Extradition

Extradition is an action wherein one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforcement procedure between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. In addition to legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.[1]

"Extradition order" redirects here. For the band, see Extradition Order (band).
Not to be confused with Deportation.

In an extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically makes a formal request to another sovereign jurisdiction ("the requested state"). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive and subject him or her to its extradition process.[2] The extradition procedures to which the fugitive will be subjected are dependent on the law and practice of the requested state.[2]

Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition. It is an ancient mechanism, dating back to at least the 13th century BCE, when an Egyptian pharaoh, Ramesses II, negotiated an extradition treaty with a Hittite king, Hattusili III.[2]

Extradition treaties or agreements

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation, and the desire for the right to demand such criminals from other countries, have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve. When no applicable extradition agreement is in place, a sovereign may still request the expulsion or lawful return of an individual pursuant to the requested state's domestic law.[2] This can be accomplished through the immigration laws of the requested state or other facets of the requested state's domestic law. Similarly, the codes of penal procedure in many countries contain provisions allowing for extradition to take place in the absence of an extradition agreement.[2] Sovereigns may, therefore, still request the expulsion or lawful return of a fugitive from the territory of a requested state in the absence of an extradition treaty.[2]

No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with China, Russia, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, Bahrain, and many other countries.[3]

There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. The most common and traditional is the list treaty, which contains a list of crimes for which a suspect will be extradited. Dual criminality treaties generally allow for extradition of a criminal suspect if the punishment is more than one year imprisonment in both countries. Occasionally the amount of the time of the sentence agreed upon between the two countries is varied. Under both types of treaties, if the conduct is not a crime in both countries then it will not be an extraditable offense.

Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:

  • The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
  • There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
  • The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries.
  • The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
  • The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.

Restrictions

Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished.

These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. They are, however, controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced in some U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the U.S. criminal justice system. In contrast, pressures by the U.S. government on these countries to change their laws, or even sometimes to ignore their laws, is perceived by many in those nations as an attempt by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on Charles Ng.

Countries with a rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from torture, or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a fair trial on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment if extradited.

Some countries, such as France, Russian Federation, Austria, China and Japan, have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. Others, such as Germany and Israel, prohibit extradition of their own citizens in their constitutions. Some others stipulate such prohibition on extradition agreements rather than their laws. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to their home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution.[4] These countries, however, make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad, and they try citizens suspected of crimes committed abroad under their own laws. Such suspects are typically prosecuted as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.

Exemptions in the European Union

The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of prima facie evidence and the possibility of a fair trial have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offences under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1 January 2004, and is in force in all member-states since 22 April 2005. Defenders of the warrant argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Extradition to federations

The federal structure of some nations, such as the United States, can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the police power and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For instance, in the United States, most criminal prosecutions occur at the state level, and most foreign relations occurs on the federal level. In fact, under the United States Constitution, foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with sub-national units such as the individual states; rather, they may have treaty relations only with the federal government. As a result, a state that wishes to prosecute an individual located in foreign territory must direct its extradition request through the federal government, which will negotiate the extradition with the requested state. However, due to the constraints of federalism, any conditions on the extradition accepted by the federal government – such as not to impose the death penalty – are not binding on the states. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom was not permitted under its treaty obligations to extradite an individual to the United States, because the United States' federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in Virginia courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to offer assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, which extradited the individual to the United States.

Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, crossing state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise crimes such as murder, etc. are handled by state governments except in certain circumstances such as the killing of a federal official). This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries. Extradition treaties or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often include language providing that such criteria should not be taken into account when checking if the crime is one in the country from which extradition should apply.

Bars to extradition

By enacting laws or in concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Observing fundamental human rights is also an important reason for denying some extradition requests. It is common for human rights exceptions to be specifically incorporated in bilateral treaties.[5] Such bars can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence. These bars may also extend to take account of the effect on family of the individual if extradition proceeds. Therefore, human rights recognised by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests. However, cases where extradition is denied should be treated as independent exceptions and will only occur in exceptional circumstances.[6]

Common bars to extradition include:

Failure to fulfill dual criminality
See also: Double criminality

Generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested states.

