TNAG-2955-FCO40-4232-Extradition-cases-from-the-UK-and-France-to-Hong-Kong-Lorrai-1993 — Page 161

THRID

تاج

CZ

r.23

b)

from the request in this case that it is made not of a synthetic note as is the French use but of a collection of documents including a statement of facts which is an integrant part thereof.

Thus and with respect only to the documents the examination of which, in any event, the Minister of Justice agreed, the breach of the criminal law is obvious in respect of counts of indictment 5 and 9.

On the counts of indictment no 21, 22 and 23

Mr. Saniman, who lodged an appeal in the Cour de Cassation, cannot hold, as still does the Minister of Justice, that the existence of new facts justifying the jurisdiction of the Chambre d'Accusation would not have been examined by the Cour de Cassation. One only has to read the decision in this respect to see it. The previous observations of the plaintiffs are thus confirmed in this respect.

But it is also clear that it was never contended, as Mr. Saniman tries to make it believe, that a favourable advice would be binding. [The plaintiffs] only object to the prior negative advice being invoked again. To answer as Mr. Saniman does is only an additional amalgamation.

This recourse is not aimed at having the Conseil d'Etat decide that in the case of a favourable advice of the Chambre d'Accusation, the French Government would have no right to refuse the requested extradition.

It purports to have it decided that the refusal to extradite made in this case, based on an alleged absence of criminal offence and on an inaccurate interpretation of the powers of the Administration, wrongly saying itself bound to refuse the extradition because of the decision of the Chambre d'Accusation, a decision which has nothing to do with the international relations and is therefore capable of recourse, is vitiated by an error of law and must, as such, be cancelled.

:

!

FOR THESE REASONS

The plaintiff's confirm the conclusions of their previous pleadings.

Enclosed:

1. Letter of the Coroner of Hong Kong of 27th April 1993

2. Request for extradition of 27th August 1983

3. Treaty of 14th August 1876

4. Treaty of Nanking of 29th August 1842

5. Lease of the New Territories (Treaty of Peking of 9th June 1898)

6. Joint declaration of Peking of 19th December 1984

7. Letter of the British Ambassador of [date]

J.

!