|
Detailed NRO Judgement:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/NROJudgment.pdf
Pakistan
is not the only country, which has demanded for such
mutual legal assistance; there are so many other countries, on
whose demand, subject to determination, the wealth of the
nation was reverted back to those States. In this behalf
reference may be made to the case of Ferdinand Emmanuel
Edralin ...Marcos, President of the Philippines.
On 10th December 1997, the Swiss Federal Court
(Supreme Court) took decisive steps by issuing
decision to transfer US$ 540 million (increased to US$
658 million with interest) of Marcos, to the custody of
Sadiganbayan, under the IMAC. The revised law made
it, in principle, essential for the country to which the
funds are to be restituted, to prove the illegal origin
and the legal ownership of the funds through a legally
binding judgment. However, the Republic of
Philippines guaranteed that the decision about the
seizure or restitution of the assets to the entitled
parties would be taken in judicial proceedings, to
satisfy the requirement of Article 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966 (ICCPR).
In September 2000 Filipino Anti-Corruption Court
Sadiganbayan's first division, made, prima facie,
decision that the entire US$ 627 million of Marcos
funds, repatriated from Switzerland, were to be
considered the property of Philippines.
Pakistan
is not the only country, which has demanded for such
mutual legal assistance; there are so many other countries, on
whose demand, subject to determination, the wealth of the
nation was reverted back to those States. In this behalf
reference may be made to the case of Ferdinand Emmanuel
Edralin ...Marcos, President of the Philippines.
On 10th December 1997, the Swiss Federal Court
(Supreme Court) took decisive steps by issuing
decision to transfer US$ 540 million (increased to US$
658 million with interest) of Marcos, to the custody of
Sadiganbayan, under the IMAC. The revised law made
it, in principle, essential for the country to which the
funds are to be restituted, to prove the illegal origin
and the legal ownership of the funds through a legally
binding judgment. However, the Republic of
Philippines guaranteed that the decision about the
seizure or restitution of the assets to the entitled
parties would be taken in judicial proceedings, to
satisfy the requirement of Article 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
1966 (ICCPR).
In September 2000 Filipino Anti-Corruption Court
Sadiganbayan's first division, made, prima facie,
decision that the entire US$ 627 million of Marcos
funds, repatriated from Switzerland, were to be
considered the property of Philippines.
-----------------------------------------------------------
N A D E E M M A L I K
http://www.nadeemmalik.pkWindows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
