PDF Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition book. Happy reading Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention, Student Edition Pocket Guide.

Green, Rutgers School of Law-Newark "Dan Stigall's analysis highlights the danger of dismissing a comparative approach, for he has most effectively used the British and French experience in discussing detention. While no regime has the answer an illusion, at best , democratic nations can well learn from each other's successes and failures. Precisely for that reason, policy makers, jurists, and the concerned public owe Dan a collective thanks; in addressing the extraordinarily complicated issue of detention from a comparative perspective, he has truly bitten off a very large bite of a problematic apple.

That he has done so is to our benefit; that he has done so successfully is to his credit. While we shall continue to struggle with the limits of detention and what legal paradigm is the "correct" one, we are the richer for Dan's book. Projected growth represents the estimated change in total employment over the projections period — at the state level and is based on your geographic location.

Actual outcomes vary by geographic area, previous work experience, and opportunities for employment. Purdue Global cannot guarantee employment placement, salary level, or career advancement. Local, state, and federal law enforcement jobs may require additional training or education including additional state-approved higher education beyond the Purdue Global degree.

Refer to the University Catalog for additional information. Graduates of Purdue Global criminal justice programs are not eligible to attend police academies in Minnesota. Earn your degree faster with our PME2Degree program. Many occupations across each branch of the armed forces have been evaluated for credit toward a Purdue Global degree. Find out how many credits you've earned.

For details and eligibility requirements, speak to an Advisor. Forget what you know about earning a degree. You will also complete a capstone project and apply the concepts studied online to real-world criminal justice scenarios. Pay a fixed amount for your undergraduate degree. Never owe more, even if you repeat a course.


  1. The “Anti-Nationals”.
  2. Search and menus.
  3. Site Index.

Available for select programs. Title IV federal financial aid is available for many of our degree programs. Get answers to common financial aid questions, learn about federal student aid, and get the facts about military Shopping Sheets. Financial Aid FAQ. Discover pathways to earn undergraduate credit for your life and professional career experiences. Earn credit for prior coursework completed at eligible institutions, including community colleges. Learn about federal financial grants and loan programs that may be available to Purdue Global students.

The Purdue Global Tuition Cap may not be used in conjunction with any Purdue Global tuition reductions, including military spouse reductions. Military servicemembers and veterans are not eligible for the Purdue Global Tuition Cap. Purdue Global faculty members are real-world practitioners who bring knowledge gained through the powerful combination of higher learning and industry experience.

Indian officials contend that SIMI has continued its operations despite the ban, often through front organizations, and receives funding primarily from sources in the Persian Gulf that support Islamist militancy. Lashkar-e-Taiba LeT is widely considered to be the most formidable foreign-based militant group targeting India and is viewed with increasing concern by Western governments. It was formed in the early s and initially operated in Indian-administered Kashmir.

After LeT was banned by the Pakistani government in January , largely as the result of international pressure, it adopted a new identity as a charity, Jamaat-ud-Daawa JuD , which was banned by the United Nations after the Mumbai attacks. Indian authorities have long asserted that LeT had been behind a number of attacks across India.

However, it was only after the arrest of Lashkar member Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and the lone surviving gunman in the November 26 Mumbai attack, that they had clear evidence. Abhinav Bharat is a Hindu nationalist organization that authorities have blamed for the Malegaon bombing. It is believed to be a fringe group that broke away from the Sangh Parivar, an umbrella group of the RSS. The RSS publicly distanced itself from Abhinav Bharat after police arrested several members for their suspected role in deadly attacks.

There are allegations that Abhinav Bharat plotted attacks on RSS leaders for not being radical enough in supporting the Hindu cause. Ramesh Upadhyay and Lt. Purohit, implicated in the Malegaon blast of The Rajasthan police have filed charges against three alleged members and are investigating the role of several others. Investigators suspect that some members of the RSS may have been involved in these attacks. According to the charges filed by the Rajasthan police in the Ajmer case, a secret meeting where the conspiracy was planned was also allegedly attended by several RSS leaders.

