LGS CANTT MODEL

UNITED NATIONS

STUDY GUIDE TO
THE SOCIAL,
CULTURAL AND
HUMANITARIAN
COMMITTEE
TOPIC AREA A:
EXTRADITION POLICIES
1 of 9

1. Introduction
Extradition alludes to the exchange of a accused
criminal from one country to to another. In other
words, it is the return of an accused to the place
where s/he allegedly committed a crime to stand
trial. The object of extradition is to prevent the
escape of persons accused of crime and to
secure their return for the purpose of trial and
punishment to the state from which they fled.
How does Extradition work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4bM8yd
Rc9k
In the best of circumstances, extradition mirrors
an essential understanding between civilised
countries that adequately genuine violations
must not go unpunished. Be that as it may,
extradition is frequently utilised for political
purposes, not simply legal ones.
A country cannot surrender an outlaw to another
country or demand return of an accused from the
country if it is against the constitution of the
country. In the event that there is no valid
agreement between the countries, international
law does not require surrender of a criminal to a
foreign country. When a country requests the
surrender of a fugitive, the nation should make a
legitimate composed request that ought to be
sent through diplomatic channels to the justice
ministry or other appropriate office. There
should be warrants, sentences, and all relevant
evidence attached along with the request.

1.1 Extradition Process

For the extradition procedure to begin the formal
extradition request and other documents sent
must be transmitted by political channels to the
requested state. Once the representative of the
requesting state formulate the official request,
joined by supporting documentation required by
a treaty or otherwise, the appropriate officers
will check that the request meets the formal
conditions of the applicable treaty or, in its
absence, of domestic legislation. Assuming this

is the case, they may withhold activity until the

requesting State remedies any formal
shortcomings in the documents or the formal
request.
If it is chosen to entertain the request, legal
procedures will start. The asking for State may
intercede in the legal procedures, through
operators approved for this evidence. It is
imperative to note that in critical cases
provisional arrest might be asked for extradition
purposes. Such a plea might be issued through
the International Police Organisation (Interpol).
At any phase of the procedure, the accused
individual may give free and express consent to
be extradited. For this situation, the judge will
decide the matter without further procedures.
The exact menu for an extradition
hearing is determined by the relevant
extradition treaty, but a common check
list for a hearing would include
determinations that:
1. There exists a valid agreement
between the requested and the requesting
state;
2. The offence charged is extraditable;
3. The crime charged fulfils the
requirement of dual criminality;
4. There is probable cause to be
convinced that the accused committed
the offence charged;
5. The essential documents are presented
in accordance with the requested states
law, subject to any specific treaty
requirements, translated and verified;
and
6. Other treaty requirements and official
procedures are followed

1.2 Extraditable offenses

1. Extraditable offences are those punishable
under the laws of both Parties by
2 of 9

imprisonment or deprivation of liberty.

2. In determining whether or an offence is
punishable under the laws of both parties, it
shall not matter whether:
A. The laws of both Parties place the acts
within the same category of offence or
denominate the offence by the same
terminology;
B. Under the laws of the Parties the
constituent elements of the offence
differ, it is the totality of the acts or
omissions that shall betaken into
account.
3. Where extradition is sought for an offence
against a law relating to taxation, customs
duties or other revenue matters, extradition
may not be refused on the ground that the
law of the requesting State does not impose
the same kind of tax or duty.
4. If the request for extradition includes several
separate offences each of which is
punishable under the laws of both Parties,
but some of which do not fulfil other
conditions the requested Party may grant
extradition for the latter offences provided
the persons is to be extradited for at least
one extraditable offence.

1.3 Right of Asylum

The right to Asylum is an ancient juridical
concept. In this case the person persecuted by
their own country has the right to seek asylum to
another sovereign authority, a foreign country.
In a nutshell, Asylum can be labelled as
providing international protection to individuals
at risk of persecution and other kinds of serious
harm. Asylum also occurs when the receiving
state refuses to extradite the criminal.
While Extradition and Right to Asylum do not
have the same purposes and criteria, they can be
conducted in parallel. So lets say if a criminal
flees from country A to country B and country A
wants to extradite the criminal, country B has
the right to refuse to extradite the criminal and

keep the criminal under protection. This is

usually why extradition treaties are drafted. In
this case we say the criminal is seeking asylum
in country B.
The United Nations treaties, 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees guide legislation regarding political
asylum or refuge. Under these a refugee is a
person who is outside their own country owing
to fear of persecution on protected grounds.
Protected grounds include, caste, race, religion,
nationality, political opinions and membership
and/or participation in any particular social
group or activity.
What is Asylum and How does it work?
youtu.be/PD-GlTseGSI

