EFTA00104543 # EXHIBIT A EFTA00104544 # WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW March 14th 2021 ## Re: Additional opinion on the extradition of nationals by the French government 1. This memorandum was written pursuant to a request from Olivier Laude, a partner at the French firm Laude Esquier Champey acting on behalf of Cohen & Gresser LLP as counsel for Ms Ghislaine Maxwell. The request was made in the context of ongoing bail proceedings involving Ms Maxwell in the United States of America (hereafter “USA”), where Ms Maxwell is being detained pre-trial on charges relating to her alleged role in sexual activities involving Jeffrey Epstein from 1994 to 1997. 2. In a previous opinion, I have outlined why French authorities could decide to execute an extradition request against a French citizen under the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, without violating any superior norm of French and international law. 3. As I understand the defendant’s French nationality continues to be regarded by the Court as a bar to her release pending trial, I am informed that the defendant is prepared to renounce French nationality under Article 23-4 of the French Civil Code, if the Court so requires. 4. In a letter to the Department of Justice dated 9 March 2021, the Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice, Mr Philippe Jaeglé, asserts that the loss of French nationality after the criminal act which the person is alleged to have committed does not affect the rule against the extradition of nationals, as nationality must be assessed at the time of commission of the offence and not at the time of the extradition request. 5. This report was written to provide a counter opinion on this issue, in support of the proposition that the French government would be legally entitled to execute an extradition request against an individual who is no longer a French national. 6. The Ministry of Justice's assertion must be regarded as incorrect for three reasons: (i) It is not supported by the letter of the law; 1 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. 01 88 33 51 80 – FAX. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104545 # WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW (ii) Nor is it supported by the spirit of the law; (iii) Case law and precedents in fact suggest the opposite. 7. First, the Ministry's interpretation goes against the letter of the law. 8. American extradition requests are principally governed by the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France of 23 April 1996 (“the Treaty”) and the French Code of Criminal Procedure for matters not dealt with under the Treaty. $ ^{1} $ 9. Article 3(1) of the Treaty provides: "There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems it proper to do so. The nationality of the person sought shall be the nationality of that person at the time the offense was committed". 10. Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the same rule, under similar wording: “Extradition shall not be granted: 1° When the person claimed has French nationality, the latter being assessed at the time of the offense for which extradition is requested" 11. Under a literal reading of these provisions, the nationality protection only applies where French authorities are faced with an extradition request against a person who is a French national at the time of the extradition request. Both the Treaty and the French Code of 1 Other relevant international treaties include: the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, and the Instrument Amending the Treaty of 23 April 1996 between the United States of America and France signed in the Hague on 30 September 2004. 2 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. 01 88 33 51 80 - FAX. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104546 WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW Criminal Procedure use the present tense (“a person who is a national of the Requested State”/”the person claimed has French nationality”), which can only mean that the extradition of a person is denied when that person is in fact a French national. If the person is no longer a French national at the time of the request, the provision does not apply. 12. Had these provisions been intended to apply in cases where the person has lost French nationality subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime, the texts would have expressly stated so or would at least have used both the present and the past tense to qualify the national affiliation of the requested person. 13. Furthermore, it is a well-known principle of legal interpretation across all jurisdictions that exceptions to rules must be construed strictly. The nationality ban being an exception to extradition, it must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and its application to a person who is no longer a French national must be rejected. ## 14. Second, the Ministry's interpretation goes against the spirit of the law 15. The literal reading of Article 3 of the Treaty and Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure is further supported by the fact that these provisions were in fact not intended to apply in cases where the person sought has lost French citizenship, but only in cases where that person has acquired French citizenship subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime. 16. In other words, the rule that “nationality shall be assessed at the time of the offence for which extradition is requested” seeks to deny the extension of the benefit of French nationality to persons who have acquired French nationality after committing an offence, in order to avoid fraudulent nationality applications of offenders seeking to escape extradition. 