What is Extradition?

Extradition is the process of bringing back a criminal to the state where he

has committed the crime when he has absconded for such a country. 

Many may ask the question of why it is important to bring him back to the
country where he has committed the crime. Why can’t he just be tried in the
country he has been caught in? The reason, it is important to bring him back
is because there are different legal proceedings in different countries.

The country in which he has committed the crime may try him differently. It
may also be the case that he had absconded or run away in the middle of
legal proceedings. Thus it is essential to bring him back in order to finish the
trial. The evidence and the witnesses are also present in that country.

This is also to prevent the trend of international criminals. Some criminals

hop from country to country committing crimes. Through extraditions, justice
can be brought by bringing them back to the countries they have committed
the crime and punishing them.

It is also imperative for that country to get rid of that certain individual for
security. 

No extradition of a Political Criminal

The trend of no extradition of political criminals started during the French
revolution. After that, other countries followed suit.

No commission or organization has defined what a political crime is. This

word is also not defined under international law. But in our own words, we
can say that if a person commits a crime with political motives, then that
crime can be said to be a political crime.

In the case of  Re Castioni case (1891), a prisoner was charged with the
murder of Luigi Rossi. The murderer escaped from Switzerland to England.
The government of England rejected Switzerland’s request for extradition.
The court held that the accused murdered in order to cause political
disturbance and is thus a crime of political nature. Due to the fact, he was a
political criminal and England was not obliged to extradite him. 

But on the contrary, In Re Meunier 1894, a fugitive who blasted a bomb in a
public place in Paris, fled to England. Paris wanted him back but England
refuses their request to extradition. The court ruled his intentions were not
purely political and he had thus, not committed a political crime. 
D’attentat clause
The d’attentat or the clause Belge states that murders of heads of
governments or states will not be considered as a political crime and they
can be extradited for such a crime. 

Rule of Speciality
The doctrine of speciality is a doctrine under international law. It states that
a person who is extradited to a country to stand trial for certain criminal
offences may be tried only for those offences and not for any other pre-
extradition offences.

This principle was restated in the case of U.S. vs Rauscher (1886), which
stated that he can only be tried for offences which have been criminalised by
the treaty and/or the offence for which extradition has been requested for. 

Double criminality 
Double criminality is a principle that states that a criminal can only be
extradited to another country if the offence he has committed is criminalized
by the laws of both the countries involved. For example, if a murderer has
run away from Bangladesh and is hiding in India, he can be extradited as the
laws of both the countries criminalize murder. 

Position of the State in International Law

It must be noted that the state has no duty to extradite an individual. But,
there can be a treaty between that states that they will extradite any
criminals that run away to their country and vice versa. They can also
voluntarily extradite a person without any treaty. States should keep in mind
that during extradition, they should not violate their own municipal laws i.e-
the laws of their own countries and international conventions. 

However, countries do not have to give the fugitive back if proper extradition
procedure was not followed. In the case of Sarvarkar (1911), Mr Vinayak
Donador Savarkar was under french navy custody. He was then extradited to
England, but England obtained him through incorrect extradition procedures.
Due to the violation of procedures, the French wanted him back. The court
held that there is no provision under international law that states if
extradition procedures are not followed then the country must return him
back.
The state can also not extradite citizens of their own state. So, if a citizen of
England comes to India and commits a crime and then runs off to England
then it is very difficult to get the citizen back. They usually ensure that they
will punish the criminal according to their own laws.

In Regina vs Wilson (1878), a treaty can happen between the two states,
states will not extradite people and the fugitive that will be punished
according to their own laws.

India
Usually, each country has its own laws regarding the process of extradition.
In India, The Extradition Act of 1962 governs the process of extradition. It
was amended in 1993 by Act 66. 

Section 2(d) of the Act talks about treaties fo extradition and allows foreign
states to make such arrangements with India. These treaties are usually
bilateral in nature i.e- they are between two countries, not more. These
treaties embody five principles-

 Extradition of a fugitive will happen for offences set down by the

treaty.
 The offence must be criminalized under the laws of both countries,
not just one.
 There must be a prima facie case made.
 The country should try the criminal for only the offence he was
extradited for. 
 He must be tried under a fair trial. 
Usually, requests for extradition on behalf of India can only be made by
the Ministry of External Affairs and not anyone in the public.

