(Relazione tenuta il 13 febbraio 2008 dall'Avv. Antonio Salvatore in occasione della "Giornata della Memoria" presso la Biblioteca Ariostea di Ferrara)
Il tema della legittimità della resistenza all’ordine illegittimo dell’autorità ha radici antiche e si propone, per la prima volta, con l’avvento del Cristianesimo, per il quale l’obbedienza a Dio viene prima di quella alle leggi dello Stato (“obedire oportet Deo, magis quam hominibus” – Act. 5, 29).
Nello stesso “Corpus Juris Canonici” è indicato come nullo e non vincolante il comando illegittimo del pubblico funzionario. E non soltanto è dichiarata la nullità del comando (e quindi legittimata la “resistenza passiva”), ma è, altresì, concessa la facoltà di “resistenza attiva”, vale a dire quella di opporre la forza alla forza (“vim vi repellere licet”).
Non è questa la sede per discutere if such a canonical doctrine legitimizing the resistance against an unjust act - "et etiam facta you" - was inspired by the primary purpose of safeguarding ecclesiastical rights, rather than the more "noble" and "high" concern to ensure respect for the divine law any interference from the state.
In the Middle Ages this doctrine was detailed by St. Thomas Aquinas and in the "Summa Theologica" (1266) that in the "De regimine principium 'and Marsilius of Padua, in the" Defensor Pacis "(1324).
In modern times it has dealt with Hugo Grotius, considered the founder of international law. Authoritative
constitutionalists are risalire il riconoscimento giuridico del diritto di resistenza alla “Bulla Aurea” di Andrea II di Ungheria (art. 31) del 1222 e alla “Magna Charta” inglese del 1215 (paragrafo 61).
La resistenza al comando illegittimo dell’autorità può rilevare sia come facoltà (nel senso che il soggetto cui l’ordine è rivolto è legittimato a resistervi, tanto in senso passivo, non eseguendo il comando, quanto in senso attivo, ricorrendo all’uso della forza) sia come vero e proprio obbligo giuridico (nel senso che il soggetto ha il dovere giuridico di disobbedire all’ordine): in quest’ultimo senso, l’art. 51, comma terzo, del codice penale italiano stabilisce che del reato commesso in esecuzione dell’ordine criminoso dell’autorità risponde anche “chi ha eseguito l’ordine (…)”.
E’ ben evidente come la resistenza vista come obbligo giuridico sia un “quid pluris” rispetto alla mera situazione di legittimità a non eseguire l’ordine: è soltanto attraverso l’imposizione dell’obbligo di non eseguire l’ordine illegittimo che, invero, è possibile realizzare compiutamente l’affermazione dei diritti di libertà e perseguire i crimini contro l’umanità.
A tale proposito, appare opportuno ricordare il giurista tedesco Rudolf von Jhering (n. 1818 – m. 1882) il quale nell’opera "Der Kampfs ums Recht" ("The fight for the right"), published in 1872, stated that "the resistance against injustice is the duty, the duty of the person to itself and to the community."
The problem of judging the violation of the obligation not to obey the order of the illegitimate (and to resort to supranational judicial institutions to judge serious crimes-one) is placed, for the first time in 1474, when the "Landvogt "(Governor) Peter Von Hagenbach (b. 1423 - m. 1474), Knight Commander of the Ninth Company of the order of the troops Duke Carlo I of Burgundy, was tried and sentenced to death for murder, rape and other crimes against the "laws of God and man" committed during the occupation of the city of Breisach. Remember that
Burgundy in the fifteenth century, was a great principle that the Duke Charles I (nicknamed "the Bold") was to enlarge, eager to restore the ancient kingdom of Lothair, from Flanders to Italy. The Duke of Burgundy
sent Von Hagenbach at Breisach, the Upper Rhine city, with orders to reduce to submission to utter the inhabitants of that city, put under military occupation.
Von Hagenbach, in execution del Duca, instaurò nella città un regime fondato sul terrore, commettendo assassinii, stupri, confische, tassazioni illegali, che danneggiarono anche gli abitanti delle terre vicine e i mercanti svizzeri che transitavano nella zona per recarsi alla Fiera di Francoforte.