3 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. 01 88 33 51 80 – FAX. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104547 # WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW 17. This concern over opportunistic nationality applications is precisely the justification of the rule mentioned in academic literature (see for example Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale Extradition Pén. – Conditions de fond de l'extradition – Delphine Brach-Thiel–October 2018, §59). 18. Third, the French Ministry of Justice’s interpretation is contradicted by precedents and case law 19. The French Ministry of Justice's interpretation finds no support in case law, as no case can be found where Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure was applied to protect a formerly French national from extradition. 20. Instead, precedents exist in which Article 696-4,1° of the French Code of Criminal Procedure was relied on by French authorities to execute an extradition request against an individual who had acquired French nationality after committing an offence, which is the natural use of this provision (for example, a ruling issued by the Criminal Chamber of the French Cour de cassation on 4 January 2006, n°05-86.258). 21. Although we have found no precedent where French authorities were faced with the extradition of a person who had lost French nationality, we have found cases where French authorities were faced with the deportation of a person who had lost French nationality. Both extradition and deportation allow for the removal of a person from French territory by the police and its surrender to the authorities of a third State, with the consent and cooperation of the authorities of that State. 22. The European Court of Human Rights (the “ECtHR”) treats extradition and deportation analogously. More specifically, the ECtHR considers that the same human rights bars apply to all types of removal of a person from the territory of a State party (“the Court considers that the question whether there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in another State cannot depend on the legal basis for removal to that State. The Court’s own case-law has shown that, in practice, there may be little difference between 4 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. 01 88 33 51 80 - FAX. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104548 WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW extradition and other removals”, ECtHR 12 April 2012, Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 24027/07, §168). 23. France has no difficulty with deporting individuals who have lost French nationality by application of Article 25 of the Civil Code, which enumerates the list of crimes that may give rise to a deprivation of citizenship. For example, a dual French-Algerian citizen named Djamel Beghal was recently deported to Algeria after he was convicted of terrorist offences and subsequently deprived of his French nationality². 24. While in custody in France, Djamel Beghal was also convicted in absentia to a term of prison in Algeria, but his extradition initially seemed impossible, not because he used to be a French citizen, but because the case law of the ECtHR specifically prohibits State parties from deporting persons deprived of their nationality to the State of which they remain a national, when there is a risk of torture or degrading treatment³. Beghal was eventually deported to Algeria where he was arrested upon landing for the purpose of standing trial. In this case, the French government’s decision to deprive Djamel Beghal of his French nationality was clearly intended to allow for his removal from France, whether through extradition or deportation, as both means of removal were conceivable at the time. Had there not been a risk of violation of the ECHR at the time of the Algerian extradition request, he may well have been extradited as opposed to deported a few years later, when that risk was eliminated. 25. In any case, the deportation of formerly French citizens shows that the loss of French nationality prevents any retroactive application of domestic provisions which are intended to protect French nationals, be it from deportation or extradition. ² https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/07/16/incertitude-sur-le-sort-de-l-islamiste-djamel-beghal-qui-sort-de-prison-lundi_5332053_3224.html ³ ECtHR 3 December 2009, Daoudi v. France, application no. 19576/08. or 4 sept. 2014, *Trabelsi c. Belgique*, req. n° 140/10, 17 janv. 2012, *Othman c. Royaume-Uni*, req. n° 8139/09. For more details, http://www.revuedlf.com/cedh/eloignement-des-etrangers-terroristes-et-article-3-de-la-convention-europeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme/ 5 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. 01 88 33 51 80 – FAX. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - www.wjavocats.com - PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104549 ## WILLIAM JULIÉ AVOCAT À LA COUR – ATTORNEY AT LAW 26. In these circumstances, it cannot have been the intention of French lawmakers that Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure be construed as meaning that a person who has lost French nationality would still be entitled to be protected from extradition since the French government has on several occasions deported to third countries individuals who had been deprived of their French nationality following the commission of criminal offences. William JULIÉ Avocat à la Cour 51, RUE AMPÈRE - 75017 PARIS - TÉL. - FAX. 6 PALAIS C1652 EFTA00104550