A front-organization called Jai Vande Mataram was started by one of the accused, Sunil Joshi, who was later killed. The attack results in the death of a gardener, six security officers and the five attackers, and leads to the India-Pakistan border standoff. Mumbai, July 11, : Seven bombs explode within 11 minutes of each other on suburban railway trains in Mumbai, killing people and injuring more than Malegaon, September 8, : Synchronized explosions at a cemetery outside a mosque on an Islamic holy day in the town of Malegaon , Maharashtra state , kill at least 37 people and injure more than others.

Most victims are Muslim pilgrims. Panipat, February 19, : Two explosions on the Samjhauta Express connecting India and Pakistan kill 66 people, including Pakistani nationals. Investigators initially suspect LeT, JeM, and other Pakistan-based groups, but in begin questioning Hindu extremists. Hyderabad, May 18, : A powerful explosion in the crowded area outside the Mecca Masjid mosque kills 9 people and injures over Five others allegedly die as police open fire in responding to the attack.

Investigators initially suspect groups including HuJI. Hyderabad, August 25, : Bombs at an amusement park and at a restaurant kill 44 people. Seven alleged IM members are among those charged. Amjer, October 11, : An explosion at the Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, a revered Sufi shrine in Amjer, Rajasthan state, kills three people and injures Police initially suspect groups including HuJI and SIMI, but in late authorities charge five alleged Hindu nationalists, some of whom are also suspects in the Hyderabad mosque blast, and question the same ranking RSS member suspected in other attacks as well.

Varanasi, Faizabad, and Lucknow, November 23, : Near-simultaneous blasts targeting lawyers in court premises in three Uttar Pradesh towns kill 15 people. Police later suspect IM. Jaipur, May 13, : Eight bombings in the space of eight minutes at crowded market areas and Hindu temples kill at least 69 people and wound more than Police charge four alleged IM members, hold a dozen alleged SIMI members as suspects, and issue warrants for five fugitives. Bangalore, July 25, : Eight coordinated blasts in areas including a bus stop and a park kill one person and wound seven.

Police suspect IM. Ahmedabad, July 26, : Seventeen explosions kill 57 people and wound at least in markets and buses, and at a hospital where the first blast victims were treated. Five bombs fail to detonate. Several additional bombs fail to explode in the smaller Gujarati city of Surat. Police charge 54 IM suspects and issue warrants for more than three dozen suspects.

The National Counterterrorism Center

Delhi, September 13, : Five synchronized bombings in market places and other congested areas kill at least 26 people and wound more than Police charge 16 suspects and issue warrants for 12 others, two of whom are arrested in Two other suspects and a police officer are killed in a controversial police raid. Malegaon, September 29, : A bomb in a Muslim section of Malegaon kills six people. Indian authorities initially blame Islamist extremists but subsequently charge 11 Hindus who are members of the nationalist group Abhinav Bharat, including an army colonel and a nun.

The dead include 22 foreigners, 20 security forces members, and 9 of 10 attackers. The surviving gunman, Ajmal Kasab of Pakistan, who is captured on video footage aired worldwide during the two-and-a-half day gun-battle, is convicted of charges including murder, conspiracy, and of waging war against India in May The blast takes place on the eve of resumed Pakistan-India peace talks. New Delhi, September 19, : Two gunmen on a motorcycle open fire with an automatic weapon on a tourism bus outside Jama Masjid, a historic mosque, wounding two Taiwanese tourists.

A car explosion nearby causes no injuries. IM claims responsibility. An email claiming to be from IM takes responsibility. Indian security forces are also responsible for grave human rights abuses during counterinsurgency operations, such as in Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, and Manipur. The Gujarat Crime Branch in Ahmedabad, which our research found to be one of the worst abusers of suspects held for the bomb blasts, has been accused of an array of violations in other cases as well. In another case, the Andhra Pradesh government admitted in that its police had unlawfully detained and tortured 21 of the Muslims it questioned in connection with two blasts in in the state capital of Hyderabad.

