[English translation]

BELGIAN SENATE
________
Session 2011-2012
________
29 June 2012
________

SENATE Written question nr. 5-6594

by Bert Anciaux (SP.a)

to the Vice Prime Minister and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and European Affairs

________

Leonard Peltier – “American Indian Movement” – Fair Trial – Resolutions of the Chamber – Belgian position
________

indigenous population
United States
rights of defence
motion of the Parliament
penal sanction
________

29/6/2012 Question submitted

10/10/2012 Reply
________

SENATE Written question nr. 5-6594 d.d. 29 June 2012: (question asked in Dutch language)

In 1977, Leonard Peltier, an American Indian activist and member of the “American Indian Movement” (AIM), was convicted to two life sentences for the murder of two FBI agents during a conflict on the “Pine Ridge” Indian Reservation. Several elements indicate that Peltier’s trial was not fair. It is a proven fact that the FBI used self-fabricated evidence, that witnesses were coerced, and that important evidence in favour of the defendant was never used during trial. Amnesty International categorises this case under the “unfair trials” in its 2010 report about the United States. Considering his long sentence, the doubt, and the context in which these facts occurred, Amnesty pleads for the conditional release of Peltier.

The major obstacles for justice in this case do not seem to be about the nature of the case, but are rather of institutional and ideological nature. After all, releasing Leonard Peltier implicates the following:

- recognizing the fact that the FBI was indeed guilty of organising political persecutions in the 1960’s and 1970’s. (Which, by the way, was already confirmed by a congressional investigation committee led by Douglas Pike);

- recognising the fact that the American justice system has structural shortcomings.

It is feared that a review of the trial (and an acquittal) will lead to an avalanche of trial reviews.

Ever since he was sentenced, Leonard Peltier has grown to become a symbol of the way in which the government and the white majority of the United States treat the aboriginal peoples of the USA.

Several government leaders and prominent people have explicitly expressed their support for Peltier’s case. Also, the European and Belgian Parliaments have asked by way of resolutions for a review of the trial and for executive clemency for Peltier.

Concerning this, the following questions:

1) What were the responses to the resolutions that were adopted by the Chamber of Representatives on respectively March 13^th 1997 and June 29^th 2000? Has Belgium taken a position and were those resolutions handed over to the United States? If yes, what were the consequences? Was there a reaction from the USA to the request for (a) clemency and for (b) a thorough investigation into the trial?

2) Is the Secretary prepared to express his concern about the fairness of the trial, and prepared to renew the demand for a thorough investigation into the trial proceedings against Peltier?

_____
Reply received on 10 October 2012: (reply in both French and Dutch languages)

Response

It is with great interest that I took note of your written question concerning the fate of the American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who in 1977 was sentenced to two life sentences for the murder, in the form of an execution, of two FBI agents in the early 1970’s, on the “Pine Ridge” reservation in South Dakota.

I also consider of great importance the two resolutions that were adopted in 1997 and in 2000 by the Chamber of Representatives.

These resolutions support the calls of American Congressmen to grant Mr. Peltier parole, or in case this should not happen, to grant him executive clemency.

The resolutions of the Chamber of Representatives also support the proposition of members of the American Congress for the establishment of congressional hearings, with the goal to shed more light on the circumstances that have led to the indictment against Mr. Peltier, first for manslaughter, then for murder.

As where it concerns my position in this case, I am of the principle that the separation of powers must be respected. If the American court system does not grant Mr. Peltier parole, the only alternative left is executive clemency. However, I note that President Clinton who had promised to study the Peltier file, has ended his second term in 2000 without granting Leonard Peltier executive clemency.

Nevertheless, I have no reason to doubt that the present President of the United States, if he deems such justified, will take a decision in that direction, taking into account all elements of the case.

My administration will continue to follow this case attentively.

Didier Reynders,
Vice Prime Minister and Secretary of Foreign Affairs