*MAY 14 '92 20:09 CLIFFORD CHANCE HK 852 8104708
42
P.25
155.
its totality and transpose it to France for the purpose of analysing the facts and qualifying them under French law, he did not in any way qualify his earlier requisitions and in effect seemed to adopt them. M, De Touzalin said that Saniman's submissions that the period of limitations had run were
45 wrong. He also said that the matter was not rale judicata and that there were new facts justifying the new request.
Stasi essentially submitted that these were not offences in French law and that these were not fresh facts. He argued that new facts were in fact legal facts not new factual elements. He also argued that Saniman could not be guilty of complicity. M. Asselineau argued the alternative ground of political character of the extradition requests. He made fairly scandalous allegations about Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Government and suggested a conspiracy with the Malaysian Government. He also ran the old factual arguments of Saniman not being in Hong Kong his powers in BMFL and alleged that he was only guilty of negligence. Finally, Asselineau directed the Court's attention to the 1997 issue and said that was material to their consideration and therefore they should not extradite him.
156. The matter was adjourned to the 30th of October 1990 for judgment.
157. It appeared to me that Saniman was running very similar arguments to Osman, in particular those that arose in the Divisional Court in UK4, 5 and
6.
158. On the 22nd of October 1990 Siméon & Associes furnished me with a memorandum relating to appellate procedure and time scale. (Annexure "P")
Third Hearing Before The Chambre D'Accusation – 30.10.90
159. On the 30th of October 1990 I attended Chambre d'Accusation in Versailles for the judgment in the Saniman extradition. The Chambre do Accusasion
>