"Compelling evidence" is anything that directly and clearly ties the Indian state to the killing beyond most reasonable doubt. It doesn't have to be quite as conclusive as, say, the evidence revealed in the Khashoggi killing, but it needs to be relatively extensive. In case of a public disclosure of unclear quality, I'll default to my best judgement, though I'm open to alternative mechanisms.
The evidence does not need to be made public via any official channels. An unofficial disclosure or leak of evidence suffices. It doesn't matter whether the Indian state denies or disputes it, unless they can undermine its quality.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ350 | |
| 2 | Ṁ140 | |
| 3 | Ṁ54 | |
| 4 | Ṁ42 | |
| 5 | Ṁ36 |
@AdamK could you confirm whether the below-linked evidence from the US Department of Justice would be sufficient or not?
@chrisjbillington @jbca I do not think the indictment meets the standard I set. Without more evidence, we’re still on track for a NO resolution. To elaborate:
The indictment really only says that Nijjar was also a target according to CC-1, but they don’t take direct credit for his death
No details which were not already public are given about the identities, methods, or timeline of Nijjar’s killers, which I would consider to be a bare minimum to prove the Indian State’s involvement
It definitely does not meet the standard of being “relatively extensive”
https://www.justice.gov/media/1326501/dl?inline
Today’s indictment from the American Department of Justice affirms that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was an explicit target of an operation by an Indian government employee. Unclear if the subjects of that indictment actually killed him in the end, or if it was other associates of theirs, but the fact that it was someone connected with the Indian government seems nearly certain.
For the purposes of this market, however, I’m not sure whether we’ll see any supporting evidence released before the deadline, if the quotes in this indictment don’t count.