CASE STUDY

1. CASE STUDY The case study will deal with a situation in which an African suspect of terrorist acts - committed on political grounds - has come to The Netherlands, which invited him to attend a meeting devoted to peace negotiations in The Hague, Peace Palace. Upon arrival, the USA asks the extradition of this person. At the same time Portugal, as well as France, asks for the same kind of cooperation. The three claimant parties provide documents charging and incriminating the suspect stemming from Interpol and Europol sources.

2. Moot Court By G.A.M. Strijards Professor by special appointment Groningen University The idea is: to have a “Moot Court” sitting on the case. After the presentation of the relevant facts by Ms Marleen Holthuis, You are invited to split up in four groups: • JudgesThe group of the judges ruling on the admissibility of the extradition; • Claimant PartiesThe group of the claimant parties asking for cooperation and assistance • Public ProsecutorThe group of the public prosecutor, requiring extradition, cooperation and assistance on behalf of the Minister of Justice; • DefenceThe group of the attorney for the defence. You will be guided by ten legal questions, putted forward by Prof. Strijards. Try to ponder upon each question, looking at each question from your special paradigm as party or judge in this procedure. The case is a hypothetical one. Nevertheless, a analogous case has been brought to the cognizance of the The Hague District Court. The Court never reached any verdict…

3. Explanation of Procedures • Introduction • Case Study in groups • Moot Court • Reporting and discussion • Closing remarks by the Chair

4. Time frame • 11:15 • Explanation of procedures • Introduction of the case • 11:40 Division in 4 groups: Case Study • 12:30 Lunch • 13:30 Case Study - continuation in groups • 13:45 Moot Court • 14:45 Reporting and discussion • 16:30 Closing remarks by the Chair

5. Introduction of the Case By Marleen Holthuis LL.B Affiliated with Groningen University • The claimed person Mr. Tamko (Fictive name, fictive photograph) • Location of Angola and Cabinda • Struggle + war for independence • AARFTL

6. Case (2) • BEOWATZE • Invited Mr. Tamko with full knowledge of Foreign Affairs (NL) • To play a key role in peace negotiations between Angola and Cabinda • Special Status of Mr. Tamko ??? Official, diplomat, military, activist…? • Facts: • Invitation of official NGO: BEOWATZE • Cooperation of Foreign Affairs: • ‘Special’ Visum to avoid NSIS

7. Case (3) • Peace Palace The HagueInternational Court of Justice of the United Nations • A venue with great status • On which steps Mr. Tamko was arrested by Dutch police • BEOWATZE recognized by the UN • Territorial or extraterritorial jurisdiction ?? Or none???

8. Case (4) • Foreign Affairs • providing visa for Mr. Tamko • Foreign Affairs • Received requests for extradition regarding Mr. Tamko on arrival at Schiphol airport • Echelon-tapping… inadmissability?

9. Case (5) • Parties involved: • USA, request for extradition • France, request for extradition • Portugal, request for extradition • The Netherlands, • Host Country to the Peace Conference • Arresting “the suspect” • Judging the requests, and circumstances in Court

10. Case (6) • Passive Personality principle • Admissability for USA, France and Portugal for a national of Angola • Extradition on political grounds?? • Priority of the extradition requests

11. Law questionsavailable in hard copy • Has a person who has been invited by a State to attend a diplomatic summit a privileged Status in that country? If so, what kind of Status? • Is the Peace Palace to be considered as an extraterritoriality in the Netherlands? • If the arrest and detention of a claimed person is unlawful, does that prompt the inadmissibility of his extradition? • If the evidence gathered against a claimed person has been obtained illegally, does that prompt the inadmissibility of his extradition? • If a claimant State does rely its jurisdiction on the principle of absolute passive personality, does it affect the admissibility of interstatal cooperation, given the fact that such jurisdictional scope is antithetical to international law? • Could a terrorist act be considered as a political crime under international law? If so, what consequences should that have in this case? • Does the principle of “speedy trial” apply in extraditional matters? • If extradition is unlawful, does that affect the competence of the requesting party to exercise penal enforcement power? • If extradition for a terrorist act has to be denied, is the administering party under the obligation to exercise its national penal enforcement power according to current international law? • If the territorial State has pardoned a crime, could a third State nevertheless exercise its penal enforcement power over that crime.

12. Division in to groups Judges Rapporteur:Irka KuleshnykRoom: I:Grachtensoos ProsecutorsRapporteur:Alejandra Voigt Room: IIHoutzagerszaal Defense LayersRapporteur:Mikhaïl WladimiroffRoom: IIIBrouwerzaal Claimant Parties USA France Portugal Rapporteur:Nice Keijzer Room: IV Prinsezaal

13. Group members Judges Rapporteur: Irka Kuleshnyk Alberto Fabbri Alusine Kamara Benchaâ Dani Berend Keulen Chi Kong Francois Falletti Ghanem Al Sulaiti James Wall John Jackson Kirsti Rissanen Manuel Perreira Mirela Pascaru Paula Tyndale Rajka Vlahovic Ruth Kok Rutsel Martha Stuart Wheeldon Tristan Ploom Prosecutors Rapporteur: Alejandra Voigt Abdulla Al Malki Amidu Small Anna Maria Gregori Charles Giwa Cindy Clarke Els Dinjens Gregor McGill I Kuan Tam Jürg Blaser Miriam Spittler Noel Cutajar Peter Polt Philippe Dekoster Ronny Johnsson Satriya Hari Prasetya Stephanie Solo Wada Asab Ibrahim Defence Layers Rapporteur:Mikhaïl Wladimiroff Anand Doobay Bob Vink Catherine Schmitter Filipa Marques Júnior Günter Schirmer Guy Stessens Joseph Babadi Johns Kay Neiss Max Peter Ratzel Patrick Lopez-Terres Samaneh Roohipoor Siamand Banaa Simone Zwarts Stephanie Maupas Tea Terezija Petrin Walter Appel Willy Kasanda Wa Lunda Claimant Parties Rapporteur: Nico Keijzer Alejandra Voigt Andre Carrier Andrew Rearick Angel Galgo Anne Schepens Erling Johannes Husabo Harald May Isata Sacco Joanne Jakymec Karl Wycoff Matti Joutsen Michel Quillé Mohammad Fadil Imran Niels Larsen Patricia Rosochowizc Prudence Mania Lenko Solveig Wollstad

14. Division in to groups Judges Rapporteur:Irka Kuleshnyk Room: I:Grachtensoos ProsecutorsRapporteur:Alejandra Voigt Room: IIHoutzagerszaal Defense LayersRapporteur:Mikhaïl WladimiroffRoom: IIIBrouwerzaal Claimant Parties USA France Portugal Rapporteur: Nico Keijzer Room: IV Prinsezaal

15. Procedures Moot Court • The president opens the session • The Prosecutor: • summary of the admissability and • sustainability of the request and • in which order of priority • Claimant Parties are to take a stand • Defense attorneys start pleading • The judge hands down the final sentence and give advice to the minister of Justice

16. This presentation can be found on www.eulec.org in the menu: Presentations / Powerpoints / ICLN-Case Study EULEC Brussel The European Institute for Freedom, Security and Justice