Countries who have a treaty with India can request for extradition of
someone from India. A non- treaty country must follow the procedures set
down by Section 3(4) of the Extradition Act of 1962. 

According to the page of The Ministry of External Affairs, below are the
following bars or restrictions to extradition- 

 India is not ‘obliged’ to extradite someone unless there is a treaty.

 India is not ‘obliged’ to extradite someone unless that offence
constitutes a crime under the treaty. 
 Extradition may be denied for purely political and military offences. 
  The offence must constitute a crime in both India and the country
requesting extradition. 
 Extradition may be denied when the procedure set down by Section
3(4) of the Extradition Act of 1962 is not followed. 
The Vijay Mallya Extradition case
Mr. Vijay Mallya was the owner of the Kingfisher Airlines. In the year of 2013, a
consortium of 13 banks led by State Bank of India allowed a loan of Rs.6000 Crore to
the Mallya owned United Breweries Holdings Ltd and King Fisher Airlines.

Apparently the Company failed to repay the due amount and didn’t provide salaries to
the employees. The consortium of banks approached the Supreme Court and a non-
bailable warrant was already issued against him by a Court in Mumbai in relation to the
case registered by Enforcement Directorate for tax evasion.

In 2016, he fled to London, United Kingdom. The Government of India proclaimed him
as an accused under The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Act empowers
the special Courts to try economic offences which involve more than 100 crores and
the offender has fled from the jurisdiction of India.

Apparently , Mr. Mallya was the first person to be declared as a ‘Fugitive Economic
Offender’ under the Act. In 2017, India sought the extradition of Mallya from UK, which
was allowed.

He was arrested by the London Police and was later released on bail after furnishing bail
bond. The extradition case was placed before West Minister Magistrate’s Court in
London.

The Single District Judge (SDJ) found that was a prima facie case to answer and Mr.
Mallya can be extradited to India, if the Secratary to the State Permits.

The Judge while passing the order rejected the contention of Mallya that he was sought
in relation to his political comments and he wont get a fair trial at India, as the Courts are
wholly biased in favour of the Government.

As per Article 5(1) of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of Republic of

India and the Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
extradition may be refused if the offence of which it is requested involves a political
character.

Mr. Mallya claimed that he was not indulged in any kind of financial crimes involving
misapplication of funds, false representation of financial assets or money laundering.
However the Judge opined that the offence for which he was sought didn’t have a
political character. And the Courts in India has a reputed character and the Judge found
the trial procedure and the facilities in the jail (where he was supposed to be jailed if
extradited, Arthur Road jail) to be satisfactory.

The Judge ordered that Mr. Mallya can be extradited to India, against which he preferred
an appeal to the High Court.

The High Court in London while disposing the case observed that there is prima facie
case in the matters of-
 How the loans were dispersed as a result of conspiracy by the conspirators.
 How loans were granted despite the weak financial credentials of Kingfisher Airlines.
 How loans were advanced eventhough the Airlines didn’t meet with standards put
forward by IDBI’s Corporate Loan Policy.
 Mr.Mallya being a party to the false representations made for inducing the bankers to
advance the loan.
 Mr. Mallya being a party in falsely representing the brand value of Kingfisher Airlines.
 How Mr. Mallya tried to evade the personal and corporate guarantees provided by
him.

So the appeal was rejected and Mallya was ordered to be extradited to India.

Recently, A London Court has refused plea by former liquor baron Vijay Mallya to
release INR 7.8 crore from frozen funds in order to pay his legal fees in India.

(He has not been brought back to India, since some legal procedures are pending)

The Nirav Modi Extradition case

Nirav modi was the founder of Firestar Diamond International and was closely
associated with the Gitanjali Group. In 2018 the Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed a
complaint before Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the alleged fraud committed
by Mr.Nirav Modi, his wife and some of his employees. It was alleged that he defrauded
the bank by obtaining fake LoU’s (Letter of Undertaking) worth 11,400 crores with the
help of some employees in their Mumbai branch.

These monies were diverted to almost fifteen sham companies founded by him in the
overseas. Subsequently CBI probe was launched and Enforcement Directorate (ED)
confiscated his assets in India in relation to the embezzlement of money.

Later he fled from India. In June 2018, Interpol issued Red Corner Notice against
him for money laundering. Later he was found in United Kingdom and requested a
political asylum there.

