Full text of the judge's categorical and exemplary ruling in the case brought by the Serbian government seeking extradition of the former Bosnian president Dr Ejup Ganic

In the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court

The Government of the Republic of Serbia

"'v'"

Ejup Ganic

1. In these proceedings the Government of the Republic of Serbia seeks the

extradition of Dr Ejup Ganic in respect of offences said to have been

committed in Bosnia in May 1992. In the course of the 6 day hearing I have

received a substantial amount of evidential material amounting to some 20

lever arch files. I am. greatly indebted to Counsel both for the Government and

for the defendant for their various schedules and skeleton arguments which

have guided me through that material. I have also considered the evidence of 17

witnesses of which 6 were called to give evidence personally on behalf of the

defence and 1 in rebuttal on behalf of the Government.

The proceedings are brought under the Extradition Act 2003 and Serbia is a Part

II Territory. It is an accusation request certified by the Secretary of State on

the 12th April 2010, the defendant having been arrested under a provisional

warrant and first appearing before the court on the 1st March 2010.

2. Mr James Lewis QC, Mr Ben Watson and Miss Rachel Scott appear for the

Government of Serbia. Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr John Jones appear

on behalf of Dr Ganic. There are no issues over the certification of the request

or over the identification of the defendant. In opposing an order for extradition

the defence raise a number of issues. They are:-

• Abuse of Process

• The conduct alleged does not amount to an Extradition Offence

• Extradition would be barred by Section 81(a) and (b) on the grounds that

the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on

account of his race, religion, nationality and political opinions

• The defendant would be entitled to functional immunity

• That extradition should be barred under Section 82 of the Act by reason of

passage of time

• That extradition would be incompatible with his Human Rights

particularly Articles 2, 3, 6 and 8.

3. Extradition Offences

Section 137(3) of the 2003 Act requires:-

(a) The conduct occurs outside Category 2 Territory

(b) That conduct is punishable under the Law of the Category 2

Territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a

term of 12 months or a greater punishment

(c) In corresponding circumstances equivalent conduct would

constitute an extra territorial offence under the law of the relevant

part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment or

another form of detention for a term of 12 months or a greater

punishment.

4. The conduct complained of all occurred within the territory of Bosnia and

Herzegovina and therefore outside the Category 2 Territory of Serbia. Under

the terms of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

which applied to Serbia at the relevant time, Article 143 (War Crimes against

the Wounded and Sick) was punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less

than 5 years or by capital punishment; Article 146 (the Unlawful Killing and

Wounding of the Enemy) was punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1

year and Article 148 (the Use of prohibited means of warfare) was punishable

by a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year. Similar conduct which

would give rise to allegations of grave crimes would be prosecuted in the

United Kingdom under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and all such offences

carry more than 12 months imprisonment.

5. If the conduct amounts to a grave crime under the Geneva Conventions, I am

satisfied that such offences would have been punishable by virtue of Criminal

Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by imprisonment of not

less than 12 months imprisonment. I am also satisfied that Section 196 of the

Extradition Act 2003 would have applied had there not been any law in force in

respect of the time and place where the conduct was alleged to have occurred,

which would have rendered the conduct an Extradition offence.

6. Therefore, if the conduct in this case is capable of amounting to one or more of

the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions 1949, the conduct would amount

to an extraditable offence.

7. In considering whether the conduct does amount to a grave breach of the

conventions I have examined the conduct alleged in the request itself. In due

course it will be necessary for me to examine the evidence that has been

tendered during the course of this case together with the written materials.

From that evidence I will make certain findings of fact which I shall need to

apply to other facets of this case. For the purpose in deciding whether there is

an extradition offence I have considered solely the conduct alleged in the

request itself. The allegation is:

8. The request refers to the conflict as "The International Combat Conflict"

whereas the grave war-crimes of the Geneva Convention would only be

applicable if there was an international armed conflict. For the Government

Mr Lewis submitted that this were merely an error in translation and that it

was acknowledged by Serbia that the conflict at the time was one of an

international armed conflict. Mr Fitzgerald QC on behalf of the defendant

submitted that the term. "International Combat Conflict" was coined to avoid a

finding that it was an international armed conflict which might have rendered

Serbia responsible in international law for aggressively entering Bosnia,

thereby becoming responsible in international law to pay reparations to Bosnia.

