AFFAIRE-ABOU-DAOUD - SOME PROBLEMS OF EXTRADITING AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST

• NCJ Number: 51247
• Journal: International Lawyer Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1978) Pages: 333-350
• Author(s): R RIGGLE
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 18 pages
• Corporate Author: American Bar Association
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A DECISION MADE BY A FRENCH COURT ON THE RELEASE OF A TERRORIST IS SEEN AS CASTING DOUBT ON THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM.

Abstract

AN ALLEGED ACCOMPLICE IN THE MURDER OF 11 ATHLETES AT THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN 1972 WAS ARRESTED IN FRANCE IN 1977 BUT, FOUR DAYS LATER, WAS RELEASED AND DEPORTED TO ALGERIA AFTER THE FRENCH JUDICIARY DECIDED IT LACKED AUTHORITY TO HOLD HIM. THE RELEASE SURPRISED WESTERN COUNTRIES BECAUSE TACTICS USED IN THE ALLEGED CRIME WERE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND THE DECISION APPEARED TO BE BASED ON POLITICAL PRESSURE AND FEAR OF REPRISALS FOR HIS ARREST. TWO BASIC QUESTIONS ARE RAISED BY THE DECISION: (1) WHETHER FRANCE RECEIVED DIPLOMATIC CONFIRMATION BY THE TIME OF THE HEARING; AND (2) IF NO DIPLOMATIC CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED, HOW LONG FRANCE SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO RECEIVE SUCH CONFIRMATION. DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION ABOUT AN EXTRADITION REQUEST, IF VIEWED AS INCLUDING THE PROCESS OF DECISIONMAKING, CAN TAKE A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME. HOWEVER, DIPLOMATIC CONFIRMATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL ARREST IS A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY THE REQUESTING COUNTRY THAT EXTRADITION WILL BE SOUGHT. JUDICIAL DECISION WAS THE EASIEST WAY OUT OF THIS DIFFICULT SITUATION, AND THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS; ONLY SOME CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF INTERFERENCE EXISTS. THE FRENCH COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE GERMAN-FRENCH TREATY, ALTHOUGH LITERALLY CORRECT, FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REQUEST FOR A PROVISIONAL ARREST AND DIPLOMATIC CONFIRMATION OF THAT REQUEST. THE FRENCH COURT AND PROSECUTOR DID NOT ACT INCONSISTENTLY WITH DOMESTIC LAW AND, IN THIS SENSE, THE DECISION WAS VALID. FRENCH CRIMINAL LAWS, LIKE MANY OTHERS, DO NOT GENERALLY PROVIDE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITED ABROAD. THERE IS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MULTIPARTITE TREATIES LIKE THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM. (DEP)