You have written ' I did read Mr.Stimson's paper and even that paper does show instances of US courts extending their jurisdiction into other countries (anyway that is just the opinion of one person)
VKG . Mr.Stimson has written the article titled 'Conflicts in Criminal Laws' So he will naturally give all aspects and different applications made by different countries.
You have written : I had replied to your Indo-Pak question. If pakistan manages to arrest an Indian soldier who fires into pakistan territory and kills a pakistani, he will definitely be tried in pakistan. Because the Indian soldier (through the agent of the bullet) committed a crime in pakistan. It is another matter that India wont hand over the soldier to them
VKG: It means it is not the law which is applied but it is might what plays the major role The same way India managed by subterfuge to get the ship in Indian waters.
You have written: Hafiz Saeed is being tried in Indian courts now because he conspired to kill Indians sitting in Pakistan. He never set foot on India to commit this offense, the conspiracy was completely done inside pakistan. And pakistan is refusing to hand him over to India. Do you have any doubt that if he is caught, he will be tried in India? We will definitely do that.
VKG Case of Hafiz Saeed is different. It is a case of conspiracy and terrorism. In my opinion terrorism is sort of waging war against a nation. In such case the conspirator should be extradited to the affected nation as per extradition treaty. In this case of alleged shooting by Marines no such conspiracy or terrorism is involved. One of the learned and honourable judge has observed that the shooting can be viewed as a terrorism with which I cannot agree nor any independent person who know the law will agree. These two are entirely different issues and cannot be compared.
You have written : *Another point is that Saeed is being tried in India, investigated in Pakistan and will probably be tried in the US for the same offense which happened in India. Read that with this situation (of the marines). *The key point is that people do get tried for the same offense twice. Whatever Mr.Simson argues, the world is not the way he wants it to be.
VKG : People do many things but they all need not be as per law. We have our Rajas, Kalamadis, Kanimozhis et el who have done so many things which is not as per law. So if somebody is tried for the same offence twice it need not be as per the rule. But if I remember correctly Mr.Stimson has told that a person cannot be punished for the same offence twice. About trying I do not know. Unfortunately the world is not the way he wants to be. Because I think he is level headed person.
You have written : .Lets analyze the shooting case one more time using an example. Lets suppose a ship registered in Singapore (stolen earlier) carrying (allegedly) Somalian Pirates fires upon an Italian flag ship in International waters and kills people on board. The pirates dont board the Italian ship, but goes away. Would you (or the Italians) say that the case must be tried in Singapore? Or Somalia? Italians would definitely try the case in Italy if they manage to catch the pirates.
VKG: That is the issue. It comes under whose jurisdiction. Is it the shooting which takes precedence or death which takes precedence? That is what Supreme Court of India has to deal with
VKG : Laws governing piracy and mutiny on ships are different. A ship of any nation which is nearby to where the incident has happened can go for helping the captain and crew of a ship being attached by pirates or go and help the captain of the ship on which there has happened a mutiny by crew. The country whose flag the ship which has gone to help the ship in trouble takes over the charge of the ship. As far as I know later the trial of the pirates or mutinous crew can be done either by the country whose ship went for help or by the country whose ship was attacked by pirates or the crew mutinied. It is on the basis of this law only the Japanese ship which was attacked and taken over by Indonesian pirates was tried in Bombay.
You have written : The principle which has to be followed here is that the from where the assailant shoots does not matter. He is extending his presence where the bullet lands. So it is the law of where the bullet lands that has to take precedence here (more than the fact that assailants were apprehended by Indian forces - who can automatically initiate proceedings)
You have written : In short, the italian marines had boarded the Indian fishing boat through the agent of the bullets. So they must be tried in India. There is no legal basis in distinguishing this case from the scenario where (say) the marines board the fishing boat and shoot the fishermen at point blank range or stab them to death.
VKG : That is your view and only thing is that I do not agree with that view. Because I am of the opinion is 'pulling the trigger' by the marines or rather "alleged" pulling the trigger. It has not yet been established in a court of law that they shot and killed the fishermen. It is all police version. That pulling the trigger happened in Italian territory.
You have written : As for Raval's opinion, eminent legal luminaries including VR Krishna Iyer hold different views. So he may have been influenced by Italy before he started the argument. The opinion of a lawyer does not matter here. The lawyer appearing for India must put forward India's view, not his.
VKG : When you engage a lawyer for representing your case, as regards the legal aspect, the lawyer tells the judge what are the relevant legal point connected with the case. He is not coming to the court to read out what you have written yourself and wanted to be told to the court. Raval has told the point what he thinks is correct. Since Kerala wanted something else he was changed to one who is more amenable. I don't dispute the greatness of Mr.VR.Krishna Iyer. But it is not necessary that he will not make any mistake at all. After all he is not God Almighty.
No comments:
Post a Comment