Tag Archive | Indian Society of International Law

Fear Of Torture Doesn’t Let UK Deport Suspects : AG – By Mukesh Jhangiani

English: The Rt. Hon Lord Goldsmith QC, at the...

Peter Goldsmith (Photo: Wikipedia)

                                                                                                                                                             January 9, 2003

 

 

Fear Of Torture Doesn’t Let UK Deport Suspects : AG

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Fears that terror suspects might face ”death, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment” in their country of origin ”prevents us sending them back,” Britain’s chief legal advisor says.

”We have of course had to confront these issues in the United Kingdom,” Attorney-General of England and Wales Peter Goldsmith said, lecturing at the Indian Society of International Law in the Capital last night.

Mr Goldsmith, who delivered the 2003 M K Nambyar Lecture, also touched on Britain’s failure to deport a Pakistani cleric who raised money and recruits for a Kashmiri terrorist group accused of attacking the Indian Parliament in New Delhi last year.

He said the terrorist threat ”is now on an unprecedented global scale, as the dreadful events that have taken place over the last 16 months only too graphically testify: from New York-Washington and Bali to Moscow, Mombasa and here in India.”

The lecture titled ‘Right or Rights: Does tackling terrorism force us to choose?’ dwelt on steps States should take to protect themselves from the activities of terrorists and the Courts’ role in relations to State action.

”One of the more controversial steps,” the British AG said, ”relates to the treatment of persons within the country who have no immigration right to remain and who are suspected of involvement in terrorism and pose a threat to national security.

”In relation to these persons we have a difficulty,” he said. ”Under our immigration laws we have the right to deport them because they have no right to be in the country.

”But we are prevented from carrying out the deportation because of certain international obligations, notably under the European Convention of Human Rights, which is now a part of our domestic law.

”Where the individuals would face death, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment if returned to their country of origin, those obligations (under Article 3) prevent us sending them back.

”So we are faced with a choice: either to leave them to roam free in the country–which is an unacceptable risk given the heightened threats since 11 September– or to detain them unless and until they voluntarily leave the country.

”Under these new powers, 13 people have so far been detained and two, having been detained, have voluntarily left the country,” he told the audience.

Mr Goldsmith spoke of the ”inherent, but now heightened, tension within the Constitution” between the judicial branch and democratic powers– Parliament and the executive– which, he said, was to be resolved by the ”emerging principle of judicial deference.”

Mr Goldsmith cited the case of Shafiq ur Rehman, a Pakistani cleric who was ordered to be deported from Britain four years ago as a ”danger to national security” but was told a few months back that deportation proceedings against him have been dropped.

”In this case,” Mr Goldsmith recalled, the British Home Secretary had decided that the appellant’s deportation would be ”conducive to the public good” based on conclusions as to his involvement with a terrorist organisation ”operating in the Indian sub-continent (which was seeking ‘the liberation of Kashmir’).”

Shikaras are a common feature in lakes and riv...

Kashmir valley (Photo: Wikipedia)

But the appellant ”successfully appealed” to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which could not understand ”how conduct prejudicial to the national security of the Indian sub-continent could be prejudicial” to UK’s national security, he said.

”In the House of Lords, however which granted the Home Secretary’s appeal, Lord Hoffmann took the view that SIAC was not entitled to differ from the opinion of the Home Secretary on the question of whether, for example, the promotion of terrorism in a foreign country by a UK resident would be contrary to the interests of the UK’s own national security. In the carrying out of such assessments, the Courts should extend the appropriate degree of deference to the executive.

”That was not to say, of course, that the whole decision on whether deportation would be in the interests of national security was surrendered by the Court to the Home Secretary.

”For example, the question whether deporting someone would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention would be a matter which would certainly not lie within the exclusive province of the executive.

”This is an indication that the Courts are prepared to distinguish between those elements of a decision which attract deference and those which do not.

”The key question, is how well-placed or well-equipped the Courts are– having regard to the particular subject-matter of the decision and the particular areas in which the Courts have accepted expertise– to determine the particular issue,” he said.

