Petition re Extradition (Babkha vs Shireroth et al.)

[Assieh Ifai]

I apologise for the lateness of this filing, but my mother's certificate of death had become lost in the post and I only just now received it.

May it please this Judex to allow the admission of Respondents' Exhibit A, the death certificate of my mother, Kavu Ifai.

[Assieh Ifai]

Furthermore, I argue that I am not eligible for extradition under Article VII of the Mango-Camel Pact, as breach of contract is not a crime in both countries.

[Monty]

I will not dwell too much on the formalities of outling the agreed set of facts as I have only really received the version of events from the Petitioner. It is true that Assieh Ifai has submitted evidence, but this was again late, and also made after the deadline for representations let alone evidence. I will not be entertaining the evidence of Assieh Ifai's mother's death on that point, but I also do not believe it is at all relevant and nor do I believe it all credible.

Respondent Assieh Ifai [hereinafter "Ifai"] was seen at the Kaiser's Office submitting herself to the Kaiser's rule. Ifai is by Babkhan authorities seen as a fugitive. Babkha has repeatedly stated her guilt of "rejection of the divinely sanctioned order of the Rightly Guided Kingdom. This is contrary to all the established precepts of Orthodoxy"

Ifai made a statement to the Supreme Court of Babkha, in which she "deeply apologise for attempting to flee the country". This was not an affidavit nor was it sworn in the Judex's opinion. An affidavit is a legal document presenting evidence sworn in front of a legal officer of the Court. Isai's statement did not match that test. She was under medical care under the supervision of Agha Zand Gozâr Sahib, who has found her to suffer from "Shah-disloyalty", which he submits "is a physical and/or mental malady" that he hopes is curable. This Judex does not recognise that this is a physical or mental disease or malady. Under the Mango-Camel Pact's Article VII, extradition is agreed between Babkha and Shireroth and constitutes "the expelling of an individual from all message boards, mailing lists and national channels of public communication and further symbolic delivery to [the requesting country". The requesting country in this case, is Babkha.

Before I hear any shouts of how similar that version of events is to that submitted by Mr. Krumsson, imitation is the finest form of flattery. Further to that, as stated before, I have no version of events from Ifai so I can only judge on the facts presented to me.

The issue, so far as I'm concerned, is whether Ifai can be extradited. It is split as such thanks to the representation from the Imperial Republic's Government: whether Ifai is subject to diplomatic immunity and whether, if this question is answered negatively, Ifai has committed a crime under Babkhan law and finally whether that crime is extraditable?

Is Assieh Ifai subject to diplomatic immunity?

This question was raised by the Kaiser through what he termed an amicus curiae. I will say by the way that I do not entertain Amicus Curiae. If you do not have an interest in the case it is the view of the Court when I am sitting that you do not have the right to speak. That should also go as a warning to the numerous people who have had their say in this Court on this case. The petition was represented by Counsel, in this case Mr. Krumsson. Whilst I thoroughly respect the work of the learned Judge the Chief Justice of Babkha in the jurisprudence of his nation, Counsel has been retained to make representations and representations should be made through him. The same goes for the Emir of Raspur. If you have something to say, say it through Counsel.

However, the Kaiser, whether he realised it or not, is a party to the proceedings as he is the only person to speak for the Imperial Republic. So let me answer the question of whether Assieh Ifai is subject to diplomatic immunity. It is my considered opinion that Ifai is not subject to any diplomatic immunity no matter the state of her protection from Safiria. Diplomatic Immunity does not prevent expulsion from a nation, in fact it implicitly allows it. Expulsion is the only legitimate sanction that can be used against a person diplomatic immunity. To argue that immunity extends to expulsion makes a mockery of the concept of Diplomatic Immunity and so I will not entertain the argument for fear of possible ramifications to the concept of Diplomatic Immunity in the future.

Has Ifai commited a crime in Babkha and is she therefore extraditable?

This question requires detailed examination of Article VII of the Mango-Camel Pact. It is clear to me and cannot be argued otherwise that the Kingdom of Babkha has charged Ifai with the crime of treason. That brings her into the boundaries of Article VII which states:
[quote]The Contracting Parties agree to extradite to each other, subject to the provisions of this Article, people found in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties who have been charged with, are being tried for, or have been found guilty of an extraditable offense in the Requesting State. [/quote][/size]
So what is an extraditable offence under the treaty? It is:
[quote]The crimes of treason, spionage, terrorism, paplism or any offense that may be punished by banishment under the laws of both Contracting Parties shall be considered extraditable offenses. An offense shall be an extraditable offense wheter or not the laws of the Contracting Parties place the offense within the same category of offenses or denominate the offense by the same terminology.[/quote][/size]
The final sentence of that quote from the treaty is somewhat dense. I have heard no argument on it and so can only interpret it as I see fit. I do believe that the sentence essentially allows for comparitable offences to be balanced against each other in the competing jurisdictions. It is of little consequence to the proceedings but I should allow such an interpretation to stand for the future.

It would be reasonable at this point to assume that the Ifai should be on the next plane to Babkha. However, there is a part of this treaty which is very rarely used and has not been mentioned by any side. I refer you all to:
[quote]Extradition shall not be granted when, accordingly to the classification of the Requesting State, the individual is persecuted for political offenses or when extradition is being asked solely for political reasons.[/quote][/size]
Now a political offence is a very vague thing to pin down. It is my opinion, after consulting international theses on the matter, that a political offence is not something as simple as a crime against the state such as treason. It is a crime with a political dimenson. Have Ifai's crimes been of a political dimension? So far as I'm aware, she is charged with treason in the petition. The Emir of Raspur has, and I will entertain this, also suggested that Ifai is charged with a breach of provision of the Imperial Transportation Act. This latter charge is not in my view serious enough under the Pact to be extriditabel.

What is the nature then of her treason then? The nature of her treason is in my view overtly political and has been made overtly politcal by the way the Petitioner, not its Counsel, has framed it. The treason is supposed to have been a subversion of the state in its highest form, threatening the stability of the Kingdom's political foundations. The Kingdom of Babkha has made Ifai's crime in its own classification a politcal offence and I cannot see any other reason why, bar political reasons, this extradition is sought.

As such Ifai is not extraditable under Article VII of the Mango - Camel Pact and the Imperial Judex will not entertain any further petition on this matter as we will not entertain a retrospective re-classification of her alleged crimes.

The Petition is REJECTED.