This requirement has been abolished for broad categories of crimes in some jurisdictions, notably within the European Union.

Political nature of the alleged crime

Many countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes. See political offence exception.

Possibility of certain forms of punishment

Some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.

  • Death penalty: Many jurisdictions, such as Australia,[7] Canada, Macao,[8] New Zealand,[9] South Africa, and most European nations except Belarus, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. The United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the case of Joseph Kindler, following the Canadian Supreme Court's decision in Kindler v Canada to extradite Kindler who faced the death penalty in the United States. This decision was given despite the fact that it was expressly provided in the extradition treaty between these two states that extradition may be refused, unless assurances were given that the death penalty shall not be imposed or executed, as well as arguably being a violation of the individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.[10] The decision by the Committee considered Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the "inherent right to life" and whether this right prohibited Canada from extraditing the individual to the United States where he faced the death penalty. The Committee decided that there was nothing contained in the terms of Article 6 which required Canada to seek assurance that the individual would not face the death penalty if extradited.[11] However, the Committee noted that if Canada had extradited without due process it would have breached its obligation under the Convention in this case.
  • Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Many countries will not extradite if there is a risk that a requested person will be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In regard to torture the European Court of Human Rights has in the past not accepted assurances that torture will not occur when given by a state where torture is systematic or endemic.[12] Although in the more recent case before the same court Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom the court retreated from this firm refusal and instead took a more subjective approach for assessing state assurances. Unlike capital punishment it is often more difficult to prove the existence of torture within a state and considerations often depend on the assessment of quality and validity of assurances given by the requesting state. In the deportation case of Othman (Abu Qatada) the court provided 11 factors the court will assess in determining the validity of these assurances.[13] While torture is provided for as a bar to extradition by the European Convention on Human Rights and more universally by the Convention Against Torture, it is also a jus cogens norm under international law and can therefore be invoked as a bar even if it is not provided for in an extradition agreement.[6] In the case of Soering v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital punishment case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed, but not the death penalty sentence itself. The Court in Soering stressed however that the personal circumstances of the individual, including age and mental state (the individual in this case was 18 years old) were relevant in assessing whether their extradition would give rise to a real risk of treatment exceeding the threshold in Article 3.[14]

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition.[15]

Own citizens

Some countries, such as Austria,[16] Brazil,[17] Bulgaria,[18] the Czech Republic,[19] France,[20][21] Germany,[22] Japan,[23] Morocco,[24] Norway,[25] the People's Republic of China,[26] the Republic of China (Taiwan),[27] Russia,[28] Saudi Arabia,[29] Switzerland,[30] Syria[31] and Vietnam[32] forbid extradition of their own citizens. These countries often have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute and try citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders (see, e.g., trial of Xiao Zhen).

Right to private and family life

In a limited number of cases Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been invoked to stop extradition from proceeding. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to the respect of their private and family life. This is achieved by way of balancing the potential harm to private life against the public interest in upholding the extradition arrangement.[12] While this article is useful as it provide for a prohibition to extradition, the threshold required to meet this prohibition is high.[12] Article 8 does explicitly provide that this right is subject to limits in the interests of national security and public safety, so these limits must be weighed in a balancing of priority against this right. Cases where extradition is sought usually involve serious crimes so while these limits are often justified there have been cases where extradition could not be justified in light of the individual's family life. Cases to date have mostly involved dependant children where the extradition would be counter to the best interests of this child.[12] In the case of FK v. Polish Judicial Authority the court held that it would violate article 8 for a mother of five young children to be extradited amidst charges of minor fraud which were committed number of years ago.[33] This case is an example of how the gravity of the crime for which extradition was sought was not proportionate to protecting the interests of the individual's family. However the court in this case noted that even in circumstances where extradition is refused a custodial sentence will be given to comply with the principles of international comity.[34] In contrast the case of HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa is an example of when the public interest for allowing extradition outweighed the best interests of the children. In this case both parents were being extradited to Italy for serious drug importation crimes.[35] Article 8 does not only address the needs of children, but also all family members, yet the high threshold required to satisfy Article 8 means that the vulnerability of children is the most likely circumstance to meet this threshold. In the case of Norris v US (No 2) a man sought to argue that if extradited his health would be undermined and it would cause his wife depression.[36] This claim was rejected by the Court which stated that a successful claim under Article 8 would require "exceptional" circumstances.[37]

