Hospital Prison des Baumettes, Marseilles

for an act political in nature. The government actually refuses to apply the law of amnesty to them.

The Facts

On 10 March, 1972, 19 boxes of practice ammunition went missing from the Marine Infantry Battalion base in Tahiti. There was no delay in the police finding out those responsible for this theft. It was 7 young Tahitians, known for their political activities, their opposition to nuclear testing, their acts to defend the independence of their people and the integrity of their country. One of them, Felix Teheriura had ripped a French flag at Faa airport on the occasion of a visit by Minister Rey.

According to the terms of the Public Prosecutor's indictment: 'They believed in a political evolution of the territory, each talking at once of autonomy and independence. They had envisaged a revolution, but a peaceful one.' The prosecution maintained that this arms theft had a military defence organisation as its goal. The arrested Tahitians have always maintained that it was only to ridicule the military, who believed themselves to be all-powerful in Papeete.

The Sentences

The Tahitians tried to engage a French lawyer but could not reach him. Their letters did not get through to Paris. On 23 May, 1972, they were sentenced by only one judge in the Lower Court of Papeete to the maximum penalty i.e. 5 years imprisonment, 22,000 francs fine and 10 years local banishment. The judgement did not have any particular reason. The President weighed up only the established facts.

The seven condemned men appealed, and on 15 June, 1972, their appeal was rejected by the Higher Appeal Court of French Polynesia, sitting at Papeete (one judge). This judge confirmed the sentence given less than a month previously without adding any reason.

It must be noted that the same public prosecutor, who participated in the two hearings, called for a particular severity because of political motivations. The Tahitians maintained that they had not been able to prepare through the registry of the prison at Papeete the defence which they [unclear: ad] intended.

During the night of 18 and 19 June, [unclear: 1972], they escaped from prison in Papeete [unclear: with] outside planning and help from the [unclear: Tahitian] people. They were recaptured [unclear: J] the following months.

[unclear: Banishment] and Detention [unclear: N] France

It was then that 3 of them—Charlie [unclear: Hing], Felix Teheriura and Robert [unclear: Ahn] were transferred to France by military aircraft and incarcerated in the prison of Fresnes. They then succeeded in engaging a lawyer: Maitre Henri Le-[unclear: erc]. The latter made constant calls to [unclear: the] Minister, to whom he communicated [unclear: the] affair. The Minister seemed frightened. He did not have the dossier and it as the lawyer of the prisoners who was communicating the text of the decisions [unclear: to] him.

Doubtless because it was warmer there and therefore with a small humane gesture, the three Tahitians were transferred to the prison of Baumettes where they will be detained, but under particularly harsh conditions. M. Pleven, then Keeper of the Seals, granted them on 21 February, 1973, the benefit of special rules of detention not without having beforehand consulted the special Commission for these rules.

The Tahitians refused to make a plea for pardon, but desired that the injustices of which they were victims should be repaired—i.e. that the proceedings at Papeete be reviewed or rejected.

But there is nothing that can be done. The law is the law and the Minister has declared himself to be powerless, while at the same time saying that it would not be possible to refuse a pardon. But this pardon that they had not asked for but which was expected would be given to them, was refused on 18 February, 1974, by M. Taittinger, who became Minister of Justice.

The Amnesty

After the election of M. Giscard d'Estaing as President of the Republic, on 16 July, an amnesty law came into force which provided in articles 2-4 that 'all offences committed in connection with all other undertakings attempting to interfere with the exercise of the authority of the state or in connection with political or social incidents' would be subject to amnesty.

M. Lecanvert, Minister of Justice, spelt out that this would be an amnesty for all deeds of political motivation in his statements to the National Assembly and above all, to the Senate. A circular from the Keeper of the Seals, addressed to the different Prosecutors recommended as well an extremely wide interpretation of the amnesty law on this matter. In the majority of cases, the Prosecutor moreover applied this wide interpretation.

But the Tahitians remained in prison.

Sentenced for Escape

The Minister of Justice did not only apply the recommendations he had made to the different Prosecutors but he intended to increase the sentence passed on the Tahitians, and sought to have them convicted for escaping custody.

On 27 July, 1974, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered that the Higher Court of Appeal in Papeete did not have jurisdiction of Appeal in Papeete did not have jurisdiction over acts of escape for reasons 'of public safety' and sent the case to the Marseilles Tribunal, one understands again because of the political nature of the affair. The Tribunal of Marseilles sentenced Robert Cahn to ten months imprisonment and Felix Teheriura to six months imprisonment for escaping custody.

Application was made to the Appeal Court in Aix-en-Provence who in its judgement on the appeal refused to rule on the amnesty to Maitres Henri Leclerc and Jean Dissler, lawyers for Felix Teheriura. This decision is now being submitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Political Motivations

The link with 'political and social' incidents arises firstly from the indictment written by the Public Prosecutor for the Papeete Tribunal. It arises next from the remarks made orally by the Prosecutor to the court hearings, as much to the Supreme Court as to the Tribunal, calling for a particular severity for the very reason that these acts were of political motivation.

The political nature of the conviction appears in the evidence in its great size. Never under any circumstances has a first offender been sentneced to the maximum penalty. The fact of inclicting in addition 10 years local banishment makes it all appear like a disguised exile.

M. Pleven, formerly Keeper of the Seals, had understood himself as well the political nature of the offence in granting the prisoners the benefit of the special rules provided for by article D 490 and following the Code of Penal Procedure which specifies that the latter can be granted only 'to persons prosecuted or convicted of whom it is proved in view of the circumstances of the case, that while they had committed the acts constituting the offence they were prompted by motives of a political character and were neither moved by personal interest nor by a spirit of vengence.'

This political character has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal when removing jurisdiction from the Higher Tribunal of Appeal in Papeete for reasons of 'Public Safety'. It has only hindered the prisoners who are still in the Baumettes prison that the Minister refuses to reply to all requests.

Numerous letters from the Tahitian prisoners have been sent as well, as soon as they understood the import of their action. They are peaceful men who have been upset by the nuclear experiences of Mururoa because of their religious feelings and their patriotism. What is more, they have been upset by the economic consequences of these acts. They think that the presence of the army in Polynesia has been mostly to monopolize the territories, due to an improper application of the Civil Code, since the landed property in Polynesia is governed by a customary system founded on joint possession and inalienability of the native soil. Their act was designed to create real speculation and a deep jolt to the point of view of the social justice which can allow the destruction of these places, and rights.

They wished for the independence of Tahiti. Their act was governed at the time by political desire, a certain mystique, from love of their people and their country, and finally from a sense of humour and irony which has pervaded their actions.

How to Free The Tahitians

Public opinion has increased already but it must make the Minister of Justice listen: one who has besides declared that he has the ear of the people. In this situation, does French public opinion accept that these men remain in prison and when they have completed nearly six years, they will be precluded form their country, Polynesia, for another 10 years? Ironically, it is the Higher Tribunal of French Polynesia which must make a new ruling on the problem of the amnesty law.

The men in the Baumettes are submitted to many pressures. Facing the inconsistency of decisions they have also changed lawyers. They only want justice. It will be a scandal if they remain still longer in the Baumettes without returning to their own country.