34-05-1983
BRITISH EMBASSY FAPIIS
42 66 91 43
P.05
2.
3
On the unentertainability of the recourse because of the nature of the decision:
The defendant has sufficiently explained his arguments to make only short comments below.
He will only observe that it is the nature of the challenged decision which results in the recourse being nyi-ementainable, and not the reasons given by the French Government to refuse to extradite.
3.
As to the nature of the Treaties, the defendant will not insist any further, as the plaintiffs distort and even caricature his arguments in an attempt to refute them.
The defendant will only observe that the Treaties do not have the same nature when considered in the relations between the States which are the signatories thereof and in the relations between one of the signatory States and its people.
In the relations between signatory States, the Treaties are, obviously, part of their international order; this is enough to deal with the long developments in which the plaintiffs
deal with this problem.
In the above examination of the capacity of the parties, one has seen that the plaintiffs contend that it is Article 16 of the Franco-British Treaty which would be applicable to the procedure of extradition in this case as opposed to Article 6 of the Treaty.
This argument is without foundation.
Article 16 of the Treaty is obviously not applicable to the present case.
Indeed, that article begins by the following sentence:
[not official, english text] "In the colonies and other foreign possessions of the two high contracting parties, one shall proceed as follows:".
Page 120Page 121
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.