14-MAY-1992
10:34
JC-UJ" AM WW.VA Salat ve FI
BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS
16 1 42 66 91 42
P.08
ve a limit in the manifest risk of breach of the rights of Man and only in this risk. It is obvious that reasons of mere political appropriateness have
been set aside.
The "Conseil d'Etat" has acknowledged the above and has seen in such criteria the expression of "a general principal of French law of extradition, general principle which requests that extradition should be refused when the repressive system of the requesting State is not impartial" (Pleadings Genevois under "Conseil d'Etat" Galdeano. 27th September 1984). The words “French Law of extradition" are significant in this respect: this is not the field of acts
of government any more.
The French evolution is not isolated. It follows trends appearing in the
provisions of certain recent treaties, and
and in particular in the European Extradition Convention of 13th December 1957. ratified by France in 1986, whose article 18, second paragraph, says expressly: "Any refusal whether total or in part shall be justified ("motivé")".
Confirmed by a ministerial circular of 13th January 1983, then in a reply of the Minister of Justice to the National Assembly on 29th June 1987, the unambiguous position of the French government shows a marked change: the refusal
to extradite is now a decision for which reasons must be given.
2. Indeed, the note of 20th March 1992 gives explicit reasons for the
refusal to extradite Mr. Saniman. The problem is that such reasons do not correspond to any of the four criteria set forth by the French State itself. They thus show. implicitly but necessarily, that no reason for refusal based on such criteria existed in the present case.
But giving reasons is not compatible with the idea of discretionary
authority. Reasons mean a possible verification thereof: supplying reasons
implies a control by the courts. It is the very nature of the governmental decision relating to extradition that has changed. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the above mentioned evolution
evolution should have taken place
simultaneously with that of case law of the "Conseil d'Etat". Starting in 1977,
then extended, affirmed and reinforced from decision to decision, existing case
law subjects to the normal control of the administrative judge the decisions of
the French government with respect to extradition matters.
- 4-