Courts have intervened in other cases as well. In , at least 14 police officers were found responsible for the custodial killing of Syed Khwaja Yunus, a suspect in a Mumbai bombing. State police abuse has been facilitated by abusive and overbroad counterterrorism laws that were repealed as unconstitutional in , only to be largely reinstated after the November 26 Mumbai attacks.

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act POTA of , hundreds of suspects were arrested and subjected to lengthy detention, in which many were physically abused, on vague and open-ended charges. Many observers have described the shortcomings of state police forces that have resulted in ineffectual investigations and widespread abuses in counterterrorism efforts. Even in routine law enforcement duties, the Indian police have gained a reputation for inefficiency, brutality, and corruption.

As Human Rights Watch has detailed elsewhere, this is a consequence both of the impunity with which police too often operate and severe shortcomings in their capacity. Police capacity to collect and analyze forensic evidence is minimal. Police have almost no training in intelligence gathering and building community support networks to identify suspects and prevent attacks.

In recent years, many state police forces have created special squads to investigate and respond to terror attacks. In addition, counterterrorism units cannot cross state boundaries. In many cases, the perpetrators of attacks come from outside states or countries , plot attacks in one community, obtain financing in another, stage attacks in yet another, and hide in another still. The central government security apparatus is also outmoded. Chidambaram, has conceded. The bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Delhi in killed a total of people, and spread panic across India.

Another two people were killed in serial bombings on July 28, , in Bangalore. During a three-day period immediately after the Ahmedabad blasts in July, police defused 23 bombs in the Gujarati port city of Surat. In response, state police carried out massive sweeps of Muslim communities in those cities, as well as in areas such as Uttar Pradesh state that had suffered attacks in the recent past.

Hundreds of Muslim men were brought in for questioning, particularly those who were known or suspected members of the banned student group Students Islamic Movement of India SIMI. Ultimately, police charged more than 70 suspects with involvement in the attacks and issued arrest warrants for more than three dozen others. Police in Delhi may have deliberately killed two suspects in a staged shootout. These abuses are serious violations of both Indian and international law. In several cases, plainclothes police picked up suspects and yet, even with eyewitnesses present, did not register them as having been arrested for days or even weeks, putting them at particular risk of mistreatment.

Former suspects, relatives of suspects, and lawyers told Human Rights Watch that police held and tortured some detainees in secret interrogation centers. They alleged that detainees were blindfolded and held in stress positions during all their waking hours, beaten, subjected to electric shock, or denied food and water. Many said police forced detainees to make false confessions, at times making them repeat a fabricated version of events until they had memorized it. In several instances reported to Human Rights Watch, the authorities threatened detainees into telling relatives they were guilty, or would deny them access to counsel and relatives.

According to defense lawyers, at least a dozen suspects have withdrawn confessions they claim were false and obtained by force. In Delhi, the abuses were carried out by the Special Cell of the police force. While the worst abuses occurred in police custody, in Jaipur and Ahmedabad, suspects were also beaten, denied access to relatives and lawyers, and suffered other ill-treatment after they had been transferred to jails, which are under judicial authority.

However, Human Rights Watch did not hear similar allegations of abuse from suspects held by regular police following the Pune blast on February 13, , even though Indian authorities quickly named Indian Mujahideen IM , assisted by Pakistani-American David Headley and Lashkar-e-Taiba LeT , as the most likely suspects. Human Rights Watch sent repeated requests for comment on our findings to central Home Ministry officials, as well as to ranking government and police officials in the states we investigated.

All three police officials denied any abuse or illegal activity of any kind. Raghuvanshi, the additional director general of police for law and order in Maharashtra, stated in a written response to Human Rights Watch.

Dan E Stigall - AbeBooks

Human Rights Watch received numerous credible accounts of police torture and other ill-treatment of suspects detained for the bombings. Methods included both physical and mental abuses such as beatings, electric shocks, stress positions, denial of food and water, sensory deprivation, and threats against suspects and their families.

