Subhash kumar patel

Roll number: oe19m015

Assignment 2

THE “ENRICA LEXIE CASE”

This case was started on February 15th 2012, while the Italian Flagged oil tanker
Marine Vessel Enrica Lexie was sailing with on board an Italian Military Protection
Detachment in transit along the Indian coast, exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India.
The same day criminal investigations started in India for the alleged killing of two
fishermen on board and Indian Ship St. Antony. Enrica Lexie was travelling from
Singapore to Egypt while St. Antony returning back to its destination after fishing
expedition. They start shooting on St. Antony board when it was 41km off Indian
contiguous zone area of EEZ. After the event the Vessel continued sailing on its
scheduled route towards Egypt. When the Vessel had covered almost 70 km, the Vessel
was apparently caught by Indian coast guard and requested to enter Port Kochi to assist
and identify suspected pirated which allegedly had been apprehended. Then the ship is
return towards the Kochi coast and it reached to coast at midnight of the same day. Press
releases and interviews of personnel of the Indian Coast Guard and suggests that the MV
Enrica Lexie along with the Military Protection Detachment on board, was cheated in
order to enter the Indian port of Kochi with the perspective of cooperating in the
identification of pirates allegedly in custody by the Indian coast guard, and much
emphasis was put on the fact that this was service members were taken into custody,
triggering a complex legal controversy between Italy and India. This paper was written
before the Supreme Court has taken a ultimate stand on the issue of jurisdiction and
highlights some of the legal implications of the controversy without any intention to
exhaust all legal issues, and focuses on include issues like the width of Coastal State’s
jurisdiction over their contiguous zone and their exclusive economic zone, relationships
between domestic and international law, the relevance of the effects of an offence in order
 to establish the law of the place where the delict was committed in the conflict of laws.
Under international law and Indian domestic law, Flag State jurisdiction in respect of
collisions and other incidents of navigation and finally immunity issues of Foreign
Service members under customary international law.

Important Facts
• Two Indian fisher man were killed on board due to shooting from Italian oil tanker enrica
lexie
• Enrica Lexie was travelling from Singapore to Egypt while St. Anthony returning back to
its destination (shore) from a fishing expedition.
• They started shooting when St. Anthony was 42 km off Indian Cost within contiguous zone
area of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
• The Indian Coast Guard got hold of Enrica Lexie somewhere near the Lakshadweep
Islands and compelled it to precede it to Kochi.
• Names of two Italian Officers Captured were:– Massimiliano Latorre & Salvatore Girone.
• Charges of Murder (Sec. 300 of the IPC), Mischief (Sec. 425 of the IPC) etc. were levied
against the captured Italian Mariners.

Jurisdiction Issue
In order to protect the Interest of Italy citizen, they challenged the arrest before the
Kerala High Court alleging that India has no jurisdiction to try the case at the very first
Instance as the incident happened not in the Indian territorial waters but it was on the
International Waters.
Italy has cited Art.97 of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). “In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a
ship on the deep seas”, only the flag state of that ship can launch penal proceedings. By
definition, a flag state is that the state during which a vessel is registered. On the high seas,
flag states hold sole jurisdiction over ocean going vessels (Art. 217 UNCLOS).
However, India bases its jurisdictional claims on domestic legislation which confers the
Indian courts with the jurisdiction to try a person in respect of an offence committed on
board a ship registered in India according to Sec. 3 and 4 of the IPC, 1860 and Sec.188 of
the CPC.
On the other hand, the Italian Government gives the argument keeping in mind various
provisions of UNCLOS, 1982. Art. 97 of UNCLOS focus on ‘Penal jurisdiction in matters
of collision or any other incident of navigation’. According to  this text no penal or
disciplinary proceedings could also be instituted against such person except before the
judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag state or of the State of which such
person may be a national.

Secondly, according to Art.92, ships shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of flag
state while on the high seas.

Thus, it is seen that claims of both the nations were equally strong. Both the nations have
their reasons on why the case should be tried at their respective countries. He general
principle of criminal procedure that an attempt shall ordinarily be conducted at the place
where the offence has been committed, justifies the Indian position. Additionally,  an
attempt conducted during a foreign land would deprive the victims of their right to
participate which is an important aspect of fair trial. Moreover, considering the convenience
of conducting investigation the case is tilted towards India.

The Supreme Court ruled that as per the Indian government notification issued in pursuant
of the Convention on the Law of the ocean , India has jurisdiction over the whole 200 miles
Exclusive Economic Zone, and thus the case can be tribal in India. The court also held that
only Indian government not the Kerala government can exercise the jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

 When nothing was getting into their way, the Italian Government approached

the international forum to seem into the matter. The forum the country
approached the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea (ITLOS). Again, at
this forum Italy contended that India had no jurisdiction to undertake this
 case. On the other hand, India out rightly rejected Italy’s contention and also
raised a problem that the International Tribunal also had no power to listen
to the case involving two individual nations, which was later rejected by
(ITLOS).

 At the mid of all these, the relations between both these nations started to get
disturbed. There was political tension all around
 In August 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea ordered both the
countries to refrain themselves on filing any new suite and thus attempt
to solve the prevailing problem amicably. Abiding the order, The Supreme
Court of India had stayed all the proceedings associated with this case.
 To compensate the victims the govt of Kerala granted aid of 5 Lakh
Rupees and therefore the same amount was given by the govt of Tamil Nadu .
Over and above the monetary aid the govt of Kerala extensively utilized the
victim’s wife.
 The Italian Government also have to pay monetary compensation of 1 Crore
(Indian Rupees) to the victim in this case to the Maritime Disaster.
