In the early morning of this Thursday, Beijing time, the British Columbia Provincial High Court made a decision. The allegations in the Meng Wanzhou extradance case constituted dual crimes.The extradition case entered the next session, and Meng Wanzhou's team's application was rejected.
Meng Wanzhou was detained in Canada in December 2018 and was asked to be extradited to the United States by the US Department of Justice.In the context of the Sino -US trade dispute, this incident has become a case that the Chinese people are very concerned about.On the same day, it became the number one hotspot for Weibo, including central media such as People's Daily, CCTV News, and Xinhua News Agency to send or forward relevant content on social media.
But unfortunately, due to the neglect of the details, many media's expressions in this news report are inaccurate or even wrong, even the central media.These inaccurate expressions often mislead readers 'wrong understanding, which also deepen the Chinese readers' wrong impression of the Canadian government and the judicial department.Clarifying these details is very beneficial to us and understand that this case is very beneficial.
If double crimes are not established, Meng Wanzhou will be released in court and can return home immediately?
Domestic public opinion generally believes that if the judge's decision is that the dual crime is not established, Meng Wanzhou will be released in court and return home immediately.
In fact, Meng Wanzhou will be released in court, but this does not mean that Meng Wanzhou can immediately freely move or even return to China, let alone the extradition case.At this point, almost all the media ignored some important details.
First of all, according to the Canadian media CTV News, a document submitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia shows that the Canadian Border Service (CBSA) has never officially acknowledged that Meng Wanzhou was rode by the Royal Royal Royal Royal Royal Court on December 1, 2018On the night of the police arrest, the entry procedures were completed and entered Canada.
On the contrary, after three hours of no reason to seize inquiries, the Canadian Border Administration stopped Meng Wanzhou's entry process, and then handed her to the Royal Royal Madrid for arrest.
In February of this year, the local media asked the Canadian Border Administration about Meng Wanzhou's entry process.Deepen to complete the entry process.
Secondly, both sides can appeal and apply for judicial review on the results of the judge's ruling.Therefore, even if the judge's ruling was not established, the Canadian government lawyer on behalf of the US judicial department could appeal to the request to overthrow the existing ruling.So no matter what the ruling result, as long as one party appeals, the current ruling is not the final ruling result.
Therefore, if the Canadian government lawyer appealed after the double crime was not established, it was possible to apply to the court to restrict Meng Wanzhou's departure at the same time.Meng Wanzhou is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. From the perspective of court, she may never return to Canada in the appeal process.Therefore, it is very likely whether government lawyers will make a leaving restrictions at the same time and whether the judge supports this demand.
From 9:00 in the morning, the judge notified the two parties to the results of the court officially announced the results of the ruling outside 11:00. The two hours of the middle of the Canadian government can apply to the court for an exit ban order.
Therefore, the meaning of the release of the court is probably just to remove the electronic foot ring worn by Meng Wanzhou, revoke the prohibition of her original activity area, and refund the paid bail.As for whether Meng Wanzhou can leave China to return to China, it depends on whether the judge approves the prohibition of exit.It is conceivable that the Canadian government lawyers will definitely make similar applications.
As long as the extradition case has never been ended in the final case, Meng Wanzhou may be restricted by the court at the request of the prosecution lawyer, and even further limited to the international airport area.This is also understandable court restrictions.
If the results of the ruling on May 27 are beneficial to Meng Wanzhou, then she is immediately detained and completed the entry process after being released in the court, or it is possible that the court is required to prohibit the leaving.These possibilities are ignored by almost all domestic media.It can be imagined that once these situations occur, domestic public opinion will definitely attack the shamelessness of Canadian judicial institutions.
Meng Wanzhou was convicted by Canada?
The core of the Meng Wanzhou extradition case is to confirm whether the allegations faced by the extradited man Meng Wanzhou are considered criminal in the United States and Canada. This is the origin of the double criminal standard.However, Meng Wanzhou's allegations are only unilateral demands of the US Department of Justice, and it does not mean that this is the fact that confirmed.
