Extradition And Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties
1. Extradition Treaties – Meaning
An extradition treaty is a formal agreement between two or more countries where they agree to hand over persons accused or convicted of crimes who are found in the territory of another State.
It helps ensure that criminals cannot evade justice simply by crossing borders.
Key Principles of Extradition
Dual criminality – The offence must be a crime in both countries.
Specialty rule – The requesting State can prosecute the person only for the offence for which extradition was granted.
Political offence exception – Individuals cannot be extradited for political crimes.
Human rights protection – Extradition may be refused if the accused faces torture, unfair trial, or death penalty (in some jurisdictions).
Nationality rule – Some countries refuse to extradite their own citizens.
2. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) – Meaning
An MLAT is an agreement between countries to assist one another in criminal investigations and prosecutions, even when extradition is not requested.
Types of Assistance Under MLATs
Collecting and sharing evidence
Serving legal documents
Freezing and seizing assets
Sharing bank records and digital evidence
Taking witness statements
Locating persons
Surveillance and wiretaps (depending on treaty terms)
Purpose of MLATs
To help fight transnational crimes, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, cybercrime, corruption, and human trafficking.
To improve cooperation between law enforcement agencies worldwide.
❗ DETAILED CASE LAWS ON EXTRADITION & MLATs
Below are six landmark cases explained in detail.
CASE 1: Abu Salem Extradition Case (India–Portugal)
Facts
Abu Salem, accused of involvement in the 1993 Mumbai bombings, fled to Portugal. India requested his extradition. Portugal agreed but imposed certain conditions, including that Salem would not receive the death penalty or a sentence exceeding 25 years.
Legal Issues
Whether India violated the “Rule of Specialty” by trying Salem for additional offences not mentioned in the extradition approval.
Whether sentencing him beyond 25 years would violate the extradition conditions.
Decision
The Indian Supreme Court held that India must strictly adhere to the extradition conditions.
Salem cannot be tried for offences not approved by Portugal.
His sentence cannot exceed 25 years, as this was a condition of extradition.
Significance
Reinforced the importance of the specialty doctrine.
Demonstrated how treaty conditions override domestic law.
CASE 2: State of West Bengal v. Jugal Kishore More (India, 1969)
Facts
This case involved a fugitive from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) who was found in India. The issue was whether extradition could occur without a formal treaty.
Legal Issue
Whether a person could be extradited based on reciprocity in absence of a formal treaty.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that extradition can occur even without a treaty, but only if domestic law allows it and reciprocity exists.
However, procedural and human rights protections must be maintained.
Significance
Clarified that treaties are not the only basis for extradition.
Highlighted the role of domestic extradition statutes.
CASE 3: United States v. Alvarez-Machain (US Supreme Court, 1992)
Facts
A Mexican doctor, Alvarez-Machain, was kidnapped in Mexico by private agents hired by the U.S. DEA and brought to the U.S. for trial regarding the murder of a DEA agent.
Legal Issue
Whether the kidnapping violated the US–Mexico extradition treaty and barred prosecution.
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court held the prosecution valid.
The treaty did not explicitly prohibit forcible abduction.
Therefore, his trial in the U.S. was lawful.
Significance
Highly controversial decision.
Demonstrated that treaty silence does not create prohibitions.
Many countries criticized the ruling due to concerns over sovereignty.
CASE 4: Soering v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 1989)
Facts
Soering, a German citizen, faced extradition from the UK to the U.S. for murder charges. Extradition would expose him to the risk of the death penalty and prolonged conditions on "death row."
Legal Issue
Whether extraditing him would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment.
Decision
The ECHR blocked extradition until assurances were received that Soering would not face the death penalty.
The “death row phenomenon” was considered inhuman treatment.
Significance
Landmark case linking human rights with extradition.
Established that extradition may be refused when human rights are at risk.
CASE 5: Abu Hamza al-Masri v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2012)
Facts
Abu Hamza, a radical cleric, faced extradition from the UK to the U.S. on terrorism charges.
Legal Issue
Whether the maximum-security prison conditions in the U.S. (ADX Florence facility) would violate Article 3 of the ECHR.
Decision
The ECHR ruled extradition permissible.
Conditions in ADX Florence did not amount to inhuman treatment.
Significance
Showed that even strict U.S. prison conditions do not automatically bar extradition.
Provided clarity on human rights thresholds.
CASE 6: Dawes v. Attorney-General of Canada (Canada, 1999)
Facts
Dawes, accused of drug trafficking in the U.S., challenged his extradition from Canada. His defense claimed U.S. sentencing laws were excessively harsh compared to Canadian law.
Legal Issue
Whether differences in sentencing systems can justify refusing extradition.
Decision
The court held that extradition cannot be refused merely because the requesting country’s laws are stricter.
Harsh sentencing does not equal unfair trial.
Significance
Reinforced the doctrine that extradition is based on respect for foreign legal systems unless fundamental rights are violated.
Conclusion
Extradition treaties and MLATs are essential tools for global criminal justice. They:
Ensure that fugitives cannot escape justice
Enable cooperation across borders
Balance state sovereignty with individual rights
Require compliance with treaty conditions and human-rights standards
The above cases demonstrate how courts interpret these treaties, balancing international cooperation with human rights protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments