Mr Snedden a name that Mr Vasiljkovic adopted legally by deed poll years ago in Australia (but never used by the authorities here) has been held in Parklea prison for almost 2 years.  Neither the media nor the government has seemed to notice his long term imprisonment without charges, even at their “back door”, while the Hicks case, with obvious parallels to Mr Sneddens’ situation has been “resolved”, amid high media and political interest.  Justice calls for a fair and considered examination of Mr Snedden’s case more than David Hicks. 

The background of Mr Snedden’s case is as follows:

Mr Daniel Snedden an Australian citizen (born Dragan Vasiljkovic of Serbian background) was arrested on 19 January 2006 (in Sydney, Liverpool) on the warrant that was issued in Perth (on request of the Croatian government) without knowledge of the allegations against him nor evidence in support of the warrant. 

After he was imprisoned it was then notified that he was sought as a Serbian military commander by Croatia for allegations of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. However, no evidence has been provided by Croatia to support the allegations and Mr Snedden has been denied the right to prove his innocence although he can do so. Mr Snedden is a protected person by the 1949 Geneva Conventions on war and it is a criminal offence under our law and international law to imprison him for this long a period (of 23 months).

Issues of concern:

1   Mr Snedden’s imprisonment is now illegal under the Criminal Code Act.

2   The Commonwealth had advised the Courts that there was no extradition treaty that would apply in Mr Snedden’s case and that the Extradition Act applies to him.  This is false.  As the entire allegation relates to Geneva war crimes, The Extradition Act does not apply to Mr Snedden.  The Geneva Convention and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) that was created by the United Nations deal with cases of allegations of war crimes alleged to have been committed on the territories of the Former Yugoslavia.  Thus, The Geneva Conventions are an extradition treaty and its crimes are excluded from the operation of the Extradition Act.  Mr Snedden is entitled to a jury trial in Australia but cannot be charged as there is no evidence.

3   On the other hand, The ICTY is not interested in him and will never be interested in him.  In 2003 Mr Snedden went to The Hague, ICTY, where he was a witness in the Milosevic case, not to war crimes but on the nature of the armed conflict in the Krajina region.  The ICTY prosecutor declared that Mr Snedden (Vasiljkovic) was “not a person of interest” and whilst Mr Snedden was offered immunity, he declined the offer as he was confident that he had not transgressed against the accepted customs of law contained within the Geneva Conventions and that there could be no legally justifiable finding against him in this regard.   

4   Australia prosecutes Geneva war crimes suspects here in Australia and these prosecutions are carried out before a jury.  For such a process to commence the existence of prima facie evidence to charge and hold him is essential. 

5   As Mr Snedden is a protected person (by Geneva Conventions), Mr Snedden’s rights under the Geneva Conventions have been denied.  He is denied Geneva justice in breach of the Rome Statute and is precluded from proving his innocence by the legislation used in this case and the “no evidence” rule meant that Croatia did not have to produce evidence for its political allegations against Mr Snedden.

6   The extradition of Mr Snedden, a former Serbian military commander to a belligerent nation, without evidence and without the right to contradict allegations made against him is a gross violation of the Geneva Convention and a crime.

7   If the Extradition Act was properly considered in Mr Snedden’s case then, a check for sufficient evidence of an alleged crime should have been carried out prior to allowing the arrest to proceed in his case.  It should have been realised very early that Australia does not extradite for Geneva war crimes but prosecutes no matter where the crime occurred if it has custody of the person. This is how it protects its own civil and military leaders.

8   In Mr Snedden’s case, there is no evidence that the then responsible Minister Mr Ellison discharged his responsibilities appropriately with respect to determining whether a valid extradition objection existed (as required by the Extradition Act) prior to allowing the process for issue of the arrest warrant to proceed (eg. the written statement of the ICTY Prosecutor that Mr Snedden was not a person of interest).

9   As the claim that there was no relevant extradition treaty was incorrect, Australia breached its obligations under the Geneva Conventions by keeping Mr Snedden in prison.

10   Mr Snedden’s case is a political move by the Croatian government to offset the prosecution of Mr Gotovina (an accused Croatian military commander indicted by the ICTY). There were no outstanding allegations against Mr Snedden until Mr Gotovina was located by the ICTY after being on the run for over four years. The arrest warrant for Mr Snedden was issued when Mr Gotovina was apprehended to the ICTY.

