December 1, 2020 5:23:00 am
Tahawwur Hussain Frog
The United States government has submitted to a California court that Tahawwur Hussain Rana, the main defendant in the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008, be authorized for extradition to India, as his crimes and legal status meet all the criteria for its delivery.
In December 2019, India had requested Rana’s extradition through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In June this year, US authorities detained Rana on the basis of a provisional arrest request from the National Investigation Agency (NIA). He was then prematurely released from the US federal prison, where he was serving a sentence for conspiracy to attack the office of the Danish newspaper Jylland Posten in Denmark. In August, the United States submitted the extradition request to the designated court.
On September 28, the US Government, Represented by Christopher D Grigg, Chief of the Division of Homeland Security of the US Attorney’s Office, along with attorney Nicola T Hanna, filed in District Court Central California that Rana’s earlier arguments against his extradition to India “had no merit.”
“In the instant case, the necessary elements have been met for the Court to certify Rana’s eligibility for extradition. There is a matter and personal jurisdiction over Rana. A valid extradition treaty allows extradition for some of the crimes charged in India. And there is probable cause to believe that Rana committed these crimes ”, says the communication.
Interestingly, however, the US government has filed that it is not proceeding with some of the charges brought by India, such as “membership of a terrorist organization”, “conspiracy to wage war” and “conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, “as they do. they do not meet the criteria for “dual criminality”. However, it has said that “the dual criminality requirement (of the extradition treaty) is met because the other crimes charged are punishable in both India and the United States.”
The hearing in the case is scheduled to begin in January 2021.
At the extradition hearing, the Court considers the evidence presented on behalf of the requesting country and determines whether the legal requirements for certification have been established, as defined in the relevant treaty, statutes, and jurisprudence. The Secretary of State, and not the Court, decides whether the fugitive should be handed over to the requesting country.
Rana, a school friend of David Coleman Headley, who has been convicted of his role in the Mumbai terrorist attacks, has been accused by India of aiding and inciting Headley’s reconnaissance and of participating in the conspiracy for the attack. Rana had falsely represented Headley as an employee of his visa facilitation company called the Immigration Law Center and opened an office in Mumbai to cover him for the recognition.
In his previous court appearances, Rana had opposed his extradition claiming that he had been acquitted by the California court of charges of complicity in the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2011 and that since Headley had not been extradited, neither he could be extradited. He also pleaded guilty to dual criminality.
US government filings have rejected these arguments, saying that the crimes in the two countries that Rana has been charged with are not identical. “Nor does double criminality apply” since “extradition procedures are not criminal procedures in which the fugitive has the same rights available during the criminal process.”
He has also said that no parallels can be drawn with Headley, as he had signed a plea deal.
“When interpreting an extradition treaty, the extradition magistrate must interpret its provisions liberally, in a way that favors the obligation to surrender fugitives … The extradition court is not authorized to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction … The extradition court only needs to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the fugitive committed the crime or crimes for which extradition is requested, ”the government stated.
Explaining why this “probable cause” was there in the case, the communication recounts Rana’s role in the Mumbai attacks conspiracy and also cites some evidence of his involvement.
He noted how between June 2006 and November 2008, Headley had traveled to Chicago at least three times, during which time he met with Rana and relayed detailed information about his surveillance activities in Mumbai.
Headley has been said to have even arranged for Rana to meet with one of his Pakistani co-conspirators in Dubai. “… The accomplice warned Rana not to travel to India due to the upcoming attacks. As a result… Rana did not travel to India, ”the presentations say.
In September 2009, the FBI intercepted a conversation between Rana and Headley, where Rana told Headley that the nine LeT attackers who had died during the attacks should receive Pakistan’s highest military award. “Rana also asked Headley to tell another conspirator in Pakistan, a LeT member and one of the planners of the Mumbai attacks, that Rana thought he should get a medal … When Rana learned that Headley already he had conveyed this compliment to his co-conspirator, he was pleased, ”the presentation reads.
He has also cited another conversation in which the two talk about a Styrofoam model of the Taj Palace Hotel made by planners in Pakistan and how Headley thought it was “terrible” to which Rana responded with laughter.
“In December 2008, Headley shared what he learned from his co-conspirators in Pakistan about the different places that had been attacked. Referring to a 1971 attack on his school in Pakistan, Headley told Rana that he believed he was now “on par with the Indians.” In response, Rana said that they (the Indian people) deserved it, ”the presentations said.
“These facts, and those exposed in the extradition request, establish that Rana was a member of the conspiracy and understood the consequences of his actions and others. He understood that he was working with LeT and others committed to terrorism. … Thus, there is probable cause that Rana has committed the accused crimes of conspiracy, conspiracy to wage war, conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, participation in the war, the commission of murder and the commission of a terrorist act ”, additional.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