In seguito a una rivolta degli abitanti di Breisach, ai quali si unirono alcuni mercenari tedeschi, Von Hagenbach venne catturato sul territorio dell’Arciduca d’Austria.
Nel 1474 l’Arciduca ordinò che Von Hagenbach venisse processato e si istituì una Corte “ad hoc”, composta da ventotto giudici, provenienti da varie città della coalizione alleata (Strasburgo, Basilea, Colmar e Sélestat), con un Presidente nominato Archduke. The Swiss Confederation
appointed some judges and we can say that (given its independence, although not yet formally recognized at the time) that the Court was a true international court.
According to the indictment, Von Hagenbach, in executing the orders of the Duke of Burgundy, had "trampled on the laws of God and man."
On defense, Von Hagenbach had done nothing but obey the orders of the Duke of Burgundy, which could not escape, as "Landvogt.
To gather evidence, the defense asked for a postponement of the trial, which was not granted, being judged, such a request, "contrary to the laws of God. "
Von Hagenbach was stripped of the title of knight, condemned to death and executed, because "as a knight, the defendant should have prevented the commission of the crimes for which, however, had been tried."
was an isolated case, because at the time it was thought that ended a conflict, it is necessary to stabilize the peace achieved, achieve a kind of amnesty.
Indeed, before the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919), was almost inconceivable just assume an indictment of those responsible for war crimes based on their individual responsibility.
The theme of the duty to resist the order illegittimo dell’autorità si è riproposto alla fine del secondo conflitto mondiale, dopo la tragedia dello sterminio di milioni di esseri umani – soprattutto ebrei – all’interno dei lager nazisti.
Dopo molti mesi di collaborazione, le quattro potenze vincitrici (U.S.A., Gran Bretagna, Francia e Russia) sottoscrissero, l’8 agosto 1945, il Trattato di Londra, che, all’art. 1, istituì il Tribunale Militare Internazionale di Norimberga.
Nell’articolo 1 dello Statuto del Tribunale si stabilì il principio della responsabilità penale di coloro che hanno commesso “crimini di guerra” o “contro l’umanità”, anche se in esecuzione di ordini issued by a higher authority. In particular, as regards the latter, Article. 8 stated that "the fact that a defendant acted in obedience to the orders of his Government or of a superior will not release the defendant from the same criminal liability, but may constitute a mitigating punishments, when the court will consider imposing same defendant. "
During the Nuremberg trials, the defenses of the defendants, while not denying the commission of crimes by their clients, they challenged the offense, saying they had simply obeyed the orders of his superiors, perfectly legitimate the legal relationship of the time and place where the crimes were carried out.
The accused were charged, while in the defense, considered as pure state officials, operating in full compliance with the law then in force, dictated by the organs of the National Socialist state and, during the Nuremberg trials, protested against what they perceived as an injustice : to be judged by the winners under rules created by them.
In fact, should not forget that during the Nazi regime, was not at all removed their article in the German Military Penal Code under which "the order must be obeyed not clearly criminal," and even the paragraph which stated that "the fact that the person has felt duty to obey his conscience or to the precepts of his religion does not mean that an act or omission may be punished."
The Italian Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation, sez. The criminal sentence November 16, 1998) is now ten years ago, the workers of this issue in the process called "Hass - Priebke" act of retaliation for the Fosse Ardeatine that followed the events in Rasella away.
As you know, at 15 of March 23, 1944, within the city of Rome, in Via Rasella, the passage of a company of German police battalion "Bozen", occurred the explosion of a charge of explosive, accompanied by the launch of grenades: the outcome of the attack, by a team of Italian partisans belonging to the organization of resistance against illegal military occupation, German soldiers lost their lives thirty-two.
SS Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler, commander of the "Aussenkommando" police and security service via Tasso during the occupation of Rome by German troops, who arrived shortly after on the spot, was an immediate task to take care of ' attack and, in particular, was commissioned to prepare a list of three hundred and twenty people (ten for every German soldier who was killed in the attack) from shot as a reprisal.
