Agreement between Isfahani and the accused.

(It

refers to the agreement whereby the liquidation of the estate was paid to the former.) Judgment of the court of Mehalla el Kobra. Judgment of the court of Tantah. Summons to the witnesses.

Copy of letters.

Account book.

Journal book.

Three boxes containing photographs.

Procès-verbal of sitting (of hearing) containing 700 pages. (I think that is an error; it is 7 pages. I see that, on their return, only 7 pages are mentioned.)

Two letters in English.

That is all.

Mr. HUNT: Mr. President, Mr. de Bellefonds asked me for an explanation, which I have given to him. He has made a statement. I have not understood all he has said in French in reply; so I think it would be better for me to wait until I have received his answer in full in translation. Therefore, I would like to reserve further and more complete answer until I have received the full translation of his statement, if that is in accordance with the wishes of the Tribunal.

Mr. DE BELLEFONDS: I understood.

President SIMONS: You understood. Mr. Hunt will give his reply at another session. Now, I think, the time has come to give the floor to Mr. de La Pradelle.

ARGUMENT OF MR. DE LA PRADELLE—Continued

Mr. DE LA PRADELLE: Mr. President; Gentlemen of the International Tribunal: Under the heading of remarks of a general character, relative to the evidence which I had the honor of unfolding at this morning's session, I am coming, by taking up all the phases of the case one by

one, to the first denial of justice which has been imputed to the Royal Government.

It comprises the accusation of Ibrashy Bey. The sending of Salem to the correctional court by Ibrashy Bey, on the accusation of having committed a forgery, would constitute a denial of justice for the following three causes: first, because this accusation was based on the procèsverbal of October 27, 1917, a document that has been very severely criticized; then, on account of the citation of Salem before the court, which cannot be justified by any presumption of guilt; and, finally, because Egyptian penal procedure with reference to the inquiry and the citation before the court, is below the international standard, and that, moreover, in the present case, the inquiry of Ibrashy Bey should have been conducted in violation of the local law.

Before starting a discussion on these causes, it is necessary to give some explanation regarding the organization of the Parquet in Egypt.

The Parquet constitutes, for the local or mixed jurisdictions, a unique body under the authority and supervision of the General Prosecutor.

There is not a General Prosecutor for every court of appeals district. This is a result of the provisions of the decree of 1883 regarding the reorganization of the local courts. Chapter I of this decree refers to the institution and the formation of these courts; after having indicated in articles 5, 6, 9, and 12, the various courts which are to function, and having specified that the judicial circumscription of each of them or of each court of appeals will have to be determined by decree, this chapter ends with article 14, as follows (p. 851 of the Recueil, by Wathelet & Brunton, which is in the hands of the members of the Tribunal):

ART. 14. A parquet has been instituted for these Courts, which will be headed by a General Prosecutor.

And chapter VII of the same decree; under the heading, "Formation and Competence of the Parquet", comprises the following provisions (arts. 58, 60, 64-all to be found on p. 855 of the same book):

ARTICLE 58. The General Prosecutor shall have, under his supervision, for the various jurisdictions, a sufficient number of Substitutes to insure the functioning of the hearings and the Parquet.

ARTICLE 60. The General Prosecutor shall have, for himself or for his Substitutes, the supervision of the judicial police, the practice of public action and criminal action

I skip paragraph 2. Finally:

ARTICLE 64. The General Prosecutor shall sit in person or shall be represented by his Substitutes before all jurisdictions in all cases wherein his intervention is compulsory in accordance with the provisions of the law.

This text shows that the General Prosecutor may, by himself or by means of his Substitutes, exercise the powers of the Parquet within the entire extent of the Egyptian territory; consequently, when the Agent for the United States is surprised to find that the General Prosecutor interested himself personally in the complaint filed by the mandatory of the consulate of Persia against Salem, he mistakes the role and the powers of this high magistrate; one must not reason for Egypt as one would reason for other countries, for instance, France.

It was the duty of the General Prosecutor to receive the complaint of the Persian consulate's mandatory and to deal with it. It was only natural for Isfahani, who was residing at Cairo, to hand over his complaint to the General Prosecutor himself, and not to the Parquet of Mehalla, the more so, since-let us not forget that George Salem was living in Cairo. Under the circumstances, it was only natural that the General Prosecutor, when receiving this complaint, should designate a Substitute from his Parquet to the Court of Appeals to investigate the case.

I am almost tempted to say that it would have been abnormal for him to designate a Substitute from the Parquet of Mehalla, since neither the plaintiff nor the accused was living in that city.

Besides, it is quite customary to designate a Substitute from the Parquet of the Court of Appeals at Cairo to conduct penal investigations, even in cases where the inquiry is to take place, wholly or partly, in small towns or in villages. The General Prosecutor aways has at his disposal in court a few Substitutes who are particularly capable and experienced, whom he entrusts with conducting investigations in important or delicate matters. The nomination of Ibrashy Bey is therefore quite in order.

The Agent for the United States considers as very suspicious the fact that the consul applied to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, through the intermediary of an official of that Department, to the General Prosecutor, to find out what he was to do in order to secure the return of the two properties said to be sold to George Salem from the estate of Goubran Salem, with which, by virtue of his office as a Persian consul, he was entrusted.

However, this proceeding does not seem abnormal. Besides, we have never admitted that things took place between the Persian consul, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the General Prosecutor in the manner in which the Government of the United States says they did. We simply stated that even if we were to accept on this point Salem's allegations, endorsed by the United States Government, there would be nothing wrong in that. A step of this kind does not at all imply that the Egyptian Government would lend its assistance to measures of pressure taken by the Persian consul against this ressortissant, George Salem. It was simply a matter of pointing out to the Persian consul what procedure he should follow in order to investigate the would-be forgery. There was nothing extraordinary in the fact that the Egyptian authorities came to the assistance of the Persian consul by

pointing out to him what procedure he should follow, even if he had notified them that he intended to secure the settlement (liquidation) of the estate and collect the taxes. It should not be forgotten that there was a treaty between Turkey and Persia, the treaty of 1875, which was naturally also applicable to Egypt up to the time of the treaty which was signed in 1928 between Egypt and Persia.

This treaty of 1875 between Persia and Turkey, applicable to Egypt, contained the following provision-we have mentioned it in our Annex E, page 260, article 4. I shall read, not from the very beginning of article 4, which appears on page 259, but from the third sentence of article 4, which appears at the top of page 260, second line:

The inventory and other legal formalities in connection with estates of Persians deceased in the Ottoman Empire are within the province of the consuls and vice consuls of Persia.

A little further on, in Article 8 of this same treaty, we find the following provision:

ART. 8.-No interference is permissible in the relations of consuls with their nationals or in the collection of taxes and duties due by the latter to their consular authorities,

Therefore the Egyptian authorities could not show any surprise nor make any opposition to the fact that the Persian consul was to take care of the liquidation of Goubran Salem's estate, and to that effect was to obtain the return to the estate of what was claimed to have been sold by the deceased to George Salem, according to a document which the consul suspected had been forged. Besides, there is no evidence in the record that these questions had been discussed at the inquiry, and it is evident that the investigating magistrate to whom Isfahani's complaint was handed over did not have to concern himself with the reason which might have led to the lodging of the complaint.

Therefore, nothing illegal; no fault on the part of the General Prosecutor, either in receiving the complaint of