I do, Mr. Naqvi. There are four, I would say, to redress the imbalance.
The first is the most important, and that's to do away with this unreasonable presumption of reliability of third hand hearsay, and instead put the onus on the requesting state rather than on the individual Canadian to prove the reliability of the evidence on which it relies, at least on a balance of probabilities—not beyond a reasonable doubt, just on a balance of probabilities.
The system now has a reverse onus on the Canadian, the person sought, and they have to prove it to what has become to be interpreted in the courts as an unattainable standard called “manifest unreliability”. The Diab case didn't achieve that, even though the judge said this handwriting evidence, which the whole case ultimately hung on, was clearly unreliable. Every leading expert in the world said so. France has now said so, in a separate analysis of their own report. Their own experts now say on that report that got him extradited, “We agree entirely”—that's the quote—with the defence experts who gave evidence.
They create a catch-22: That reverse onus and the presumption of reliability create a catch-22 for citizens in this country, for people in this country, that can't be met. It's simply a crazy situation.
The other three are these: When you're relying on expert evidence, there should be full disclosure of that, full disclosure of exculpatory evidence and full disclosure of all evidence sourced in Canada. That didn't happen in the Diab case.