Kappler, meeting in relation officers (including the captain Erich Priebke and Major Herbert Hass, both belonging to the SS), ordered that all people involved in the execution of his command by the explosion of a single shot to the head of each victim, while the captain Priebke was responsible for monitoring the number of people shot gradually: in addition, each officer would have to perform at least one person shooting, for exemplary for the troops. Informed
occurred shortly after the death of another German soldier, Kappler ordered list to include ten other Jews arrested that morning. The shooting took place
from the afternoon until the evening of March 24, inside the Cave Ardeatine: nell'antistante yard truck already came with the victims. The operations were directed by Captain Schutz, who warned the military of the troops who did not feel that shooting had no other way out, than next to the intended victims, to share the same fate.
The victims' names were deleted from time to time Priebke list held by the captain, remained in place until 19 o'clock, when the massacre was over, each of the officers (and therefore also the same Priebke and Hass) personally performed at least two killings as an example to the troops, after some mine fatte brillare chiusero l’accesso alla cava.
I morti furono complessivamente trecentotrentacinque, quindici in più rispetto ai trecentoventi corrispondenti al fissato parametro di dieci a uno.
La Corte di Cassazione, con la suddetta sentenza, ha escluso l’applicazione, in favore degli imputati Priebke e Hass (che, come sopra riferito, avevano partecipato, anche attivamente, alla strage delle Fosse Ardeatine), della esimente di cui all’allora vigente (è stato abrogato dall’art. 22 della legge 11 luglio 1978 n. 382) art. 40 del codice penale militare di pace (giusta il quale “se un fatto costituente reato è commesso per ordine del superiore (…), del reato risponde sempre chi ha dato l’ordine”, ma ne risponde “anche il militare che ha eseguito l’ordine quando l’esecuzione di questo costituisce manifestamente reato”).
Per la Cassazione “anche l’insindacabilità e la vincolatività dell’ordine, proprie del sistema gerarchico militare, trovano un limite razionale nell’intrinseco, oggettivo ed evidente contenuto criminoso dell’ordine superiore, per ciò stesso percepibile sempre e comunque dal subordinato, il cui dovere di attenzione e vigilanza viene così richiamato ai fini del prescritto dovere di obbedienza; sicché se il comportamento ordinato risulta indiscutibilmente criminoso nell’opinione comune radicata nel tipo medio a person can not ever be invoked by the executor, unconsciousness or not delittuosità perceptibility of the fact as a cause - of personal and subjective - Exclusion of liability and punishment. "
It seems, however, to say that, in support of the thesis is not applicable, the accused, the outcome of Article. 40 of the Code of Military Justice of peace there can be a different reason and absorbent.
It should be noted, indeed, the fact that Priebke that Hass had belonged to the "security police" ("Si.po."), under the direction of Himmler and, like all members of the "Si.po." erano inquadrati, fin dal 1939, nelle “SS”.
La “Si.po.” aveva compiti di polizia politica per l’individuazione dei gruppi degli avversari del “Reich” , nonché di persecuzione politica e razziale, nel quadro istituzionale delle “SS”, organo dello Stato-partito, componente privilegiata di esso, una specie di Super-Stato, essendone i membri responsabili solo di fronte al tribunale speciale del corpo.
Ai componenti della “Si.po.” erano affidati compiti che presupponevano l’emanazione di ordini necessariamente coinvolgenti l’esercizio criminoso della violenza, rispetto ai modelli legali di comportamento regolati dai codici e dalla legge penale del “Reich”: systematic execution orders which had bleeding for the entire duration of the conflict, the rear of Eastern Europe, according to the provisions of the Ordinance "Nacht und Nebel" (Night and Fog "), issued by Hitler December 7, 1941, in under which the Security Police was required to get rid of "in the night and fog", without trial as not to cause riots, anyone carefully considered the safety of the "Reich".