In August 2018, Indian Government filed a request to extradite him. A Westminister

Court issued a warrant against him after which he was arrested. He was denied bail on
the ground that he may abscond. Even though he presented bail applications three times
afterwards, all of them were rejected.

Nirav Modi contested all the allegations made against him by the Government of India
through CBI & ED . He claimed that PNB’s lending was an ordinary commercial
transaction and there is nothing deceptive about something which happened in broad
day light.

He also claimed that the transaction happened with the knowledge of top most officials
of PNB and Government of India is failing to comprehend the wide commercial context
of the lending.

The Court found that the offences committed by Nirav Modi comes within the definition
of “Extradition offences” under s.137 of Extradition Act, 2003( UK legislation). The
Court was satisfied with the facilities in Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai where Nirav Modi will
be send to , if extradited.
 The Judge also rejected the contention of Nirav Modi that judges in India are corrupted
and he wont get a fair trial in the country. It also rejected his claim that he wont get
proper treatment for his mental health problems in India. The Court ruled that Nirav Modi
can be extradited to India.

(He has not been brought back to India as some legal procedures are pending and
he has not exhausted his legal remedies in UK)

The Abu Salem Extradition Case

Abu Salem worked with the D-Company ( Gang of Dawood Ibrahim). He was accused of
murders, attempted murders, extortion, drugs dealing , money laundering etc. He was a
part of Mumbai Serial blasts case, 1993 which killed more than 250 people.

After the incident he fled to Dubai then to USA and finally ended up in Portugal. A Red
Corner Notice was issued against him by Interpol. He was arrested in Portugal for
staying there with forged passports and documents.

There was no official extradition treaty between Portugal and India then i.e, in 2002 (The
official treaty was signed by both countries only in 2007). So India made a formal
request to Portugal for extraditing Abu Salem to India.

The request was made in pursuance of the International Convention for the Suppression
of Terrorist Bombings to which both India and Portugal are signatories. The extradition
request was made by India for the prosecution of the accused in relation to 9 criminal
cases.

When the Extradition Trial started in Portugal, Indian Ambassador in Libson (Portugal)
gave assurance to the Republic of Portugal that:

 Abu Salem will not be prosecuted for any offence other than those for which he is
sought for and;
 He will not be re-extradited to any other third country.

Also the Portugal mandated that he should not be imposed with death penalty and an
imprisonment more than 25 years cannot be awarded to him.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice granted the extradition request made by India.

Subsequently Abu Salem was extradited to India. But later he approached the Supreme
Court of India and Court of Appeals seated at Libson claiming that his extradition
became invalid with the fact that Union of India violated the Rule of Speciality.

He contended that additional charges were pressed upon him which is contrary to the
extradition order granted by the Portugal. The Supreme Court of Justice observed that
Union of India has violated the Principle of Speciality.

And the Supreme Court of India in the case of Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari v.
Central Bureau of Investigation &Anr[1] , observed that the Court in Portugal even
though observed that there is violation of Principle of Speciality , also said there is any
specific consequence for the violation of the said rule. And it has not sought back the
accused through any diplomatic channel. And the order of extradition is still valid.
 He again approached a Libson Administrative Court for with the contention his
extradition became invalid since the Indian authorities didn’t comply with the directions in
the order.

It was dismissed by the Administrative Court and it observed that the issue must be
solved through diplomatic discussions. And the Supreme Court of India in January ,
2021 rejected his writ petition under Article 32.

The Extradition case of Surjit Badesha and Malkit Kaur Sidhu

The extradition case relates to the abduction and murder of Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu
(Jassi). The victim was the daughter of Malkit Kaur and Surjit Badesha is her uncle. All
of them were Canadian citizens of Indian origin.

When Jassi came to India for vacation in 1999 she married one Sukhwinder Singh in
secrecy. Later she went back to Canada. When her family protested against the
marriage , she fled from Canada to India with the help of the Police.

When she was in India, some persons abducted her and thrashed her husband. In June
2000, she was found murdered. Investigation agencies nabbed the accused persons.

But later it was found in the course of investigation that they were people hired by Surjit
Badesha and Malkit Kaur to kill their daughter. So Indian authorities sought the
extradition of Surjit and Malkit.