The level of abuse varied by the police force involved and how swiftly investigators were able to secure confessions or other incriminating information. In some cases, the police not only relied on torture to force suspects into incriminating themselves and others, they also fabricated confessions that they made the suspects sign and memorize, to repeat later in front of a magistrate. They also used confessions to persuade magistrates to extend police custody of suspects for continued questioning.

In all types of criminal cases in India, police routinely use torture to extract confessions. Many investigating officers admit they consider torture and other forceful methods essential tools of police work. Subramanian, a retired senior police officer, told Human Rights Watch. Precisely because of the high risk of torture, confessions made to the police are generally not admissible as proof of guilt in an Indian court of law. For a confession to be used as evidence, a suspect must repeat the confession before a magistrate. Much of the worst abuse in the bombing investigations was committed by the Gujarat Crime Branch police at their Gaekwad Haveli lockup in Ahmedabad.

Vikas Padora, a Delhi attorney, recounted the experience of a suspect who had alleged abuse in Delhi Special Police custody and was subsequently transferred to Ahmedabad. According to I. Munshi, a lawyer for many of the Gujarati accused, suspects at the Gaekwad Haveli lockup were forced to sit facing a wall, their hands cuffed and their eyes covered, for 18 to 20 hours a day, and often were taken for interrogation late at night.

A former suspect held in Ahmedabad gave a similar account, emphasizing that suspects were made to wear dark masks and that beatings in the lockup usually began after midnight. His interrogators usually came for him at 1 or 2 a. Much of the torture involved techniques that did not leave obvious marks. A relative of one detainee said:.

Not all torture is carried out in a manner to cover up the abuse. As a mother of a detainee in Gujarat recounted:. In Mumbai, lawyer Shahid Azmi said that one of his clients was tortured so badly by the Maharashtra ATS during a month of arbitrary detention that when he saw him in October , two months after he was first taken into custody, he still had trouble walking:.

Get Updates On Rights Issues From Around The Globe

Several relatives said police deprived suspects of food or water. Mohammad Arif, arrested in the Uttar Pradesh capital of Lucknow in September , retracted his statement of involvement in the bombings in that state and in Gujarat, saying that the Uttar Pradesh ATS used torture to make him confess:. Relatives and lawyers of suspects told Human Rights Watch that detainees were made to sign blank papers or to memorize confessions handed to them by police.

In some cases reported to Human Rights Watch, former suspects alleged that police tortured or threatened them with the aim of making them provide confessions that would implicate others. One man told us he was released in return for agreeing to provide false testimony for the prosecution. On this condition they released me. Lawyers and relatives counter that the suspects were too frightened to complain about torture because they were being returned to extended custody of the very police who were perpetrating the abuse. Human Rights Watch also received complaints of police holding individuals in secret interrogation centers for one or more days.

Three suspects and one human rights activist said that they were beaten and held in secret police interrogation centers in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh. Two of the suspects were Hindu. In Baroda, a city in Gujarat that was one of the flashpoints of Hindu-Muslim riots in , police from a unit called the Special Operations Group allegedly took a group of young Muslim men to a secret interrogation center at a farmhouse outside the city in August and beat them all night while questioning them about the Ahmedabad bombings and the Surat bombing attempts, according to two relatives of a member of the group.

One relative said the victim later told him the abuse included electric shocks:. State police and other security forces deny the existence of secret interrogation centers, but there have been persistent allegations that they exist. Suspects in India are generally considered to be safe from abuse once they are transferred from police station lockups to jails, which are under judicial custody.

However, Human Rights Watch heard credible allegations from relatives and lawyers that suspects in the blasts were abused in such facilities in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Delhi. The alleged perpetrators include jail authorities, the police, and fellow inmates. In two jails, guards and police beat suspects while they knelt in prayer. Salman told the judge that two inmates had repeatedly slashed his face with a razor blade earlier that month.

Salman received 22 stitches three days after the attack and was moved to another cell. The judge ordered an internal investigation that had not been made public as of this writing. In Jaipur Central Jail, guards allegedly beat about a dozen prisoners on September 21, , after they requested permission to leave their cells for extra hours and pray with other inmates to mark Eid al-Fitr, an important Islamic holiday. A few hours after the request, while the prisoners were kneeling in afternoon prayer, a group of police officers, prisoners, and jail authorities dragged them from their cells and struck them with batons and sticks, according to complaints lodged by two inmates and a Muslim delegation of activists, lawyers, and relatives.

There, 22 prisoners alleged they were kneeling in afternoon prayer when prison guards and police assaulted them with batons and pieces of furniture. The prisoners, all of them terrorism suspects, the vast majority of whom were accused in the bombings, were among prisoners staging a hunger strike to protest conditions including the denial of outside medical treatment.

Word of the assault on the detainees quickly spread via relatives who had visited regular inmates. But for three days, jail authorities denied both relatives and lawyers access to the beaten prisoners. They also refused to take the inmates to a hospital, instead treating them with jail doctors. The brother of one prisoner described the scene:. Relatives said they obtained information in snippets as guards moved around the visiting room, trying to stop them from discussing the beating.

The wife of one Ahmedabad suspect told Human Rights Watch:. In a lower court hearing in Ahmedabad on the incident, jail officials argued that the beatings were legal under the colonial-era Bombay Jail Manual of , which remains in force in the state of Gujarat. On April 6, , Special Magistrate G. Patel ruled that the jail authorities had acted lawfully under the Jail Manual guidelines.

Navigation menu

He ordered additional food and medical treatment for the detainees but conducted no further investigation into the beatings. In another case, relatives said three terrorism suspects, Saif-ur-Rahman, Mohammad Sarwar, and Shahbaz Ahmed, were beaten in a Jaipur courthouse holding area in June by some fellow inmates and a group of Hindu supporters while waiting to appear before a magistrate. The beatings and other abuses in judicial custody violate Indian and international law and underscore the urgent need for jail reform.

Delhi Administration, in which Justice V. Krisha Iyer, writing for the majority, observed that:. But states have largely ignored the recommendations, perceiving them to be an intrusion on their sovereignty over detention and other law-and-order matters. In one positive development, the Bombay High Court sent a strong message to jail authorities in a case in which terrorism suspects were beaten by jail staff in Describing the abusers as traitors, the court ruled in July that disciplinary action and, if need be, criminal action should be initiated against those responsible.

In an effort to ensure ratification, India has now drafted the Prevention of Torture Bill.

In the incident, police raided Batla House, a housing complex in the Muslim neighborhood of Jamia Nagar, six days after the Delhi bombings. One police official, Inspector M. Another police official, Head Constable Balwant Singh, was injured. Police seized a third suspect inside the apartment and said two others escaped.

The police have given contradictory statements about the shootings. Initially, for example, they said Atif and Sajid opened fire, fatally wounding Sharma, and that they returned fire in self-defense, killing both of them. However, after the arrest of two more persons related to the Batla House incident in early , the police claimed that one of those arrested, Shahzad Ahmed, had killed Inspector Sharma. More significantly, suspicious markings were found on the bodies of the two IM suspects when they were returned to their families for burial.

However, we believe such incidents should be thoroughly and independently investigated without exception, particularly given the broad pattern of fake encounters that Human Rights Watch and Indian human rights organizations have documented in many areas of India. Fake encounter killings amount to extrajudicial executions in violation of the prohibitions against arbitrary deprivations of life under both the Indian Constitution and international law.

While the majority of individuals who were questioned in connection with the bombings were released within a day or two, police wrongfully detained scores of others in violation of their due process rights under Indian and international law. Suspects were not brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest as required by Indian law, [] and held for up to a month before the authorities either released them or formally acknowledged their arrest. The failure of the authorities to disclose the fate or whereabouts of someone in custody is considered an enforced disappearance in violation of international law.

Many of those questioned or detained were former or suspected members of SIMI, some of whom had been picked up numerous times in previous police raids but never charged. Many of these wrongful detentions took place in Gujarat. Human Rights Watch met with relatives or lawyers of 16 suspects detained in that state.

