Washington:
The Biden administration has urged a federal court to certify India’s request to extradite Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is sought for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.
Assistant US Attorney John J Lulejian, in his submission just before a federal US court in Los Angeles, mentioned Rana, 59, meets all the criteria to be extradited to India for his trial in the Mumbai terrorist attack. On February 4, Rana’s lawyer had opposed his extradition.
US District Court Judge in Los Angeles Jacqueline Chooljian has scheduled the extradition hearing for April 22.
“The United States respectfully requests that following the April 22, 2021, extradition hearing, the Court certify India’s request for Rana’s extradition for the Secretary of State’s surrender decision,” Mr Lulejian mentioned in his 61-web page court submission on Monday.
Rana, a childhood pal of David Coleman Headley, was re-arrested on June 10 in Los Angeles on an extradition request by India for his involvement in the Mumbai terror attack in which 166 people today, such as six Americans, have been killed. He has been declared a fugitive by India.
“Fugitive Tahawwur Hussain Rana is wanted in India to stand trial for offences related to his role in the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, that resulted in the death of 166 people, the injury of 239 people, and the damage to property in excess of USD 1.5 billion,” Mr Lulejian mentioned.
As per the India-US Extradition Treaty, the Indian government has requested the formal extradition of Rana, and the United States has initiated this extradition proceeding.
Mr Lulejian mentioned the criteria warranting certification of extradition are happy in this case.
These are: the court has each individual and topic matter jurisdiction, there is an extradition treaty in between the United States and India that is in complete force and impact, and the crimes for which Rana”s extradition is sought are covered by the terms of the treaty.
India’s extradition request includes proof to establish probable lead to that the person appearing in court is the fugitive who committed the offence for which extradition is requested, Mr Lulejian argued.
In his court submission on February 4, Rana’s lawyer had argued that Rana’s extradition is barred beneath Article 6 of the United States-India extradition treaty mainly because he had previously been acquitted of the offences for which his extradition is sought, and beneath Article 9 of the treaty mainly because the government has not established probable lead to to think that Rana committed the alleged offences.
Mr Lulejian mentioned that the court should really locate that Rana’s extradition is not barred beneath Article 6 of the India-US Extradition Treaty. Although there is ample proof that Rana aided and abetted the Mumbai attack, he claims that he should really not be extradited mainly because probable lead to is lacking. Rana’s claim is based on an improper try to attack the credibility of a important witness against him.
Rana also does not contest that he is the individual who India alleges committed the charged crimes. Instead, he challenges only whether or not Article 6 of the treaty bars his extradition and whether or not probable lead to exists to think that he committed the offences for which India requests his extradition, the Assistant US Attorney mentioned.
Mr Lulejian mentioned Headley’s plea agreement is irrelevant mainly because Rana can not advantage from its terms. Not only is Rana in a distinctive position than Headley mainly because he did not plead guilty or cooperate with the United States, as is his appropriate, but his inability to advantage from the negotiated terms of Headley’s plea agreement is confirmed by the text of the plea agreement itself.
He mentioned Rana’s extradition proceedings are separate from Headley’s criminal proceedings and are becoming litigated by a distinctive United States attorney’s workplace from the one who negotiated the plea agreement with Headley.
According to its pretty terms, Rana has no rights beneath Headley’s plea agreement and is as a result prohibited from relying on it in an try to undermine the United States” position on his extraditability beneath the treaty, he added.
“Rana has failed to demonstrate that he cannot be extradited to India as a result of his prior prosecution in the United States,” the lawyer mentioned.
Rana attempts to undermine India’s proof of probable lead to by questioning the credibility of the important witness, David Headley. Not only is Rana’s challenge improper in this extradition proceeding, but his claims are also not supported by the law or the proof, Mr Lulejian mentioned.
()