The Minister of Justice (Canada) ordered their surrender based on the evidence
adduced against them and the assurance given by the Indian authorities that they won’t
be mistreated in India. Surjit and Malkit preferred an appeal against the order of Minister
in the Court of Appeal, which concluded that the orders of the Minister were
unreasonable.

So the Government of India filed an appeal against the said order in the Supreme Court
of Canada. Both Surjit and Malkit contested the Appeal on the grounds that-

 There is no guarantee that, they wont be awarded with death penalty.

 They wont get a fair trial in India.
 The prison conditions were against the principles of Fundamental Justice , given their
age and health conditions.
 There were lack of evidence and,
 Extradition request was sought late in the case of Malkit Kaur.

But the Court observed that the assurance given by India was satisfactory. India assured
that , they wont be awarded with death sentence and improved prison conditions.

Taking in to account of those facts and the Extradition treaty between Canada and India,
the Court observed that there were many diplomatic actions against India if it failed to
keep the given assurances.

So the Court ruled that they wont face a substantial risk or torture in India and allowed
the extradition to India.

Surjit Badesha and Malkit Kaur were extradited to India in 2019.

The Extradition of Kishan Singh
Kishan Singh was an Indian Citizen, later he acquired citizenship of United Kingdom in
2015. He was an active player in the international drug syndicate. He was a supplier of
narcotic drugs in many countries including India and UK. He was coordinating this
supply chain with the help of the Indian Athlete Harpreet Singh and others.

A special cell of Delhi Police was closely monitoring the transactions. Soon a non
bailable warrant was issued against him and he was arrested at London. Later the
authorities requested his extradition to India. Even though he was granted bail, due to
the strong evidence submitted by the Special Cell his extradition request was granted.

The Westminister Magistrate’s court which granted the extradition rejected his
arguments in relation to the inhumane conditions prevailing in the Tihar Jail. He also
claimed that he wont get a fair trial in the country.

Those claims were rejected and extradition was ordered. Even though he filed an appeal
before London High Court and European Court of Human Rights, both appeals were
rejected and he was extradited to India.

What is asylum ?

It is pertinent to first understand the term ‘Asylum’. It has been derived from
a Greek word whose Latin counterpart is ‘Asylon’ and it means ‘freedom from
seizure’. There is no specific definition of Asylum but it can be understood as
legal protection granted to the people who have fled their home countries
due to warship, conflict, persecution, or fear of persecution. It is a possibility
to remain in a country either permanently or for a temporary period.  A
person who seeks International asylum i.e. an asylum seeker is known as an
‘Asylee’.

The process is that an individual has to apply for asylum in a particular

country, while their application is pending they are made to stay in a
detention camp. Once, the applications are accepted i.e. their claims are
accepted, then these people get the status of a refugee and the rights that
come along with it.

It is worth noting that there has been a continuous conflict on the question of
whether the right to asylum is a right of an individual or of the state?

There are few declarations that provide the ‘Right to Asylum’ like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UHDR), the Vienna Declaration on
Human Rights and Programme of Action and the Convention on Political
Asylum which was concluded by the Seventh International Conference of
American States in 1933. 

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the right to
an individual to seek asylum in any country to protect them from
persecution. Provided as per clause 2 of Article 14 that any individual who
has a criminal record of anything which is not acceptable as per the
principles of the United Nations, cannot seek asylum and in case of non-
political reasons, the asylum can be denied. It is considered as the
fundamental law. However, India is not a party to it. 

Article 33(1) 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits the expulsion or return of

refugees and asylum-seekers if their life or freedom is in danger based on
their race, religion, membership of a social group, political opinion, or
nationality.

New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants by the UN General Assembly
in 2016 also reaffirms the ‘right to seek asylum’ and freedom of an individual
to leave or return to their country.

Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also
provides that as per the rules of the Geneva Convention(28 July 1951) and
1967’s protocol, the right to Asylum is guaranteed.

In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also reaffirmed the

right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries and the right to return to
their own country.

However, the articulation of the law of the right to asylum signifies that it is
not the right of an individual, but rather is a right of the state to grant
asylum. It depends on the discretion of the State whether it grants the
asylum or not. The decision of the state must be respected by all the other
states. States have to take into account their economic status before
granting asylum as it is the duty of the state to ensure its economic
stability. 

