International Extradition Treaties
What is an International Extradition Treaty?
An International Extradition Treaty is a formal agreement between two or more countries that establishes the legal framework under which one country agrees to surrender a person to another country for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed within the requesting country’s jurisdiction.
Key features:
Defines the crimes for which extradition may be granted.
Sets out procedures for requesting and executing extradition.
Protects the rights of the individual subject to extradition.
Usually includes exceptions (e.g., political offenses, death penalty concerns).
Important Concepts in Extradition Treaties
Dual Criminality: The offense must be a crime in both countries.
Specialty Principle: The person extradited can only be tried for the crimes listed in the extradition request.
Political Offense Exception: Individuals will generally not be extradited for political crimes.
Non-Extradition for Death Penalty: Many treaties prevent extradition if the person may face the death penalty.
Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, was forcibly abducted by U.S. agents from Mexico without formal extradition procedures.
He was charged with involvement in the torture and murder of a DEA agent.
Issue:
Whether the forcible abduction violated the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty and U.S. law.
Holding:
The Court ruled 6-3 that the abduction did not violate the extradition treaty.
The treaty did not explicitly forbid forcible abduction.
Alvarez-Machain’s capture was lawful under U.S. law.
Significance:
This case highlighted the limits of extradition treaties and the potential for states to bypass formal procedures.
Raised concerns about sovereignty and international law norms.
2. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) — European Court of Human Rights
Facts:
Soering, a German national, was accused of murder in the U.S. and requested by the U.K. for extradition.
He claimed extradition would expose him to the “death row phenomenon” (psychological torture due to prolonged death penalty wait).
Issue:
Whether extradition to the U.S. violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Holding:
The Court ruled that extradition would indeed violate human rights due to the inhumane conditions of death row.
The U.K. was advised not to extradite Soering.
Significance:
Emphasized the role of human rights in extradition decisions.
Set precedent for considering humanitarian concerns in extradition treaties.
3. United States v. Rauscher (1886) — U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Rauscher was extradited from England to the U.S. under a treaty guaranteeing trial only for the charges specified.
Issue:
Whether the U.S. could prosecute Rauscher for crimes other than those mentioned in the extradition request.
Holding:
The Court enforced the specialty principle.
Rauscher could only be tried for the offenses listed in the extradition request.
Significance:
Reinforced the specialty principle in international extradition law.
Protects the rights of the extradited individual.
4. Minister of Justice v. Mohamed (South Africa, 2013)
Facts:
Mohamed, a Tanzanian national, was sought for extradition by the U.S. on terrorism charges.
He argued extradition would violate his rights due to potential torture.
Issue:
Whether extradition could proceed given the risk of human rights violations.
Holding:
South African courts refused extradition, emphasizing constitutional protections against torture.
Significance:
Illustrated how constitutional rights may override extradition obligations.
Showed growing global recognition of human rights in extradition.
5. Canada v. Khadr (2010) — Supreme Court of Canada
Facts:
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay, was accused of terrorism-related offenses by the U.S.
Canada received a U.S. request for Khadr's extradition.
Issue:
Whether extradition was appropriate given concerns about Khadr’s treatment and fair trial rights.
Holding:
The Court ruled Canada must seek assurances about Khadr’s fair trial and humane treatment before extradition.
Significance:
Emphasized the necessity for protective assurances in extradition, especially in terrorism cases.
Highlighted interplay between national law and extradition treaties.
Summary
These cases highlight several critical themes in international extradition treaties:
The importance of treaty language and its interpretation (Alvarez-Machain).
The growing importance of human rights considerations (Soering, Mohamed, Khadr).
The strict application of the specialty principle (Rauscher).
The balance between sovereignty, justice, and individual rights in extradition procedures.
Extradition treaties are not just legal documents but dynamic instruments affected by international law, human rights norms, and political realities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments