TT Epaper
The Telegraph
 
IN TODAY'S PAPER
WEEKLY FEATURES
CITIES AND REGIONS
ARCHIVES
Since 1st March, 1999
 
THE TELEGRAPH
 
 
CIMA Gallary

Terror finger at Pak

New Delhi, March 21: The Supreme Court today castigated Pakistan for sponsoring and fomenting terrorism, saying its spy agency ISI had trained the kingpins of the 1993 Bombay blasts on its soil.

The court hoped that Islamabad would refrain from such activities in future and behave like a responsible state as mandated under the UN Charter.

“The (blasts) accused arrived in Pakistan for training and they were received by ISI operatives who took them out of the airport without observing any immigration formalities, meaning thereby they (the accused) had a green channel entry and exit in Pakistan,” the court said.

“Another confession reveals that they received training from the ISI officials themselves on some occasions. These events unveil the tolerance and encouragement shown by Pakistan towards terrorism.”

The court added that a careful reading of the convicts’ confessional statements “exposes that (a) large number of accused, including the absconders, received training in making bombs by using RDX and other explosives, handling of sophisticated automatic weapons like AK56 Rifles and handling of hand grenades in Pakistan, which was organised and methodically carried out by Dawood Ibrahim, Anees Ibrahim, Mohd Dossa and Salim Bismillah Khan (since deceased)”.

It added: “The training received in Pakistan materialised in the unfortunate serial blasts in Bombay.... A responsible state owes an obligation not only to another state but also to the international community as a whole.”

The court said Pakistan, as a member of the United Nations whose primary object is to maintain international peace and security, has infringed on the recognised principles of international law that obligate all states to prevent terror attacks from their territory.

“This duty to prevent acts of terrorism stems from the basic principle of sovereignty, which entails both rights and obligations. Under the ‘Universal Neighbouring Principles’, it is well established that the rights of one state end where the territory of another state begins,” the court said.