1.4 Aut Dedere Aut Judicare

Extradition, known as Aut Dedere Aut
Judicare in Latin refers to the Legal
Obligation of States under public
international Law to prosecute persons
who commit severe international crimes.
This is applicable when no other state
has requested extradition and the
obligation for which arises regardless of
the extraterritorial nature of the crime. In
this case, the criminals nationality and
residence are not taken in account for.
Offences that fall under the Aut Dedere
Aut Judicare include but are not limited
to

Hijacking of civilian aircraft

Taking of civilian hostages

Acts of terrorism

Torture

Crimes against diplomats and other

"internationally protected persons",
and;
3 of 9

Financing of terrorism and other

international crimes

have treaties with DPRK, the Peoples republic

of China and many more.

1.5 Lack of Border Security

Lack of border security, lack of accountability,
lack of transparency, when one country transfers
a suspected or convicted criminal to another
country it is known as Extradition. While
extradition is normally regulated by treaties,
lack of the above mentioned results in illegal
smuggling of prisoners across borders.
Extradition is compelled by laws, such as subnational jurisdictions etc.
Through this process the requesting state (also
known as a sovereign) makes a formal request to
another sovereign (In this case the requested
state). If the fugitive is found in the requested
state the requested state has the authority to
arrest the fugitive and subject him or her to
extradition. The extradition procedures to which
the fugitive will be subjected are dependent on
the law and practice of the requested state.
In International law, the consensus is based
upon the fact that the state is not obliged to
surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state,
because the principal of legal authority over
people inside a country borders is one principal
of country sovereignty. An absence of
international Obligation and the desire for the
right to demand criminals from foreign countries
have resulted in extradition treaties. When no
applicable extradition agreement is in place,
while the sovereign may still request the
expulsion of an individual pursuant to the
requested states domestic law, the requested
country is yet again not obliged to anything. The
immigration laws of the requested state also
come into play here as well as other facets of the
requested states domestic law. Similarly, the
penal codes in many countries contain
provisions allowing for extradition to take place
in absence of an extradition agreement.
It should be noted that no country in this world
currently has an extradition with all other
countries, so while USA may have extradition
treaties with the United Kingdome it does not

2. Bars to Extradition
There are times when many states decline
extradition requests. Jurisdiction over a violation
can be invoked to reject extradition. More
specifically, the fact that the person in question
is a nation's own citizen causes that country to
have jurisdiction. This may be due to bad
international relations, and may cause worse
relations in the future. It is obvious that Russia
has never had an extradition treaty with the
United States. On the right, you can see a map
of countries (light blue) with which the United
States (purple) has an extradition treaty.
Extradition law in the United States is the
formal procedure by which an outlaw found in
the United States is surrendered to another
nation for trial. For other nations the procedure
is controlled by arrangement and led between
the Federal Government and the legislature of a
remote nation.
In November, 2011, Extradition request from
the United States for fugitive George Wright
denied by Portugal. The US needs Wright to
serve whatever is left of his 15-to 30-year prison
sentence for a 1962 murder in New Jersey.
Wright was caught in Portugal in September
after over four decades on the run. His Lawyer
said the judge acknowledged his contentions
that Wright is presently Portuguese and that the
statute of limitations on the crime had expired.
He declined to give further details.
More recently, in October, 2015, Roman
Polanski extradition request over underage sex
claims was denied by Polish courts. The
director, popular for movies including
Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist, pleaded
guilty in 1977 to statutory rape in the after
engaging in sexual relations with a 13-year-old
girl amid a photo shoot in Los Angeles. He was
ordered to undergo a psychiatric study at a state
jail, where he served 42 days.
4 of 9

2.1 Dual Criminality

The most common and the simplest of all
reasons do deny extradition is because the crime
in question is not in fact a crime in both the
requested and requesting state. In a universal
extradition case, it is not fundamental that the
two statutes be utterly in agreement for the
purpose of dual criminality. Double criminality
exists if the fundamental character of the
criminal acts of each nation is same and if the
laws are similar.
Bar to Extradition, Explained:
youtu.be/35F_Y8v38R8
The dual criminality requirement has
experienced a immense change in the last
century. In the late eighteen hundreds the
necessity was expected to drive a requested for
State to legitimise its denial of an extradition
request in order to protect the accused facing
extradition from unjust prosecution. In this
century however, dual criminality has turned
into an undesirable obstruction to extradition to
both requesting and requested countries. In order
to relegate this barrier to a background position
in the extradition process, courts are recognising
new scenarios in which the components of the
requirement might be satisfied. Similarly parties
who arrange settlements, particularly in the
recent decade, have made it clear that the double
criminality requirement is to be a hindrance to
extradition just when the re-quested State so
prefers.

