MAY 14 '92 19:38 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8184788
P.3
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
3
sufficient. The British Embassy was advised that extensive further evidence was available if required. The Hong Kong Government also enquired as to whether they should instruct French solicitors. The Embassy advised the Hong Kong Government that the French authorities "did not repeat do not require further evidence" and didn't require assistance of Crown Counsel or French lawyers.
In July 1987 the Hong Kong Government sought further information from France, in particular, what was likely to happen at the October hearing and if an order for extradition was made by the Court what avenues were available to Saniman to resist extradition.
The British Embassy advised that there was an appeal to the Court d'Accusation followed by an appeal to the Consell d'etat and that the whole process could take up to sixteen months. They also advised that Saniman's counsel was one of the most eminent in Paris and would resist extradition by
all means.
This greatly concerned the Hong Kong Government who then asked whether they should make representations or supplement their evidence. The British Embassy advised that there was no necessity to do so.
On the 9th of October 1987 the Hong Kong Government enquired as to the result of the hearing on the 7th of October. They sent a further reminder on the 16th of October 1987. There was no reply.
On the 4th of November 1987 the Hong Kong Government discovered from a news report on the radio that the Chambre d'Accusation had declined to recommend the extradition of Saniman. They received no formal nor informal notification from the authorities nor the Embassy. The Hong Kong Government was disturbed to learn in this way that the Court found that