Suicide Risk: Cases where there is risk of the individual committing suicide have also invoked article 8 as the public interest of extraditing must be considered in light of the risk of suicide by the individual if extradited. In the case of Jason's v Latvia extradition was refused on these grounds, as the crime for which the individual was sought was not enough of a threat to public interest to outweigh the high risk of suicide which had been assessed to exist for the individual if extradited.[38]

Fair trial standards

Consideration of the right to a fair trial is particularly complex in extradition cases. Its complexity arises from the fact that while the court deciding whether to surrender the individual must uphold these rights this same court must also be satisfied that any trial undertaken by the requesting state after extradition is granted also respects these rights. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides a number of criteria for fair trial standards.[39] These standards have been reflected in courts who have shown that subjective considerations should be made in determining whether such trials would be ‘unjust’ or ‘oppressive’ by taking into account factors such as the duration of time since the alleged offences occurred, health of the individual, prison conditions in the requesting state and likelihood of conviction among other considerations.[40] Yet exactly how the standards provided for in ICCPR are incorporated or recognised by domestic courts and decision makers is still unclear although it seems that these standards can at a minimum be used to inform the notions of such decision makers.[5]:35 If it is found that fair trial standards will not be satisfied in the requesting country this may be a sufficient bar to extradition.

Article 6 of the ECHR also provides for fair trial standards, which must be observed by European countries when making an extradition request.[5] This court in the Othman case, whom if extradited would face trial where evidence against him had been obtained by way of torture.[41] This was held to be a violation of Article 6 ECHR as it presented a real risk of a ‘flagrant denial of justice’.[12] The court in Othman stressed that for a breach of Article 6 to occur the trial in the requesting country must constitute a flagrant denial of justice, going beyond merely an unfair trial.[42] Evidence obtained by way of torture has been sufficient to satisfy the threshold of a flagrant denial of justice in a number of case. This is in part because torture evidence threatens the "integrity of the trial process and the rule of law itself."[43]

Human rights and extradition

Human rights as a bar to extradition can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence as well as the effect on family of the individual if extradition is granted. The repressive nature and the limitations of freedoms imposed on an individual is part of the extradition process and is the reason for these exceptions and the importance that human rights are observed in the extradition process. Therefore, human rights protected by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests, but only as independent exceptions.[6] While human rights concerns can add to the complexity of extradition cases it is positive as it adds to the legitimacy and institutionalisation of the extradition system.[44]

Determining whether to allow extradition by the requested state is, among other considerations, a balancing exercise between the interests of the requesting state's pursuit of justice over the accused individuals, the requested state's interests in holding dominion over those presently in its territory, and the rights of the extraditable persons.[45] Extradition raises human rights concerns in determining this balance in relation to the extraditable person. States make provision to recognise these rights both expressing in bilateral treaty agreements and also, potentially by way of state's obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is particularly relevant to extradition.[5] Although regional, the European Convention of Human Rights has also been invoked as a bar to extradition in a number of cases falling within its jurisdiction and decisions from the European Court of Human Rights have been a useful source of development in this area.

