Mourad Eladditioni analyzes French judicial abuses in the context of extraditions: the principle of specialty in question

HIBAPRESS-RABAT-*Mourad Eladditioni president of the lawyers club in Morocco
In the vast chessboard of international justice, France today finds itself at the center of a complex and sensitive legal controversy. At the heart of this controversy is the Kamel Meziani affair, an emblematic case which raises profound questions about respect for the principle of specialty in French extradition procedures.
Meziani's extradition from Morocco to France triggered a wave of legal questions. Initially indicted for facts, potentially going beyond the terms of the initial extradition. This development has highlighted a possible gap with the principle of specialty, the principle according to which an extradited person can only be prosecuted for the facts which motivated his extradition. This extension of the charges has cast a shadow of doubt on France's compliance with bilateral agreements, in particular the Franco-Moroccan extradition convention.
The Meziani case thus illustrates a major tension between international judicial cooperation and scrupulous respect for the fundamental rights of individuals. This case, far from being isolated, embodies a recurring problem in the French judicial system. It highlights the imperative need for French judicial authorities to review their extradition practices in order to guarantee full compliance with domestic laws and international commitments.
The case law of the French Court of Cassation, in particular the judgment of April 12, 2022, underlines the vital importance of respecting the principle of specialty. Indeed, according to article 696-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an extradited person cannot be detained for offenses other than those which motivated his extradition. This judgment reaffirms the need for rigorous interpretation of the terms of extradition to prevent abuse.
This principle is enshrined in the Extradition Convention concluded between France and Morocco on April 18, 2008, article 8 of which stipulates that “the person who has been extradited will neither be prosecuted, nor judged, nor detained with a view to “execution of a sentence or a security measure, nor subject to any other restriction of his personal freedom for any fact prior to surrender other than that before justified/extradition”.
It follows that the detention of a person for any fact prior to his surrender and distinct from those which justified this surrender is illegal.
The principle of specialty, crucial in respecting extradition treaties, has been blatantly violated by French justice, notably in the December 2019 extradition case from Morocco. These recurring incidents highlight the alarming possibility of serious breaches of this principle. Ignoring this essential agreement with the Moroccan authorities is a serious transgression, undermining the foundations of justice and international law.
In this regard, Article 8, § 1, of the Franco-Moroccan Extradition Convention expressly stipulates that “the person who has been extradited will neither be prosecuted, nor judged, nor detained with a view to the execution of a penalty or a security measure, nor subject to any other restriction of his personal freedom, for any fact prior to the surrender, other than that which motivated the extradition.
The text of the Extradition Convention is thus more precise than that of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in that not only does it specify that the principle of specialty applies with regard to security measures, but it also distinguishes among these security measures those which relate to deprivation of liberty and those which relate to the simple restriction of individual freedom
Indeed, interpreting article 696-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Chamber ruled that “a person handed over to France in execution of an arrest warrant and who has not renounced the principle of specialty cannot be the subject of a provisional detention measure for an offense other than that which motivated his surrender” (Cass. Crim., April 12, 2022, no. 22-80.284, Published in the Bulletin).
France, a major player on the international judicial scene, therefore finds itself at a crossroads. Compliance with international agreements is essential to maintaining trust between states. Indeed, extradition practices consistent with international standards are crucial to ensure that extraditions do not become tools to circumvent normal legal protections. Thus, France is called upon to ensure that its judicial practices reflect these fundamental values, thereby preserving the integrity and legitimacy of its judicial system in the international context.
Meziani's case is a crucial test for French justice, a test of its commitment to the principles of extradition and respect for human rights. While international judicial cooperation is essential in today's globalized world, France must be a model of respect for international legal standards, otherwise its credibility and authority will be undermined.
Ultimately, this case, and others like it, suggest a pressing need for France to reassess its extradition procedures, in order to remain faithful to its principles of justice and law. It is imperative that French judicial practices in the context of extraditions are not only in accordance with bilateral agreements but also that they scrupulously respect the fundamental rights of each individual concerned. Only such an approach will make it possible to preserve trust between States in their international judicial relations and to strengthen the integrity of the French judicial system.