Almost all said that the suspects were held secretly for a week or two after the July 26 bombings before their detentions were made public. The police announced their formal arrests on August 15 and produced them before a magistrate the following day. By then, the police were already declaring that the suspects had confessed and that the bombings were linked to SIMI. Although Zahid managed to call his wife and inform her of his detention, the family had no news of him for five days, despite making repeated visits to the Crime Branch.

According to his mother, Badrunissa Kutubbidin Shaikh:.

Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Overview

Several relatives said that Crime Branch officials, particularly Barot, promised that the suspects would be released soon, and encouraged them not to seek legal aid to get them out. For this reason, few missing person complaints or petitions for the writ of habeas corpus were filed challenging the detentions in Gujarat.

We believed him. He is such a big officer. We thought that he would not lie to us. If people come offering help, or suggesting that you need a lawyer, your money will be wasted. We will let him go. The mother of Ayaz Razzaqmiya Saiyed, 25, claimed that after her son was picked up from his house, Barot held her at bay for three days before formally acknowledging the arrest.

I will return your treasure to you. He was held for a week before his arrest was formally acknowledged, the day that he was produced before a magistrate:. In cases where police decided to formally arrest suspects after detaining them unlawfully, they often falsified the dates and sometimes the locations of their initial arrest. He remained in unacknowledged detention, unable to inform his relatives of his arrest or seek legal counsel, until police announced his arrest on September 29 and said he had confessed.

In the case of Mohammad Sarwar, another former Azamgarh resident accused in the Jaipur blasts, there is strong evidence that police picked him up in one city but alleged that he was arrested two days later in another city in another state. An engineer who had excelled in school, Sarwar was recruited by a prominent firm and began work at its branch in Ujjain, a city in Madhya Pradesh state, on January 16, On the evening of January 19, he called relatives to tell them that he had settled in. The next morning, the family found his mobile phone switched off. The Uttar Pradesh police, however, insisted that Sarwar had been arrested in Lucknow.

If in fact Sarwar was first detained in Ujjain, registering him as having been arrested in Lucknow would have allowed police to hold him incommunicado for 48 hours and avoid having to request a legal transfer from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh. In August , the Gujarat police were unable to locate suspect Abdul Raziq, and instead picked up his young brother Shakeel and held him for about a month.

In one case, police were seeking a man because he was the distant cousin of a suspect. Not finding that man at home, plainclothes police grabbed his year-old brother, Mohammad Saquib, gagged him before he could speak with his mother, and dragged him, barefoot and in his pajamas, into a waiting car. Police handcuffed and held the younger brother for questioning, threatening to free him only if his brother surrendered, until lawyers arrived and secured his release.

Abdul Rahman, the father of a suspect in the September Delhi bombings and the caretaker of the Batla House apartment where police staged a deadly raid, was held for 45 days in what he suspects was an effort to pressure him or his son, who was also arrested, into confessing.

Similar authors to follow

When Rahman heard the address of the apartment on television news, he immediately went to the police to provide information about the student tenants, who he had found through his son Zia-ur-Rahman. In August , officials in plain clothes abducted him from his home in Azamgarh. They entered his house claiming to bring a marriage proposal for one of his brothers, tricked him into stepping outside, pushed him into a vehicle, and drove away. Abu Bashar was transferred to the custody of Gujarat police, who held him for four months in Ahmedabad before he was transferred to a local jail.

For the next two days, Abu Zafar said, police held him incommunicado as they drove him to three different destinations in Gujarat state, questioning and threatening him. The first stop was the town of Naroda. When night fell, police drove Zafar to the isolated town of Gandhinagar, and the questioning resumed again. When police finally released him, Zafar said, they bought him a return train ticket to Mumbai and returned most of his belongings, but kept his identity card.

Police counterterrorism investigators, particularly in Ahmedabad and Delhi, routinely manipulated Indian law in order to detain bombing suspects well beyond the day legal limit for police custody provided under Indian law—in some cases for three to four months. In most cases, suspects subjected to prolonged police custody were still presented to a magistrate every 15 days as required by law.

