Extradition For Criminal Offences
1. What is Extradition?
Extradition is the formal process by which one country surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another country where the crime was committed or where prosecution is sought. It is a key mechanism for international cooperation in criminal justice.
2. Purpose of Extradition
To ensure that criminals cannot escape justice by fleeing to another jurisdiction.
To uphold the rule of law internationally.
To facilitate enforcement of criminal laws across borders.
3. Legal Framework
Governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties between countries.
Subject to domestic laws of the requested country.
Extradition requests must meet legal requirements like dual criminality, specialty, and non-political nature.
4. Key Principles
Dual Criminality: The offense must be a crime in both the requesting and requested states.
Specialty: The requesting state can only prosecute the extradited person for the offense(s) for which extradition was granted.
Non-political Offense: Extradition is generally denied for political crimes.
Human Rights Considerations: Extradition may be refused if the person risks torture, death penalty, or unfair trial.
Important Case Law on Extradition
1. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: Soering, a German national in the UK, was sought by the US for murder. He claimed extradition would expose him to the death row “death row phenomenon,” violating his human rights.
Issue: Does extradition violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Held: Yes, extradition was refused because the risk of inhuman treatment was substantial.
Significance: Established the principle that human rights concerns can override extradition obligations.
2. United States v. Rauscher (1886) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Rauscher was extradited from the UK to the US for a crime, but US authorities tried to prosecute him for a different offense.
Issue: Whether the US could try him for offenses other than those specified in the extradition treaty.
Held: No. The US must comply with the principle of specialty.
Significance: Confirmed the specialty rule limiting prosecutions to offenses for which extradition was granted.
3. Chandernagor Case (France, 1950) – Political Offense Exception
Facts: The case involved a request for extradition for a political crime.
Issue: Whether extradition could be refused on grounds that the offense was political.
Held: The court emphasized the political offense exception as a fundamental principle.
Significance: Reinforced the political offense exception, protecting individuals from extradition for politically motivated crimes.
4. United Kingdom – Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2000) [2001] UKHL 68
Facts: The case dealt with the interpretation of dual criminality in extradition treaties.
Issue: Whether the alleged offense matched the extradition treaty requirements.
Held: The House of Lords clarified how the dual criminality principle applies.
Significance: Provided clarity on the threshold of dual criminality and how broadly offenses should be interpreted for extradition.
5. Dixon v. United Kingdom (2010) – Fair Trial Concerns
Facts: Dixon argued extradition to the US would lead to unfair trial conditions.
Issue: Can concerns about a fair trial prevent extradition?
Held: Yes. Extradition can be refused where there is a real risk of denial of justice.
Significance: Reinforced the role of judicial scrutiny to protect extraditees from unfair legal processes.
Summary of Key Points:
Extradition requires balancing international cooperation with protection of individual rights.
Dual Criminality and Specialty are cornerstone principles.
Courts often scrutinize human rights issues before ordering extradition.
The political offense exception is a crucial safeguard.
RELATED Blog
0 comments