Action against Punjab Police Officers possible ?

[kurtas]

Just been reading about a former Afghan warlord who has been sentenced to 20 years for torture, kidnap etc in the UK for crimes committed in Afghanistan.

Does any legal eagle on the forum know whether It would be easily possible to take action against Punjab Police officers and others guilty of such crimes when they are visiting the UK ?

I remember a few years ago a bit of an uproar when some PP officers visited some conference in the UK. Well next time they should be ready to face justice. I doubt they will be able to claim diplomatic immunity (as in Pinochet case a few years ago) unless the GOI follow the proper channels to get diplomatic accreditation for the visits.

Afghan warlord jailed for 20 years at Old Bailey

By Philippe Naughton, Times Online

A former Afghan warlord was jailed for 20 years at the Old Bailey today for a "heinous and brutal" campaign of torture and hostage-taking in his homeland.

In a case that made British legal history, Faryadi Sarwad Zardad, 41, today became the first person convicted and sentenced in the UK for crimes committed abroad in breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture.

Zardad was a military commander during the Afghan civil war whose unit controlled checkpoints at Sarobi on the main road from the Khyber Pass to Kabul from 1992 to 1996. People passing through the checkpoints were forced to pay Zardad and his men, and were subjected to brutal beatings and imprisonment.

He claimed asylum in Britain in 1998 after the Taleban took power in Afghanistan, but was tracked down to a house in Streatham by the BBC journalist John Simpson, and arrested in 2002. The jury in his first trial failed to reach a verdict and he was retried.

Mr Justice Treacy told Zardad today that the his crimes had "transgressed the basic rights of humanity", adding: "You were personally involved in these acts of torture and hostage-taking as well as authorising your men."

As he was led to the cells to start his sentence, Zardad lifted his fist three times in salute and shouted in his own language: "Allah is great."

In the landmark case the court heard evidence of summary execution, the slaughter of 10 or 11 men in a minibus, and an old man imprisoned in a metal box and whipped with a bicycle cable. Zardad and his men also kept a "human dog" to savage victims.

Sixteen witnesses gave evidence against Zardad via a satellite videolink from the British Embassy in Kabul, although Scotland Yard’s Anti-Terrorist Branch, which led the inquiry, believes that Zardad was responsible for hundreds more offences, including rape and murder. Zardad was convicted yesterday, but sentence was delayed until this morning.

Today Mr Justice Treacy told Zardad he could sit while he passed sentence. He told the former military commander: "This jury has convicted you of two very serious crimes. Their gravity is demonstrated by the fact that most unusually a person who has committed them in another country can be tried and punished for them by the courts of this country.

"That is a position recognised not only by our Parliament, but also by the civilised international community. The reason for this is that these crimes of which you have been convicted are recognised as crimes against humanity which transcend national boundaries.

"You yourself in your evidence denounced such conduct as inhuman while denying your responsibility for those crimes. It is clear to me from the evidence that for a period of over three years you, as a powerful warlord, presided over a brutal regime of terror in areas under your control.

"You represented the only real form of authority, law and government in the areas under your control and you grossly abused your power."

[total bir rass]

lets hope kps gill comes here in 2012 with the indian hockey team, i heard he came here a few years ago to milton keynes in the Bucks region @ a hockey match, did any one try anything or did anything happen then?

[kurtas]

Gill, Virk, Ribero, I hope they all visit. In fact we should all send out invites to these ba$-turds.

I take it we have no budding lawyers with details of the law this afghan was charged under.

[sher-e-panjab]

He claimed asylum in Britain in 1998 after the Taleban took power in Afghanistan, but was tracked down to a house in Streatham by the BBC journalist John Simpson, and arrested in 2002. The jury in his first trial failed to reach a verdict and he was retried.

I guess this is the key factor, which allowed him to be sentenced in UK

[kurtas]

He claimed asylum in Britain in 1998 after the Taleban took power in Afghanistan, but was tracked down to a house in Streatham by the BBC journalist John Simpson, and arrested in 2002. The jury in his first trial failed to reach a verdict and he was retried.

I guess this is the key factor, which allowed him to be sentenced in UK

109658[/snapback]

Not so sure whether that is of any substance or is merely journalist waffle to add another paragraph to the story.

It would be interesting to get a legal viewpoint but I think we should bare in mind that the report mentions that this person was charged becasue of "...crimes committed abroad in breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture." If this is the key then KPS Gill and co fall into this category nicely.

The following story sets out the legal points behind this case. One important point to note is the last paragraph :

"Nevertheless, Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, claimed that the final verdict demonstrated that there was "no hiding place [in the UK] for torturers and hostage-takers".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d5355b02-f7f1-11d...000e2511c8.html

UK court convicts Afghan warlord

By Nikki Tait in London

Published: July 19 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 19 2005 03:00

The ground-breaking trial of an Afghan warlord at London's Central Criminal Court ended yesterday with 41-year-old Farayadi Sawar Zardad being convicted by a British jury of torture and hostage-taking in his homeland between 1991 and 1996.

The former warlord, who was accused of using "indiscriminate and unwarranted violence" as he and his soldiers ran checkpoints outside the Afghan capital of Kabul where they stole from travellers, will be sentenced today.

Mr Zardad's conviction sets precedents in terms of international law - and could have implications for the acceptance of "universal jurisdiction" for certain types of crimes.

The case was highly unusual from the outset because it involved the prosecution of someone who was not a British citizen, whose victims were not British, and concerned events that took place overseas.

Nevertheless, the UK - like Afghanistan - is a party to the United Nations Torture Convention, and government lawyers claimed that this allowed them to prosecute Mr Zardad in the absence of an extradition request from the Afghan authorities.

James Lewis, QC, told the jury at the start of the trial that the prosecution believed it was "the first time in any country, in international law, where offences of torture and hostage-taking have been tried in circumstances such as this".

"Some international crimes can be tried in any country. International conventions allow this case to be tried here. Cases of torture and hostage-taking can be tried irrespective of the country in which they took place," he explained.

Human rights campaigners have long argued that certain crimes - such as torture - are crimes of "universal jurisdiction", and countries should prosecute suspected perpetrators, even if the crimes were committed elsewhere.

Mr Zardad, who was a significant figure in the Hizb-i-Islami (or Islamic party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, which controlled large areas of Afghanistan before the Taliban took over in 1996, had come to the attention of the UK authorities after he moved to London in 1998.

He initially sought asylum, but later dropped the application. But he was featured in a BBC programme in 2000, and his case passed to Scotland Yard for investigation. At the time of his arrest he was working at a pizza restaurant in south London.

A first trial took place last year - with jurors at London's Old Bailey obliged to familiarise themselves with maps and photographs of Afghan supply roads, and listen to numerous witnesses giving evidence by video link from the British embassy in Kabul.

When that jury failed to agree a verdict, a retrial took place.

Again witnesses recounted how Mr Zardad's men had robbed, beaten, raped and murdered travellers at checkpoints and a nearby prison. Mr Zardad, by contrast, claimed that he was innocent of the charges and was the victim of enemies in his homeland.

After yesterday's verdict, British anti-terrorist officers admitted that the case had been extremely difficult to pursue. "We had to find witnesses in remote parts of Afghanistan and give them the confidence to come forward to give evidence in a British court," said Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch.

Nevertheless, Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, claimed that the final verdict demonstrated that there was "no hiding place [in the UK] for torturers and hostage-takers".

[GuruManeyoGranth]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

I studied Law, but I don't know much about international human rights law. Although from what I can make of it, it appears that it was an important factor that the UK and Afghanistan were parties to the UN Torture Convention. It'll need to be determined if India is party to this. From memory, I don't think it is.

As far as the universal jurisdiction issue is concerned for human rights law, this is a VERY VERY controversial area in international law. It appears that the UK has set a precedent in this regard. But I'll try to track down the exact judgement to see its ambit.

An important thing to remember in this case probably is that the UK Govt would have helped to prepare a case against this Afghan Warlord. The UK Govt will not probably assist Sikhs in this matter ... and whether the DPP chooses to press charges may be influenced by the political landscape.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Waheguroo

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

If you see Gill or any of these guilty Punjab police waale in your country don't call the lawyers or judges, grab your sri sahib and do justice. Gill got a nice beating in Germany a while back.

Fateh.

[sher-e-panjab]

mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan that's easier said than done, dont you think if people had the ballz to do this then Nooharmelia, Bhaniaraywala and co would be walking the streets of Panjab.

Seems that we only have cyber warriors and the only real warrior's of the panth are being tortured in jail (Jagtar Singh Hawara)

[kurtas]

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

I studied Law, but I don't know much about international human rights law. Although from what I can make of it, it appears that it was an important factor that the UK and Afghanistan were parties to the UN Torture Convention. It'll need to be determined if India is party to this. From memory, I don't think it is.

As far as the universal jurisdiction issue is concerned for human rights law, this is a VERY VERY controversial area in international law. It appears that the UK has set a precedent in this regard. But I'll try to track down the exact judgement to see its ambit.

An important thing to remember in this case probably is that the UK Govt would have helped to prepare a case against this Afghan Warlord. The UK Govt will not probably assist Sikhs in this matter ... and whether the DPP chooses to press charges may be influenced by the political landscape.

Bhul Chuk Maaf

Waheguroo

109688[/snapback]

I dont think India are party to the UN Torture Convention.

From my study of law (limited to A'levels) it is feasible to bring private prosecutions for criminal acts like the Lawrence family did unsuccessfully (Steven Lawrence case). Dr Rai should have mounds of evidence/testimony and acess to witnesses in the event these mass murdering tyrants turned up in the UK.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan that's easier said than done, dont you think if people had the ballz to do this then Nooharmelia, Bhaniaraywala and co would be walking the streets of Panjab. 

Seems that we only have cyber warriors and the only real warrior's of the panth are being tortured in jail (Jagtar Singh Hawara)

109722[/snapback]

Sorry to say this but no people do not have the ballz in Punjab because they are the ones bowing to these guys in the first place. Badal goes to these deras to matha tek. people in Punjab vote these dogs into power. It is really simple to get these guys, what makes it hard is that our own people get us first.

my point was what are the courts gonna do, arrest India's anti-terrorism hero?!

The afghani guy is getting thrown in jail cause the afghan warlords are known to be ruthless merciless killers throughout the world. How many gov'ts know that India is not a real democracy? And how many Sikh MPs in England would support Gill in court, like almost all of them from what I've read. Whose gonna prosecute Gill and the others, the cyber warriors?

Anyways I agree with what your saying, it is easier said than done and god bless the real warriors like Jagtar Singh Hawara who are enduring so much for the quam while moorakhs like myself are just good enough to type...parnaam jujharoo singhan te singhneeah nu.

Gurfateh.