PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Tilted in favour of the requesting state (e.g., France) and indifferent to the basic rights of the “person sought” (e.g., Diab), the law rests on an unreasonable presumption that the requesting state is presenting reliable evidence and acting in good faith — even when certain states, such as France, are known to have sourced their “evidence” through torture and unsworn intelligence, i.e., through “hearsay.” In the Diab case, material that France first presented to Canada in 2008 was not reliable — it contained blatant lies, among which the claim that there were no discernible (or usable) fingerprints of the bomber. In fact there were several identifiable fingerprints and they excluded Diab."
------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTARY: "How the Hassan Diab affair undressed Canada's extradition law," by Toronto Star Contributor Michelle Weinroth, published on March 7, 2023. (Michelle Weinroth is a writer living in Ottawa. She has studied the Hassan Diab affair closely for almost a decade.)
SUB-HEADING: "Canadians from coast to coast are demanding that Canada stand up to France and categorically reject a second extradition for the innocent Hassan Diab."
MW
GIST: "Prominent lawyers and members of the legal profession have been petitioning for a change to Canada’s Extradition Act for some years.
Finally, in early February, their plea for reform was heard by MPs of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
It was a historic event, the culmination of appeals dating back to 2018 when Hassan Diab requested a public inquiry into the miscarriage of justice that he suffered at the hands of both France and Canada between 2008 and 2018.
Canadians eager to learn more about the flagrant iniquities of Canada’s current extradition law — a law that patently violates Canada’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms — need look no further than the Hassan Diab Affair.
Falsely accused of involvement in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue and extradited to France in 2014 on the flimsiest and most spurious of grounds, Diab languished, without charge, in a maximum-security jail for more than three years. In 2018, French investigative judges found him innocent and ordered his release.
When he appealed to then Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould for a public inquiry into his case, his request was turned down. She commissioned an external review that merely served to uphold the dubious deeds of those who surrendered him to France.
But Diab’s harrowing story had by then garnered considerable media attention, illuminating the defective character of Canada’s extradition act on three basic grounds
- Tilted in favour of the requesting state (e.g., France) and indifferent to the basic rights of the “person sought” (e.g., Diab), the law rests on an unreasonable presumption that the requesting state is presenting reliable evidence and acting in good faith — even when certain states, such as France, are known to have sourced their “evidence” through torture and unsworn intelligence, i.e., through “hearsay.”
In the Diab case, material that France first presented to Canada in 2008 was not reliable — it contained blatant lies, among which the claim that there were no discernible (or usable) fingerprints of the bomber. In fact there were several identifiable fingerprints and they excluded Diab.
- While Canada’s extradition law privileges the requesting state’s interests, it imposes an insurmountable burden on the “person sought.” It demands that the individual demonstrate the manifest unreliability of the accusations levelled against them — but without being allowed to invoke exculpatory evidence of innocence.
POLITICS OPINION
- While depriving the individual of their right to self-defence, the extradition law allows the Department of Justice to withhold exculpatory evidence. In the Diab case, the Canadian prosecutor knowingly withheld exculpatory fingerprint evidence that excluded Diab. Disclosure of this evidence would have saved Diab years of torment.
The current extradition law presumes the “person sought” to be guilty and this prior to any investigation.
It leans toward a predetermined outcome set by the requesting state — the swift expulsion of the “person sought” from Canada so matters can be dealt with “expeditiously.”
Never mind that such “efficiency” means tearing the individual away from loved ones and callously thrusting them into a foreign land, where language barriers are both alienating and disabling.
The Diab file makes clear that Canada was willing to sacrifice its own citizen at the altar of mutual state interests.
Allowing shoddy reports, baseless accusations, and deceitful statements about Diab to go unchallenged, it dubbed him a terrorist, deprived him of an opportunity for self-defence, and in the same breath forgave France for its countless transgressions and, not least, for withholding exculpatory evidence.
Diab’s innocence has been demonstrated repeatedly. But in 2012, former Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson remarked that neither guilt nor innocence is “a relevant consideration” in the context of Canada’s extradition law.
O Justice: “Where art thou?”
In 2021, Diab’s 2018 release was overturned. Shockingly, on thoroughly discredited evidence, France’s highest court ruled that he stand trial. On April 3, he will be tried in absentia for a crime he did not commit.
Scandalized, Canadians from coast to coast are demanding that Canada stand up to France and categorically reject a second extradition for the innocent Hassan Diab.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