It is said that for that reason Serbia has always claimed that the conflict in

Bosnia was an internal conflict.

9. On this aspect it is not for me to consider the consequences which would flow

from this decision but it is in my view entirely clear that the events in Sarajevo

on the 2nd and 3rd May 199Z and in the weeks prior to that weekend amounted to

an international armed conflict.

10. "Grave Breaches" of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 only apply to

international armed conflicts which arise between two or more of the High

Contracting Parties to the conventions. The independent State of Bosnia and

Herzegovina was created by a declaration of independence on the 3rd March

1992 which was recognised by the European Union and others on the 6th April

1992. At that time Serbia formed part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

which was the successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is

submitted that it was not until the 14th December 1995 that Serbia as part of the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia recognised Bosnia and Herzegovina as a

Sovereign State. It is submitted that Serbia could not have claimed at the time

to have been a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions. However it

would appear that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed the obligations

of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is a complex area of law

and this court does not have the expertise to give an authoritative ruling on this

issue. For the purposes of these proceedings I have concluded that the Geneva

Conventions apply in the conflict that was taking place in Bosnia in May 1992.

11. If the defendant was responsible for giving the command for an attack upon the

military hospital in Sarajevo and the command for the attack on the medical

vehicles on the 2nd May these would amount to allegations of grave crimes

under the Geneva Convention and are therefore extradition offences.

12. It is alleged that the defendant in his capacity as Acting President of Bosnia

and Herzegovina personally commanded the attack upon the JNA Officers'

Club. There is nothing in the request to indicate why in an international

armed conflict such an attack would constitute a grave crime contrary to the

Geneva Conventions. I therefore find that no war crime is committed by the

attack on the JNA Officers' Club.

I3. The following day a group of 30 JNA vehicles left the officers' club to restore

President Izetbegovic to the Bosnian Presidency. It was also seized upon as an

opportunity to arrange for the evacuation of IN A forces and military

equipment from the officers' club to a destination outside the city. There is

nothing within the request which would bring the conduct alleging issuing a

command to attack a military convoy within the meaning of a grave breach of

the Geneva Conventions 1949. However there is a reference to an Ambulance

within the convoy and the request alleges that Dr Ganic expressly ordered an

attack upon the Ambulance within the convoy. To that limited extent I am

satisfied that the conduct alleges an extradition offence. I am not satisfied that

the rest of the convoy had any right to protection or that the soldiers in the 30

vehicles were prisoners of war.

14. Section 81 Bar to Extradition by virtue of Extraneous Circumstances and

 Abuse of Process 

The procedural history of the investigation with a view to prosecution is long

and complex. Serbia began a lengthy investigation, a file was prepared and

forwarded to the Republic of Srpska. Srpska in turn forwarded the case to

the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and in 2002

and 2003, pursuant to the Rome Agreement of 1996 (which has become known

as "Rules of the Road"), the ICTY carried out an investigation and a review of

the evidence. Having reviewed all the evidence, the investigators found that

there was no case against Dr Ganic. That decision was binding upon Serbia at

the time but the arrangements under the Rome Agreement have now lapsed. It

is quite properly submitted by the Government that this is not a case where a

court has tried an issue and reached a conclusion. Therefore, the Government

submits, the investigation remains open and can be reviewed and prosecutions

commenced by their War Crimes Prosecutions Office. Whilst I accept that the

decisions of the investigators at the International Criminal Court do not give

rise to a bar in the sense of Autrofois, it raises a very significant obstacle to any

other prosecution. The ICTY was set up as an independent international

organisation to deal with alleged war crimes so that trials could be conducted

without it being said that defendants had to face trial by their enemies. I

therefore attach considerable weight to the fact that no prosecution was

brought.

15. In May 2002 the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina established a

Prosecutors Office for the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was to be an

international and independent investigative team. The investigation was most

thoroughly undertaken by a team led by a British CPS Lawyer, Mr Alcock,

who gave evidence to me. He had read of the arrest of Dr Ganic and realising

that he had material evidence contacted Dr Ganic's Solicitors.

