LONDON, Feb 25: Referring to a Dawn's report (Friday issue) headlined “Stamping Warraich's papers: What's going on under your nose? FIA asks London HC”, regarding attestation of a document in respect of Mohsin Habib Warriach, the Pakistani High Commission said on Friday that despite a clarification published in a Karachi newspaper on Feb 19, “the FIA official continues to talk through the media”.

The High Commission said that the document in question was attested in routine on January 31, 2011, after due diligence by the attestation officer. “Prior to the date of the attestation neither FIA nor any other department of the Government of Pakistan had informed the high Commission about the declaration of the four persons, including Mr. Mohsin Warriach, as Proclaimed Offenders (POs).

The first ever communication of the FIA about the four POs was received in the High Commission on 11 February 2011 under the Foreign Secretary's cover note. It was addressed to the Foreign Secretary and not the Pakistan High Commission. Neither the FIA's report nor the Foreign Secretary's communication specifically provided guidance to the mission about the action to be taken should any of the four POs approach the High Commission for any consular service.

“The High Commission's staff were only expected by the Additional Director General FIA Zafar Ahmed Qureshi as stated in his communication to the Foreign Secretary to infer from its report that the POs be arrested without taking into consideration whether the mission had the authority/capability to arrest a person, legality of such an action vis-à-vis international conventions and law that apply on diplomatic missions on a foreign soil, legal provisions in Pakistan's law that entrust the missions abroad with such a responsibility and the standard operating procedures to be followed.

“It may be mentioned here that Pakistan has no arrangement for cooperation with the UK on such issues, which was necessitated keeping in view the human rights observed in the United Kingdom.”

The High Commission said it was its considered view that government institutions should not engage in war of words in public. “It hurts the sanctity of government offices and complicates the issues.”