For purposes of determining double

criminality in an international extradition case,
the court must look to proscription by similar
criminal provisions of federal law or, if none,
the law of the place where the petitioner is found
or, if none, the law of the preponderance of the
states. A broad interpretation of the requirement
of dual criminality is followed: The law does not
require that the name by which the crime is
described in the two countries shall be the same,
nor that the scope of the liability shall be
coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in
the two countries. It is enough if the particular
act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.

The fact that a particular act is classified

differently or that different requirements of
proof are applicable in the two countries does
not defeat extradition.

Heilbronn v.
Kendall, 775 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Mich. 1991)
Courts have offered many methods of reasoning
for weakening the dual criminality argument's
capability to thwart a fancied additional dition
endeavor." Even along these lines, reliably
fundamental the double guiltiness choices has
been the assumption that the requirement might
be casual subsequently safeguarding universal
enthusiasm for removing a person which both
the asking for and re-quested States wish to
remove while keeping on shielding people from
treacherous remote indictment. The overall
enthusiasm for liberal removal strategies has
become considerably more grounded in the most
recent a quarter century canny universal
medication traffickers and terrorists try to abuse
the details of the double criminality necessity
with a specific end goal to keep away from
indictment."

2.2 Political Crimes

A political offence exception limits the
obligation of a sovereign state under an
extradition or mutual legal assistance treaty or
statute. A well known example of this exception
is Edward Snowden, who was convicted of
treason against the United States, and used his
right of Asylum to travel to Russia and is
currently living there. Most countries do no
accept extradition requests on suspects of
political crimes. Many political crimes such as
those directed against the security or
government of a nation, for example treason,
sedition, espionage, murder during a revolution,
etc. are generally excluded from extradition
treaties. Refusal to extradite under such
circumstances depends on the policy that a
country that does not agree or otherwise objects
another country's political framework will be
hesitant to return for prosecution a dissenter who
moreover has been critical of the other country.

5 of 9

However, obviously, not each criminal act will

be protected. For instance, some treaties provide
that specific crimes, for example, the murder of
a leader state, does not constitute as political
offences and are prosecuted. The rise in plane
hijacking, terrorism, and hostage taking in the
late twentieth century drove numerous countries
to go into multilateral conventions in which the
signing nations commonly agreed to extradite
people who carried out such acts.
Political offences have been divided into two
categories:
Absolute or pure political crimes are
offences which are plotted against the
political structure or government of the
country and hold no element of a common
crime at all.
b) Pure political offences include offences such
as espionage, treason, and sedition. In a lot
of cases, there is no responsibility to
extradite for pure political crimes, and there
is agreement that the political offence
exception applies to these crimes.

extradition proceedings after being subject to a

request from the United Arab Emirates. District
Judge Zani said that he was entirely satisfied
that Mr Afsar had amply demonstrated that in
the event of his return, his rights would be
breached and he would suffer prejudice by
reason of his ethnicity.
Dutch lawyer Andre Seebregt (left) arrives at
a courtroom in The Hague, on February 12,
2013. Seebregt -- who represents DutchPakistani Al-Qaeda suspect Sabir K -- is
trying to stop his client's extradition to the
United States.

a)

2.3 Capital Punishment and

Torture
Extradition treaties play a vital role in
international law enforcement and reveal the
common interest of the world community in
prosecuting severe crimes by guaranteeing that
prisoners do not find safe havens. There is,
however, an equally significant, complementary
and competing mutual interest in securing the
protection of basic human rights of culprits.
Human rights issues occasionally pop up as
additional grounds for refusal of extradition
requests, most notably in terrorist-cases. Many
countries refuse extradition requests if there are
chances that the criminal in question may face a
death penalty, torture or similar punishment.
Many countries which do not agree with the
notion of death penalties will not agree to
extradite a person charged with a crime to
another country if there is a chance of the
defendant receiving a death sentence.
In August 2013 at Westminster Magistrates
Court, Yasir Afsar was discharged from his

The role of Central Intelligence Agency of

America in torture is controversial and has come
into the limelight in many cases. In July, 2013,
A Dutch court rejected the extradition request of
a terrorism suspect to the United States amid
concern about American collusion in his torture.
Sabir K, a 26-year old was put on trail for taking
part in attacks on United States forces in
Afghanistan. He says he was tortured in
Pakistan after his capture there in 2010, and that
the American government knew about it. The
suspect, a Dutch citizen of Pakistani origin, was
handed to the Netherlands after his arrest and
immediately taken into custody. The appeals
court in said he should not be extradited because
too much is unclear regarding the part of the
American government in Sabir's torture.
In considering extradition or the exchange of
suspects, states can't choose not to see to the
potential for breaches of various rights
including, among others the right to opportunity
from freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment and the right to a fair trial
as well as the principle of legal certainty and
freedom from discrimination in order to make
sure that they meet their obligations under
international human rights law.
A recent extradition case concerned with
conditions in jails is Babar Ahmad and Others v.
the United Kingdom. The court ruled that
conditions of imprisonment in maximum
security prisons in the US would not constitute a
breach in case of extradition. The applicants
were indicted on numerous charges of terrorism
in the United States, which requested their
extradition. They objected before the European
6 of 9

Court about the risk of serving their prison

sentence in the US in ADX Florence, a supermax prison, where they would be subjected to
special administrative policies, and of being
sentenced to irreducible life imprisonment.
Babar Ahmad, 37, has been held in UK
custody without trial for nearly eight years
Refusing international extradition requests on
grounds of torture has become customary in
international law. The death sentence, however,
raises arguable issues. In any event, the trend
toward abolition of the death penalty is clear.
Consequently, the United States will
increasingly encounter difficulties in attaining
extradition of fugitives from the European states
and Canada. Abducting the criminals and taking
them back to the United States for trial is not a
suitable response as will be discussed later in
2.4. Although the United States has entered into
several bilateral treaties, which contain clauses
allowing a country to ask for an declaration that
the death penalty will not be imposed, even if
there is no provision for such guarantees to be
given, in the interest of comity the United States
should show understanding for other countries'
beliefs on this very fundamental issue and
willingly give those assurances.

2.4 International Tensions and

Extraordinary rendition
Extradition treaties and other traditional
methods of international cooperation have
proven unsuccessful in the struggle against
international terrorism. Since 1988, the U.S.
officials has resorted to unilateral measures to
bring suspects to trial in the United States. The
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however,
recently hindered the government's efforts by
refusing to exercise jurisdiction over suspects
not seized in agreement with an asylum state's
wishes. This regulation would deal a major blow
to the government's ability to battle crimes that
have remained impervious to the current
international law enforcement regime.
The 1985 kidnapping, torture, and execution of
Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent

Enrique Camarena Salazar provides an effective

example. Camarena was kidnapped by members
of a Latin American drug cartel; his disfigured
body was found a month after he first
disappeared. The massacre resulted in political
strain between the governments of the United
States and Mexico because of the realisation that
the Mexican officials had not done enough to
bring Camarena's murderers to justice. Due to a
lack of progress, the DEA embarked on a
program to bring Camarena's killers to the
United States for trial. Ultimately, a number of
suspects were taken into custody, three of them
through irregular means. Dr. Humberto AlvarezMachain and Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez
were abducted from Mexico and delivered to the
United States while Juan Ramon MattaBallesteros was abducted from Honduras.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez and
subsequently in United States v. AlvarezMachain, the defendants maintained that the
abductions violated the U.S.-Mexico Extradition
Treaty. The Ninth Circuit agreed and held that
this violation, combined with Mexico's protest
of the abductions, stripped the court of its
jurisdiction over these cases.
Following the 11 September attacks the US, in
particular the CIA, has been accused of
transferring hundreds of people suspected by the
government of being terroristsor of helping
terrorist organisationsto third-party states
such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and
Uzbekistan. Such "ghost detainees" are kept
outside judicial oversight, often without ever
stepping on US territory, and may or may not
eventually be transferred to the custody of the
United States. Media reports describe culprits as
being detained, blindfolded, handcuffed, and
drugged, or otherwise kidnapped, and moved by
private jet or other means to the destination
country.
Here's what the Open Society report has to say
about the staggeringly global participation in the
CIA program, including a full list of the
countries it names:
The report also shows that as many as 54
foreign governments reportedly participated in
these operations in various ways, including by
hosting CIA prisons on their territories;
7 of 9

detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing

individuals; assisting in the capture and
transport of detainees; permitting the use of
domestic airspace and airports for secret flights
transporting detainees; providing intelligence
leading to the secret detention and
extraordinary rendition of individuals; and
interrogating individuals who were secretly
being held in the custody of other governments.
Foreign governments also failed to protect
detainees from secret detention and
extraordinary rendition on their territories and
to conduct effective investigations into agencies
and officials who participated in these
operations.
Further Reading: Black sites in Middle East
and Eastern Europe

3. Case Study: Edward

Snowden
Mr Edward Snowden triggered an international
scandal in 2013, when he released confidential
data including documents detailing secret NSA
surveillance programs used against both
American nationals and world leaders. He was
given political asylum in Russia after escaping
the US to avoid charges under the Espionage
Act. This case has brought the issue of
extradition to the front line once more, as the
American government has shown its interest to
regain jurisdiction over Edward Snowden for
releasing top-secret data about American
intelligence gathering efforts. Edward Snowden
may not return to the United States to face
charges that he leaked confidential government
archives. While the United States has extradition
treaties with more than a hundred nations, they
don't guarantee that a nation will give back a
suspected culprit to stand trial.
Late night TV host John Oliver, recently
interviewed
Snowden in Russia:
https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M

Hong Kong is a classic case. After Snowden fled

there, the United States sent an extradition
request and openly compelled authorities to
keep Snowden from escaping somewhere else.
Despite the fact that the United States suspended
his passport, Snowden boarded a flight to Russia
and remains a free individual somewhere in
Moscow. Since the United States and Russia
have no extradition settlement, U.S. authorities
have applied diplomatic pressure.
There are conditions under which nations bound
by settlement may deny extradition requests.
Case in point, Hong Kong officials believe that
the U.S. extradition requested neglected to give
the proof of Snowdens cybercrime needed to
secure an arrest warrant. After the United States
blamed Hong Kong authorities for letting him
go on purpose, Hong Kong's Justice Secretary
openly expressed that the U.S. neglected to clear
up the charges of unauthorised disclosure of
national defence data and unapproved disclosure
of information.
"Until the moment of Snowden's flight, the US
government had not yet answered to our
solicitations for elucidation," he noted. "Any
suggestion that we have been deliberately letting
Mr. Snowden go away or to do any other things
to obstruct the normal operation is totally
untrue.
As this case highlights, extradition treaties
normally have minute exceptions. The two most
regular are political asylum and double
criminality which have been discussed in detail
previously.
Lawyers for Edward Snowden say they are
protesting a possible attempt by Norway to
extradite Snowden to the US to face trail.
Anatoly Kucherena, Mr Snowden's lawyer in
Russia, says he and other lawyers were given a
notice from Norwegian authorities warning that
Mr Snowden would be extradited to the US if he
enters Norway. The lawyer pointed out that
charges against Mr Snowden are political and
a gross infringement of his rights and
freedoms, including his right to freedom of
travel. The warning comes as Mr Snowden
prepares to receive the 2016 Ossietzky
8 of 9

Prize from the PEN Center, in Oslo, this

November. Mr Snowden has won the award for
his efforts in defending freedom of expression.
Mr Snowden posted a picture of results of a poll
on his Twitter, asking Norwegians whether their
government should deport him from the US.

A court in Norway on 27th June refused to

provide assurances to Edward Snowden that he
would not be extradited if he visits in November
to accept the award. Norway was one of the
countries where he had sought protection when
he fled the US, but Oslo's response was that
asylum seekers had to be physically in the
country to apply. Some call him a whistle
blower while some call him a traitor, Snowden
won a similar Norwegian award in 2015, but
was unable to collect it in person for the same
reasons. Snowden has also been nominated for
the Nobel Peace Prize, also awarded in Norway,
for three years straight. This year's award will be
announced on 7th October.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/new
-cia-docs-detail-bruta_n_271299.html
Putin: Snowden still in Moscow airport, won't
be extradited, free to go anywhere
https://www.rt.com/news/putin-snowdenmoscow-extradition-220/
Extradition request for fugitive George Wright
denied by Portugal
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/17
/extradition-request-george-wright-denied
Roman Polanski extradition request over
underage sex claims denied by Polish court
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rom
an-polanski-extradition-request-denied-bypolish-court-a6715076.html
Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad extradition
approved
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19706404

4. Further Reading
Extradition Law
https://www.hg.org/extradition.html
International cooperation in criminal matters:
counter-terrorism:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Pu
blications/Training_Curriculum_Module3/Modu
le3_EN.pdf
Double Criminality Law & Legal Definition
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/doublecriminality/
International Extradition: Issues Arising Under
the Dual Criminality Requirement
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcont
ent.cgi?article=1739&context=lawreview
Extradition:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Extradition.
aspx
New CIA Docs Detail Brutal Extraordinary
Rendition Process
9 of 9