Traljesic v Bosnia and Herzegovina

The applicant, Traljesic, sought to challenge the decision of the Magistrate to commit him to prison to await surrender to Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The Magistrate had determined that the applicant was eligible for surrender in relation to two extradition offences: attempted murder and causing general danger. The applicant argued that he should not be surrendered because there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be punished by reason of his political opinions or religion if extradited, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The applicant relied on evidence of mistreatment he had suffered at the hands of other prisoners during his imprisonment at the Bihac prison in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The court considered whether the applicant had satisfied the burden of establishing an extradition objection under section 7(c) of the Act. The court also considered whether the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applied to the review proceedings, and whether certain documents relied upon by Bosnia and Herzegovina were admissible.

The court held that the applicant had not established an extradition objection under section 7(c) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). The court found that the applicant's evidence about the conduct of the prison guards and authorities towards the other prisoners was critical. The court held that the Magistrate's decision was not flawed and that the applicant had not satisfied the burden of establishing an extradition objection. The court also held that the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) did not apply to the review proceedings, and that the documents relied upon by Bosnia and Herzegovina were admissible.

The court confirmed the Magistrate's orders committing the applicant to prison to await surrender, and dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. The court held that the applicant was eligible for surrender in relation to the extradition offences, and that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would be punished by reason of his political opinions or religion if extradited. The court also held that the applicant's evidence about the conduct of the prison guards and authorities towards the other prisoners was not sufficient to establish an extradition objection.