That procedure was emphasized by police officials who responded to our concerns about abuse in police custody. But the very fact that none of them complained to the Judicial Magistrate, shows that they were voluntarily given and were not false. According to relatives and lawyers, however, many suspects were too frightened to tell magistrates of police abuse because they knew they would almost certainly be returned to police custody rather than be sent to jail or released on bail. We have to live here. They have threatened us that if we reveal any of this we will never get out. Indian law prior to the passage of amendments after the November Mumbai attack, permitted authorities in most states to detain suspects for up to 90 days without charge, of which no more than 15 days could be in police custody.

Instead of filing multiple complaints simultaneously against each suspect for all the bombings, the police lodged a new complaint against each accused every 15 days in connection with a different blast. Each new filing of a complaint—called a First Information Report FIR —allowed them to extend police custody of a suspect for an additional 15 days. Defense lawyers also argued that police applications for remand lacked sufficient details to justify continued custody. In some cases, magistrates granted the remand applications even if the suspects or their lawyers complained that they had been abused in the very police lockups to which they were being returned.

By filing additional FIRs every 15 days, the Special Cell of the Delhi police kept five suspects in their custody for nearly six weeks in late The Special Cell repeated the pattern in , holding two suspects it had arrested in February and March for more than one month. One of the suspects was a minor, whose name and photographs were released to the media in violation of Indian law. The teenager was to turn 18 in October In Maharashtra state, 21 bombing suspects were charged under a special organized crime law that allows police custody for 30 days rather than Even with that extraordinarily long period at their disposal, state counterterrorism police contrived to keep at least a dozen suspects in their custody for more than a month by charging them with additional offenses related to the bombings as soon as the first day period expired.

Instead, the Supreme Court held, multiple FIRs allowing numerous remands can only be lodged for separate offenses. The High Court did not agree. Police questioning is not limited to the period suspects are in police custody. Indian law grants police the right to continue questioning suspects while they are in judicial custody, provided they notify defense counsel.

The Delhi High Court ruled that this was not sufficient grounds to reject multiple remands to police custody, but in the context of widespread and credible allegations of torture and other mistreatment in Indian police lockups, its decision could constitute an invitation to abuse. During the initial roundups after the bombings, police detained hundreds of Muslim men for questioning. In many cases they forcibly entered homes or work places, sometimes in civilian clothes, and picked up individuals for custodial interrogation without identifying themselves properly or providing arrest warrants.

The Indian Code of Criminal Procedure allows police to summon individuals for questioning. Nor can police force persons to answer questions that might be self-incriminating. In the days following the Delhi bombings in September , Delhi police took into custody many Muslims in and around the Batla House apartment complex, the site of the police raid described in Chapter II above. The police took five minors from Batla House and held them without their parents for several hours, releasing them at 10 p.

Following the July bombings in Ahmedabad and the attempted bombings in Surat, Gujarat police questioned about Muslims statewide, according to lawyers and human rights activists. In the Gujarati city of Baroda, police summoned about 70 Muslims. These included Yusuf Shaikh, a local human rights leader, who was organizing responses to the roundups and assisting residents seeking information on relatives in custody. The police detained Shaikh for questioning for three consecutive days, releasing him only in the evenings and holding him one night until 2 a.

In some cases, police leaked the names of those they brought in for questioning to the media, damaging their reputation, even though they were never charged. In Jaipur, police picked up Anwar Hussain, a physician at a local hospital, because his name had come up during police investigations of a suspect. I explained and they were satisfied. But the newspapers reported that there was there was a terrorist in the hospital. Rasheed Hussein believes he lost his job with an Indian software company because Rajasthan police questioned him for nine days in June in connection with the Jaipur blasts.

They were just asking for names of people who might be involved. The likelihood of coerced confessions and other unlawfully obtained statements is vastly increased during incommunicado detention. In several cases, police unlawfully denied suspects the right to meet with their legal counsel or family members for days or weeks.

Once they gained access, lawyers frequently were unable to speak privately with clients. A police officer would be sitting right next to us. For two to three months we were not allowed to meet our client out of earshot.