TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 49

F

HKD 384

DECEM

19 APR 1991

DESK OFFICE.

MY

Ли Надия

~ Pand

лх

21/îñ

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

London SWIA 2AH

Telephone: 071-270 3064

Fax: 071-270 2767

Ms P Edwards

Legal Adviser

Home Office

Queen Anne's Gate

London SW1H 9AT

Dean Put

PA

Acton Taken

21 March 1991

ECHR: OSMAN

V.

THE UNITED KINGDOM

I enclose the Commission's Decision in this case, which I received yesterday.

The Decision is,

1.

of course, a public document. You will see that the Commission declared the application inadmissible "by a majority". The Commission has recently

started the practice of indicating whether or not its decisions are unanimous, but where the decision is a majority one it does not indicate the size of the majority.

2. As usual, the important part of the Decision is that headed "The Law" beginning on page 10. The Commission first dismisses the argument based on the invalidity of the original Hong Kong warrant (the first full paragraph on page 11), and then turns to the main issue, the requisite diligence requirement in Article 5(1)(f). Here the Commission's reasoning is contained in the long paragraph on page 12. Beyond emphasising that the proceedings did not fall within Article 6(1) with its "reasonable time" requirement and that Article 5(1) (f) does not contain specific time requirements, the Commission says little. which helps with the general interpretation of the "requisite diligence" requirement in Article 5 (1) (f). It says that this question must depend upon an examination of the circumstances of the particular case (but then the same is true of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6).

3.

After listing various factors, the Commission states

"Although the applicant's case has taken an extraordinarily long time and his detention has been exceptionally long, the Commission considers that, if the applicant insists on pursuing any avenue of litigation he can find, he cannot complain to the Commission of the passage of time resulting from such proceedings, especially if they are held to be an abuse of the process of the domestic courts,