On what basis did the Canadian judge order Professor Diab’s extradition?
The Canadian extradition judge, Robert Maranger, committed Professor Hassan Diab to extradition in 2011 based solely on a fundamentally flawed handwriting analysis report submitted by France. The report compared Professor Diab’s handwriting with five block-letter words on a hotel registration card from 1980. Five internationally renowned handwriting experts testified that the analysis did not follow recognized methodology. Justice Maranger himself described the handwriting analysis as “convoluted, very confusing, with conclusions that are suspect.” He also stated that France had presented “a weak case” and that “the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial seem unlikely.” However, he felt that Canada’s extradition law, with its limited protections, left him with no option but to commit Professor Diab for extradition.
Who are the juges d’instruction and what was their role in Professor Diab’s case?
In the French legal system, juges d’instruction (“investigating judges”) are magistrates who conduct independent investigations in the most serious criminal cases. They are neither prosecutors nor trial judges. Their role is to investigate both incriminating and exculpatory evidence and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to send a case to trial.
France’s most experienced and respected juges d’instruction, Jean-Marc Herbaut and Richard Foltzer, conducted a meticulous examination of all the facts in Professor Hassan Diab’s case and concluded that there was no evidence to justify putting him on trial.
The work of the juges d’instruction included:
- Re-examining the forensic evidence.
- Traveling to Lebanon to interview witnesses concerning his presence there during the period of the 1980 bombing.
- Reviewing handwriting evidence, intelligence reports, passport records, and witness statements.
In January 2018, the juges d’instruction ordered Professor Diab’s unconditional release and dismissed all the charges against him.
What evidence did Professor Diab have, proving that he was not in France at the time of the 1980 bombing?
There is substantial evidence in support of Professor Hassan Diab’s innocence.
- University examination records from the Lebanese University in Beirut indicate that he was enrolled there and sat examinations during the relevant period in 1980.
- Former classmates and acquaintances testified that he was in Beirut around the date of the bombing, taking his university exams. The investigating judges traveled to Lebanon to interview witnesses.
- Professor Diab’s documented presence in Beirut during the examination period would have made it impossible for him to have traveled to Paris to carry out the bombing and then return.
- Professor Diab’s fingerprints and palm prints do not match those of the suspect.
The French investigating judges who ordered Professor Diab’s unconditional release in 2018 regarded this evidence as persuasive and significant, and indicated that they found “consistent evidence” that Professor Diab had been in Lebanon at the time of the 1980 bombing.
Did the 2023 trial in absentia meet acceptable standards of fairness and justice?
In April 2023, a political trial held in absentia at the Special Court of Assizes in Paris shockingly disregarded the investigative judges’ findings, ignored crucial exculpatory forensic and alibi evidence, and declared Professor Hassan Diab guilty. The proceedings were marred by serious irregularities, including the use of secret, anonymous “intelligence” (inadmissible in Canada), the suppression of exculpatory evidence, defamatory claims, and perjured testimony. This declaration of guilt represents a profound miscarriage of justice.
The trial at the Court of Assizes fell well short of the standards of fairness and justice expected in a democratic legal system. Before the trial, two French investigating judges spent years examining the evidence, including interviewing witnesses in Lebanon, and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to trial. They ordered his unconditional release in January 2018. Professor Diab’s fingerprints and palm prints did not match those of the suspect. Key handwriting evidence had been discredited, and substantial evidence supported that he was in Beirut writing university exams at the time of the 1980 bombing.
Nevertheless, a French appellate court revived the prosecution due to political pressure, and the Special Court of Assizes convicted Professor Diab in absentia based on discredited and flawed “evidence”. In a striking irony, the Special Court of Assizes relied on “intelligence” that France had withdrawn from the Canadian extradition proceedings in 2011 to declare Professor Diab guilty and sentence him to life imprisonment, while discarding as unreliable the handwriting analysis on which the Canadian court had relied in committing Professor Diab for extradition in 2014.
Civil liberties organizations, legal experts, and Canadian officials have criticized the conviction, arguing that it undermined confidence in the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
In what ways does the treatment of Professor Diab constitute a breach of international human rights?
Professor Hassan Diab’s treatment raises serious concerns under international human rights law. His extradition and prosecution relied on evidence that was widely criticized as unreliable, undermining his right to a fair trial under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, his conviction in absentia, despite strong alibi evidence and forensic findings (fingerprints and palm prints that exclude him as the suspect), as well as the earlier decision by two French investigating judges to dismiss the case for lack of sufficient evidence, violated the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair legal process.
More broadly, the prolonged proceedings, spanning nearly two decades and including years of detention and legal uncertainty, have infringed Professor Diab’s rights to liberty, security of the person, due process, and an effective remedy for wrongful treatment.
Shouldn’t Canadian Extradition law be changed to ensure that similar miscarriages of justice are avoided in the future?
Yes, Canadian extradition law should be changed to ensure that similar miscarriages of justice are avoided in the future.
Professor Hassan Diab’s case exposed significant weaknesses in Canada’s extradition system, particularly the low threshold for extradition and the limited ability of Canadian courts to assess the reliability of the requesting state’s evidence. Canadians should not face extradition based on evidence that is manifestly unreliable or incapable of supporting a conviction. Reforming the law to require greater judicial scrutiny of the evidence, stronger procedural safeguards, and more meaningful protection of Charter and human rights would help prevent similar miscarriages of justice.
On June 7, 2023, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) released a report entitled Reforming Canada’s Extradition System:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/JUST/report-13
Professor Diab’s case was highlighted in the JUST report as a striking example of the shortcomings of Canada’s Extradition system. The report includes 20 recommendations for reforming the system. The Canadian government must apply the proposed reforms as soon as possible.
Is it true that France always refuses to extradite its own citizens?
Under Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure and bilateral treaties, France strictly prohibits the extradition of its own nationals to non-EU countries. This principle is rooted in the French Constitution and the French Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead, when French citizens are accused of crimes committed abroad, France often asserts jurisdiction and prosecutes them in French courts if the legal requirements are met.
This means that while Canada extradited its own citizen, Professor Hassan Diab, to France, France would not extradite a French citizen to Canada under comparable circumstances.
This asymmetry has been a point of criticism in Canada. Critics argue that Canadian citizens may be surrendered to countries that would not reciprocate by extraditing their own nationals, placing Canadians at a disadvantage. They contend that Canada’s extradition system should provide stronger protections before surrendering its citizens, particularly where the requesting state’s evidence is weak or unreliable.