16. Mr Alcock gave evidence before me. I reached the conclusion that he was a

dedicated, thorough and entirely independent investigator lawyer. In giving

evidence he was precise and extremely careful to give accurate, clear and

unambiguous answers to the questions that were put to him. He was clearly a

witness of truth and his investigations were extensive, including taking

evidence in Canada from the United Nations Commanding Officer at the time.

17. He examined all the evidence which had been obtained and in many instances

obtained further evidence from witnesses which clarified the earlier statements

and their evidence was then "a lot less damaging than it had been". He

examined the witness statements, film footage, historical documents and books

about the events of 1992.

18. In respect of the events of 2nd May 1992 Mr Alcock reached the conclusion that

Dr Ganic could not and was not "responsible in any war~crime guilt sense for

anything at all, and could not have been on the facts that he knew at that time."

In respect of the events of 3rd May he looked more critically at the evidence

because by that time Dr Ganic had been assigned the role of Acting President.

Mr Alcock told me "I believe it is in the interest of justice that war crimes that

took place in Dobroviljacka Street are brought to trial but it is very much in the

interest of justice to make sure one brings the right people to trial. As far as

Dr Ganic is concerned I can see nothing except a politically motivated trial

against him to justify an indictment".

I9. Mr Damir Arnaut gave evidence to me in person. He is the adviser for Legal

and Constitutional Affairs to the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has

played a significant part in the diplomatic aspects of these extradition

proceedings. He told me something of the diplomatic moves which occurred

between Bosnia, Serbia and the Turkish Governments. It seems that these

extradition proceedings come at a sensitive time for Serbia whose Government

were anxious to proceed with the various stages of an application to join the

European Union. One of the aspects of their application concerned the

adoption of what is known as the Srebrenica Declaration which was designed

to provide proof to the European Union that Serbia was distancing itself from

the Milosevic Regime. That declaration would not be as effective if the

Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina were to criticise the declaration.

The Serbian Government was anxious to avoid including the word genocide in

the declaration but the Bosnians equally felt that the word should be included

in the declaration. It is obviously a very sensitive issue. It seems that in

attempting to resolve the issue the Turkish Ambassador had received an

assurance from the Serbian Government that they would not send the

extradition request in time for the certification deadline thus bringing the

extradition proceedings to an end. However the ·United Kingdom Ambassador

in Belgrade confirmed that the extradition request had been received although a

Serbian Government Minister claimed that the United Kingdom Ambassador

must be mistaken. He was not and the extradition request had been received.

The Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade reported that the

extradition request "comes at a very sensitive time when the declaration on

Srebrenica is expected to be adopted in the Serbian Parliament and the political

climate in Serbia is in a very sensitive phase". The President of Bosnia was

invited to issue an official press release praising the adoption of the declaration

and in return it was said that the United Kingdom Home Office would receive

an oral message to the effect that:-

20. It seems that further negotiations over future dealings with prosecutions for

war crimes were attempted but came to no agreement. Following the agreed

text, a letter was sent from Bosnia to the United Kingdom Home Office

providing the written guarantee that had been sought about travel documents.

It seems that Serbia's message had not been conveyed to the Home Office but

pressure was still being put upon the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government not

to condemn the declaration because of the absence of the word genocide against

"unmistakable warnings that the Ganic matter depended upon statements

following the adoption of the declaration".

21. Mr Arnaut's evidence on these political moves was largely unchallenged but he

also dealt with matters relating to witness 'A'. He made it clear that this

witness had approached him unsolicited and had attended at his offices on the

16th March. He produced and was able to show to the prosecutor the record of

the attendance log showing the witness’s attendance. Because the witness was

protected there was no mention of witness’s identity in court and it was not

disclosed to me. Mr Arnault commented that the witness had told him that he

was surprised to give evidence about Dr Ganic, that the investigating

magistrate had switched the tape recording off from time to time and that the

two police officers who approached him had offered as an inducement some

form of employment with the Srpska Police. The Government countered this

evidence with allegations that Mr Arnault had offered bribes to the witness. I

found Mr Arnault's evidence to be truthful and compelling both in relation to

the credibility of witness 'A' and in relation to the political and diplomatic

pressures that were being exerted.

