[forextradinginfo]

NEW DELHI: Pakistan has finally acknowledged that there is enough evidence to prosecute Lashkar commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi for his involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks, in what marks the first endorsement of India's case against the 26/11 masterminds holed up across the border, claims an Indian media report.

Pakistani officials admitted during last week's home secretary-level talks that investigation conducted by their Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had established Lakhvi's direct involvement in the 26/11 terror attacks. According to sources in the home ministry here, the Pakistani officials told home secretary R K Singh that the evidence against Lakhvi -- largely related to his role in organizing money and logistics, including the boat and inflatable dingy for the gang that ravaged Mumbai -- was strong enough to secure his conviction in court.

"Pakistan told India about the development at FIA's end during the home secretary-level talks between the two countries in Islamabad last week," said an official privy to the details of talks between the two home secretaries.

Officials here termed it as a "significant admission", stressing that Pakistani authorities will be required to produce the evidence in the court trying Lakhvi and six others including Lashkar commanders Zarar Shah and Abu Al Qama, who all are in jail.

The development marks a validation of the evidence that India gathered against Lakhvi, Shah, Qama and others and can give satisfaction to the investigators who saw Pakistan cussedly shrugging off their findings as flimsy. It should also leave them intrigued because they maintain that the evidence about Lakhvi's role contained in the several Indian dossiers submitted to Pakistan had been so foolproof that it could have easily been corroborated even by the neighbourhood cop long ago.

As it coincides with the pressure from the US for action against Hafiz Saeed, wary Indian officials wonder whether the new stance on Lakhvi's culpability is meant to isolate the Lashkar chief from his junior jihadis and to strengthen Pakistan's case that lack of evidence was the only reason why it was not acting against the Muridke-based hate monger.

Significantly, Pakistani officials bluntly told their Indian counterparts that the demand for action against Saeed was based on what Pakistan's interior minister Rehman Malik called "hearsay". They did not relent when the Indian side pointed out that in his confessional statement, Ajmal Kasab had spoken about Saeed's role in motivating the 26/11 attackers. Though Pakistan, on India's insistence, agreed to put before the Pakistani court new details on Saeed's involvement, it maintained that the FIA could not find anything against him.

The admission about evidence of Lakhvi's involvement in the Mumbai attacks raises the question of how Islamabad is going to treat the evidence against other 26/11 masterminds, particularly two serving officers of Pakistan army who were involved in the Mumbai plot. David Headley, the Pakistan-born jihadi who reconnoitered Mumbai as part of the 26/11 plot, had spoken about the involvement of the two officers, besides Saeed.

The talks also saw both sides agreeing to initiate negotiations for a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty which is meant to facilitate cooperation in investigation of crimes, prosecution and collecting evidence.

Home secretary Singh said both sides have agreed "in principle" to initiate negotiations on a MLAT to strengthen cooperation in criminal matters. "The Pakistani side promised to examine the draft and revert with comments within two months," he said.

He said the Pakistani side also "took note of Indian request" to consider the possibility of inking an extradition treaty between the two countries. "They said they would examine it," Singh said.

Acceptance of the MLAT draft by Pakistan assumes significance as, if signed, it will pave the way for cooperation on all criminal matters including terror investigation. Assistance under the treaty includes locating and identifying persons and objects; search and seizure; making detained person available to give evidence or assist investigations; taking measures to freeze and confiscate any funds meant for financing acts of terrorism and obtaining statements of accused or detained persons.