Extradition

Many countries reserve the right to refuse to extradite an individual if, in the government's opinion, they are being sought for a political crime. Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European nations, will not allow extradition to nations with the capital punishment unless they are assured that the death penalty will not subsequently be imposed. Such restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that the US government has agreed upon. They are however controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced, 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 is perceived by many in those nations has an attempted by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders.

In certain countries, such as France and Germany, the law bars the government from extraditing anyone who is a citizen of the state. This is reflected in the extradition treaties to which such countries are a party. 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 to avoid prosecution¹. The laws of France and Germany do, however, allow for the trying citizens in their home country for serious crimes committed abroad. Those governments will prosecute such a case on the demand of the foreign country in which the crime was allegedly committed.

The usual extradition treaty safeguards relating to double-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.

Extradition and abduction

Issues of international law relating to extradition have proven controversial in cases where a state has abducted and removed an individual from the territory of another state without previously requesting permission, or following normal extradition procedures. Such abductions are usually in violation of the domestic law of the country in which they occur, as infringements of laws forbidding kidnapping. Many also regard abductions as violations of international law--in particular of a prohibition on arbitrary detention. Controversial cases have included the abduction:

• in 1986, of Mordechai Vanunu, from Italy, by Israel
• of Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national accused of murdering a DEA official, from Mexico, by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
• in 1997, of Mir Aimal Kasi, from Pakistan, by the FBI. He was accused of an attack on a CIA headquarters and was later tried and executed in the United States.
• in 2002, of Martin Mubanga, from Zambia, to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, by the United States.
  

  Extradition to federations

Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, transportation across state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (without transportation, crimes such as murder etc. are judged 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 offense is an offense in the country from where extradition should take place.

Footnote

Related topics