UK-Spain: Writ of habeas corpus in Farid Hilali case
01 July 2007
On 25 April 2007 the High Court issued a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the extradition proceedings against Farid Hilali and ruled that
habeas corpus was available as a remedy in relation to European Arrest Warrants (EAW) where the continued detention of the applicant pursuant to the extradition process has become unlawful ? ie where there has been a fundamental change to the circumstances in which the lawful order of the court to execute the EAW had been made.
Farid's return to Spain was sought in relation to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Central Criminal Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National Court, Madrid, Spain, on 29 April 2004. On 1 June 2005, the Senior District Judge at Bow Street Magistrates' Court, Judge Workman, made an extradition order against the Applicant under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, so that he could be returned to Spain to be tried for the murder of the nearly three thousand victims of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington DC and Pensylvania of 11 September 2001, and membership of a terrorist organisation. On 26 September 2005, the Spanish Central Criminal Court of Trial found that Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the principal alleged co?conspirator of Farid in Spain, was not guilty of the murder charges alleged against him and Farid Hilali, but guilty of the lesser charge of conspiracy to murder. On 15 December 2005 the Spanish authorities produced a short note indicating that they wished to maintain the warrant of April 2004.
In March 2006 the Spanish Attorney General supported the submissions made by Barakat Yarkas that his conviction for conspiracy to murder, returned by the Court on 26 September 2005, was unsafe, because the contents of the telephone conversations relied on, which also form the basis of the European Arrest Warrant against Farid Hilali, did not prove the crime alleged. On Friday 21 April 2006, a fresh statement was submitted on behalf of the Spanish court indicating that the court sought again to maintain the EAW, and suggesting that Hilali might like to plead guilty. On Wednesday 24 April 2006 a further statement was submitted by the Crime Prosecution Service from the Spanish prosecuting lawyer, confirming that the Spanish authorities still wished to try Hilali for the offenses set out in the European extradition warrant.
The Spanish Supreme Court, on 31 May 2006, in relation to the Yarkas appeal found:
(i) that the conversations specifically relied upon against Barakat Yarkas, as and forming the only evidence set out in the European Arrest Warrant, did not show that Barakat Yarkas conspired to commit the 11 September 2001 atrocities (ii) that the tape recordings were illegally obtained and were not admissible in evidence and (iii) that, contrary to the findings of the Administrative Court on 26 May 2006 the tape recordings are "lost".
The basis of the habeas corpus application was that the Spanish authorities sought the return of Farid Hilali to try him on evidence which the Spanish Supreme Court has held:
(iv) to have been obtained illegally, and (v) not in any event to prove the conspiracy alleged, as recognised by the Attorney General of Spain and the Supreme Court, still less the allegations of murder contained in the European Arrest Warrant.
In the course of investigating the circumstances of Hilali's case, Muddassar Arani, his solicitor, travelled to Spain to obtain evidence from the parties involved. Among those she interviewed was Jacobo Teijelo Casanova, the lawyer representing Barakat Yarkas (also known as Abu Dahdah) during the criminal proceedings in Spain. Barakat Yarkas was alleged to be the leader in relation to the Spanish conspiracy relating to the 2001 attacks on the USA. Casanova confirmed that the alleged conversation between Abu Dahdah and Shakur (the purported co?conspitator the Spanish state claimed was in fact Hilali) was never played during