One concept related to extradition that has a significant impact on transnational criminal law is that of aut dedere aut judicare. [2] This maxim represents the principle that states must either surrender a criminal to a state that wants to prosecute the criminal or prosecute the perpetrator in its own courts. Many international agreements contain provisions on aut dedere aut judicare. These include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the United Nations Convention on Combating Terrorist Bombings and the United Nations. Convention against Corruption, Convention against Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. [2] Most countries require themselves to refuse extradition requests if the suspect is wanted for a political crime in the opinion of the government. Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European countries, will not allow extradition if the death penalty can be imposed on the suspect unless they are certain that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. In Söring v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it would be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person in a case in a capital case from the United Kingdom to the United States.
This was due to the difficult conditions on death row and the uncertain time frame within which the sentence would be served. Contracting Parties to the European Convention may also not extradite persons if they run a significant risk of being treated in an inhuman or degrading manner or punished. Extradition is an act by which a court extradites a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction to its law enforcement authorities. This is a cooperative prosecution process between the two jurisdictions and depends on the agreements between them. This is partly because evidence of torture threatens “the integrity of the trial and the rule of law itself.” [44] An extradition bill for Hong Kong introduced in April 2019 led to one of the largest protests in the island`s history, with 1 million protesters joining the protests on June 9, 2019. [52] They took place three days before the Hong Kong government`s plan to bypass the committee`s process and present the controversial bill directly to the entire legislature to expedite its approval. [52] Some countries such as France, the Russian Federation, Germany, Austria, China and Japan have laws prohibiting the extradition of their respective citizens. Others, like Israel, prohibit the extradition of their own citizens in their constitutions. Others provide for such a prohibition of extradition treaties and not of their laws.
Such restrictions are sometimes controversial in other countries, for example when a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to his home country to avoid prosecution. [5] However, these countries make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad and convict citizens suspected of committing crimes under their own laws. These suspects are usually prosecuted as if the crime took place within the country`s borders. By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they can process or refuse extradition requests. Respect for fundamental human rights is also an important reason for the rejection of certain extradition requests. It is common for exceptions to human rights to be explicitly included in bilateral treaties. [6] Such suspensions may be invoked in relation to the person`s treatment in the host country, including trial and conviction. These prohibitions may also extend to take into account the impact on the person`s family if extradition continues. Therefore, the human rights recognized in international and regional agreements can serve as a basis for rejecting extradition requests. However, cases where extradition is refused should be treated as independent exceptions and occur only in exceptional circumstances.
[7] Some countries oppose extradition on the grounds that if extradited, the person can be sentenced to death or torture. Some go so far as to cover all the sanctions that they would not impose themselves. These restrictions are usually clearly set out in extradition treaties that a government has agreed. However, they are 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 countries to interfere in the U.S. criminal justice system. In contrast, the pressure exerted by the United States on the government of these countries to change their laws or even sometimes ignore their laws is perceived by many in these countries as an attempt by the United States to interfere in its sovereign right to regulate justice within its own borders. Famous examples are the extradition dispute with Canada over Charles Ng.
In some cases, a State has abducted an alleged criminal from the territory of another State, either after the failure of normal extradition procedures or without attempting to use them. Notable cases are listed below: “Extraordinary rendition” is an extrajudicial procedure in which criminal suspects, usually suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organizations, are transferred from one country to another. [57] The procedure is different from extradition in that the purpose of the transfer is to obtain information from suspects, while extradition is used to repatriate refugees so that they can be tried or serve their sentences. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is reported to operate an extraordinary global restitution program that captured and transported about 150 people worldwide from 2001 to 2005. [58] [59] [60] [61] The issues at stake are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with the rule of law […].