Aut dedere aut judicare
Main article: Aut dedere aut judicare

A concept related to extradition that has significant implications in transnational criminal law is that of aut dedere aut judicare.[2] This maxim represents the principle that states must either surrender a criminal within their jurisdiction to a state that wishes to prosecute the criminal or prosecute the offender in its own courts. Many international agreements contain provisions for aut dedere aut judicare. These include all four 1949 Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the U.N. Convention Against Corruption, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict, and the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[2]

Some contemporary scholars hold the opinion that aut dedere aut judicare is not an obligation under customary international law but rather "a specific conventional clause relating to specific crimes" and, accordingly, an obligation that only exists when a state has voluntarily assumed the obligation. Cherif Bassiouni, however, has posited that, at least with regard to international crimes, it is not only a rule of customary international law but a jus cogens principle. Professor Michael Kelly, citing Israeli and Austrian judicial decisions, has noted that "there is some supporting anecdotal evidence that judges within national systems are beginning to apply the doctrine on their own".[2]

Controversies

International tensions
Swedish extradition of German and Baltic soldiers to the Soviet Union in January 1946
Cali Cartel boss Miguel Rodríguez Orejuela extradited from Colombia to the United States.
Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía being extradited to face charges in the United States.
Viktor Bout extradited to the United States aboard a Drug Enforcement Administration plane.

The refusal of a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether or not this is justified). A case in point is that of Ira Einhorn, in which some US commentators pressured President Jacques Chirac of France, who does not intervene in legal cases, to permit extradition when the case was held up due to differences between French and American human rights law. Another long-standing example is Roman Polanski whose extradition was pursued by California for over 20 years. For a brief period he was placed under arrest in Switzerland, however subsequent legal appeals there prevented extradition.

The questions involved are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a rule of law. Typically, in such countries, the final decision to extradite lies with the national executive (prime minister, president or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on their own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.

Even though the United States has an extradition treaty with Japan, most extraditions are not successful due to Japan's domestic laws. For the United States to be successful, they must present their case for extradition to the Japanese authorities. However, certain evidence is barred from being in these proceedings such as the use of confessions, searches or electronic surveillance. In most cases involving international drug trafficking, this kind of evidence constitutes the bulk of evidence gathered in the investigation on a suspect for a drug-related charge. Therefore, this usually hinders the United States from moving forward with the extradition of a suspect.[46]

There is at present controversy in the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003,[47] which dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradition. This came to a head over the extradition of the Natwest Three from the UK to the U.S., for their alleged fraudulent conduct related to Enron. Several British political leaders were heavily critical of the British government's handling of the issue.[48]

In 2013, the United States submitted extradition requests to many nations for former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden.[49] It criticized Hong Kong for allowing him to leave despite an extradition request.[50]

2019 Hong Kong extradition law protests
Main article: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

A proposed Hong Kong extradition law tabled in April 2019 led to one of the biggest protests in the island's history, with 1 million demonstrators joining the protests on 9 June 2019.[51] They took place three days before the Hong Kong government planned to bypass the committee process and bring the contentious bill straight to the full legislature to hasten its approval.[51]

The bill, which would ease extradition to communist People's Republic of China, includes 37 types of crimes. While the Beijing-friendly ruling party maintains that the proposal contains protections of the dual criminality requirement and human rights, its opponents allege that after people are surrendered to the mainland, it could charge them with some other crime and impose the death penalty for that other crime.[52] There are also concerns about the retroactive effect of the new law.[53]

The government's proposal was amended to remove some categories after complaints from the business sector, such as "the unlawful use of computers".[53]

Experts have noted that the legal systems of mainland China and Hong Kong follow 'different protocols' with regard to the important conditions of double criminality and non-refoulement, as well as on the matter of executive vs. judicial oversight on any extradition request.[54]

Abductions

In some cases a state has abducted an alleged criminal from the territory of another state either after normal extradition procedures failed, or without attempting to use them. Notable cases are listed below:

Name Year From To
Morton Sobell 1950 Mexico United States
Adolf Eichmann 1960 Argentina Israel
Antoine Argoud 1963 West Germany France
Isang Yun 1967[55] West Germany South Korea
Mordechai Vanunu 1986 Italy Israel
Humberto Álvarez Machaín 1990 Mexico United States
Abdullah Ocalan 1999 Kenya Turkey
Wang Bingzhang 2002 Vietnam China
Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr 2003 Italy Egypt
Rodrigo Granda 2004 Venezuela Colombia
Konstantin Yaroshenko 2008 Liberia United States
Dirar Abu Seesi 2011 Ukraine Israel
Gui Minhai 2015 Thailand China
Trịnh Xuân Thanh 2017 Germany Vietnam
Xiao Jianhua 2017 Hong Kong China

