La Corte inglese avrà il coraggio di fare giustizia? (9 ottobre)

Queste tre donne, da sole, hanno cercato di far rispettare la sentenza della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia relativamente all'illeicità dell'uso delle armi nucleari. L'anno scorso hanno cercato di smontare un sommergibile nucleare Trident che porta testate atomiche. Una saggia giudice inglese le aveva assolte sostenendo la liceità del loro comportamento. Oggi si discute l'appello. Riusciranno i giudici inglesi a rispettare il verdetto della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia? In caso contrario, chi mai potrà farlo e con quali mezzi? Per quanto tempo dovremo continuare a ragionare in termini di MORS TUA VITA MEA? Siamo uomini o Caporali? Ai posteri, se mai vi saranno, l'ardua sentenza.

Vedi anche: Corte Internazionale: PAURA O SOPRAVVIVENZA


The Scotsman Online - Electronic News Publishing - Edinburgh - Scotland
Trident three ruling 'wrong'
http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=bahjefqhlqj&d=News&c=front&s=4
William Dick

       A PANEL of judges will sit today to review a court decision that could have massive implications for Britain's £11 billion nuclear defence programme.

If they agree with a sheriff's ruling that three women were not acting criminally when they vandalised a floating testing station for the Trident nuclear submarine programme, they will effectively rule Britain's nuclear defence illegal.

       However the judges are expected instead to rule that Sheriff Margaret Gimblett was wrong when she accepted evidence that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law.

       Whatever they decide, they will not be able to reverse the acquittal of the three protestors, merely to clarify the points of law the case raised.

       In her 138 page report to the High Court, Sheriff Gimblett admits she may have been wrong to accept that a 1996 ruling by the International Court of Justice at the Hague concluded all nuclear weapons were illegal.

       The case concerns three peace protestors who caused almost £100,000 worth of damage to the laboratory on Loch Goil last October.

       Ellen Moxley, Angie Zelter and Ulla Roder walked free from Greenock Sheriff Court after Sheriff Gimblett ruled they had shown no criminal intent and sincerely believed their actions would prevent a far greater crime.

       The sheriff's verdict caused a political storm and led to widespread calls for her resignation. Anti-nuclear campaigners hailed the ruling as proof that nuclear weapons were illegal and there were fears that other protestors would follow the example of the "Trident three", as they became known, in damaging sites and equipment associated with the nuclear defence programme.

       Worried politicians said that if Sheriff Gimblett's ruling was allowed to stand, anyone could attack our nuclear bases with whatever force they felt was necessary as long as they could convince a court they were doing it for sincerely held ideological reasons.

       The Lord Advocate, Lord Hardy, quickly announced he was seeking a review of the sheriff's decision.

Today that review will begin at the High Court in Edinburgh, with allies of the three women claiming it is the Trident programme that is on trial.

       David Mackenzie, spokesman for Trident Ploughshares 2000 protest group, said: "The Trident nuclear weapon system is a conspiracy to commit mass murder. There could be immense implications if the High Court and Scots Law rise to the challenge."

       However the most informed legal opinion is that Sheriff Gimblett was wrong to accept that the Hague ruling quoted in defence of the three women made nuclear weapons illegal - instead most believe that it makes the use of nuclear weapons illegal in most cases, not holding them in reserve for a crisis.