22. Dr Schwarz-Schilling attended to give evidence before me. He was the High

Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2005 - 2007 and also the

Special Representative of the European Union. He told me that he was "of the

absolute opinion that the prosecution was politically motivated and that it was

geared towards achieving political aims." He pointed out that the Prime

Minister of the Republic of Srpska had "made statements to the effect that it

was high time that Mr Ganic ended up behind bars". He commented

that this was a statement from a high ranking politician. In his view the War

Crimes Prosecution Office in Serbia was not independent of political influence

and that it would be impossible for the proceedings to take place fairly. He

explained that this was political because "it was important for the Serbian side

to demonstrate that Bosnian people had been brought in front of the court ...

and we are going to satisfy the requirements of the population". In his view it

will be impossible to obtain a fair trial in Serbia under these conditions.

23. Dr Schwarz-Shilling acknowledged in cross-examination that he had not seen

the evidence that was presented under the Rules of the Road Agreement or to

the international prosecutor in the Bosnian State Prosecutors Office, but in his

view "two courts have been concerned with this matter already. The political

situation is such that there is quite likely a political motivation."

24. Lord Ashdown, the former High Representative of the European Union, whose

evidence was given in statement form, said that in his "firm view, based on

what I know about Dr Ganic's case and about Serbia and its national politics,

the request is about politics rather than justice". Whilst I accept the general

observation based upon his extensive knowledge of the region, I note that it is

in part based upon the fact that Dr Ganic was arrested on the day that Radovan

Karadzic was due to give his opening statement to the ICTY. In Lord

Ashdown's view this was no coincidence and indeed the defence have

submitted that this was a contrived situation brought about deliberately by the

Serbian Government. However, on careful examination of the chronology it is

apparent that the proceedings against Dr Ganic in Belgrade begun considerably

earlier and that it is likely that the date of his arrest was dictated largely by the

date of his arrival in the United Kingdom 2 days before his arrest. I am

satisfied that it is more likely than not that the fact that arrest was made on the day that

Karadzic was giving his opening statement was coincidence rather than design.

I am therefore not taking that fact into account in considering the evidence of

political motivation.

25. Dr Marko Hoare's evidence concluded that the prosecution was brought for

political reasons at a time when the Serbian Government was attempting to

pass a resolution in the Serbian Parliament apologising for the Srebrenica

Massacre of 1995. He believes there is also a more general desire to rewrite the

history of the war in Bosnia in order to "equalise the guilt of the parties".

26. The defence submit that there is an absence of detail within the extradition

request which had it been included would have demonstrated that the offences

were not extradition offences. The submission is therefore that as these facts,

known to the Serbian Government, were withheld, there is an inference that

can be drawn that the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting him or

punishing him on account of his religion, nationality or political opinions. I

have received considerable volume of evidence from a large number of

witnesses from which I make the following findings of fact:-

27. I am satisfied that by the time the extradition request was made the Serbian

Investigators were aware of evidence to support these facts and the withholding

of this information in the request is a matter which I shall have to consider in

relation to the submission on abuse of process.

28. Abuse of Process in the light of Earlier Investigations

On the 18th February 1996 Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia entered

into the Rome Agreement which became known as "The Rules of the Road".

Amongst other things it provided that serious violations of international

humanitarian law would be considered by the International Tribunal only if

the evidence had been reviewed and deemed consistent with International

Legal Standards by the International Tribunal. The Office of the Prosecutor

for the ICTY was set up with responsibility for carrying out that review. The

investigation and review was properly carried out and on the 17th June 2003 the

ICTY concluded that the evidence was insufficient to provide reasonable

grounds for believing that the defendant committed any serious violations of

international humanitarian law.