"Extraordinary rendition"
Main article: Extraordinary rendition

"Extraordinary rendition" is an extrajudicial procedure in which criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organisations, are transferred from one country to another.[56] The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly operates a global extraordinary rendition programme, which from 2001 to 2005 captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world.[57][58][59][60]

The alleged US programme prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and illegal international transfers involving Council of Europe member states. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory (with the cooperation of Council of Europe members), and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("black sites") used by the CIA, some of which could be located in Europe. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.[61] A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions by the CIA, and criticised such actions. Within days of his inauguration, President Obama signed an Executive Order opposing rendition torture and established a task force to provide recommendations about processes to prevent rendition torture.[62]

See also

International:

Individuals:

  • Luis Posada Carriles, anti-Castrist detained in the U.S. and wanted by Cuba and Venezuela
  • Brian O'Rourke (1540?–1591), first man to be extradited within Britain
  • Ramil Safarov, Azerbaijani officer extradited from Hungary to Azerbaijan

Protest:

Footnotes
  1. Sadoff, David A. (24 December 2016). Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and its Alternatives. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 9781107129283.
  2. Dan E. Stigall, Stigall, Dan E. (3 February 2013). "Ungoverned Spaces, Transnational Crime, and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law". SSRN 2211219. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998 from the United States Department of State, Extradition Treaties
  4. One famous example of the French custom in practice is the case of the director Roman Polanski. Polanski was convicted of statutory rape of a 13-year-old in the United States in 1977 but fled to France before sentencing. From there, as a French citizen, he cannot be extradited to the United States. The French government has pointed out that Polanski could be prosecuted in France if the U.S. authorities so requested. U.S. authorities declined that possibility.
  5. Johnston, P. "The Incorporation of Human Rights Fair Trial Standards into Australian Extradition Law". (2014) 76 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 20.
  6. Mariana (Mitra) Radu, Cătălina Mititelu (2013) "The Observance of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Extradition Proceedings at National and International Levels" JDSR 3, 100 at 101
  7. Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 15B.
  8. Article 7 of Macau Law No. 6/2006 Law of judicial cooperation in criminal matters ((in Portuguese) Lei n.º 6/2006, Chinese: 第6/2006號法律)
  9. Section 30(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999. Also section 48(1)(b)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999, although this section only applies to extraditions from New Zealand to Australia or the UK, neither of which have the death penalty.
  10. Kindler v. Canada, CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, 11 November 1993, at 2.2
  11. Kindler v. Canada, CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, 11 November 1993, at 14.6
  12. Edward Fitzgerald (2013). Recent Human Rights Developments in Extradition Law & Related Immigration Law, The Denning Law Journal 25 89 at 90.
  13. Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1. para 189
  14. Soering v. The United Kingdom, 1/1989/161/217 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 7 July 1989, [109].
  15. Adam Abelson (19 May 2010). "The prosecute/extradite dilemma: Concurrent criminal jurisdiction and global governance" (PDF). The criminal laws of the United States, whether state or federal, ordinarily apply only to conduct within U.S. territory. Sometimes, however, they apply to conduct abroad, from antitrust conspiracies to torture. Where such extraterritorial criminal prescriptive jurisdiction exists under U.S. law, jurisdiction typically exists under the law of another country as well, such as the country where the conduct occurred.
  16. "section 12 of the Austrian Extradition and Legal Assistance Act ("Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz (ARHG)")". Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes (RIS), the official website of the Austrian government for the publication of legislation. 27 February 2014.
  17. Brazilian constitution of 1988, Article 5
  18. Условия за отказ на екстрадиция. Глава втора.
  19. "Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, Article 14 (4), second sentence" (PDF). 16 December 1992.
  20. "Code of criminal procedure (legislative part), Articles 696-1 to 696–7" (PDF). published by Légifrance, the official website of the French government for the publication of legislation, regulations, and legal information. 13 December 2005.
  21. "Légifrance publications of the French legislation". Légifrance. 13 December 2005.
