Sunday, November 30, 2014

Extradition or Rendition?

The French Embassy in Ottawa, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and the manager of the synagogue on Rue Copernic have implied that the upholding of the extradition order against Dr. Hassan Diab does not assume his culpability and that Diab will be able to defend himself before France’s judicial system, which they say is as impartial as Canada’s.

If the French judicial system is impartial and just, and Dr. Diab is presumed innocent until proven guilty:
  • Why did they whisk him off within 20 hours on the eve of his daughter's second birthday without the decency of letting him say goodbye to her and his expecting wife?
  • Why did a Canadian judge say in a Canadian court that the evidence against him was convoluted, weak, very confusing and with conclusions that are suspect and likely wouldn't stand up in a Canadian court?
  • Why does Human Rights Watch note that in France “decisions to arrest suspects and place them under formal investigation are based on a low standard of proof”, and lawyers complain “that the way in which judicial investigations in terrorism cases are conducted seriously undermines the right of each defendant to an effective defense”? Human Rights Watch also notes that “the prominent use of intelligence material in judicial investigations, in the context of the close links between judges and the intelligence services, raises concerns about procedural fairness and reliance on evidence obtained from third countries where torture and ill-treatment are routine”.
  • Why did the Canadian Department of Justice, acting on behalf of France, withdraw French intelligence evidence because it came from sources even the French couldn't identify and couldn't provide assurances it wasn't produced under torture, an unacceptable risk noted by Amnesty International in its formal intervention in Dr. Diab's extradition hearing?
  • How is it that the French judicial system can jail someone who is said to be “innocent until proven guilty” for up to 2 or more years (mis en examen) before deciding if they'll even hold a trial? Other jurisdictions do not permit such lengthy delays which effectively violate habeas corpus norms.
  • Why couldn't Dr. Diab's lawyers present RCMP finger and palm print evidence that proves French prints are not those of Dr. Diab?
  • Why did the French conclude that the handwriting of someone else, not Dr. Diab, was the same as that of the bomber's 5 block printed words on a hotel registration card, withdraw that “evidence” when this incompetence was identified, and submit a new handwriting analysis that was judged fundamentally flawed by at least three international handwriting experts?
  • How was a “robot” sketch of a 40-ish moustached bomber confused with the 26 year old (at the time) Dr. Diab?
  • Why did Canadian authorities and judges allow an extradition, which under Canadian law can only be to face charges, when Dr. Diab had not yet been charged?

That doesn't sound impartial or just or fair to me. Bob Thomson Ottawa

Saturday, November 15, 2014

“Their own government has sold them down the river”

British Columbia lawyer and author Garry Botting, one of Canada’s foremost authorities on extradition, commented on Hassan's extradition case:

“There has rarely been a case that is so clearly unfair,” he said. “We are constantly bending over backwards to accommodate whatever international request is made. It’s not a question of ‘will we?’ but how high would you like us to jump to accommodate you.”

Diab’s case was the first solid opportunity since Ferras in 2006 to “really make a difference and bring common sense and fairness to bear in extradition cases. Right now it is not fair, not just and has precious little common sense.”

“Canadians get the short end of the stick every time,” he added. “Their own government has sold them down the river.”

“If the person signing in was the bomber he is going to be nervous. His handwriting won’t be reflected properly and likely he’s trying to disguise it. How can you give any credence to anything that’s one sentence long and hang a guy with it?”

Read the full Ottawa Citizen article, dated November 14, 2014:
Canada's extradition law: A legal conundrum

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Letter Regarding Extradition Law and the Case of Hassan Diab

Dear all,

As you may be aware, the Supreme Court of Canada will issue its decision regarding whether or not to hear the appeal in Hassan Diab's case this Thursday, November 13th.

If leave is granted, the case would be heard by the Supreme Court sometime in 2015. If leave is not granted, the government would remove Hassan from Canada to France where he would possibly spend years in pretrial detention before facing trial based on a handwriting analysis report that was discredited and condemned by five world-renowned handwriting experts.

The following letter was drafted by professors at Carleton University. We are collecting signatures on the letter and plan to submit it as an Op-Ed to a newspaper in the next couple of days. We also plan to send the letter (and list of signatures) to the Canadian Minister of Justice and Members of Parliament.

Letter Regarding Extradition Law and the Case of Hassan Diab

Please consider signing the above letter by Wednesday, November 12th at the latest and help us circulate it among others you know. You can enter your name and affiliation directly at the bottom of the above page.

Here are links to factums that were filed by Hassan's lawyers regarding the leave to appeal application.

http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Diab_SCC_Leave_Application_2014-08-11.pdf

http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Diab_SCC_Leave_Application_Reply_2014-09-22.pdf

Best regards,

Hassan Diab Support Committee
diabsupport@gmail.com
http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org