The removal of a person by a state in which that person is currently located to the territory of another state where the person has been convicted of a crime, or is said to have committed a crime. The process is normally conducted through extradition treaties, which specify the cases and the procedures under which extradition will take place. Treaties are normally restricted to more important crimes, but exclude political crimes.
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Investigating and charging crimes |
| Criminal investigation |
| Arrest warrant · Search warrant |
| Probable cause · Knock and announce |
| Exigent circumstance |
| Search and seizure · Arrest |
| Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.) |
| Grand jury |
| Criminal prosecution |
| Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi |
| Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law |
| Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition |
| Habeas corpus · Bail |
| Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system |
| Charges and pleas |
| Arraignment · Indictment |
| Plea · Peremptory plea |
| Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal defenses |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal.
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. 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, Namibia and North Korea.
There are two types of extradition treaties: list and dual criminality treaties. Dual criminality treaties, used since the 1980s, generally allow for extradition of a criminal suspect if the punishment is more than one year imprisonment in both countries.
Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:
The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.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 subsequently be passed or carried out. 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.
Countries with a rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts.
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.
Extradition to federations
The federal structure of some nations, such as the United States (US), can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions. 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. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether this is justified). As an example:
Some US journalists and officials of the state of Pennsylvania accused France of wanting to make a point about justice in the United States and the death penalty by refusing to extradite Ira Einhorn (who was eventually extradited after 3 years of procedure). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on his own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.For example, there is at present a row between the United States and the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003 (text here) that dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradiction.
It is important to emphasise, however, that even had the treaty been ratified by the US, the treaty would still be one-sided, because it stipulates that extradition requests from the UK to the US must show a "reasonable case" that the suspect committed the offense, but requests from the US to the UK have no such requirement imposed on them. The press has carried vocal criticisms of the present extradition arrangements from the UK's business community, some of whom stated that they were avoiding doing business with or in the US, because of legal concerns such as the extradition treaty, among other concerns.
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.
Notable or controversial cases involving abduction of foreign citizens:
Morton Sobell from Mexico by the United States in 1950 Adolf Eichmann from Argentina by Israel in 1960 Ronnie Biggs from Brazil by independent bounty hunters in 1981 Mordechai Vanunu from Italy by Israel in 1986 Alvarez-Machain from Mexico by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in 1990 Mir Aimal Kansi from Pakistan by the CIA in 1997 Martin Mubanga from Zambia to Guantanamo Bay by the United States in 2002 Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr from Italy to Egypt by the CIA in 2005'Extraordinary rendition'
"Extraordinary rendition" is an extra-judicial procedure and policy of the United States in which criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organisations, are sent to countries for imprisonment and interrogation. 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.
User Comments Add a comment…