Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Whoop whoop pull up | #UCB_toolbar |
As it has been unsourced for 17 years, that example can go. |
||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
{{Redirect|Extradition Order|the band|Extradition Order (band)}}
{{Distinguish|Deportation}}
[[File:Telegram from St Louis Police to American Consul in NZ - April 1865 & Court Records from St Louis Court of Criminal Correction. In the case of Walter Horace Lennox Maxwell, accused of murder. (26473521102).jpg|thumb|380x380px|An extradition document from the [[St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department|St. Louis Police Department]] in the [[United States]], requesting the extradition of a murder suspect suspected of fleeing to [[Auckland]] in [[New Zealand]], 1885.]]
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}
In an '''
In an extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically makes a formal request to another sovereign jurisdiction ("the requested state"). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive and subject
Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by [[
== Extradition treaties or agreements ==
The consensus in [[international law]] is that a [[Sovereign state|state]] does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one principle of [[sovereignty]] is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation, and the desire for the right to demand such criminals from other countries, have caused a web of extradition [[treaty|treaties]] or agreements to evolve. When no applicable extradition agreement is in place, a
No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with China, Russia, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, Bahrain, and many other countries.<ref>[https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/71600.pdf Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998] from the [[United States Department of State]], [https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70138.htm Extradition Treaties]</ref>
There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. The most common and traditional is the list treaty, which contains a list of crimes for which a suspect
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.
*The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
*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 nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] held that it would violate Article 3 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished.▼
▲=== Restrictions ===
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 U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the U.S. [[criminal justice]] system. In contrast, pressures by the U.S. 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. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on [[Charles Ng]].▼
▲Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is being sought for a [[political crime]]. Many countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] held that it would violate Article 3 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished.
▲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 U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the [[Criminal law in the United States|U.S.
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.
Several countries, such as [[France]], the [[Russian Federation]], [[Austria]], [[China]] and [[Japan]], have laws against extraditing their respective citizens. Others, such as [[Germany]] and [[Israel]], do not allow for extradition of their own citizens in their constitutions. 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 their home country,
=== 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 Arrest Warrant]]. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1 January 2004, and is in force in all member-states since 22 April 2005. 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 to federations ===
The [[federation|federal]] structure of some countries, such as the [[United States]], can pose particular problems for extraditions when the [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For instance, in the United States, most criminal prosecutions occur at the state level, and most foreign relations occurs on the federal level. In fact, under the [[United States Constitution]], foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with the individual states; rather, they may have treaty relations only with the federal government. As a result, a US state that wishes to prosecute an individual located in foreign territory must direct its extradition request through the federal government, which will negotiate the extradition with the requested state. However, due to the constraints of [[federalism]], any conditions on the extradition accepted by the federal government – such as not to impose the death penalty – are not binding on the states. In the case of ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled that the [[United Kingdom]] was not permitted under its treaty obligations to extradite an individual to the United States, because the United States' federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in [[Virginia]] state courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to offer assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, which then extradited the individual to the United States.
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){{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}. This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries, however. 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 apply.
== Bars to extradition ==
By enacting laws or in concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Observing fundamental human rights is also an important reason for denying some extradition requests. It is common for human rights exceptions to be specifically incorporated in bilateral treaties.<ref name="Johnston">{{cite journal |url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2014/3.html |author=Johnston, P |title=The Incorporation of Human Rights Fair Trial Standards into Australian Extradition Law|journal=Aial Forum |year=2014 }} (2014) 76 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 20.</ref> Such bars can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence. These bars may also extend to take account of the effect on family of the individual if extradition proceeds. Therefore, human rights recognised by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests. However, cases where extradition is denied should be treated as independent exceptions and will only occur in exceptional circumstances.<ref name="Radu">Mariana (Mitra) Radu, Cătălina Mititelu (2013) "The Observance of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Extradition Proceedings at National and International Levels" JDSR 3, 100 at 101</ref>
Common bars to extradition include:
=== Failure to fulfill dual criminality ===
{{See also|Double criminality}}
Generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested states.
Line 52 ⟶ 53:
This requirement has been abolished for broad categories of crimes in some jurisdictions, notably within the [[European Union]].
