A US court ordered the extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana to India for his alleged role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack.
Tahawwur Hussain Rana, the Pakistani-origin Canadian businessman, who is sought by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, can be extradited to India, a US court in California has ruled citing the extradition treaty between both countries. Sixty-three-year-old Rana, who is currently lodged in a jail in Los Angeles, faces charges for his role in the 26/11 Mumbai attack.
Rana is known to be associated with Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the terror incident. The Pakistani national was tried in a US district court on charges related to his support for a terrorist organisation that carried out large-scale terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
A total of 166 people, including six Americans, were killed in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, in which 10 Pakistani terrorists laid a more than 60-hour siege, attacking and killing people at iconic and vital locations in Mumbai.
What Did The Court Say?
“The (India US Extradition) Treaty permits Rana’s extradition,” news agency PTI reported citing the Thursday ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Ruling on an appeal filed by the businessman, a panel of judges reportedly affirmed the California District Court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, challenging a magistrate judge’s certification of his as extraditable to India for his alleged participation in terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Under the limited scope of habeas review of an extradition order, the panel held that Rana’s alleged offence fell within the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and India, which included a Non-Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) exception to extractability “when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the offence for which extradition is requested”.
Relying on the plain text of the treaty, the US State Department’s technical analysis, and persuasive case law of other circuits, the panel held that the word “offence” refers to a charged crime, rather than underlying acts, and requires an analysis of the elements of each crime.
In its ruling, the panel also held that India provided sufficient competent evidence to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause that Rana committed the charged crimes.
Case Against Tahawwur Hussain Rana
A jury convicted Rana of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organisation and conspiring to provide material support to a foiled plot to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark. However, he was acquitted of charges of conspiring to provide material support to terrorism related to the attacks in India.
After Rana served seven years in prison for those convictions and upon his compassionate release, India issued a request for his extradition to try him for his alleged participation in the Mumbai attacks.
Before the magistrate judge who initially decided Rana’s extraditability (the extradition court), the businessman argued that the US extradition treaty with India protected him from extradition because of its Non Bis in Idem (double jeopardy) provision. He also argued that India did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate probable cause that he committed the charged crimes.
The extradition court rejected Rana’s arguments and certified that he was extraditable. Rana has the option of appealing against this ruling. He still has not run out of all the legal options to prevent his extradition to India.