29. The Rules of the Road procedure closed in May 2004. A War Crime Chamber

of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina came into being. Mr Philip

Alcock was appointed an International Prosecutor for war crimes and

conducted an investigation into whether Dr Ganic was responsible for war

crimes arising out of the events of the 2nd and 3rd May 1992. Mr Philip Alcock's

evidence to me was clear and precise. He was undoubtedly a witness of truth

but it was also apparent that he was an immensely careful and thorough

investigator. He concluded that in respect of the events of the 2nd May this was

"a day of simple war between two ethnic group in the horrible street fighting of

that day, there is no evidence whatsoever to connect Dr Ganic with the

commission of any war crime ... I never saw nor heard of any conduct on the

part of Dr Ganic which would justify indicting him for any JNA deaths that

occurred in Sarajevo street fighting on the 2nd May 1992. Until the evening of

the day Dr Ganic was not the Acting President". Mr Alcock recounts the

details of the investigation and his findings. He concludes "My assessment of

Dr Ganic's role is that he is not culpable. While any suspicions obviously had

to be investigated, I thoroughly investigated those suspicions and the results of

the investigation demonstrated that there was no basis for proceeding against

Dr Ganic". "I do not know of any subsequent evidence since I handed over my

file in October 2009, which would change my opinion".

30 Mr Lewis on behalf of the Government submits that first there is further

evidence and secondly, because there is no finding of a court, the two decisions

not to prosecute are decisions of prosecutors and that a third prosecutor might

validly come to a different conclusion.

31. The fresh evidence on which the Government relies is the evidence of Dr

Tausan, whose evidence suggests there was no attack on the military hospital on

the 2nd May, and two further witnesses who claim to have been injured or

tortured after being taken prisoner in Volunteers Street on the 3rd May. It said

that 5 witnesses who had already been interviewed both by the ICTY and Dr

Alcock were interviewed again.

32. Whilst I accept Mr Lewis' submission, in general, that nothing would prevent

prosecution where a case is passed from one individual prosecutor to another

and a different conclusion is reached. However I conclude that there is a

distinction between the role of individual prosecutors and the role of the

prosecutor within the ICTY. The ICTY was set up with international agreement

to deal with war crimes alleged to have been committed in the former

Yugoslavia and has within its responsibilities the investigation and prosecution

of those cases. The investigation was carried out on behalf of the ICTY, and

acting upon a report from their investigators and prosecutors it was the ICTY

that concluded that there was no case against Dr Ganic. Until The Rules of the

Road Agreement ended in May 2004 no other prosecutor would have authority

to bring proceedings. The Bosnian War Crimes Office also established itself

on an international basis and it was to investigate crimes alleged to have been

committed within the State of Bosnia. That enquiry also concluded that there

was no case against Dr Ganic. It is in my view not sufficient for the War

Crimes Prosecutor in Serbia merely to say that they take a different view of the

evidence where a decision has been made by the ICTY.

33. I therefore have to consider whether there is any significant fresh evidence

which was available to the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor that was not

available to the ICTY or to Mr Alcock in his review.

34. I note that the District Court that issued the original proceedings did so on the

29th December 2008, the file having been received by Serbia only a few days

earlier. I therefore conclude that the decision to issue proceedings was made

solely on the evidence available to the ICTY and to Mr Alcock. It seems that

"particularly striking testimonies" on which the Serbian Government have

decided to continue with the proceedings that they started in Decemher 2008

relate to 5 witnesses who had already been interviewed and 2 further witnesses

who claimed to have been tortured and injured after the 3rd May attack on the

convoy. All the witnesses including protected witnesses 'A' and 'B' were

interviewed by Mr Alcock. Witness 'A' did not provide any new information

and in Mr Alcock's view witness 'B' was a highly unreliable witness.

35. I have not been provided with any new evidence that could be described as

"striking" or substantial.

36. The Government called Mr Milan Petrovic in rebuttal. Mr Petrovic is the

Deputy Prosecutor of the War Crimes Prosecution Office in Belgrade and

would have the responsibility of prosecuting if this matter were to be

extradited. He gave me general information about the War Crimes Office In

Serbia. In the course of his evidence he asserted that the War Crimes Office

had not received any criticism or complaint and that the ICTY had been

willing to transfer cases to them. I am satisfied that there has been criticism

expressed and that applications to transfer cases to Serbia from the ICTY have

been withdrawn because of concerns. He was a prosecutor in the case of Jurisic

in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment

based upon an agreement made on 27th April 1992. The witness acknowledged

in cross-examination that no such agreement had been reached. I found his

evidence unreliable.

