To: King David
Between our respective selves, families, governments and nations we've sat at many summit tables where documents of great thought and even greater significance. I believe this Treaty to be another one to add to that list, however while I understand and agree with both the principles and the intent of this treaty I do have a few concerns some I believe to an oversight in the formative stages of this treaty's development others are perhaps questions that will need answers once the mechanisms contained in this Treaty spring into action.
My first concern pertains to Article 1.4(d) - "It maintains contact with local investigators and shares details of evidence as it is discovered."
This is an understandable point in that seeking cooperation of local authorities in an investigation generally speaking makes things a whole lot easier for all concerned, however there are times and circumstances where this principle would be inappropriate to apply, I refer here to circumstances where the complaint comes not from the government but from the citizens of a nation against their government, to notify local authorities in that instance would seem to be counter intuitive in that effectively puts the accused on notice and therefore hinders rather than helps an investigation.
My second concern pertains to Article 3.9 - "Sentencing shall be guided in the first instance by the recommended sentence at the time the crime was committed."
My issue here is quite a simple one, which nations laws are to be used to guide sentencing? I would presume it is to be those of the nation where the crime was committed but that is not stated.
My third concern pertains to Article 3.13 - "Prior to execution anyone convicted may appeal their case to a panel of three randomly selected judges excluding those from nations involved in the case or those who sat as judges in the first case."
I have two observations here firstly surely both prosecution and defence have the right to appeal, though I do recognise that the article pertains to the death penalty, secondly how long does the defence have in the circumstances described to file the appeal? As I do not believe anyone would wish to see an appeal used as a delaying tactic.
My fourth concern pertains to Article 3.14 - "Should a person be found not guilty they shall be returned to their country of residence at the earliest opportunity."
Simple question in regards to this - what happens if the person does not wish to return to that nation or that nation refuses to take them?
My fifth concern pertains to Article 4.15. Any individual sentenced to a custodial sentence shall serve it in the Northfort Barracks Military Prison in accordance with East Moreland's prison service regulations unless representatives of prosecution and defence reach an alternative agreement on location prior to the trial beginning."
More a suggestion than a query but the words "the trial beginning" should perhaps read "sentencing." as any custodial agreements at pre-trial are usually part of plea bargaining which tends to see guity pleas and thus the saving of court time and costs - this essentially turns the trial into a sentencing hearing as the defendant pleads guilty. If a defendant pleads not guilty then it is a full trial and the appropriate point to have that discussion would be after a finding of guilty but before the sentence is handed down.
My final concern pertains to Article 5.2. - "No nation shall knowingly enter into an arrangement that would interfere with an individual accused of a crime escaping justice."
I agree with the principle of this however I do have concerns that this article puts something of a hurdle in the way in terms of how this Treaty and the Uppsala Convention work together, I do see the part that indicates the HCIC does not concern itself with the Upsalla mechanisms however I do believe and would strongly urge the agreeing of an understanding between the signatories of both documents as to what happens in certain circumstances.
I do wish to see an Achkaerinese signature on this Treaty, however the first five of the above concerns make it presently difficult to do so in a manner that I can guarantee this getting ratification in the Senate.
Signed
Emperor Peter Azurewind