11   Mr Snedden’s arrest followed the appearance of an article (in the Australian newspaper) defaming Mr Snedden as a war criminal. (This case has been heard and Mr Snedden’s claim has been upheld as defamatory pending hearing of a defence). 

12   Croatian laws referred to in the request for Mr Snedden had transformed the Geneva Conventions on the laws for prisoners of war and civilians into Croatian law and the process used by Croatia has breached those conventions and the ICTY transfer principles to obtain a “backdoor extradition”.  This places Australia in a position of breaching these conventions and principles if it proceeded with the arrest. The Geneva Conventions have been breached by Australia and Croatia and serious violation by their officials are crimes which are to be referred to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor under the Rome Statute (as prescribed by the Rome Statute that Australia signed on 1 July 2002).  Australia is under an international obligation to investigate and prosecute cases where war crimes are committed by public officials. To imprison or transfer a person on war crime allegations without evidence and take away their right to prove innocence when acting on behalf of a belligerent party to the same war is a war crime.

13   The current Extradition Act (in the above case) shows that the Act may give licence to a foreign State to imprison any person on Australian soil.  If this is so, then it is a preposterous position as it creates a situation of gross infringement of our sovereignty. The only check Australian officials can make on a request for arrest by an extradition country is whether the penalty in the law in the foreign warrant is not less than 12 months imprisonment or death.

14   Mr Snedden has been kept in prison without any evidence and charge for the last 23 months. He can prove his innocence independently of his denials but is not allowed to do so. He was imprisoned originally without anyone knowing the allegations against him even the magistrate who ordered it.

15   It should also be noted that Mr Snedden established the largest and most successful fund for war victims of all nationalities in the civil war and at the time was a person of high integrity and prominence in Serbia.

16   As a consequence of the above mishandling of Mr Snedden’s case, Mr Snedden has every right to press charges under 268.76 of the Criminal Code Act against the Australian officials responsible due to a failure of the Australian authorities to follow the prescriptions of the Geneva Conventions. Since the Croatian allegations against him have been processed for extradition without evidence and in denial of the right to prove innocence   there are further crimes under the relevant Australian laws: section 268.76, including sections 268.31, 268.32, 268.33 and 268.52 of the Criminal Code Act where section 268.32 makes it a war crime to transfer him to Croatia (See Attachment).

Conclusion

The above case shows an inept and very superficial approach taken by the previous Government Ministers and our officials.  It demonstrates the grave abuse of due process which has led to the arrest and incarceration of an Australian who finds himself in an Australian jail without charge, without the existence of evidence that he has committed an offence, without the ability to defend himself against the allegations made against him, denied access to the rights under the conventions he should have had accorded to him, and without the ready access to the legal representation of his choice. This case is a far worse scandal than the Solon matter and is more unjust than the David Hicks case. Mr Snedden is imprisoned here, not in Guantanamo Bay.  To avoid the embarrassment (that may occur) to our government and remedy the case, the following should and may be considered:

Recommendation

1   This case demands an inquiry to be initiated immediately. The inquiry should investigate the full range of serious breaches and shortcomings in the handling of this case.  It should be undertaken by duly qualified and independent personnel. Current Commonwealth lawyers attached to the case need to be removed as they may have responsibility for his imprisonment and cannot be independent. Such an inquiry, should be undertaken by personnel chosen by the International Criminal Court (to which we, Australia are a signatory) to enable the full and proper investigation required of any acts and omissions made by both Australian and Croatian officials. 

2   In the meantime, Mr Snedden should be released

3   The government lawyers responsible for Mr Snedden’s arrest and imprisonment are not objective and should be removed from the case for the purposes of an inquiry. It is strongly suspected that the lawyers who gave the wrong advice that there was no treaty and that Mr Snedden could be extradited to Croatia are still running the case against him and opposing his release to protect themselves against the consequences of their earlier mistakes.  Thus, they should be suspended.

4   All documents should be lodged with the inquiry to see the extent of political interference in his case.

5   A full review of the Extradition Act to remove its anomalies in relation to the imprisonment of persons on Australian soil purely on the basis of a penalty in a foreign law under a warrant given by a foreign country.

6   It is expected from the new government to act promptly and judiciously to remedy this case and avoid embarrassment at all costs.  It is also expected that Mr Rudd will stand by the principles he expressed during the controversy over the return to Australia of David Hicks.