Delhi evades `Q' replies

JYOTI MALHOTRA

New Delhi, February 23, 2007 : For a whole two weeks, since February 9, the UPA government has been sitting on highly sensitive information sent by India’s ambassador to Argentina Pramathesh Rath, relating to the arrest of Italian businessman Ottavio Quatrochhi by Argentinian authorities on February 7.

Clearly, the information has since been deemed so sensitive by New Delhi, that it has still not sent any reply, neither to the Indian embassy in Buenos Aires or directly to the Argentinian government, on the course of action that should be followed.

On February 9, the authorities in the capital of Argentina, Buenos Aires, informed the Indian ambassador that they had arrested Quatrochhi in Misones, a tiny province bordering Paraguay, in accordance with the Red Corner notice issued by Interpol.

On the same day, that is February 9, Ambassador Rath informed New Delhi that Quatrocchi was under detention by the authorities in Buenos Aires.

The Indian embassy also told the Ministry of External Affairs here that under Argentinian law, Quatrochhi could be placed under detention for 30 days, extendable by 10 days.

The Quatrochhi arrest comes just as the Budget session in Parliament has begun here and right in the middle of the political crisis in Uttar Pradesh.

Highly placed sources in the government pointed out that although there was no extradition treaty between India and Argentina, they were ``very sure’’ that Buenos Aires would hand over Quatrochhi to New Delhi, ``if only the Indian authorities asked for him.’’

Ambassador Rath was unavailable for comment in Buenos Aires.

The sources said they were sure that there was ``very little chance of getting bail’’ for Quatrochhi, since he had been arrested on the Interpol red corner notice, and that he had so far not applied for it. They also said that the authorities in Argentina had provided him with a lawyer.

According to the Argentinian extradition document available with The Telegraph, in the absence of a extradition treaty with another country, ``assistance will be subject to the existence or offer of reciprocity.’’

However, extradition cannot proceed if ``the motivating crime is a political offence,’’ if it shows political purpose, if there is a death penalty involved and if the party fears that he will be subject to torture.

It may be recalled that when gangster Abu Salem was sent back by Portugal to India, it was on the condition that New Delhi would not sentence him to death, a penalty that is forbidden within the European Union (of which Portugal is a member).



ENDS