Wouldn’t that make the person requesting the extradition pretty stupid to fall for that?
Did the request carry with it the required information to be legal under Swiss law or not?
Not knowing how complex the proceedings are, I can’t speak to that.
Did the request carry with it the required information to be legal under Swiss law or not?
That’s my basis for criticism of the Swiss decision. One need know nothing about Polanski or his crimes to realize that the explaination the Swiss have provided makes no sense and is contrary to the rule of law.
The Swiss have, far as I know,provided two reasons for not extraditing:
- The US “failure” to produce a transcript.
Normally, this one looks like a slam-dunk. In order to extradite, naturally the requested state should have all the relevant documents, and failure to produce them is good grounds to not extradite.
However - in this case the very reason the transcript was not released is that the Swiss themselves stated it was not relevant to the decision. See cites above.
Failure to produce irrelevant documents is not a valid ground to not extradite - as the Swiss themselves alleged earlier.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10517248
In short, according to the Swiss themselves - their official Ministry spokesperson - they are violating the treaty with their stance that the document is necessary!
- Swiss ‘national interest’.
Citing some vague ‘national interest’ is about as contrary to the rule of law as one can get. What possible ‘national interest’ is there to prevent a felon from being punished for rape, in violation of a duly signed extradition treaty?
“Fall for that”?
Extradition by treaty is premised on the notion that courts and judicial officials respect each other.
This notion is known as ‘comity’.
Stating with the one hand that a document is ‘irrelevant and unnecessary for extradition’, and then basing the decision not to extradite on a failure to produce that very document, is not in accord with comity and any rational notions of the rule of law.
If the documents aren’t necessary, then he should be extradited under the treaty. One thing I’ve learned is not to rely on someone being right in saying not to bother to add something to a filing - if there is any doubt, I’ll add the papers in. But this does seem problematic and foolish from the Swiss.
My point still stands - I really don’t care what it is Polanski is accused of/did. To me extradition comes down to the law. “But he’s a child rapist” doesn’t influence me - if the ducks are in a row, stick him on the 'plane. If they aren’t don’t.
If the extradition law itself is stupid, change it, but follow it when in place.
This is incorrect, or badly stated. The second reason cited is this:
Roman Polanski: No extradition. Press Release, FDJP, 12 July 2010. Corrected version.
There is no evidence of violence and non-consentual anal intercourse would have definitely left evidence. Was there even a rape kit admitted into evidence? I can’t find anything to indicate any physical evidence of rape was ever collected.
That’s not what I was referring to. See post 176, below.
If there is anything ‘incorrect’ about this, it is on the part of the BBC. More likely, as appears habitual with the Swiss authorities in this case, they seem to have simply changed their story.
What you mention appears to be a third, unrelated reason (and equally absurd as the first two): that because the US has not previously requested extradition of the fugitive, and because the Swiss authorities had not previously arrested him in spite of having him on their wanted list, he had some sort of legitimate “position of trust” that the authorities would not get around to pursuing him.
The errors in this are manifest. A fugitive from justice has no “legitimate” expectation that justice will be denied in his case. There is of course the notion of limitations, but that has no application here. There is no “bad faith” in the US pursuing him now, because the US has not made him any sort of promise that they would not, and it is an absurdity to construct such a promise from mere inaction. A failure to specifically request certain authorities extradite him may be an oversight, but it is not ‘arbitrary’.
No, they haven’t changed their story on that second reason. That was mentioned up front (see my post 12 in this thread). This second reason, “national interest”, was an incorrect synopsis by the BBC of what the Minister of Justice was saying.
P.S. I found an explanation (not justification) of the seeming flip-flop by the Swiss justice department regarding the first issue (the request for transcript.)
In an article at the Swiss Newspaper Le Temps:
Pourquoi la Suisse n’extrade pas Polanski (Why Switzerland is not extraditing Polanski), Tuesday 13 juillet 2010, article by Denis Masmejan (you need to sign up for a free account to read it, plus it’s in French)
Observers have no doubt that the Minister of Justice, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, was in disagreement with other officials in the Department, and took responsibility of the case herself. In the article she says that the final decision was hers only.
"National interest’ is nothing like “good faith”. The BBC must have been having a really off day.
Nonetheless, while “good faith” is nowhere near as egregious, it is just as odd.
I have no doubt that in the press conference the Minister of Justice used the term “national interest” somewhere, and in the interest of brevity, they condensed their article. The BBC is usually pretty good.
Arnold, thanks for that. I had mentioned it earlier, as I had heard it mentioned on the radio, but I didn’t have a cite.
That’s very interesting.
It is certainly ironic that the Swiss make a big deal about ‘good faith’ and ‘reasonable expectations’ in the implementation of treaties in their second reason, considering their first!
Concerning the first issue, I hate to split hairs (then again, as we all know, that’s what the legal system is all about!), but when the ABC News article you have linked to quotes Folco Galli (Swiss Justice Department spokesman) as saying “such documents are irrelevant for the extradition proceedings” (by such documents, meaning the transcript of the Roger Gunson interview that supposedly would have showed the intention of the judge to renege on a plea bargain), I would like to see the press interview of Folco Galli or read an original statement.
I have looked in several French-language Swiss newspapers (I’m not about to start trying to go through the German-language ones), and in each article I’ve read that cites Folco Galli back in May, he is saying “Mr. Polanski’s attorneys are raising several issues about the American justice system, which are irrelevant to the Swiss review of the extradition demand.” He never specifically says “we don’t need to see that transcript”. Just another point to consider before accusing the Swiss of going back on their word. The judge in the US case seemed convinced that the Swiss were uninterested in the transcript, but that could also be a miscommunication.
We can complicate the language issues further! Folco Galli could have been interviewed in German, and the French-language Swiss newspapers translated wrong (I did however see at least 3 articles in French saying essentially the same thing.) Or, to make matters even more interesting, from the name, I would guess that Folco Galli is a Swiss from the Italian-speaking region, so perhaps in interviews he has to translate in his head from Italian to German, and then some Swiss journalist translates it to French, and another guy at ABC news translates that to English! Now you know why UN interpreters get paid so much. 
You’re welcome (I’m not sure for what, but glad to help!)
That’s not well-established at all. Nobody has actually linked to the written ruling.
In any case, I am not in doubt. I don’t give two shits about Switzerland or about Roman Polanski for that matter. I’m just bothered by the fact that the Swiss are being demonized for taking an action every other country takes and over an issue nobody cares about.
And here we have a piece of news: Reza and Polanski Collaborating on God of Carnage Film. I really couldn’t care less about the Switzerland furor, but I’m glad he’s continuing to make films. This seems like a new direction for his work.
Those dastardly, neutral Swiss! What makes a nation turn neutral … lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with hearts full of neutrality?