DET CAR/UUT/MEG/JPB
using such funds for the purposes to which they were destined, t.. in the present case by guaranteeing, in frauding B.N.P.L., personal loans, by using fande of B.H.P.L. on the monetary market, facts which are referred to and punished by articles 408 and 408 of the Criminal Code.
Considering that such facts correspond with respect to the principle of double punishment to the conditions of the Treaty and are provided for in article 3 thereof; considering that it is therefore appropriate to issue, as far as they are concerned, an advice in favour of extradition".
Approved on 12th March 1991 by the Criminal Chamber of the "Cour de Cassation", such decision is today final.
१
Its reasons are challenged in the afore-mentioned note of 20th March 1982 as follows:
"two of the remaining alleged offenses (n' 5 and 9) do not constitute offenses in French law and the three others (n' 21-22-23) have been the subject matter of a negative advice of the "Chambre d'accusation" of the Court of Appeal of Paris on 4th November 1987, which ta final and which can not be challenged in the absence of new elements modifying the initial conditions of law”.
The position so taken is challengeable on two major accounts: it challenges the assessment made by the judicial authority, and it appears to be spoilt by a manifest error ("arreur amifeste d'appréciation").
1. The French government takes advantage of a former advice, of th November 1987, to set aside a more recent advice which, however, did not fail to take into consideration the existence of this first decision.
In so doing, the government assumes an authority which the law does not vest into it, and which consists in fact in choosing discretionarily between two Judicial decisions. Actually, it challenges, on two accounts, the final decision rendered by the judicial authorities.
This challenge seems to be contrary to the French Constitution as well as to the rules governing extradition.
6
་