Last updated:
Washington, DC, United States of America (USA)
Rana has the option to appeal the ruling. He still has not exhausted all legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
Pakistani national Rana is on trial in U.S. District Court for supporting a terrorist group that carried out massive terror attacks in Mumbai
In a major setback for Pakistani-Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana, who is wanted in India for his role in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that two He can be extradited to India under the extradition treaty between the two countries.
“The (Indo-US extradition) treaty permits Rana's extradition,” the court said in its ruling on August 15.
A panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Rana's appeal, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's denial of Rana's habeas corpus petition challenging a magistrate judge's certification that Rana was extraditable to India. question.
Under the limited scope of the habeas corpus review of the extradition order, the panel found that the offenses alleged by Rana were consistent with the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which include “bis bi bis” (double jeopardy) extraditability The exception is “when the person whose extradition is requested has been convicted or acquitted in the requested State of the offense for which extradition is requested”.
Relying on the express text of the treaty, the State Department's technical analysis, and persuasive case law from other circuit courts, the panel concluded that the term “crime” refers to the alleged offense, not the underlying conduct, requiring an analysis of the elements of each offense. .
The three-judge panel concluded that the conspiracy plea deal would not have resulted in a different outcome. The panel found that the ne bis in idem exception did not apply because the Indian charges contained different elements from the crimes for which Rana was acquitted in the United States.
In its ruling, the panel also found that India provided sufficient and compelling evidence to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause that Rana committed the alleged crimes. The three judges are Milan D Smith, Bridget S Bade and Sidney A Fitzwater.
Rana, a Pakistani citizen, is on trial in a U.S. District Court on charges of supporting a terrorist group that carried out large-scale terror attacks in Mumbai. The jury convicted Rana of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization and conspiring to provide material support for a foiled plot to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark.
However, the jury acquitted Rana of conspiring to provide material support for terrorism in connection with the Indian attack. After Rana spent seven years in jail on the charges and was released on compassionate grounds, India issued an extradition request to try him for his alleged role in the Mumbai attacks.
Before the magistrate (extradition court) who initially decided Rana's extradition, Rana argued that the U.S.-India extradition treaty protected him from extradition because of its “Non Bis in Idem” clause. He also argued that India did not provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that he committed the crimes with which he was charged.
The extradition court rejected Rana's arguments and certified his extradition. After Rana raised the same arguments in a habeas corpus petition before the district court (habeas corpus court), the habeas corpus court affirmed the factual findings and legal conclusions of the extradition court.
Rana argued in his appeal that he could not be extradited based on the conduct for which he was acquitted in the United States because the word “crime” refers to the underlying conduct. The U.S. government considers a “crime” to be an alleged crime and requires an analysis of the elements of each alleged crime.
Therefore, according to the government, the treaty allows Rana's extradition because the Indian charges contain different elements than the crimes for which he was acquitted in the United States.
Justice Smith said the treaty's simple terms, the signatories' understanding after ratification and persuasive precedent supported the government's interpretation. Rana argued, however, that based on the government's interpretation of the treaty in Headley's plea agreement, we should be judicially precluded from asserting the government's current interpretation of the treaty. “We refuse to do that,” Judge Smith said.
“As the parties do not deny that the crimes alleged by India are unrelated to the crimes for which Rana is charged in the United States, the treaty permits Rana's extradition,” Judge Smith said.
Rana has the option to appeal the ruling. He still has not exhausted all legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
(This report has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from United News Agency-PTI)
