The obligation to initiate prosecution
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 9:04 am
India strongly rejected the finding that “prisoners are subjected to torture” and that Holck’s human rights would be violated. The refusal to grant extradition reportedly led to tightened visa requirements – not just for Danes but for all Scandinavians. Danish official sources do not corroborate this, although some businesses do.
The case has many bizarre elements, such as the alleged involvement of the UK’s Special Branch and even Indian authorities themselves. Denmark’s response is also somewhat perplexing. Both Denmark phone number library and India are parties to the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The lower court found that the Purulia arms drop clearly fell within the scope of the Convention. (in accordance with the principle of aut dedere aut judicar, Article 8) does not, however, apply as the arms were dropped before the adoption of the Convention. (cf. Belgium v Senegal, para. 100)
Although Denmark is not required to institute proceedings concerning acts that were committed before 31 August 2001 (the date of Denmark’s ratification), nothing prevents it from doing so. Danish authorities have already found that there is a prima facie case against Holck and national courts confirmed – in line with the principle of double criminality – that he could be tried in Denmark. Despite Indian’s repeated requests, no steps have so far been taken to initiate prosecution in Denmark (see statement of Director of Public Prosecutions).
The case has many bizarre elements, such as the alleged involvement of the UK’s Special Branch and even Indian authorities themselves. Denmark’s response is also somewhat perplexing. Both Denmark phone number library and India are parties to the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The lower court found that the Purulia arms drop clearly fell within the scope of the Convention. (in accordance with the principle of aut dedere aut judicar, Article 8) does not, however, apply as the arms were dropped before the adoption of the Convention. (cf. Belgium v Senegal, para. 100)
Although Denmark is not required to institute proceedings concerning acts that were committed before 31 August 2001 (the date of Denmark’s ratification), nothing prevents it from doing so. Danish authorities have already found that there is a prima facie case against Holck and national courts confirmed – in line with the principle of double criminality – that he could be tried in Denmark. Despite Indian’s repeated requests, no steps have so far been taken to initiate prosecution in Denmark (see statement of Director of Public Prosecutions).