23-APR-1993
16:30
BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS
16 1 42 66 91 42
P.19
16
It is not necessary to raise other theoretical reasons; those indicated above are largely sufficient.
One will add, only as an indication, that the British government had thought it possible to file in the Chambre d'Accusation, by an advocate, observations which were therefore in the procedure and the Chambre d'Accusation had not stated that these observations could not be considered.
Mr Rais Bin Saniman had criticised before the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de Cassation the fact that the Court of Appeal had declared that the observations filed in the name of the requesting State were entertainable; the Cour de Cassation rejected this argument as without value because the observations would have boon made in respect of counts of Indivinem in zaspan which the Chambre d'Accusation had given a negative advice, but it stated:
ti
"Whereas, although it is wrongly that the challenged decision said that the observations flied in the name of the requesting State could be reviewed, as the requesting State is not Indeed a party in the proceedings taking place before the Chambre d'Accusation, the plaintiff does not have an interest in criticising this irregularity..."
The Cour de Cuxsulluritius ümuÿlimum time Me
nderlimed that the requesting Stata is not a party in the proceedings before the Chambre d'Accusation, it cannot either be a party in the content of a mansurge fir breach of the law (on the notion of parties at a recourse for breach of the law, see Chaput, Administrative Litigation, 2nd Edition no. 138), One van dúnk that die solution given by
law. Criminal Chamber must be extended to the recourse for breach of the
1.1.2 Even assuming that a sovereign State could, contrary to what is stated above, lodge a recourse
for breach of the law against a refusal to extradite made by France, the recourse should
nevertheless not be entertaired.