Various countries have provided the right to asylum in their Constitutions to

the people who have fled from persecution, for example- Constitution of
France, Article 10 of the Italian Constitution, Article 31 of Yugoslavia
Constitution, etc. 

Territorial Asylum 
It is granted when the state provides asylum to asylee within its territory.
The exclusive control of every sovereign state over its territory backs up the
right of a state to grant territorial asylum. It is an exception to the
extradition. 

Illustration:
  If an individual, ‘A’ from Syria comes to Turkey and applies for
asylum due to the horrifying condition in Syria and apprehension of
danger to his life.
 If the individual is granted by the Turkey government within the
country itself, it is an example of Territorial asylum.
In 1947, the topic was first raised by the Commission on Human Rights and
later was incorporated in the UDHR under Article 14. Later in 1967, after a
rigorous attempt, the General Assembly had passed a ‘Declaration on
Territorial Asylum’ at its twenty-second session. 

Article 1(1) of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum states that a state can
grant asylum by exercising its sovereign power to an individual who invokes
his/her right under Article 14 of UDHR. Article 1(2) provides that if an
individual that has a record of crime against humanity, peace, or a war crime
cannot seek asylum in another country. Article 1(3) provides the power to
the state to evaluate based.

Article 2 provides that if any state feels overburdened in providing asylum to

the people then States shall either individually or through the United Nations
help that particular to lighten the burden.

Article 3(1) provides safety to the individuals and assures that once they are
provided asylum in a country they cannot be expelled or forced to return to a
place where they might be persecuted. Article 3(2) and 3(3) act as
exceptions to Article 3(1).  Article 3(2) provides that a State can expel or
force to return the person to protect the national security of the state and
Article(3) provides that if the State feels justified to send away an individual
then it shall give the opportunity to allow it to go to another state. Article 31,
32, and 33 of the Refugee Convention of 1951 support the said principle.

An individual must not be provided Asylum to engage in activities that are

contrary to principles of the United Nations, this is provided in Article 4 of the
declaration.

In case of an extradition treaty between two countries, the countries are

bound to extradite the offender in terms of the other country’s law. In
Territorial Asylum, the state has the power to impose restrictions on asylum-
seekers’ movement, etc.

Some famous examples of this type of asylum include:

 The asylum that was given by India to Dalai Lama and his followers
in India in 1955 as those people were facing atrocities for a long
time in China. 
 Salman Rushdie, a writer who was in controversy for his novel
‘Satanic Verses’ was given Asylum by the United Kingdom.
Extra-Territorial Asylum
It is granted when the state provides asylum outside the territory of its state,
such as in warships, legation consular premises, international headquarters,
or its Embassy situated in a different country i.e. one of its public places
situated/ lying in foreign territorial borders. The term extra-territorial means
beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities of the state where such
establishment is i.e. the local authorities. The immunity is granted to the
diplomats and other officials to protect their country’s interests. The local
authorities are not allowed to enter the Embassy of any country situated in
their country without having special orders.

Illustration:

 If ‘A’ from Syria approaches the US Embassy in Syria for grant of

Asylum due to imminent danger to his life.
 If the US Embassy grants the Asylum, it becomes an example of
Extra-Territorial Asylum. 
Earlier the practice of extra-territorial asylum was often exercised but with
the development of time, it has been restricted to only in urgent cases, once
it is assured that the local government cannot keep the asylum-seeker safe.
It is granted on a temporary basis and ends once the emergency is over. The
reason being that it is seen as a derogation of the sovereign power of the
state over its territory. Providing asylum in such cases, to an extent deprive
the local country’s jurisdiction over all the individuals present on its territory.
There have been instances of people misuse of the right to seek asylum by
hiding people who have committed political crimes.

The Convention on Asylum held in Havana in 1928 to which only a very few

countries have ratified, provides that it is not allowed for states to grant
asylum to people who are accused of common crimes or deserters from the
navy or army in their legations, military camps, warships or military aircraft.

ASYLUM IN INDIA

• Different countries have different laws about asylum-seeking. India has

laws regarding immigration and asylum-seeking. The most recent law
with asylum seeking that has caused the most controversy is
the Citizen Amendment Act with regards to refugees.

• Organisations like the UNHCR, help individuals register for asylum.