India’s Chief Justice V N Khare presided over the lecture, which was organised jointly by the Bangalore-based National Law School of India University and the M K Nambyar Memorial Trust founded by Senior Advocate K K Venugopal to commemorate his father, one of India’s leading constitutional lawyers.

Describing the global nature and magnitude of the threat of terrorism, Mr Goldsmith said, the increased world travel, internet and global telecommunications which benefit millions ”have brought new challenges too, especially in the area of crime.”

Criminals conduct their business across international boundaries, Mr Goldsmith said. ”They traffic young women from the Ukraine or Romania to Bosnia and through the European Union to the UK; they smuggle drugs from the cocaine factories of Colombia to the streets of Paris or Rome; or launder money through bank accounts in all the financial cities of the world. Through international travel and cyberspace they operate globally. The scale of the problems is huge.”

He said drugs were a huge international business– UK market alone estimated at seven billion pounds– accounted for 2000 drugs-related deaths a year and much other crime: property crime, drug dealing, fraud and prostitution.

In one city, he said, it was reported that 70 per cent of all recorded crime was committed by drug users. He cited UN estimate that illegal immigration business is worth 15 to 30 billion dollars a year.

Estimates put the value of money laundering transactions– a key part of much organised crime– at two to five per cent of global GDP– around 1.5 trillion dollars. ”So crime now presents a global threat.

”But our national law enforcement is based firmly on a national level. Law enforcement agencies have to operate within their own national systems and national laws.

”A drug trafficker may have contacts and collaborators in any number of countries. Even to obtain the evidence of people in each of those countries may present a major logistical problem for prosecutors.

”Our courts cannot directly order the attendance of a witness from another country to attend before it; without the assistance of foreign authorities it cannot compel the production by a foreign bank of its records of transactions in another country; nor give us the ability to order the police force of another nation to investigate a particular potential witness in that country.

”And of course our national jurisdiction will usually be limited to crimes committed in our own countries so that we cannot bring to justice those whose activities may have affected us but whose conduct has been abroad.

”In short, we must respect national boundaries and frontiers whilst the criminals treat them with contempt. It is through international cooperation that we can hope to find an answer to this challenge,” the AG said.

UNI MJ RSB GC1340

Advertisements

‘Why Link Judicial ‘Overreach’ With Judge’s Impeachment ? – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                     August 20, 2011

‘Why Link Judicial ‘Overreach’ With Judge’s Impeachment ?*

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – Bringing up judicial overreach– judges assuming legislative or executive functions– while impeaching a Calcutta High Court Judge has been questioned by a senior Delhi High Court Judge.

“I don’t see how the two are related at all,” Justice Vikramajit Sen remarked while releasing a book on private international law at the Indian Society of International Law last evening.

Calcutta High Court Judge Soumitra Sen faces impeachment on charges of having misappropriated some funds before he was elevated by a judicial collegium from the bar.

Judicial overreach, on the other hand, has to do with Judges’ decisions in matters arising directly or indirectly as a result of administrative or legislative lapses or filling such gaps.

Justice Vikramajit Sen spoke after ISIL director S K Verma cited Judges’ contribution to handling private international law related disputes early on when little guidance came from legislatures or the executive.

He said it felt good to receive the compliment, especially as the judiciary has been under a lot of lambasting.

Justice Vikramajit Sen was alluding to observations about judicial overreach made by members on Thursday before Rajya Sabha decided to impeach the Calcutta High Court Judge.

“For some totally inexplicable reason, they are talking about judicial overreach while considering whether the judge is to be impeached.”

“I don’t see how the two are related at all,” Justice Vikramajit Sen said, adding he saw no causal connection between judicial overreach and the impeachment of a judge. “It is out of context.”

A participant drew attention to instances of international conventions the government has ratified but not codified at home and those in which it deliberated, even proposed amendments, but has not ratified.

A maritime law expert and former ISIL treasurer, Capt J S Gill, said there was a need for authorities to spell out the legal status in each instance.

The Judge earlier released the publication made up of experts’ papers on private international law edited by ISIL member Lakshmi Jambholkar.

UNI MJ SK 2017

 

Whither Reform ? Time To Audit Law-making ? – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                        February 19, 2006

Whither Reform ? Time To Audit Law-making ?

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

English: Parliament building in New Delhi (San...

Where Laws Are Made – Sansad Bhavan or Parliament Building (Photo: Wikipedia)

New Delhi (UNI) – Pendency went up 25 per cent – to 30 million cases – as authorities spent 2005 computerising courts, equipping judges with laptops, promoting arbitration and legal literacy and planning nyayalayas across rural India– all the while deferring reforms mostly to 2006. Maybe !

The year had begun with a call in the presence of a senior Supreme Court judge to curtail lawyers’ fees and sieve out those who do not conform to the expectations of a noble calling.
About same time, President A P J Abdul Kalam was questioning a bid to transfer a high court chief justice whose concern over judicious conduct had 25 brother judges attempting a ‘strike.’
And Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj was announcing moves to strengthen the Judge’s Inquiry Act and a Bill to appoint a Lokpal to ensure accountability in executive, legislature and judiciary– the three key branches of governance.
Those events marked the very first week of 2005.
If such straws in the wind– and a new left-backed United Progressive Alliance at helm– produced hopes of real reforms in delivery of justice and rule of law blowing in soon– the wait did not end with the year.
The Right To Information Act, 2005 which came into force on October 12– cited by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh among key achievements– is seen by experts as a valuable tool to expose corruption.
Legal redress or remedy which include compensating victims and punishing culprits is another matter.
Media ‘stings’ which showed some Members of Parliament virtually vending the privilege of raising questions in the House or spending on development were a rude reminder that accountability was not really round the corner.
Their expulsions notwithstanding, the ‘exposed’ MPs are knocking on the doors of courts for justice.
It refreshes memories of one of the most controversial Supreme Court judgements that the Indian Constitution gives MPs taking bribes an immunity from prosecution ”if they have actually spoken or voted in the House pursuant to the bribe taken by them.”
That judgement allowed the acquittal of four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs who had voted for the Narasimha Rao Government 12 years ago in return for bribes.
Then Law Commission Chairman B P Jeevan Reddy suggested making bribe-taking legislators liable for prosecution.
”Nothing… should bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act… if they take money for voting in Parliament.”
Asked about it eleven years later at a news conference in January 2005, the Law Minister acknowledged that steps were yet to be taken to preclude such interpretation– as, indeed, they yet are.
Lokpal to check corruption in public offices itself was conceived four decades ago but is still nowhere in sight. Tired of waiting, activists have announced a People’s Lokpal.
Efforts on Lokpal or to strengthen the law to discipline errant senior judges remain under way.
By proclaiming 2005 as the Year of Excellence in Judiciary and pronouncing the institution ‘clean’– close on the heels of allegedly scandalous behaviour involving some senior judges– then Chief Justice of India Ramesh Chandra Lahoti helped underscore accountability as well as transparency.
Bhardwaj insists that any disciplinary action against senior judges be taken only by their peers and to that end the Judges’ Inquiry Act 1968 needs strengthening.
The Act provides to impeach an errant judge– a step rendered ineffective due to partisan politics the only time it was invoked against Supreme Court Judge V Ramaswamy who had been dubbed ”guilty of wilful and gross misuses of office…”
Authorities have no other way to effectively discipline senior Judges. An in-house mechanism has been adopted in absence of any legislative provisions. But experts say such a mechanism suffers from opacity and uncertainty.
Three years ago, within hours of taking office as CJI, Justice Gopal Ballav Pattanaik stressed in a television interview more powers to tackle corruption in judiciary.
Just a week before, his predecessor, Justice Bhupinder Nath Kirpal had called for ”robust safeguards” to minimise fears of corruption and incompetence in a judiciary appointing itself.
He said, ”the members of the judiciary are also Indian citizens who come from the same aggregate as those in the legislature and the administration, and therefore, there are also instances where corruption and incompetence have also pervaded the judicial establishment that cannot be denied.”
In December 2001, then CJI, Justice Sam Piroj Bharucha told a lawyers’ group in Kerala that ”more than 80 per cent of the Judges in this country, across the board, are honest and incorruptible.
”It is that smaller percentage that brings the entire judiciary into disrepute. To make it known that the judiciary does not tolerate corruption in its ranks, it is requisite that corrupt Judges should be investigated and dismissed from service.”
In December 1989, on the eve of retiring as CJI, Justice E S Venkataramaiah told an interviewer that ”judiciary in India has deteriorated in standards because some of the judges are willing to be influenced by lavish parties and whisky bottles.”
However, concern and disquiet voiced over the years has yet to produce a remedy.
The Law Minister suggests ‘formalising’ the in-house mechanism– leaving the task of ensuring accountability still with judges but making clear provisions for punitive measures such as suspension or resignation of errant judges.
With that in mind, India’s Central and State Law Ministers met at Simla in June 2005 and decided to set up a National Judicial Council to ensure judicial accountability.
Such measures may not find favour with some judges.
On the other hand, legislators and the executive– not to mention the judiciary– owe the citizens a transparent and accountable system of justice.
In a broader context, accountability was emphasised by Justice Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal seven months before he became the 36th CJI.
Speaking at the launch of a legal literacy mission by Prime Minister Singh, Justice Sabharwal said, ”We need to set examples of accountability in our governance.”
Three months ago, the Law Commission received a reference on the Judges’ Inquiry Act. This month, the Commission submitted to the Law Minister ”a comprehensive study” on ”the procedure for removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.”
As it is, on one hand, judges cannot be disciplined unless their peers so choose– on the other they cannot be criticised without risking six months in jail under the court’s contempt power.
A long-awaited reform has been to allow truth as a defence against the contempt power which ends up silencing, at least discouraging, even fair, healthy and well-meaning criticism.
Last February, a Bill to ”further liberalise the scope to permit a defence of justification by truth on satisfaction as to bona fides of the plea and it being in public interest” was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Just two days before the year ended did the Manmohan Singh Cabinet approve a ”proposal to proceed further in Parliament (on) the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Bill 2004.”
An even more basic issue is judges’ strength. Not only it is known to be lower in India than elsewhere, it is further undermined by many vacancies and possible quality issues. Delayed judicial appointments contribute to delayed justice, even though authorities know years before vacancies arise and can set up a pool from which judges are assigned without delay.
So far as making lawyers accountable to litigants is concerned, the Advocate’s Act remains where it was.
Apart from complaints of incompetence, inefficiency and indifference, ethical issues are a major concern in the legal profession.
Lawyers who should look out for clients’ interests, are at times known to mislead them– treating cases as milch cows prolonged through adjournments for years– or even colluding with clients’ opponents.
Victims can complain to statutory Bar Councils. But the Councils are not always prompt in responding, nor can they help litigants recover any losses caused due to members’ misconduct.
One practical remedy might be for courts to keep for litigants’ reference a lawyers’ roster along with any record of complaints of misconduct against each– whether resolved or pending.
As it is, the authorities have not even dusted Law Commission findings since protesting lawyers clashed with police on Parliament Street a few years ago.
Here is an undergraduate textbook extract on the reality of Equality Before Law in actual practice during the erstwhile British rule:
”The principle of equality before law was violated when laws became complicated and beyond the grasp of uneducated poor masses.
They had to engage lawyers who charged excessive fees and preferred to work for the rich. In addition, the prevalence of corruption in the administrative machinery and the police worked against the rights of the masses.”
More than 57 years after the British quit India, the call to simplify the language of laws of the land was given by Prime Minister Singh at the launch of the country’s first nationwide legal literacy mission in March 2005.
”The complex legal language of our statutes acts as a hurdle to legal literacy… compounded by the intricacies of legal language in judicial pronouncements,” Dr Singh told law professionals.
”An attempt should be made to simplify the language of the law so that any one who reads judgements and laws can easily understand their true meaning.”
In November, the cold-blooded killing of Indian Oil Corporation officer Manjunath Shanmugam, who blew the whistle on corrupt petrol outlets, underscored once again the crying need in India for law to protect whistleblowers– insiders who expose corrupt or abusive organisations or employers.
Such laws have existed in and served other advanced societies for decades.
In India, a study was made by the Law Commission and a Draft Bill put together and placed in Parliament more than three years ago.
It was before the MPs when National Highway Authority officer Satyendra Dubey lost his life in November 2003, not to mention when Shanmugam lost his– two years later.
As it is, critics say, officials who appear to find protection in Indian jurisprudence are the sort who acquiesce in or connive at violations.
In case after case– whether petrol pump distribution scam, St Kitts affair, Hawala scam, Bofors scandal or many more– bureaucrat after bureaucrat and politician after politician has found acquittal or escape.
It is dramatically exemplified in manifestations of justice that hit consumers of New Delhi’s municipal and housing services this winter.
Law abiding citizens hailed the drive ordered by the Delhi High Court, urging impartiality and wondering whether– and why– law spared pre-2000 violations or officials on whose watch violations took shape.
Published accounts say three-fourths– perhaps more– of the Capital’s 36,00,000 buildings are illegal. Yet municipal authorities have taken note of only 200,000 of them and acted against barely a thousand.
The ongoing drive targets a mere 18,299 cases detected since 2000.
The court also has ordered the city to ”fix responsibility” and initiate major penalty against engineers and officials ”who allowed or took no notice” of such constructions.
If punitive action has been taken, it has not been made public.
Critics say city bulldozers have been ‘discrete,’ steering wide clear of homes of India’s bigwigs or affluent– entire unauthorised neighbourhoods or localities !
Critics advocate punishing officials who let violations occur and such agencies as the Delhi Development Authority whose policies or actions– why lottery ? for instance– have encouraged and stoked speculation in housing.
They say it all reflects the state of rule of law in India.
Here are some more reflections of it:
— Hundreds of thousands of undertrials have been in custody– many for years, even longer than their convictions might have required them to spend in jail. Why legal attention remains denied is not clear given huge sums spent year after year on legal aid for needy. Former Law Minister Jana Krishnamurthi saw it as a serious flaw that must not be allowed.
— An Indian Society of International Law inaugurated in August 1959 by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might have been a guiding force, helping inform and shape public opinion on global law. In 2005, it was sued by its Treasurer over violations of domestic norms.
— The Bar Council of India disclosed two years ago that 131 high court judges– one in four– across India have kin practising in the same court– an arrangement or coincidence forbidden under the law for fear of promoting unfairness in justice. The Council campaigned for transfer of 131 HC judges– in vain.
— But 2005 saw a High Court Chief Justice transferred twice in seven months, each time reportedly on brother judges’ complaints. In February, Justice B K Roy was transferred to Gauhati HC after he had asked some Punjab and Haryana HC judges why they took complimentary membership of an exclusive club, and in September, to the Sikkim HC, after he tried to improve access to justice in the Northeast by assigning Judges to benches in states neighbouring Assam.
— Despite scam after sordid scam sapping public interest, legislators have neither enacted Lokpal nor discarded it as a bad idea unfit for Indian society in the 40 years since it was recommended by the Administrative Reforms Commission set up under Morarji Desai in 1966.
— In November 1996, the Supreme Court found that former Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma favoured 15 petrol pump allottees and fined him Rs 50,00,000. Another Bench overruled this in August 1999. Two years later, an expert group led by Justice Reddy reviewed both orders and said it was ”absolutely essential” and ”urgent” to enact a law making public servants liable– with exemplary damages– for loss caused to the State by their mala fide actions. Last April, the Central Bureau of Investigation explained its failure to file chargesheet in the 15 cases citing a government decision ”not to grant sanction” to prosecute Sharma.
— In 30 years, the Lalit Narain Mishra murder case has been transferred to nine judges, and of seven accused, the statement of only two recorded. A Parliamentary report dubs it ”a classic case” which ”epitomises the lethargic pace at which the Indian legal system operates.”
”We must realise,” Justice Sabharwal said in his Law Day speech in November ”that the end of law must be justice. Law and justice cannot afford to remain distant neighbours. There must be harmony between law and justice.
”We must, in all seriousness, ask ourselves… how far we have been able to fulfil the mission of law to deliver justice and to what extent we have succeeded in using law as a vehicle for ensuring social justice to the large masses of people in the country.”
Experts concede that not just justice, legislation– the process of enacting laws of the land– also suffers from delays.
They say the terribly slow pace of legislating reforms is as constricting and agonising to the society as delay in adjudication is to an individual victim.
In India, the process also suffers from near absence of public participation in so-called public debate– often confined to hearing select speakers in one forum or another with hardly any audience input.
Those are just some of the serious questions that need to be faced. ”It is also perhaps a most ignored aspect of public interest issues by Indian research and scholarship,” a Delhi University Law teacher acknowledges.
Experts concede what is needed is a thorough but quick audit or study of legislative function– to see how it can be made effective in dealing with the needs of transparency, accountability and law in the society.
UNI MJ PK GC1148

Pirates Force Hostages To Call Kin: Captain’s Wife – By Mukesh Jhangiani

October 2, 2008

Pirates Force Hostages To Call Kin: Captain’s Wife*

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Somali pirates in the Aden
Gulf today forced some of 22 hostages to call home
to pressure the owners of the ship they seized 16
days ago for ransom, relatives reported tonight.

”They are asking some hostages at gun-point to speak
to their families,” Seema Goyal, wife of Captain Prabhat
Goyal, said hours after she was assured by Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways Minister T R Baalu of
”every effort” for their release.
Mrs Goyal said she learnt this from her husband who
telephoned her late in the afternoon from his ship’s bridge
and she was trying to convey it to the Shipping officials.
She said she also got telephone calls from some of the
families which had heard from sailors aboard the Chemical
tanker Stolt Valor, including Om Prakash Shukla and
Joginder Malik.
Earlier, Mrs Goyal met Mr Baalu and was assured that
”every effort” would be made to secure release of the
hostages. Also present were Shipping Secretary APVN
Sarma and Captain PVK Mohan, chairman of the National
Shipping Board.
She has also requested a meeting with United
Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi.
The delegation of seafarers’ relatives and friends also
included Captain Joginder Singh Gill, a member of
Company of Master Mariners, a body of experienced
nautical professionals.
She said ”we were told” by the representatives of the
ship owners and the manning company that delivery of
fresh water and medicine to the hostages was being
arranged. But Captain Goyal told her nothing had arrived
so far, she said.
On Tuesday, the 18 Indian seafarers were reported to be
running short of water and rations.
”Bring an end to the ordeal of these innocent seafarers,”
Mrs Goyal urged in a petition to Baalu.
The relatives and friends of the Indian hostages also
went on air to urge Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to
hear them for just ”a few minutes.”
Rashmi Sood, who accompanied Mrs Goyal, said she
could not get over a call she attended from a crew member
aboard the ship whose wife is in hospital.
His words were not coherent but the desperation was
most clear, she said.
The Japanese-owned tanker flying the Hong Kong flag
and manned by a crew of 22 was on way to Mumbai from
Houston in the United States when it was hijacked in the
Gulf of Aden on September 15.
The tanker is carrying phosphoric acid and lubricating
oil for end-users, including Kandla-based Indian Farmers
Fertiliser Cooperative Limited.
As many as 18 of the 22 seamen, including Captain
Goyal, are Indian, one Russian, one Bangladeshi and two
Filipinos.
The hijackers appeared to have originally demanded $6
million since then pared down to $2.5 million, Mrs Goyal
told a meeting at the Indian Society of International Law.
She said Capt Goyal and crew members have been in
touch with her from the ship’s bridge, presumably using a
satellite phone.
”These 22 sailors are living under the shadow of guns
with constant threat to their lives, and look upon the
government of India as their last hope.
She said a crew member called her two days ago and
”said they will be out of fresh water in a day or two, and
rations, in another 3-4 days.”
Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1958, the Director
General of Shipping, who licenses recruiters of Indian
seamen and officers, is also responsible for the welfare of
Indian seamen, experts say.
As many as 55 ships have been attacked off the coast of
Somalia since January and 11 were still being held for
ransom, published accounts indicate.
The International Maritime Bureau has issued an
advisory urging ships to stay 250 Nautical Miles away
from the Somali coast.
The ship was reportedly in a corridor made ”safe” by a
coalition of US, British and French forces.
An official for the recruiting agent declined to comment
on negotiations under way.
UNI MJ AM VP0040

Pirates Force Hostages To Call Kin: Captain’s Wife* – By Mukesh Jhangiani – October 2, 2008