=== Political nature of the alleged crime ===
{{Main|Political offence exception}}
Many countries refuse to extradite suspects of [[political prisoners|political crimes]]. Such exceptions aim to prevent the misuse of extradition for political purposes, protecting individuals from being prosecuted or punished for their political beliefs or activities in another country. Countries may refuse extradition to avoid becoming involved in politically motivated cases, or gaining a bargaining chip over a rival state.
=== Possibility of certain forms of punishment ===
Some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face [[torture]]. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
* '''Death penalty''': Several jurisdictions, such as Australia,<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|ea1988149|Extradition Act 1988|15B}}.</ref> Canada, Macao,<ref>Article 7 of Macau Law No. 6/2006 Law of judicial cooperation in criminal matters ({{in lang|pt}} [http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2006/30/lei06.asp Lei n.º 6/2006], {{zh|t=[http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2006/30/lei06_cn.asp 第6/2006號法律]|link=no}})</ref> New Zealand,<ref>Section 30(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999. Also section 48(1)(b)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999, although this section only applies to extraditions from New Zealand to Australia or the UK, neither of which have the death penalty.</ref> South Africa, United Kingdom and most European nations except Belarus, will not consent to the extradition of a suspect if the death penalty is a possible sentencing option unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. The [[United Nations Human Rights Committee]] considered the case of Joseph Kindler, following the Canadian Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Kindler v Canada (Minister of Justice)|Kindler v Canada]]'' to extradite Kindler who faced the death penalty in the United States. This decision was given despite the fact that it was expressly provided in the extradition treaty between these two states that extradition may be refused, unless assurances were given that the death penalty shall not be imposed or executed, as well as arguably being a violation of the individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.<ref>[http://www.refworld.org/cases,UNCHR,51b6e4fc4.html ''Kindler v. Canada''], CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, 11 November 1993, at 2.2
* '''Torture, [[inhuman or degrading treatment]] or punishment''': Many countries will not extradite if there is a risk that a requested person will be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In regard to torture the [[European Court of Human Rights]] has in the past not accepted assurances that torture will not occur when given by a state where torture is systematic or endemic.<ref name="Fitzgerald">Edward Fitzgerald (2013). Recent Human Rights Developments in Extradition Law & Related Immigration Law, The Denning Law Journal 25 89 at 90.</ref> Although in the more recent case before the same court ''[[Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom]]'' the court retreated from this firm refusal and instead took a more subjective approach for assessing state assurances. Unlike capital punishment it is often more difficult to prove the existence of torture within a state and considerations often depend on the assessment of quality and validity of assurances given by the requesting state. In the deportation case of ''[[Abu Qatada al-Filistini|Othman (Abu Qatada)]]'' the court provided 11 factors the court will assess in determining the validity of these assurances.<ref>Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1. para 189</ref> While torture is provided for as a bar to extradition by the European Convention on Human Rights and more universally by the [[Convention Against Torture]], it is also a ''[[jus cogens]]'' norm under international law and can therefore be invoked as a bar even if it is not provided for in an extradition agreement.<ref name="Radu" /> In the case of ''[[Soering v United Kingdom]]'', the [[European Court of Human Rights]] held that it would violate Article 3 of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital punishment case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed, but not the death penalty sentence itself. The Court in Soering stressed however that the personal circumstances of the individual, including age and mental state (the individual in this case was 18 years old) were relevant in assessing whether their extradition would give rise to a real risk of treatment exceeding the threshold in Article 3.<ref>Soering v. The United Kingdom, 1/1989/161/217 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 7 July 1989, [109]. [http://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,3ae6b6fec.html]</ref>
=== Jurisdiction ===
Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition.<ref>{{cite web|title=The prosecute/extradite dilemma: Concurrent criminal jurisdiction and global governance
|author=Adam Abelson|url=https://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/volume-16-1/Abelson.pdf |date=19 May 2010
|quote="The criminal laws of the United States, whether state or federal, ordinarily apply only to conduct within U.S. territory. Sometimes, however, they apply to conduct abroad, from antitrust conspiracies to torture. Where such extraterritorial criminal prescriptive jurisdiction exists under U.S. law, jurisdiction typically exists under the law of another country as well, such as the country where the conduct occurred."}}</ref>
=== Own citizens ===
Several countries, such as Austria,<ref>{{cite web|title=section 12 of the Austrian Extradition and Legal Assistance Act ("Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz (ARHG)") |publisher=Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes (RIS), the official website of the Austrian government for the publication of legislation |url=http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10002441 |date=27 February 2014}}</ref> Brazil,<ref>Brazilian constitution of 1988, Article 5</ref> Bulgaria,<ref>[https://parliament.bg/bills/39/502-01-9.pdf Условия за отказ на екстрадиция. Глава втора.]</ref> Czechia (the Czech Republic),<ref>{{cite web|title=Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, Article 14 (4), second sentence |url=http://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/ustavni_soud_www/prilohy/Listina_English_version.pdf |date=16 December 1992}}</ref> France,<ref>{{cite web|title=Code of criminal procedure (legislative part), Articles 696-1 to 696–7 |publisher=published by [[Légifrance]], the official website of the French government for the publication of legislation, regulations, and legal information |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1958/13719/version/3/file/Code_34.pdf |date=13 December 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Légifrance publications of the French legislation |publisher=[[Légifrance]] |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations |date=13 December 2005}}</ref> Germany,<ref>Except to a member state of the European Union or to an international court: ''Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany'', [http://bundesrecht.juris.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#GGengl_000P16 Article 16 (2)], 29 July 2009.</ref> Israel, Japan,<ref>Article 2, [http://www.moj.go.jp/ENGLISH/information/loe-01.html Law of Extradition] ({{in lang|ja}} [[:ja:逃亡犯罪人引渡法|逃亡犯罪人引渡法]])</ref> Morocco,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Dahir n° 1-58-057 du 25rebia II 1378 (8 novembre 1958) relatif à l'extradition|url=http://adala.justice.gov.ma/production/html/Fr/liens/..%5C97273.htm|access-date=7 September 2020|website=adala.justice.gov.ma}}</ref> Norway,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://lovdata.no/NL/lov/1975-06-13-39/%C2%A72|title=Lov om utlevering av lovbrytere m.v.
=== Right to private and family life ===
In a limited number of cases [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights]] has been invoked to stop extradition from proceeding. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to the respect of their private and family life. This is achieved by way of balancing the potential harm to private life against the public interest in upholding the extradition arrangement.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> While this article is useful as it provide for a prohibition to extradition, the threshold required to meet this prohibition is high.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> Article 8 does explicitly provide that this right is subject to limits in the interests of national security and public safety, so these limits must be weighed in a balancing of priority against this right. Cases where extradition is sought usually involve serious crimes so while these limits are often justified there have been cases where extradition could not be justified in light of the individual's family life. Cases to date have mostly involved dependant children where the extradition would be counter to the best interests of this child.<ref name ="Fitzgerald" /> In the case of ''FK v. Polish Judicial Authority'' the court held that it would violate article 8 for a mother of five young children to be extradited amidst charges of minor fraud which were committed a number of years ago.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0039-judgment.pdf F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25]</ref> This case is an example of how the gravity of the crime for which extradition was sought was not proportionate to protecting the interests of the individual's family. However the court in this case noted that even in circumstances where extradition is refused a custodial sentence will be given to comply with the principles of [[international comity]].<ref>
Article 8 does not only address the needs of children, but also all family members, yet the high threshold required to satisfy Article 8 means that the vulnerability of children is the most likely circumstance to meet this threshold. In the case of ''Norris v US (No 2)'' a man sought to argue that if extradited his health would be undermined and it would cause his wife depression.<ref>Norris v US (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 as discussed in J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251.</ref> This claim was rejected by the Court which stated that a successful claim under Article 8 would require "exceptional" circumstances.<ref>J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251</ref>
Suicide Risk: Cases where there is risk of the individual committing suicide have also invoked article 8 as the public interest of extraditing must be considered in light of the risk of suicide by the individual if extradited. In the case of ''Jason's v Latvia'' extradition was refused on these grounds, as the crime for which the individual was sought was not enough of a threat to public interest to outweigh the high risk of suicide which had been assessed to exist for the individual if extradited.<ref>Jasons v Latvia [2004] EWHC 1845.</ref>
=== Fair trial standards ===
Consideration of the [[right to a fair trial]] is particularly complex in extradition cases. Its complexity arises from the fact that while the court deciding whether to surrender the individual must uphold these rights this same court must also be satisfied that any trial undertaken by the requesting state after extradition is granted also respects these rights. Article 14 of the [[ICCPR]] provides a number of criteria for fair trial standards.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf |title=International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights}} Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966.</ref> These standards have been reflected in courts who have shown that subjective considerations should be made in determining whether such trials would be ‘unjust’ or ‘oppressive’ by taking into account factors such as the duration of time since the alleged offences occurred, health of the individual, prison conditions in the requesting state and likelihood of conviction among other considerations.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|14|2013|litigants=O'Connor v Adamas |parallelcite=(2013) 210 [[Federal Court Reports|FCR]] 364 |pinpoint=[323]-[331] |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Yet exactly how the standards provided for in ICCPR are incorporated or recognised by domestic courts and decision makers is still unclear although it seems that these standards can at a minimum be used to inform the notions of such decision makers.<ref name="Johnston" />{{rp|35}} If it is found that fair trial standards will not be satisfied in the requesting country this may be a sufficient bar to extradition.
Article 6 of the ECHR also provides for fair trial standards, which must be observed by European countries when making an extradition request.<ref name ="Johnston" /> This court in the ''Othman'' case, whom if extradited would face trial where evidence against him had been obtained by way of torture.<ref>Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1.</ref> This was held to be a violation of Article 6 ECHR as it presented a real risk of a ‘flagrant denial of justice’.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> The court in Othman stressed that for a breach of Article 6 to occur the trial in the requesting country must constitute a flagrant denial of justice, going beyond merely an unfair trial.<ref>Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1 para 258–262.</ref> Evidence obtained by way of torture has been sufficient to satisfy the threshold of a flagrant denial of justice in a number of case. This is in part because torture evidence threatens the "integrity of the trial process and the rule of law itself."<ref>Rwanda v Brown [2009] EWHC 770 para 264</ref>
== Human rights and extradition ==
Human rights as a bar to extradition can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence as well as the effect on family of the individual if extradition is granted. The repressive nature and the limitations of freedoms imposed on an individual is part of the extradition process and is the reason for these exceptions and the importance that human rights are observed in the extradition process. Therefore, human rights protected by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests, but only as independent exceptions.<ref name="Radu" /> While human rights concerns can add to the complexity of extradition cases it is positive as it adds to the legitimacy and institutionalisation of the extradition system.<ref>Neil Boister, ''An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law''(OUP, 2012) at 287</ref>
Determining whether to allow extradition by the requested state is, among other considerations, a balancing exercise between the interests of the requesting state's pursuit of justice over the accused individuals, the requested state's interests in holding dominion over those presently in its territory, and the rights of the extraditable persons.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|35|1995|litigants=Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) and the Republic of Austria v Kainhofer |parallelcite=(1995) 185 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 528 at [48] per Gummow J |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Extradition raises human rights concerns in determining this balance in relation to the extraditable person. States make provision to recognise these rights both expressing in bilateral treaty agreements and also, potentially by way of state's obligations under the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], of which the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] is particularly relevant to extradition.<ref name="Johnston" /> Although regional, the [[European Convention of Human Rights]] has also been invoked as a bar to extradition in a number of cases falling within its jurisdiction and decisions from the [[European Court of Human Rights]] have been a useful source of development in this area.
== ''Aut dedere aut judicare'' ==
{{Main|Aut dedere aut judicare}}
A concept related to extradition that has significant implications in [[Transnational crime|transnational criminal law]] is that of ''[[aut dedere aut judicare]]''.<ref name
Some contemporary scholars hold the opinion that ''aut dedere aut judicare'' is not an obligation under customary international law but rather "a specific conventional clause relating to specific crimes" and, accordingly, an obligation that only exists when a state has voluntarily assumed the obligation. [[M. Cherif Bassiouni|Cherif Bassiouni]], however, has posited that, at least with regard to international crimes, it is not only a rule of customary international law but a ''[[jus cogens]]'' principle. Professor Michael Kelly, citing Israeli and Austrian judicial decisions, has noted that "there is some supporting anecdotal evidence that judges within national systems are beginning to apply the doctrine on their own".<ref name
== Controversies ==
=== International tensions ===
[[File:Baltic extration - 1946.jpg|thumb|Swedish extradition of German and Baltic soldiers to the [[Soviet Union]] in January 1946]]
[[File:Miguelrodriguez-extradition.png|thumb|[[Cali Cartel]] boss [[Miguel Rodríguez Orejuela]] extradited from Colombia to the United States.]]
Line 107:
Even though the United States has an extradition treaty with Japan, most extraditions are not successful due to Japan's domestic laws. For the United States to be successful, they must present their case for extradition to the Japanese authorities. However, certain evidence is barred from being in these proceedings such as the use of confessions, searches or electronic surveillance. In most cases involving international drug trafficking, this kind of evidence constitutes the bulk of evidence gathered in the investigation on a suspect for a drug-related charge. Therefore, this usually hinders the United States from moving forward with the extradition of a suspect.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Surena|first1=André M.|last2=Grove|first2=Margaret A.|last3=Perl|first3=Raphael|last4=Zagaris|first4=Bruce|last5=Blum|first5=Jack A.|date=1990|title=International Drug Traffic|journal=Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law)|volume=84|pages=1–12|jstor=25658526|issn=0272-5037}}</ref>
There is at present controversy in the United Kingdom about the [[Extradition Act 2003]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/USExtradition_210503.pdf |title=
In 2013, the United States submitted extradition requests to many nations for former National Security Agency employee [[Edward Snowden]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://usdoj.com/7663/38803/a/usa-requests-provisional-arrest-warrants-from-various-countries-against-edward-s |title=
=== Extradition case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou ===
{{Main|Extradition case of Meng Wanzhou}}
It is a part of the [[China–United States
=== 2019 Hong Kong extradition law protests ===
{{Main|
A proposed Hong Kong extradition law tabled in April 2019 led to one of the [[
The bill, which would ease extradition to [[Mainland China]], includes 37 types of crimes. While the Beijing-friendly ruling party maintains that the proposal contains protections of the [[Double criminality|dual criminality requirement]] and human rights, its opponents allege that after people are surrendered to the mainland, it could charge them with some other crime and [[Capital punishment in China|impose the death penalty]] (which has been [[Capital punishment in Hong Kong|abolished]] in Hong Kong) for that other crime.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/03/26/hong-kong-scraps-9-types-commercial-crimes-china-extradition-plan-amid-pressure-business-sector/|title=Hong Kong scraps 9 types of commercial crimes from China extradition plan amid pressure from business sector|last=Cheng|first=Kris|date=26 March 2019|website=Hong Kong Free Press HKFP|language=en-GB|access-date=15 June 2019}}</ref> There are also concerns about the retroactive effect of the new law.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://harbourtimes.com/2019/04/23/hk-effort-to-ease-extradition-law-concerns-fall-short-many-rendition-routes-to-china-remain/|title=HK effort to ease extradition law concerns fall short; many rendition routes to China remain|last=Mak|first=Elise|date=23 April 2019|website=Harbour Times|language=en|access-date=15 June 2019}}</ref>
Line 125:
Experts have noted that the legal systems of mainland China and Hong Kong follow 'different protocols' with regard to the important conditions of ''double criminality'' and [[non-refoulement]], as well as on the matter of executive vs. judicial oversight on any extradition request.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/expertcomment/the_proposed_hong|title=University of Warwick (UK): The proposed Hong Kong-China extradition bill – expert comment|website=warwick.ac.uk|access-date=15 June 2019}}</ref>
=== Abductions ===
<!-- This section is linked from [[List of kidnappings]] -->
In some cases a state has [[kidnapping|abducted]] an alleged criminal from the territory of another state either after normal extradition procedures failed, or without attempting to use them. Notable cases are listed below:
Line 152:
|-
| [[Isang Yun]]
| 1967<ref>{{cite news|last=Gil|first=Yun-hyeong|url=http://www.hani.co.kr/section-005000000/2004/10/005000000200410291814225.html|language=ko
| West Germany
| South Korea
Line 186:
| Colombia
|-
| {{interlanguage link|Konstantin Yaroshenko|et|Konstantin Jarošenko|ru|Ярошенко, Константин Владимирович|uk|Ярошенко Костянтин Володимирович}}
| 2008
| Liberia
Line 207:
|}
=== "Extraordinary rendition" ===
{{Main|Extraordinary rendition}}
"Extraordinary rendition" is an [[extrajudicial]] procedure in which criminal suspects, generally suspected [[terrorist]]s or supporters of terrorist organisations, are transferred from one country to another.<ref name=MJC-2009-09-08>Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney American Law Division. [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32890.pdf Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture] 8 September 2009; link from the United States [http://www.counterterrorismtraining.gov/leg/index.html Counter-Terrorism Training and Resources for Law Enforcement web site] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121014042245/http://www.counterterrorismtraining.gov/leg/index.html |date=14 October 2012 }}</ref> The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. The United States' [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA) allegedly operates a global extraordinary rendition programme, which from 2001 to 2005 captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world.<ref name="NYT-17-Feb-2009" /><ref name="CIA-Background-Memo">"[https://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/082409/olcremand/2004olc97.pdf Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques]". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.</ref><ref name="Huff-Post-08-28-09">"[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/new-cia-docs-detail-bruta_n_271299.html New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process]". ''Huffington Post''. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.</ref><ref name="ACLU-Fact-Sheet">[https://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition], [[American Civil Liberties Union]]. Retrieved 29 March 2007 {{in lang|en}}</ref>
The alleged US programme prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged [[black site|secret detentions]] and illegal international transfers involving [[Council of Europe]] member states. A [[#27 June 2006 Council of Europe resolution|June 2006 report]] from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory (with the cooperation of Council of Europe members), and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("[[black site]]s") used by the CIA, some of which could be located in Europe. According to the separate [[#The European Parliament's 14 February 2007 report|European Parliament report of February 2007]], the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the [[United Nations Convention Against Torture]].<ref>[http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1507.htm Resolution 1507 (2006).] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100612123848/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta06%2FERES1507.htm |date=12 June 2010 }} Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states]</ref> A large majority of the [[European Union Parliament]] endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions by the CIA, and criticised such actions. Within days of his inauguration, President Obama signed an Executive Order opposing rendition torture and established a task force to provide recommendations about processes to prevent rendition torture.<ref name="whitehouse.gov">{{cite web |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/ |title=Ensuring Lawful Interrogations | The White House |publisher=Whitehouse.gov |access-date=17 July 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090126061153/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/ |archive-date=26 January 2009 }}</ref>
=== Uyghur extradition ===
{{Further|
In June 2021, [[CNN]] reported testimonies of several [[Uyghurs]] accounting for the detention and extradition of people they knew or were related to, from the United Arab Emirates. Documents issued by the Dubai public prosecutor and viewed by CNN, showed the confirmation of [[China]]’s request for the extradition of a detained Uyghur man, Ahmad Talip, despite insufficient proof of reasons for extradition.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/08/middleeast/uyghur-arab-muslim-china-disappearances-cmd-intl/index.html|title=Uyghurs are being deported from Muslim countries, raising concerns about China's growing reach|accessdate=8 June 2021|website=CNN|date=8 June 2021 }}</ref>
In 2019, UAE, along with several other Muslim nations publicly endorsed
== See also ==
* [[Deportation]]
* [[Extraterritorial jurisdiction]]
Line 229 ⟶ 228:
* ''[[Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain]]''
'''International
* [[European Arrest Warrant]]
* [[European Convention on Extradition]]
* [[Extradition law in Australia]]
* [[Extradition law in China]]
* [[Extradition law in the Republic of Ireland|Extradition law in Ireland]]
* [[Extradition law in the United States]] (including inter-state extradition)
* [[Extradition law in Nigeria]]
* [[Extradition law in the Philippines]]
'''Lists'''
* [[List of Australian bilateral treaties on extradition and criminal matters|List of Australian extradition treaties]]
* [[
* [[
* [[List of Dutch extradition treaties]]
* [[List of United States
'''Individuals:'''
Line 251 ⟶ 253:
* [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]
== Footnotes ==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name="NYT-17-Feb-2009">{{cite news
| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?pagewanted=all
| title = Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas
Line 262 ⟶ 263:
| date = 17 February 2009
| access-date = 2 January 2010
}}</ref>
}}
== External links ==
{{Commons category|Extradition}}
* [https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-extradition What Is Extradition?]—A primer from the Council on Foreign Relations. Jonathan Masters, 2019.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20161110081904/http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm A Brief Primer on International Law]—with cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
* [http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1340 Extraditions Cut Short] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080613230005/http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1340 |date=13 June 2008 }}—Extraditions between Colombia and United States
* [http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1364 Chiquita Board Members: Total Identification] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080812011100/http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1364 |date=12 August 2008 }}—Extradition of Chiquita board members
* [http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Expulsions_Extraditions_DEU.pdf Expulsions and extraditions], fact sheet of the ECtHR case law
* [https://deflem.blogspot.com/2006/03/extradition-international-2006.html Deflem, Mathieu, and Kyle Irwin. 2017. "Extradition, International."] pp. 340–342 in Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties: Revised and Expanded, edited by Kara E. Stooksbury, John M. Scheb II, and Otis H. Stephens Jr.. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
| |||