VZCZCXRO1316
PP RUEHBI RUEHCI
DE RUEHNE #0994/01 0401217
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 091217Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9793
INFO RUEHCI/AMCONSUL CALCUTTA 1509
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 1277
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 0536
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 000994 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
L FOR SPOMPER AND MGUILIANI 
DRL FOR CCAMPONOVO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN CVIS PTER PREL KCRM PHUM PGOV IN
SUBJECT: AMBASSADORIAL ASSESSMENT OF BARAPIND EXTRADITION 
ASSURANCES 
 
REF: A. STATE 6905 
     ¶B. 05 NEW DELHI 9513 
     ¶C. 96 NEW DELHI 14669 
 
¶1.  (SBU) The MEA on February 7 sent Diplomatic Note 
T-413/11/2004 with reference to the requested extradition of 
Kulbir Singh Barapind (Ref A), along with the text of the 
relevant section of the Indian Penal Code.  The Note outlines 
that persons extradited to India are protected by law from 
torture and that Barapind's family, attorneys, and the 
National Human Rights Commission will have access to Barapind 
during his incarceration.  The GOI also assured that officers 
of the USG will have access to persons in Indian custody, 
including Barapind, on a reciprocal basis.  Ambassador's 
assessment of these assurances follows the text. 
 
GOI Assurances 
-------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) With reference to the requested extradition of Kulbir 
Singh Barapind (referred to in the Indian note as Kulbir 
Singh Kulbeera aka Barapind) and USG obligation under the 
Convention Against Torture, the MEA has provided the 
following diplomatic note: 
 
Begin text of MEA Diplomatic Note T-413/11/2004, dated 6 
February 2006: 
 
The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to 
the Embassy of the United States of America in New Delhi and 
with reference to their Note Verbale No. 06/054/Pol dated 
18th January, 2006 has the honour to state that in the 
context of the extradition of Kulbir Singh Kulbeera aka 
Barapind, India has signed the Convention against Torture and 
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment, 
¶1984.  As a signatory, India has good-faith obligation not to 
act against the objectives and purposes of the Convention. 
 
The Indian Constitution provides for the protection of life 
and personal liberty.  It guarantees accused persons the 
right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his or her 
choice.  India has legislation for the protection of human 
rights.  The National and States Human Rights Commissions can 
visit prisons and can enquire on their own initiative or on a 
petition into any complaint of human rights violation. 
Indian criminal law prohibits the use of force or causing 
hurt to extort confession.  Persons violating these 
provisions are subject to prosecution and imprisonment. 
Extracts from the Indian Penal Code of relevant sections are 
enclosed. 
 
Further, family members, attorneys of a person extradited to 
India as well as the Human Rights Commission have access to 
them.  Officials of the country extraditing a fugitive may 
also have access on reciprocal basis. 
 
Thus Kulbir Singh Kulbeera aka Barapind on extradition to 
India will be dealt in accordance with the law.  He will be 
entitled to all rights of defense, protection, and remedies 
available and shall not be subjected to any kind of torture. 
 
The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this 
opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of 
America in New Delhi the assurances of its highest 
consideration. 
 
End Text. 
 
Begin text of Extract from the Indian Penal Code: 
 
¶330.  Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to 
compel restoration of property.  Whoever voluntarily causes 
hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from 
any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any 
information which may lead to the detection of an offense or 
misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer 
or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to 
cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or 
to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which 
may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable 
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and 
shall also be liable to fine. 
 
 
NEW DELHI 00000994  002 OF 003 
 
 
¶331.  Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, 
or to compel restoration of property.  Whoever voluntarily 
causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the 
sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any 
confession or any information which may lead to the detection 
of an offense or misconduct, or for the purpose of 
constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the 
sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any 
property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or 
demand, or to give information which may lead to the 
restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be 
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to 
fine. 
 
End Text. 
 
