VZCZCXRO0287
PP RUEHAST RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHNEH RUEHPW
DE RUEHBI #0367/01 2511214
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 081214Z SEP 09
FM AMCONSUL MUMBAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7440
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 2668
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 2111
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 8667
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA PRIORITY 1899
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 0842
RUEHLH/AMCONSUL LAHORE PRIORITY 0147
RUEHKP/AMCONSUL KARACHI PRIORITY 0267
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MUMBAI 000367 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PINS PK PREL PTER IN
SUBJECT: ATTORNEY FOR MUMBAI TERRORIST KASAB EXPECTS CONVICTION, BUT 
AIMS TO MOUNT DEFENSE 
 
REF: MUMBAI 169 
 
MUMBAI 00000367  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  On September 3, Poloff met with S.G. Abbas 
Kazmi, attorney for the lone surviving assailant from the 
November 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, Mohamed Ajmal Kasab. 
Kazmi discussed his efforts to mount a defense for Kasab, the 
lack of resources provided to court-appointed attorneys, and the 
likely outcome of the trial.  Kazmi bemoaned the lack of 
financial support for legal aid programs in general in India, 
but, given the overwhelming evidence against Kasab, he expected 
that Kasab would be convicted and sentenced to death.  Overall, 
Kasab has received a more fair trial than most, as the Indian 
government has made efforts to ensure that its processes and 
outcome are transparent, and can withstand international 
scrutiny.  End Summary. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  On September 3, Poloff met with S.G. Abbas Kazmi, a 
Mumbai-based lawyer appointed by the court to represent the lone 
surviving assailant from the November 2008 terrorist attack on 
Mumbai, Mohamed Ajmal Kasab.  Kazmi was assigned the case after 
a series of legal aid attorneys refused the appointment, were 
intimidated into declining by public protests outside their 
homes, or were dismissed by the court for conflicts of interest 
(see reftel A).  Kazmi is a High Court Advocate who generally 
works for private clients, but has previously represented some 
of the accused in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blast cases, and the 2003 
Gateway Bombing Case. 
 
 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  Kazmi was appointed on the day the trial was slated 
to begin.  He asked for a one month adjournment to read the 1200 
page charge sheet and prepare his defense, but the court granted 
him only two weeks.  Most of those two weeks was taken up with 
Kazmi's application to have Kasab declared a minor and remanded 
to the juvenile justice court, which was denied by the judge, 
M.L. Tahilyani.  Kazmi explained that he did not seek the 
assignment of Kasab's attorney, but happened to be in the court 
as an observer on the first day of the trial when Kasab's 
previous counsel was taken off the case.  He told Judge 
Tahilyani that he was not interested in being appointed because 
he was fully committed to other clients whose cases were 
pending.  Despite his protests, at the end of the session, the 
Judge named Kazmi to defend Kasab. 
 
 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  According to Kazmi, his attempts to provide Kasab 
with a robust defense and a fair trial have been hampered from 
the beginning.  Kazmi is not permitted to confer with his client 
in private to prepare a defense.  The only time he is allowed to 
speak to Kasab is for 10-15 minutes before trial when Kasab has 
been brought to the court, surrounded by guards.  Compounding 
the difficulty in preparing a defense, the state provides no 
funding for expert witnesses, co-counsel, nor research 
assistance to address the numerous elements of technical 
evidence, such as the Global Positioning technology, satellite 
phones and DNA evidence.  Whatever cross examination Kazmi has 
been able to formulate has been based upon his internet research 
on these topics.  (Note:  It is not clear what resources have 
been provided to the prosecution for the same efforts.  End 
Note.)  Kazmi also complained that although the court has 
granted a stipend for his services higher than the normal rates, 
the state has yet to pay him anything, though he has submitted 
monthly statements for services since he was appointed four and 
a half months ago.  This case requires all of his time; he has 
not been able to tend to any of his other clients and their 
cases have been continually adjourned. (Note:  The normal 
stipend for a legal aid trial is 900 rupees, or around USD 19, 
per case. End Note.)  (Comment:  Kazmi has suffered pressure 
from the Shia Muslim community to which he belongs for taking up 
Kasab's defense, and he has been removed from the trusteeship of 
an Islamic trust in protest.  However, media representatives 
covering the trial have noted that Kazmi appears to enjoy 
sharing the limelight with the prosecutor in the case, giving 
extensive daily summaries of the trial to the press.  End Note.) 
 
 
 
 
MUMBAI 00000367  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
 
¶5.  (SBU) While Kasab has not expressed remorse to him, Kazmi 
said his client confessed his crimes because he accepts 
responsibility for his actions, and sees no point in a 
protracted trial, nor any reason to be kept alive.  Kasab would 
just like to put an end to the trial, he said.  Kazmi explained 
that the prosecution called 170 witnesses as of September 3 and 
the case was likely to continue for an additional two to three 
months.  He advised that because it is a capital case 
(punishable by the death penalty) there will be an automatic 
appeal to the High Court.  The death penalty is authorized in 
India only in the "rarest of rare cases," he said, where there 
has been extreme brutality or inhuman treatment.  Indian law 
allows consideration of mitigating factors, such as whether 
Kasab had been brainwashed, but Kazmi is not planning on calling 
witnesses to testify on behalf of Kasab to explain the 
circumstances that led him to be indoctrinated by 
Lashkar-e-Taibba.  Kazmi said, "I am an Indian citizen. I am not 
going to contact anyone in Pakistan," ruling out calling anyone 
from Kasab's family to testify on his behalf in the mitigation 
phase of the trial.  Even if he wanted to, there are no funds to 
bring such a witness to Mumbai, nor would it be likely the 
person would get a visa, he surmised.  Further, he noted that no 
one from Kasab's family has contacted him. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Kazmi expects that Kasab will be convicted and given 
the death sentence, given the overwhelming evidence against him, 
as well as his confession.  Kazmi lamented that the Indian 
judicial system in general fails to provide good attorneys to 
those who can' afford them; inadequate funding throughout the 
system prevent court-appointed attorneys from mounting credible 
defenses.  He bemoaned the fact that India provides unequal 
justice, the rich being able to afford the best attorneys and 
pay for expert witnesses, while the poor often get barely 
competent attorneys.  (Note:  Poloff reminded Kazmi that this is 
a struggle in every country. End Note.) 
 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  Comment:  Kasab's and Kazmi's fatalistic acceptance 
of the ultimate outcome of the trial appears to be shared by the 
public at large.  By Indian standards, however, Kasab is 
receiving a more fair trial than most.  The Indian government is 
keen that all the correct procedures be followed, so that its 
verdict will be accepted by the international community.  The 
trial has been allowed to proceed under the full glare of the 
media, an unprecedented amount of transparency.  In addition, 
the admission of foreign experts - including the FBI -- appears 
to have boosted the level of evidentiary standards and testimony 
significantly.  Overall, as Kazmi noted, the Indian judicial 
system is severely constrained by inadequate funding, its 
courtrooms are overcrowded and antiquated, and its courts are 
burdened by a massive backlog of cases (discussed septel). 
Attorneys and civil rights groups are advocating for more robust 
funding for providing a defense to the accused, but as yet their 
pleas have not become a priority, given the many other pressing 
demands on the state and central governments.  End Comment. 
FOLMSBEE