Extradition

Extradition is a formal process by which a criminal suspect held by one government is handed over to another government for trial or, if the suspect has already been tried and found guilty, to serve his or her sentence.

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, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries has caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries.

Related Topics:
International law - State - Sovereignty - Treaties

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States (US) lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China and North Korea. However, South Korea signed an extradition treaty with the United States on June 9, 1998, which entered into force on December 20, 1999. The Philippines signed an extradition treaty with the United States on November 13, 1994, which entered into force on November 22, 1996.

Related Topics:
United States - People's Republic of China - North Korea - South Korea - June 9 - 1998 - December 20 - 1999 - Philippines - November 13 - 1994 - November 22 - 1996

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An extradition treaty spells out the terms of an extradition. It includes a list of crimes for which a person can be extradited, or else covers them all with descriptions such as "any crime punishable with three years' imprisonment or some heavier penalty". It is usually reciprocal in terms of conditions, but there are exceptions. 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. This is known as the principle of "dual criminality".
• The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the receiving end.
• 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 ones, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not subsequently be passed on or carried out. 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 states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the US criminal justice system. In contrast, pressures by the US 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, or even downright bullying. Famous examples include the extradition row with Canada on Charles Ng.

Related Topics:
Political crime - Mexico - Canada - Europe - Death penalty - Criminal justice - 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.

Related Topics:
Rule of law - Torture - Fair trial

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some countries, such as France, Germany, China and Japan, have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. 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 his home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution1. 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.

Related Topics:
France - Germany - China - Japan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 Union arrest warrant. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1st January, 2004. 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.

Related Topics:
Prima facie - Fair trial - European Union arrest warrant - 1st January - 2004 - European Convention on Human Rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Extradition to federations

The federal structure of some nations, such as the United States (US), can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions. This is because foreign countries do not have official relations with sub-national units such as the individual states composing the US; rather, they have relations with the federal government. This means, for example, that the federal government may, in a particular case, certify to a foreign nation that the death penalty will not be sought, and that if it is pronounced it will not be applied, but some contend that such a commitment is not binding on state courts when the matter is of state jurisdiction. On the other hand, should an individual state decide to execute a person extradited, the federal government would be in violation of its commitment with respect to foreign nations and to what it has agreed upon by treaty.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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 take place.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~