DOJ-OGR-00020121.jpg

Casmat2bic680B30uNIbnt DecuméMW62, FIEASW2B/adeCRayel nf 4 WILLIAM JULIE AVOCAT A LA COUR subsidiarity of domestic law in relation to international instruments as stated by the aforementioned law of 10 March 1927: the legislative provisions on extradition are applicable only in the silence or in the absence of international conventions.” It follows from the provisions of Article 696 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure that the key question is whether France may extradite a French national under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France and/or under the Extradition Treaty between the European Union and the USA, not whether France may extradite its citizens under French legislation. As previously outlined, the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France does not preclude the French government from extraditing a French national and must therefore be distinguished from a number of other international agreements signed by France which contain a clear prohibition to that extent. The Treaty between the USA and France gives the French government discretion as to whether or not to extradite its own citizens to the USA. It is noted that the letter of the French Minister does not provide any answer on this issue. 2 The DOJ Memorandum and the Peterson Case In support of its argument that the French government would not extradite Ms Ghislaine Maxwell to the USA, the government relies on the case of Mr Hans Peterson, a dual French American citizen whose extradition to the US was denied by France in 2007. The Peterson precedent should only be cited with great caution. First, | am not aware that this case has given rise to a published judicial decision, therefore it should not be interpreted as the support of any legal rule or principle. In addition, in regards to the documents that the DOJ has referred to in its memorandum, | doubt that a judicial decision has ever occurred in this case: as mentioned by the 2007 letter of US Senators Richard J. Durbin and Barack Obama to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, the French Minister of Justice communicated its decision refusing extradition on August 22" 2007, only a few days after the suspect was arrested (at the beginning of August 2007). This decision is not a Court decision but a discretionary decision from the French Ministry of Justice. It actually seems very unlikely that a court decision could have been rendered in this timeframe. This indicates that the case must not have been handed on to the court by the Ministry of Justice in the earliest stage of the extradition process. A refusal to extradite may possibly be challenged by the requesting government before the French Conseil d’Etat, which is the French Supreme Court for administrative matters, as for example the United Kingdom and Hong Kong successfully challenged a decision from the French authorities not to extradite an individual whose extradition they had requested (Conseil d’Etat, 15 October1993, no. 142578). In the Peterson case, the American government did not ? Circulaire Mandat d’arrét européen et Extradition n° CRIM-04-2/CAB-11.03.2004 du 11 mars 2004 51, RUE AMPERE - 75017 PARIS - TEL. O1 88 33 51 80- FAx. O1 88 33 51 81 wj@wijavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 DOJ-OGR-00020121