04-05-1993
12:30
BRITISH EMBASSY FAPLIE
42 66 91 42
P.08
us, the observation is, from the point of view of legal theory, fully inaccurate: the fact that a treaty is at stake can never justify that the recourse be not entertained.
5. But it is above all, in this case, absolutely irrelevant.
Indeed, even if one accepts that, in a matter of a refusal to extradite, one could only submit to litigation an act based on a wrong application of the international legal provisions, and even supposing that such a discussion could be brought only before international Courts, this recourse would still be fully entertainable.
One can indeed only acknowledge that in the case at stake, none of the reasons held by the Administration to refuse the extradition is directly or indirectly relevant to the international relations and the treaties.
If Mr. Saniman challenged, by the reasons discussed above, the regularity of the request for extradition in respect of the treaty of 1876, or even the international status of Hong Kong, the French Government raised no criticism in this respect. He never challenged that the international conditions for the extradition
were met.
It is only in respect of French internal law that objections have been made, in respect of the internal criminal characterisation of the facts, on the one hand, of the administrative Courts, taking into account that jurisdiction of the Chambre d'Accusation on the other hand, both points which are fully without connection with the treaties and strictly internal.
One thus raises against the request reasons of unentertainability of mere internal law. And if, as Saniman himself acknowledges it, breaches of the internal statute of 1927 could justify the entertainability of recourses for breach of the law made by the persons to be extradited, because it is an internal rule (pleadings page 14 paragraph 2), one does not see why one should reason differently here.
It is not challenged that the carrying out of the international relations is not subject to the jurisdiction. of the Courts, but only it can escape such jurisdiction.
The exception to the entertainability of the recourse for breach of the law created by the acts of Government doctrine cannot be extended beyond its normal scope.
Thus, the recourse made against an act which, as in the case at stake, has nothing to do with the carrying out of the international relations, whatever be the capacity of the plaintiff, is and will remain entertainable.
It is only by means of distorting the arguments made by the plaintiffs that one can sustain opposite arguments.
FINALLY, AS TO THE MERITS
IV.
The new pleadings of the Minister of Justice and those of Mr. Saniman do not in any useful manner contradict the arguments already put forward by the plaintiffs.
One shall therefore refer [to the previous pleadings] subject only to the following precisions:
a)
Counts of indictments no 5 and 9
It is vainly contended by Saniman that the manoeuvres should have taken place after the remittance of the funds. One has already answered this argument.
And the discussion can only be led, as is well known, on the basis of the extradition file, which is the only document whereby the authorities of the requested State are notified, excluding any other consideration: proofs of culpability will be examined by the Courts having jurisdiction on the merits. This file is devised according to the procedural rules of the requesting State. It results
- 6 -