As a judge of the British Columbia Provincial High Court of British Columbia
● Perhaps the charges provided by the US Department of Justice are true
● Do not verify whether the evidence provided by the US Department of Justice is true and reliable
● Do not judge whether the extradition person is guilty
The main task that the judge needs to complete is
● Confirm whether the allegations provided by the US Department of Justice, whether in Canada also constitute a crime (that is, double crime)
● Confirm that there is a reasonable logical relationship between the evidence provided by the US Department of Justice and the allegations
● Confirm that the allegations are completely based on criminal crimes, not military crimes or political crimes
● It is confirmed that the extradition person will receive a fair trial and reasonable punishment after extradition (if you will not be sentenced to death)
Therefore, in the ruling announced by the High Court, the judge listed the allegations and relevant evidence provided by the US Department of Justice in accordance with the logical relationship, and then clearly stated that before discussing the applicable legal principles, I (referred to the judge) once again emphasized that again, I emphasized again that again, I emphasized again, and I emphasized again.The allegations contained in the ROC (case dossier) and SROC (case supplement) I just outlined were not confirmed.Nevertheless, in order to evaluate whether to meet the dual crime requirements, it should be examined by accusing themselves from crime.
When the Canadian Edition Law requires the Canadian courts to consider the evidence provided by the Extrateritic State as Presumptively RELIABLE, even if the evidence has not been tested or even disclosed to the court.In other words, according to Canadian law, the role of judges in the extradition hearing is not to be innocent or guilty, but to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to provide preliminary allegations against the suspects.This is why the judge only needs to inquire about whether the evidence is considered to be reasonable to support guilty inferences, and then judge a reasonable logical relationship between evidence and allegations.
Article 1 of the ruling confirms that the allegations provided by the US Department of Justice have not been confirmed, and there is no need to confirm the authenticity of allegations when determining whether the extradition conditions are met.It is the responsibility of the US judicial department to confirm that the relationship between authenticity and evidence is the responsibility of the US judicial department. The Canadian judicial department will not be guilty or innocent to the extradition.Therefore, Meng Wanzhou was convicted by the Canadian judicial department.To be precise, the allegations of the Meng Wanzhou case meet the standards of dual crimes, and this allegations are unrelated, and they need to be finalized after the extradition country trial.Simple description is that Meng Wanzhou meets the standards of dual crimes, which can easily cause readers to misunderstand.
Of course, we cannot deny that this reliability presumption of the Canadian extradition law is dangerous, because this allows Canadian extradition judicial judgments to be based on the unreliable trust brought by foreign judicial systems.
Will the Meng Wanzhou extradition case eventually difficult to change the result?
This is the most controversial point.During the ten years of 2008 to 2018, there were 798 applications received by the United States received by Canada, and 552 were finally approved. Only 8 were revoked or refused to extradite.Judging from the past judicial practice, the case of extradition of the United States is very unobtrusive, but Meng Wanzhou's case has its special features due to its huge influence.
First of all, Article 42 of the Canadian extradition law clearly stipulates that the extradition application is limited to criminal cases, and political cases are not among the extradition.On December 11, 2018, U.S. President Trump explicitly stated in an exclusive interview with the White House that if it helps to reach a trade agreement with China, he will interfere with the US Department of Justice's case of charging Meng Wanzhou.
If I think it is beneficial to the country, if I think it is beneficial to MDASH in the history of the largest trade agreement in the history; this is important MDASH; it is good for national security MDASH;), Trump said that this clarified that the US government seeking for the extradition of Meng Wanzhou was out of political motivation.
Secondly, if the result of extradition will lead to violation of the basic justice principles stipulated in the Canadian rights and the Freedom Charter, the Minister of Justice must choose to refuse extradition.
At present, the United States is increasingly showing sanctions on China.From Trump's comprehensive blockade of Huawei, even putting pressure on other countries such as Britain, Germany, in 2018, to accuse all Chinese students in 2018, and even the New York Times disclosed that the US government banned some Chinese college graduates from studying in the United States, allThese all show that the Trump administration is not based on objective facts to restrict Chinese restrictions and sanctions.Therefore, will the US government's lawsuits on Meng Wanzhou eventually be carried out in the judicial environment that adheres to the principle of fairness and fairness?In the context of the comprehensive conflict between the U.S. government and China, coupled with the previous subjects that Trump's unprecedented intervention and suppression of the US judicial system in the Russian case, it is necessaryChoosing to refuse extradition is still very likely.
Over time, the behavior of the US government is likely to provide more and more evidence to confirm the political tendency of the Meng Wanzhou case.
Of course, Meng Wanzhou's defense team is currently on a civil lawsuit around the Canadian Border Service and Royal Mading Police during detention.This is also a chance to change the result of the extradition ruling.
Anyway, like Huawei, I believe that the judicial independent Canadian government can make objective objective rulings.
(This article only represents the author's own point of view, responsible editor: Yan Man [email protected])
