TNAG-2954-FCO40-4231-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1993 — Page 79

23-APR-1993

16:34

BRITISH EMBASSY PARIS

16 1 42 66 91 42

P.24

Article 4, § 1 of the Vienna Convention provides:

21

*[Please refer to English tez] (On the procedure of accreditation, see Rousseau, International Public Law Volume 4, International Relations no. 122)."

The head of mission is accredited, the other diplomats are the subject of unilateral appointment but, of course, they can be declared personc non grata.

From the fact that the embassy is a mere public service, without separate legal personality, and from the fact that the Franco-British treaty of extradition of 1876 requires a transmission by the Ambassador or another diplomatic agent, it results that a simple note emanating from "the Embassy" of Her Majesty cannot be deemed to comply with the extradition treaty of 14th August 1876.

The defendant agrees that by a decision dated 17th May 1991, the Consell d'Etat considered in the context of the Franco-American extradition treaty (but not in the context of the Franco-British extradition treaty), as valid a request presented by the services of the Embassy of the United States in France whilst the

American treuty provides that:

"The requests for extraditior shall be made by the diplomatic agents, or, in case of the absence thereof, either from the country or from the seat of government, by the consuls or consulate

agents." [Not official translation]

The Consell d'Etat refused to regard as irregular a request presented by the services of the Embassy of

the United States.