37. In examining Mr Petrovic's evidence I have considered the evidence of Dr

Noel Malcolm, who gave evidence on behalf of the defence. He was asked

about his view of the information contained in the request. He told me "In the

errors of misrepresentations that I have found it seemed to me there was a

pattern. This was not just random incompetence and getting things wrong.

All the significant misrepresentations pointed in the same direction" .He told

me of a culture within Serbia which amounted to "a very powerful current

opinion which involves a fundamental denial of the origins, nature and scale of

what was done in Bosnia by Serb Forces". Dr Malcolm reached the conclusion

that Dr Ganic being a very prominent Bosnian Muslim politician who was also

a Bosnian leader during the war would suffer prejudice at his trial on grounds

of politics and ethnicity.

38. On the first day of this extended hearing I was satisfied that there was prima

facie evidence of an abuse of process and as a result of that ruling evidence has

now been adduced in relation to that issue. No evidence having been adduced

to show a striking or substantial change in the evidence available to the ICTY

or to Mr Alcock, I have concluded that there is no valid justification for

commencing proceedings against Dr Ganic. I am satisfied from the evidence of

Mr Arnaut that during the course of these extradition proceedings attempts

were made to use the proceedings as a lever to try to secure the Bosnian

Government’s approval to the Srebrenica Declaration. If indeed the

Government was prepared not to pursue these extradition proceedings in return

from Bosnian co~operation that in itself must be capable of amounting to an

abuse of this process of this court. Some corroboration for MrArnaut's

evidence could be found in the unusual circumstances in which an application

to vary conditions of bail was made to this court to enable Dr Ganic to return

to Bosnia. It would appear that that application was founded upon attempts at

diplomatic agreements. I am also satisfied that the descriptions in the request

are as Dr Malcolm described significant misrepresentations. The combination

of the two leads me to believe that these proceedings are brought and are being

used for political purposes and as such amount to an abuse of the process of this

court.

39. It is submitted that Section 81 provides a bar to extradition in these

circumstances. The statutory protection from politically motivated

prosecutions would arise if Dr Ganic would suffer prejudice at his trial on

grounds of religion, race or politics. Two careful and thorough investigations

have concluded that there is no evidence on which charges could be brought

against Dr Ganic. The District Court in Serbia issued proceedings at the

request of the War Crimes Prosecutor without any further evidence having

been obtained. The evidence which has been subsequently obtained is not

significant and does not justify any change in the initial decision. In the

absence of any significant additional evidence there would appear to be only

two possible explanations, that of incompetence by the Serbian Prosecutors or a

motive for prosecuting which is based upon politics, race or religion. From the

evidence I have received from Mr Petrovic I am satisfied that the War Crimes

Prosecutors Office is far from incompetent. Mr Philip Alcock concluded that

he could see nothing to justify an indictment other than a politically motivated

trial. Dr Schwarz-Schilling told me that the prosecution was high on the

political agenda and that he was "absolutely of the opinion that it is politically

motivated". Dr Carole Hodge told me that in her view the prosecution was

politically motivated and that there would be enormous pressure to convict

because if he were acquitted there would be uproar in Belgrade. Dr Malcolm

believed that Dr Ganic would be the target of Serb hostility.

40. I am therefore satisfied that extradition is barred by reason of extraneous

considerations by virtue of Section 81 (a) and (b) in due course I will be

ordering that the defendant be discharged.

41. I have dealt in this hearing with issues relating to extradition offences, abuse of

process and the Section 81 bar to extradition on the grounds of the defendant's

race, religion, nationality and political opinions. Although they have been

raised I have not heard full argument in relation to functional immunity,

passage of time and incompatibility with human rights.

42. Since reaching these conclusions I have been informed that the Chief War

Crimes Prosecutor in Belgrade is reported as having informed the Press that Dr

Ganic is wanted for the purposes of interrogation before a decision is made as

to whether he is to be indicted. This is not evidence before me and I cannot be

sure that the report is accurate, but if it is the case that Dr Ganic is wanted for

interrogation rather than prosecution extradition would not be permissible

under the Extradition Act of 2003.

43. The defendant is therefore discharged.

Tim Workman

Senior District Judge

City of Westminster Magistrates' Court

27th July 2010

Search our archives: