TEET-GA-HC
DRITISA DIIBHSST
CHRIS
--
the case was started; as to Mr. Winbush, the investigation on his decease ended with a verdict of suicide (see enclosed: letter of the Coroner of Hong Kong on 27th April 1993).
This being rectified, as it deserved to be given the gravity of the contentions of Mr. Saniman, the plaintiffs can only refer the Conseil d'Etat to the entire procedural file, which is the most appropriate and most accurate reply to his statements.
DISCUSSION
II.
The High Assembly will note the variety of grounds raised so as to avoid that the merits of the case be examined.
1.
The Minister of Justice develops, in his observations in reply, only two of the grounds previously put forward, and one will observe that Mr. Saniman is not mentioning them.
These have already been answered.
One does not see the reason, especially if the recourse is held to be entertainable, why the decree of 28th November 1983 (supposing one would need to refer to it) should be held not applicable as, given the nature of that decree, it is within all the rules applicable to any plaintiff and should therefore apply to the extent necessary.
Mr. Saniman, on his part, multiplies the grounds of non entertainability, which will be examined below.
2. He first contends that there would be no treaty permitting extradition to Hong Kong,
Such a contention is so astounding that the Minister of Justice of course refrained from raising that sort of argument, although it is such as to immediately end the discussion. The Minister of Justice knows indeed that the treaty of 14th August 1876 has been applied on several occasions in respect of Hong Kong: requests were presented in 1989 and 1992 to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London, by the French Embassy and in 1986 and 1988 to the Secretariat of the Government of Hong Kong by the French Consul in Hong Kong (see enclosed).
One should also simply refer to article 16 of the Treaty which describes the procedure to apply "in the colonies and other foreign possessions of the High Contracting Parties" whether in respect of those who "fled to colonies or foreign possessions" or those who "fled from colonies or foreign possessions".
As a matter of fact, Mr. Saniman does not hesitate to say that Hong Kong would not be covered by the treaty for the reason that the rights of the British Crown over Hong Kong would arise only from a lease granted by China for 99 years in 1898.
Even supposing that this issue should be examined by the High Assembly although the British Crown, Hong Kong, and the French Government do not challenge the applicability of the treaty, one must for the sake of legal accuracy say that a treaty of course applies not only to the territories under the sovereignty [of a contracting party] at the time of the conclusion thereof but also to those which would be acquired at a subsequent date by the contracting party to the treaty unless provided otherwise.
And one must say, for the sake of historical truth, that the transfer of Hong Kong to the British Crown results from the treaty of Nanking of 29th August 1842 (see enclosed) confirmed by the treaty of Tiensin of 1858.
By the treaty of Nanking, the Emperor of China ceded to the Queen the island of Hong Kong "to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, her heirs and Successors". The lease made by the treaty of Peking only relates to the "New Territories and Kowloon" (see enclosed). As to the Joint Declaration signed in Peking on 19th December 1984, it does provide that the People's Republic of China declares "to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories)" and that the British Government will "restore" such territories to it, from 1997, which indicates clearly that sovereignty had been transferred (see enclosed).
-2-