Standing Trial -- Justice Will Prevail

When Canada has extradition agreements with another country, as it has with France, the extradition request is judged on whether there is sufficient evidence gathered by the requesting country to proceed with a trial permitting a properly instructed jury to convict. Canada will not extradite on demand, suspicion or surmise. A Canadian court conducts a hearing to determine whether there is indictable evidence against the accused.

But Canada does not judge such a case as being "beyond a reasonable doubt"; that is for the other country's court to decide.

When a Canadian court makes a decision to grant extradition on request by another country it does not represent an opinion of guilt or innocence. It merely represents an agreement under law that there exists sufficient evidence for a trial to legally proceed. And in the case of France's request to Canada to extradite Lebanese-born Hassan Diab on suspicion of having taken part in a terrorist act on French soil, it on this basis.

A court found sufficient evidence existed to proceed to trial, and Canada was prepared to accede to the French request.

This relates to a three-decades-old bombing in front of a synagogue on rue Copernic in Paris. This was a terrorist act that killed four Parisians and wounded 46 others. The bomb was meant to have a far more devastating impact, killing more than merely the four it did, but there was a timer malfunction in the bomb placed in the saddlebags of a motorcycle parked outside the crowded synagogue.

The bomb that was meant to explode at a time when hundreds of the congregants were in the process of exiting the building following prayer services went off precipitately. And the driver of the motorcycle, on the evidence that French investigators have thus far presented, has been identified as Hassan Diab.

Mr. Diab's legal team and his supporters have mounted a very effective campaign to claim that his extradition would be a farce, that insufficient evidence exists to warrant a trial, that some of the evidence in fact, is worthless. And that he would not receive a fair trial, despite that the French legal system is as trustworthy as Canada's, adhering to the same principles of justice and due process rights.

Far from the claims of Mr. Diab's supporters that the French justice system would be canted against Mr. Diab's interests, it has a respected tradition of impartiality in its administration of justice and for its respect for fundamental human rights. And it is this common foundation of justice that the two countries share that support the extradition treaty between France and Canada.

It has taken French investigators years of intensive search to feel they have a prime suspect in Hassan Diab. He is suspected of having been the team leader of the attack. And it was he who is suspected of having been the driver of the motorcycle. France requested Mr. Diab's extradition in 2008. The legal process leading to his extradition has been lengthy and detailed in its examination of the details involved.

But an Ontario Superior Court granted the extradition request in June 2011. The extradition still has not been carried out however, as a result of Mr. Diab's protestations of innocence and the work on his behalf by his supporters and his legal team who determined to fight the extradition request.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is now scheduled to make a final hearing and determination on this case on November 4 and 5.