated that his medical condition had gravely deteriorated since his arrest. ‘Amnesty International received no reply, However shortly afterwards it learned that Oreste Scalzone had been transferred from prison to a hospital in Rome and was then provisionally released on health grounds, ‘The special powers of search, surveillance and detention of Law No. 15 of 6 February 1980 ‘remained in force (see Amnesty International Report 1980), ‘Amnesty International welcomed the virtual closure on 30 Novem- ber 1980 by ministerial decree of the military prison of Gaeta. This ‘medieval fortress in the region of Latina, scarcely modified for use as prison, has been the subject of repeated complaints about insanitary conditions and inadequate facilities. Most of its inmates were Jehovah's Witnesses and other conscientious objectors. After the prison was closed they were released under a system of supervised liberty (liberta vigilata). ‘The campaign to close Gacta because of its conditions resulted in serious charges being brought under military law against Sergio Andreis, an adopted prisoner of conscience held in that prison, Although President Pertini had pardoned him in July 1980 for his refusal to do military service, he was kept in prison under fresh charges. He was charged under Articles 89 and 93 of the Codice Penale Militare di Pace, the Military Penal Code in Peacetime, with revealing, and with attempting to reveal restricted information, TheAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 1981 307 charges related to a small section of an article he had written about Gaeta prison. Although the text was confiscated by the prison authorities a letter with this information appeared in both an anti- militarist journal in Brescia and in a newspaper in the Federal Republic of Germany. The article described prison conditions in Gaeta and also cited cases in which prisoners had been denied adequate medical treatment. The passage which provoked the charges referred to the aerial and maritime defences of Gaeta. Sergio Andreis was tried by the military tribunal of Rome on 10 October 1980. Amnesty International sent an observer to the trial. ‘The defendant admitted that he had sent the intercepted material but claimed that he had neither intended to publish restricted information nor known that it was restricted. All the information had been obtained through conversations with conscientious objectors and ex- conscripts over 10 years and by observations from his cell and within the exercise yard. He maintained that his only aim in publishing the article was to make the public aware of the conditions in the prison which were then under serutiny by parliament. He was acquitted of revealing restricted information for lack of evidence, However he was convicted of attempting toreveal restricted information and sentenced to 10% months’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, and payment of costs. Referring to the constitution, the Amnesty International observer criticized the system which allowed Sergio Andreis, as a conscientious objector, tobe treated as a militare (military personnel) and be judged under military law, but he did not criticize the procedural aspects of the tril, although he mentioned the “intense control of questioning by the court”. Amnesty International believes that he was prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of ‘expression and that he did not procure or release any information that could reasonably be classed as secret. Sergio Andreis was appealing against the verdict. Amnesty Intemational worked on two additional cases where conscientious objectors adopted as prisoners of conscience were faced with further charges in connection with théir imprisonment. On 12 December 1980 Judge Giovanni D’Urso was kidnapped by the Red Brigades. At the time he was responsible for controlling movements of convicted or suspected terrorists between maximum security (special) prisons. One of the stated aims of the Red Brigades has been to force the closure of the maximum security prison of Asinara, After the kidnapping there were disturbances in several ‘maximum security prisons and on 28 December a violent riot broke ‘out at Trani prison where some Red Brigade prisoners were held. Hostages were taken. The riot affected a group of “7 April” defendants who were held separately awaiting trial. On 11 January 1981 warrants were issued against Luciano Ferrari-Bravo, Emilio Vesce and Antonio Negri, among others, on charges of collaborating in the kidnapping of Giovanni D’Urso by maintaining contacts ‘outside the prison and by actively taking part in negotiations to obtain his release. These “7 April” defendants were among the signatories of document in which they denied taking any part in the riot and which criticized the system of “special prisons” such as Trani, Amnesty International was investigating these charges in the context of its wider investigation of the case of the “7 April” suspects. Judge Giovanni D’Urso was released unharmed on 15 January 1981