  22. Except to a member state of the European Union or to an international court: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 16 (2), 29 July 2009.
  23. Article 2, Law of Extradition ((in Japanese) 逃亡犯罪人引渡法)
  24. "Dahir n° 1-58-057 du 25rebia II 1378 (8 novembre 1958) relatif à l'extradition". adala.justice.gov.ma. Retrieved 7 September 2020.
  25. "Lov om utlevering av lovbrytere m.v. [utleveringsloven] – Kap. I. Vilkår for utlevering til fremmed stat.1 – Lovdata". lovdata.no (in Norwegian). Retrieved 12 July 2018.
  26. Article 8 of the Extradition Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国引渡法)
  27. Article 4 of the Law of Extradition (Chinese: 引渡法) prohibits a citizen of the Republic of China from being extradited from Taiwan, unless the person acquired the citizenship after the request for extradition is made.
  28. Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 61
  29. "Saudis: No extradition of suspects to Turkey". Jiji Press. 10 December 2018. Archived from the original on 11 December 2018. Retrieved 10 December 2018. “We do not extradite our citizens,” Adel al-Jubeir told a news conference in Riyadh at the end of a summit of Gulf Cooperation Council states.
  30. Swiss Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Article 7
  31. Article 38 of the constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic
  32. Các trường hợp từ chối dẫn độ cho nước ngoài – Vietnam's Ministry of Justice
  33. F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25
  34. F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25 para 132
  35. HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa 2012 UKSC 25 para 132.
  36. Norris v US (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 as discussed in J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251.
  37. J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251
  38. Jasons v Latvia [2004] EWHC 1845.
  39. "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (PDF). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966.
  40. O'Connor v Adamas [2013] FCAFC 14 at [323]-[331], (2013) 210 FCR 364, Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  41. Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1.
  42. Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1 para 258–262.
  43. Rwanda v Brown [2009] EWHC 770 para 264
  44. Neil Boister, An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law(OUP, 2012) at 287
  45. Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) and the Republic of Austria v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35, (1995) 185 CLR 528 at [48] per Gummow J, High Court (Australia).
  46. Surena, André M.; Grove, Margaret A.; Perl, Raphael; Zagaris, Bruce; Blum, Jack A. (1990). "International Drug Traffic". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law). 84: 1–12. ISSN 0272-5037. JSTOR 25658526.
  47. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2006. Retrieved 6 July 2006.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  48. Oliver King and agencies (4 July 2006). "Lib Dem leader joins bankers' extradition battle". Politics.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 29 July 2014.
  49. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 28 June 2017. Retrieved 19 April 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  50. "U.S. criticizes China's handling of Snowden case - CNN.com". CNN. 12 July 2013.
  51. "Hong Kong protests against Chinese extradition bill draw 1 million demonstrators". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved 15 June 2019.
  52. Cheng, Kris (26 March 2019). "Hong Kong scraps 9 types of commercial crimes from China extradition plan amid pressure from business sector". Hong Kong Free Press HKFP. Retrieved 15 June 2019.
  53. Mak, Elise (23 April 2019). "HK effort to ease extradition law concerns fall short; many rendition routes to China remain". Harbour Times. Retrieved 15 June 2019.
  54. "University of Warwick (UK): The proposed Hong Kong-China extradition bill – expert comment". warwick.ac.uk. Retrieved 15 June 2019.
  55. Gil, Yun-hyeong (30 October 2004). "독일, 당시 국교단절 검토: 67년 윤이상씨등 서울로 납치 '동백림사건' 항의 (Germany considered breaking off relations at the time: Protests over the 1967 "East Berlin incident" kidnapping of Isang Yun and others)" (in Korean). The Hankyoreh. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
  56. Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney American Law Division. Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture 8 September 2009; link from the United States Counter-Terrorism Training and Resources for Law Enforcement web site Archived 14 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  57. Charlie Savage (17 February 2009). "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  58. "Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  59. "New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process". Huffington Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  60. Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 March 2007 (in English)
  61. Resolution 1507 (2006). Archived 12 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states]
  62. "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on 26 January 2009. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.