Assessment of Assurances 
------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU) India signed the Convention against Torture in 
¶1997.  The descriptions of Barapind's protections under the 
Indian Constitution and Indian Law are accurate to the best 
of this Mission's knowledge.  Similarly, this Mission 
believes to the best of its knowledge that the rights of 
access to Barapind by his family members and attorneys, the 
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and US diplomats (on 
a reciprocal basis), as described, are accurate and, it is 
likely the Government of India will in practice comply with 
them. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) During the Sikh insurgency in the 1980s and 1990s, 
police routinely tortured and/or killed terrorists' families 
and associates.  Today, however, India has numerous activist 
human rights NGOs that specialize in assisting victims of 
police abuse, including some that focus on Punjab.  The free 
press is also sensitive to human rights, and the Supreme 
Court has recently issued guidelines aimed at preventing and, 
if necessary, prosecuting incidence of torture and custodial 
abuse.  The NHRC has emerged as an increasingly forceful 
advocate for the observance of human rights. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Punjab of today is different from the Punjab 
Barapind fled.  Then, a blazing, foreign-supported insurgency 
raging across the Punjab threatened the security of the 
government in Delhi and deepened divisions between India and 
Pakistan.  Today, Punjab is one of the richest states in 
India, with a progressive, pro-agriculture government whose 
Chief Minister (a Sikh) is working to promote harmonious 
relations among Sikhs and between India and Pakistani Punjab. 
 India's free press, including in Punjab, actively pursues 
and exposes government excesses of all varieties, including 
police abuse, torture, and corruption.  The end of the Punjab 
insurgency in the 1990s ushered in a dramatic decline in 
custodial deaths and torture allegations.  The current Indian 
Prime Minister and Army Chief are Sikhs.  The intensive 
police and security force anti-insurgency efforts of the 
1980s and 1990s are largely a thing of the past. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) As noted in the 2004 Human Rights Report, however, 
custodial abuse, including sometimes torture, remains a 
problem in India, and many alleged police violators, 
particularly from earlier, more violent times, (including the 
officer Barapind accused of having directed his torture) have 
not been tried for their reported offenses.  The Indian media 
reported, however, that 59 Punjab police officers were found 
guilty of human rights violations in 2004, and the Director 
General of Punjab Police reported that criminal proceedings 
had begun in the cases of two persons who died in police 
custody during the year. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Despite the improved situation, torture and other 
forms of custodial abuse do continue to occur in all parts of 
India.   As a consequence, many cases like Barapind's may 
also revolve around personal testimony that is subject to 
coercion or force. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) While we cannot guarantee absolutely that Mr. 
Barapind would not face torture or other forms of custodial 
abuse, this Mission is satisfied that, given the assurances 
provided by the Government of India and the high profile of 
this case, it is more likely than not that Mr. Barapind's 
rights would be respected and that he would not face torture 
while in custody in India.  The level of confidence that Mr. 
 
NEW DELHI 00000994  003 OF 003 
 
 
Barapind would not be abused could be further increased by 
establishing a program of monitoring of his situation by one 
or more human rights NGOs, or Embassy staff.  His extended 
family and local media will also provide a level of oversight. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) As noted in the note conveying the GOI's 
assurances, Indian federal and state law prohibits torture. 
India today has many human rights NGOs that specialize in 
assisting victims of police abuse, including some that focus 
on Punjab.  The National and State Human Rights Commissions 
should be able to visit Barapind in prison.  Assuming 
Barapind is also permitted to have contact with NGO 
activists, they will help ensure that abuses, if they occur, 
are aired in the Indian media. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) India's relationship with the United States and 
the rest of the world is also dramatically different than it 
was less a decade ago.  India has far greater incentives to 
be seen as a reliable partner and a country that honors its 
international commitments.  All this, together with the 
high-profile nature of this case and India's interest in 
being able to return others for prosecution in the future, 
should help protect Mr. Barapind's freedom from abuse. 
MULFORD