This order was preceded by the "executive" March of that year, some of which - "top secret" - he relies on Himmler "special tasks" to be performed, “indipendentemente dall’esercito”, nelle aree occupate che dovevano rimanere chiuse a ogni interferenza esterna. Direttive che, tradotte in pratica nello sterminio di militari prigionieri e di appartenenti alla popolazione civile, trovavano la propria base nel discorso sulla “guerra ideologica” tenuto, nello stesso mese di marzo del 1941, da Hitler ai capi delle tre armi.
A tali direttive si opposero fermamente uomini come il generale Ludwig Beck – poi morto suicida – il quale affermava che “il dovere di obbedienza del militare termina là dove consapevolezza e coscienza e senso di responsabilità vietano l’esecuzione di un ordine”.
Pertanto, nell’ambito di organizzazioni come la “Si.po.”, nessun problema di eseguire o meno l’ordine criminoso si poneva – salvo remote ipotesi di una crisi di coscienza, peraltro, a quanto consta, mai registrate tra gli ufficiali – agli specialisti della persecuzione politica e razziale.
Né la dismisura della rappresaglia è cosa qualitativamente, cioè giuridicamente, diversa dalla tortura di un prigioniero. Sempre, l’operazione diretta alla soppressione di innocenti ed all’eliminazione di ogni residuo di sopravvivenza ebraica assumeva giuridicamente i contorni di un atto del sistema repressivo nazista, conforme alle ordinanze degli ufficiali superiori delle “SS”, ispirate ai dettami di Hitler, di fronte alle quali remained a dead letter any contrary provision of the same German criminal law and procedure: with the result of a unique blend of criminal policy and its implementation in the intimate relationship of co-lag between the holders of controls, bodies, offices and individuals who were part of (co-responsibility, if anything, can be graduated in terms of quantity), at any level in the military and political hierarchies.
inoperative, then, the requirement of Article. 40 of the Code of Military Justice of Peace, which assumes the obligation to comply with military honor the law of peace and war, and therefore, in the event of a breach of it, the liability attaches to the top, to extend all’inferiore (che esegue l’ordine) solo quando si manifesti il carattere criminoso dell’ordine, con diritto dell’inferiore di rifiutarne l’esecuzione e obbligo di riferirne senza indugio all’autorità sovraordinata: si tratta, evidentemente, di distinzioni che perdono il loro precipuo significato in relazione all’illecito compiuto, in concorso tra loro, da soggetti reciprocamente vincolati dal “pactum sceleris”.
La tesi appena esposta è stata portata alle estreme conseguenze (essendo stata “allargata” a migliaia di comuni cittadini tedeschi) da D.J. Goldhagen (“I volenterosi carnefici di Hitler”, Milano 1996) e di E. A. Johnson (“Il Nazi terror. The Gestapo, Jews and Germans, Milan, 2001), for which the "superior orders" - just as the Nazi laws in their entirety - not because they disobeyed they were merely giving expression to the strongly anti-Semitic culture unsettled soul of thousands of ordinary citizens in Germany, who chose "a gun" to "contribute to the solution of the Jewish problem."
The above decision of the Supreme Court gives the final seal of judicial review to one of the most tragic events of World War II.
But from a military resolution of the Judicial Council (meeting of 23 March 1999) an investigation carried out on war crimes proceedings, it appears that several hundred cases concerning decisions against German soldiers are identified, were sent to the competent military prosecutor only in the years 1994 to 1996.
"By now irreparable consequences" - said the Council in resolution - "to be ascribed solely to the attorney general at the Supreme Military Court, the office responsible for the abuse of detention acts."
This will involve reporting, of course, further study in the relevant fora, including the involvement, in the opinion of the Council, "the responsibility of other organs of the State. "
conclude by pointing out that - as we learn from reading the resolution referred to several times - the news of crime recorded in the "general role of procedures" for these war crimes are duemiladuecentosettantaquattro and, of these, which is marked dell'eccidio Fosse Ardeatine with number one. Mr. Salvatore Antonio
0 comments:
Post a Comment