More on Zaoui
April 23rd, 2004 at 9:18 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald has done more work on the RSAA contentious decision that Zaoui’s trials in Belgium and France were flawed. Many have commented this was because the RSAA simply had little idea of how European courts work.
The Belgium Government has confirmed the assertions Zaoui had no lawyer and no translator was not correct.
One of Zaoui’s co-defendants in the France trial has stated he considers Zaoui got a fair trial.
I’ve considered what should be the standard of prood required for a security risk certificate to be issued to prevent a refugee claim. If someone has no convictions, merely suspicion, then the proof should be at least on the balance of probabilities.
But Zaoui is different. He has been convicted of offences in multiple countries. Therefore to ignore those convictions, one would I submit need to satisfy yourself beyond reasonable doubt that the convictions are unsafe.
No tag for this post.
April 23rd, 2004 at 8:52 pm
Imagine if I was convicted of murder in the usa
Vote:and was a member of ralph naders party.
I then escaped from prison and made my way here.
I claimed refugee status and then have lobby groups saying the convictions were wrong and that I should be tried for my crime in a newzealand court.I dont get it is that what zaouis fans are more than less saying.
April 25th, 2004 at 7:30 pm
There is still no significant new information in that article (or the weekend Herald).
If the the RSAA critisizes the decisions and process of overseas courts, the only suprise is that it has taken until now for them to respond. That they respond angrly and defensivly is also unsuprising.
The comments of Boudjaadar should not be taken out of context (from RSAA decision):
“[808] The evidence against the appellant consisted essentially of a statement made to the police by his co-defendant, Boudjaadar”
and:
“[831] Critical to the prosecution case against the appellant was the evidence of the co-defendant, Boudjaadar. Mr McColgan, in his statement notes:
One of the most disturbing features of the Paris case is the apparent ease with which the Tribunal accepts the word of a co-defendant, Mr Boudjaadar, as persuasive evidence against Mr Zaoui. It is axiomatic in English (and no doubt New Zealand) criminal law that the evidence of a co-defendant, even (or perhaps especially) if given on oath, should be approached with great caution. The danger of such evidence being purely self-serving, the risk that it would be the product of pressure or inducements ? it is little wonder that a co-defendant?s testimony is regarded as something of a poisoned chalice”
The comments of the lawyer who represented Ahmed Zaoui in France are also predictably and understandibly defensive.
Yes the convictions must be examined, and they rightly raise concerns. However, we cannot blindly accept (or reject) the decisions of other countries, no matter how similar (or different) their legal, judicial and political processs is. Since the decision in August 2003, the RSAA has not spoken to defend themselves. Through the frequent and highly critical comments about it, their document on Ahmed Zaoui remains a comprehensive and logical decision.
Vote:April 25th, 2004 at 9:02 pm
but surely there must be many other cases
Vote:all over the world for decades why is this one
so important and why are people so angry at the europeans.
April 26th, 2004 at 7:35 pm
I can only speak for myself, but my first response was that I didn’t want blatant human rights abuse in this country – (I don’t like it anywhere, but I beleived NZ had it closer to sorted.)
When I looked into the case of Ahmed Zaoui I found it was more than a case of human rights abuse, it is a case of potentially a horrendous injustice as well.
Vote:April 26th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
It is a shame that most islamic countries
Vote:are always causing problems like the algerian military but olso secular algerians also feared the f.i.s especially colon mixed algerian french
females who dont wont to wear bherkas.