Content deleted Content added
formatted citation |
→Possibility of certain forms of punishment: formatted citations |
||
Line 57:
===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 ''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>
| |||