Crime and Punishment

"---------another NIA official adding that without SUA, the NIA would have no jurisdiction over the case. " Very very interesting statement. In plain words it means that SUA was invoked to make the NIA eligible to investigate and not because the crime falls within the ambit of SUA. It boils down to the simple fact that India does not have any agency which can investigate crime at high seas. This SUA in full form is 'Convention For The Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation'. In the beginning of the Act is stressed again and again that it is for the purpose of terrorism. There it was specifically stated that '..NOTING that acts of the crew which are subject to normal shipboard discipline are outside the purview of this Convention...'. What does it mean ? It is specifically to be used to a criminal activity is connected or at least suspected to be connected with terrorism. By no stretch of imagination this alleged shooting can be called a terrorism connected activity. One learned and honourable judge of a Kerala court when asked by the defence counsel whether this shooting can be termed as an act of terrorism has answered orally that it can be considered but did not give any further explanation to his statement. I have long back heard that, for the recruitment to some government post which had age bar a protege of a minister was to be considered and obviously selected. Unfortunately the person was not eligible due to age bar. So the rule was changed so that that person could also apply. After the person was selected the age bar was restored to its previous level. This also looks something on those lines. Just to make NIA eligible to do investigation change the law to be applied. My question is simple. When India do not have any proper law or agency to try this case, and when Italy had paid adequate compensation to the aggrieved parties, what was the purpose of hogging this case from the Italian hands? Does India think that Italy will not try this case properly and punish the marines if found guilty?  Does India think that India is the only country in the world where dispensation of justice is really JUST ? Will not proper justice meted out to the crime committed on Indian citizen if the trial and punishment was done by Italy? If all the crimes committed against Indian citizens are to be tried in India only will not India have to ask all other countries of the world to send back all the Indians who have committed crimes in other countries. Why not take up the matter of Rajat Gupta and ask US to send him to India for proper and just trial here? Why not our Parliament enact a law that all the citizens of India who commit crime abroad should be deported to India by the countries where the crimes were committed to have a fair and just trial? If any MPs read this I am sure at least some of them will take up this suggestion of enacting this law to get all our citizens who have committed crime abroad to be sent to India.
,

Diplomatic Immunity and Immunity for Soldiers

Judges are human and they can err. Many an innocent has suffered due to mistake in dispensation of justice. I fail to understand how he came to the conclusion that the Marines were mercenaries employed by the shipping company for remuneration? There is no doubt that they are military personnel (or if you want navy) of Italian government. How they came to be on the ship. They were sent there. The question is whether they were on private capacity or sent by government. Had they been in private capacity they would have been termed as Private Armed Security Guard. In that case they will not have any immunity and they will work under the captain of the ship. If they were posted as Vessel Protection Detachment then they are sent by the government and will be directly under the control of government and the captain will not have any authority on them. In this case the marines were not under the captain and it shows clearly they were deployed as VPD and they were protecting the assets of Italy. Then they should have immunity from any action of another country. These things were not seen by the learned judge. The pity is neither SC went to this issue.Guilfoyle, Bellish and others have told that the marines have immunity.

Mr.Padmakumar, the marines are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. The question of immunity was told in the two blogs to which you only gave me guidance. I do not know why Mr.Salve did not raise objection to the question of immunity. I read the blogs DJILP,EJIL and Communis hostis.. It was one of the it was given the immunity case in this case of marines. There it was told that it is long process of argument but finally it will won. Why Harish Salve did not contest it? In all probability he must have been very confident that the case can be won even without resorting to that. That was I understood from the interview of him in 'Devils Advocate' programme. When the boat owner Freddy is put on witness stand, and he is sure to be put as prosecution witness as he was the one who was very much there when it happened, defence can make him tell the truth that the boat was sailing towards the ship without heeding to the warning shot. He told it in private. My interest in this case is purely academic. I am no lawyer but went to the concerned portions of the law and came to my conclusions. I am ready to argue on the aspect of the law and learn. I liked to read those blogs by them who are masters in International law. I read two more blogs one by Anup Surendranth and another by Harish Sankar. They all give excellent analysis of the case. That is why I new that SC erred in its view of diplomatic immunity. The ambassador cannot be restrained whether SC or HM orders. He has immunity.I don't think that courts are always correct. They make mistakes.