CASE COMMENT: The Enrica Lexie case

V.Ramanah,BC0160031

Introduction

Looking into the context of Maritime law there are incidents where foreign vessel have violated
the rules of another country during voyage. In 2012, such an incident in India. The study of this
particular case is very interesting as rules of several Codes such as the Indian Penal Code, Criminal
Procedure Code and several International Treaties such as the United Nations Convention on Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) are applicable. This is an attempt to analyse several aspects involved in this
case.

Brief Facts

• On 2012 two Indian fishermen were killed off the coast of Kerala, India, aboard the St.
Antony after they were fired upon by Italian marines on board the Italian ship Enrica Lexie.
• Enrica Lexie was travelling from Singapore to Egypt and St. Anthony returning back to its
destination from a fishing expedition.
• There started shooting when St. Anthony was 20.5 Nautical Miles off Indian Cost within
contiguous zone area of India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
• The Indian Coast Guard got hold of Enrica Lexie near the Lakshadweep
• two Italian Marine Officers Captured were
• Charges of Murder (Section 300 of the IPC), Mischief (Section 425 of the IPC) etc. were
levied against the captured Italian Mariners.

Issue of Jurisdiction

Italy to protect their citizens, challenged the arrest stating that India has no jurisdiction and the
incident happened in International waters.

Italy has cited Article 97 of the UNCLOS. By definition, a flag state is the state in which a vessel
is registered. On the high seas, flag states hold sole jurisdiction over oceangoing 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 (including a foreigner) in respect of an offence
committed on board a ship registered in India (Sections 3 and 4 of the IPC and Sec.188 of CrPC).
On the other hand, the Italian Government gives the argument keeping in mind various provisions
of UNCLOS, 1982. Article 97 of UNCLOS According to this Article no penal or disciplinary
proceedings may 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 is a national. Also, according
to Article 92, ships shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of flag state while on the high seas.

Analysis and post case status

Thus, it is seen that claims of both the nations have their reasons as to why the case should be tried
at their respective countries. The general principle of criminal procedure that a trial shall ordinarily
be conducted at the place where the offence has been committed, justifies the Indian position. A
trial conducted in a foreign land will deprive the victim right to 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 Sea, India has jurisdiction over the entire 200 miles Exclusive
Economic Zone, and thus the case can be triable in India. The court also held that only Indian
government.

The Italian Government approached the International forum to look 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 try this case. In August 2015, the International
Tribunal for the Law of Sea ordered both the countries to refrain from filing new suite and thus try
to solve the existing problem. Further momentary compensation was given to the victim’s families
by Italian government and Kerala government.