People who wish to apply must come for registration with all of your
family members who are present in India. According to them, the
following documents are needed-
 • Case numbers of immediate family members who have been registered
with UNHCR (in India or elsewhere),

• Passport/nationality document/identity document,

• Birth certificates/vaccination cards for children,

• Marriage/divorce/death certificates,

• Any other documents you may have.

• The candidate will be asked to explain why you left your country and
why you cannot go back on a form. They will be interviewed by a
Registration Officer. 

Role of Nationality in the Asylum

The 1951 Refugee Convention contains the provision that no individual can
be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, or country of origin.
However, when the State is deciding upon the question of whether one
should be granted asylum or not, various factors are considered. The
individual after submitting the application is interviewed to gather all the
information regarding his/her background, the reason for pleading for
asylum, etc. the state often considers the nationality, background of an
individual to decide whether the person is in actual need or not.

For instance, a person who belongs from Syria or South Sudan gives the
reason that they fear persecution and imminent danger to their lives due to
the ongoing unsettlement among middle east countries shows the
genuineness of the reason for leaving their home country.

It is not a sign of arbitrary discrimination rather it is seen whether the people

of a particular nationality or belonging to a linguistic group are facing
persecution in their home country, this question helps the host state to
conclude the application process.

Difference between Asylum and

Extradition
These two terms are extreme poles of each other i.e. totally opposite to each
other. Asylum is providing protection and a safe place by the host country to
all those who have been exposed to risk and persecution and therefore have
left their home countries. On the other hand, extradition is the process of
sending back a fugitive by one country to another, the main purpose is to
criminally prosecute the fugitive. It is a process that takes place only when
the two countries involved have a certain ad hoc agreement or bilateral
treaty regarding it.

Extradition is the process to make sure that the fugitives are punished and
justice is served and criminal cooperation is strengthened between sovereign
states. Whereas, asylum is to provide safety and freedom from torture and a
chance to live a peaceful life. If Asylum has been granted to the person then
the court of law will not hear the expedition case and similarly, if a case of
the expedition is pending against an individual, he/she would not be granted
asylum.

If a country wants to request the extradition of an individual, it needs to

ensure that the request made is in compliance with Article 33 of the 1951
Geneva Convention which deals with the International law’s principle of non-
refoulement. It is decided by the court whether the person should be
extradited or not. Whereas, the executive decides whether an individual
should be granted asylum in their country or not based on factors like
practical and political possibilities and grounds.

Famous cases of asylum

Assange v. The Swedish Prosecution Authority

The recent case that has captured a lot of media attention is of Julian

Assange. He is an Australian editor, publisher, and founder of WikiLeaks who
was accused of a rape case and a molestation case by the Sweden
government. The Sweden government had filed for the extradition of
Assange and the UK Supreme Court had ordered for his extradition to
Sweden in May 2012. In June 2012, he was granted asylum in England at the
Embassy of Ecuador. 

The reason was given that his human rights would be violated if he is sent to
Sweden. In 2015 Sweden dropped the charges against Assange. In February
2012, the UN declared that he had been ‘arbitrarily detained’ by the Ecuador
embassy. In May 2019 he was sentenced for 50 weeks jail for breaching bail
conditions. 

He has also been accused of committing a crime against the United States of
America by releasing the confidential documents of the United States of
America on his website named ‘WikiLeaks’. The USA has been trying to
extradite him to their country.

Colombia v. Peru 1950

It is a landmark case that has described in detail the law on diplomatic
asylum.

A national of Peru who was a political leader named Victor Raul Haya de la
Torre, he was accused of instigating a military rebellion. He was granted
asylum by the Colombian embassy at Limo. However, he was not allowed to
leave the country. The dispute arose between Peru and Colombia and the
matter was then referred to the International Court of Justice. The main
question raised was regarding the right to grant diplomatic asylum.

The court carefully observed that:

 Diplomatic asylum is the derogation of territorial sovereignty and it

should not be recognized unless in each case a legal basis is
established.
 The state providing such a grant must prove that it has the right to
grant diplomatic asylum and it should be respected by the territorial
State.
The Court also observed that there is no international treaty related to
Diplomatic Asylum, only Latin American and Central American countries have
such rights. Diplomatic Asylum is defined as the asylum provided to people
who are political offenders and fear that if they are prosecuted, they will
have to face an unfair trial and therefore want to escape the persecution. The
Court held that it is a settled fact that common criminals cannot be granted
asylum.