The Court of Cassation rejected the arguments of the defense of the Uyghur Yidiresi Aishan, who is the subject of an extradition decision to China, by the Moroccan justice. In its response, the Court of Cassation refutes that the extradition request is of a “political” nature and considers that the defense has not presented a “serious” reason.
On December 15, the Court of Cassation authorized the extradition of Yidiresi Aishan, a Chinese computer scientist from the Uyghur Muslim minority, aged 34. The Chinese was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice for four years before it was withdrawn, which certainly implies that the case against him was not solid.
But the Chinese authorities maintain their wanted opinion and China and Morocco are bound by an extradition agreement, which obliges the Moroccan authorities to deliver him to China in view of the gravity of the charges against him.
The computer scientist is accused by China of having committed terrorist acts, while he refutes these accusations. The Moroccan Court of Cassation ruling created a wave of indignant reactions, noting that Morocco itself is a Muslim country and should protect this persecuted minority in China.
The National Human Rights Council, an official body, also came online in the case asking that Yidiresi Aishan not be extradited. His defense presented several elements to assert his position and to deflect the judgment of the Court.
The defense of the Chinese national who sought refuge in Morocco indicated that he “defended the cause of the Uyghurs who were being persecuted by the Chinese authorities”, and argued that Interpol had canceled the red notice which was issued against him, believing that the extradition of his client “contradicts human rights”.
She also pointed out that the Chinese extradition request is not legal as it is not from the Chinese authority, but from the Chinese police. And to recall that Aishan had requested political asylum in Morocco and that he was not extradited to his country. Refusing him without his request not being studied and closed is a violation of the Geneva Convention, the defense and NGOs said.
The defense explained that his client “will not receive a fair trial” in China since he is a “human rights activist of the Uyghur Muslim people”, and that “the Chinese authorities have established centers for their detention and torture ”, and that“ the request to extradite him has a political connotation ”.
The response of the Court of Cassation
In its response to the “political” character presented by the defense, Moroccan justice indicated that the bilateral agreement between China and Morocco provides for the refusal of extradition on the grounds of the crime is political, except that crimes linked to terrorism are not considered political.
Regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Chinese police for its extradition request, the Court of Cassation replied that “the extradition request, subject of this case, was made by the Cybersecurity Agency of the Ministry of Public Security of China “and added that the extradition agreement between the two countries mentions that a” competent authority “to issue type of request and it is China that determines who is this authority that has the capacity to issue a extradition request, whether from China, the police or the Chinese judicial authorities.
The court considered that “the extradition request fulfills all the conditions linked to the provisions of the extradition agreement concluded between Morocco and China” and therefore authorized the extradition of Aishan “to the Chinese authorities who made it demand ”for the following considerations:
The crimes for which extradition is requested “are not of a political nature and are not related to military offenses and do not fall with the expiration of the statute of limitations”, given that the date of their submission is September 2013 ”.
The Court of Cassation considers that “the Chinese citizen has not provided any serious grounds for the assertion and certainty that the extradition request against him is based on racial or religious grounds or his political opinions”, in response to the defense argument that he risks torture and an unfair trial.
She adds that the defense did not “prove to her that the wanted person will be tried in the context of considerations outside the extraditable charges”, and therefore considered that what was raised by a party and its defense were “simple allegations without foundation ”.
And to recall that the acts committed by the requested party are also punished by Moroccan criminal law, and “constitute offenses of intentional attack on the life, security or freedoms of persons and of forming a band or an understanding. to prepare or commit an act. terrorism as part of a collective project aimed at seriously undermining public order through intimidation, violence and membership of terrorist organizations in accordance with articles 218-1 and 218-1-1 of the Criminal Code “