Extradition:

Extradition is a legal process where one country hands over a suspected or convicted criminal to
another country where the crime was committed. This ensures that criminals cannot escape
justice by simply crossing international borders

Key Points:

1. Extradition Treaties: Extradition is not automatic. Countries typically have extradition

treaties, which are agreements that outline the conditions and procedures for

extraditing individuals between them. Pakistan have signed extradition treaties with
around 13 states including Argentina; Austria; Belgium; Denmark; France; Greece; Italy;
Luxembourg; Netherlands; Portugal; Switzerland; Turkey; and United States.

2. No Automatic Duty: In the absence of an extradition treaty, a country is not obligated

to surrender an individual to another country. It is up to the country where the suspect
is found to decide whether to extradite or not.

if a Peruvian citizen commits a crime in Peru and flees to Venezuela, Venezuela is not
automatically obligated to return the criminal to Peru. The obligation depends on whether
there is an extradition treaty between Peru and Venezuela and the specific terms of that treaty.
Without a treaty, extradition is at Venezuela's discretion.

 Extraditable offenses are specific crimes for which countries have agreed, usually
through treaties, to extradite individuals from one nation to another. Here are some

common extraditable offenses: Murder,Kidnapping,Rape,Bigamy,Robbery,Inciting

riots,Piracy,Drug law violation,Bribery,Evasion of taxes,Unfair business
transactions,Violations of import-export laws

 extradition pursuant to a treaty is based on the specific terms outlined in

that treaty.

o Some treaties list all the specific crimes that qualify for extradition.
o Others use a general rule based on the severity of the punishment (e.g., any crime
punishable by at least one or two years in prison).

o When a country wants to extradite a person, it refers to the treaty's language to

determine if the crime committed qualifies for extradition according to the
agreed terms.
 Doctrine of Double criminality :
 For extradition to take place, the offense must be a crime in both countries involved.
 This means that the act for which the person is being extradited must be illegal under
the laws of both the requesting country and the country where the person is found.

Case Reference: Collins v. Loisel (1922)

Background:
 Case: Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922)
 Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for extradition to occur, the act in question must be
considered criminal in both jurisdictions involved.

Doctrine of specialty:-
 Once a person is extradited, they can only be prosecuted or punished for the
specific crimes listed in the extradition request.
 They cannot be tried for any other offenses that were committed before they
were extradited.
Example:
Country A requests the extradition of a person from Country B for charges of robbery
and fraud.Country B agrees to extradite the person but only for the crimes of robbery
and fraud.: Once in Country A, the person can only be prosecuted for robbery and
fraud.Country A cannot charge the person for any other crimes, such as tax evasion or
assault, that were committed before the extradition.

Case Reference: United States v. Rauscher (1886)

Background:
 Case: United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886)
 Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court established that an extradited person can only be tried for the
offenses listed in the extradition agreement and no other pre-extradition crimes

Understanding Self-Help and the Noriega Case

 Self-help in international law refers to a country taking matters into its own hands to address a
legal issue, often bypassing formal extradition processes. This can be controversial and legally
complex. The formal process of handing over a fugitive from one country to another to
face trial can be slow and complicated.Failures or delays in the process can frustrate
efforts to bring fugitives to justice. When formal extradition fails or is too slow, some
countries may resort to more direct actions, such as abduction, to secure a fugitive.

Example: United States v. Noriega

Manuel Noriega:The military leader of Panama, was involved in drug trafficking and other
crimes.Instead of waiting for a complicated extradition process, the United States invaded
Panama in 1989 to capture Noriega and bring him to the U.S. for trial.After being brought to the
United States, Noriega contested the federal district court's jurisdiction, arguing that his capture
was illegal.United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990)The court rejected
Noriega's argument, deciding that he could be tried in the U.S. despite the means used to
capture him.The court did not address the legality of his capture because Noriega, considered
an unrecognized head of state, lacked the standing to challenge the invasion as a violation of
international law without protests from Panama's legitimate government.

Avoiding Extradition: Extradition Limitations

1. Double Criminality:

a. The alleged offense must be a crime in both the requesting and the
requested countries.
b. If the act is illegal in one country but not in the other, extradition may be
denied.

2. Death Penalty:

a. Some countries refuse to extradite individuals to countries where they

might face the death penalty.
b. This is often due to differing legal and human rights standards.

3. Political Offense Exception:

a. Extradition treaties often include an escape clause for political offenses.

b. A political offense is a crime committed in the context of political activities,
often involving dissent against the government.
c. There are no clear standards, so the requested country has discretion to
deny extradition based on this exception.
 4. Discretion to Deny Extradition:The requested state can use its discretion to
deny extradition for various reasons, including human rights concerns or if the
request seems politically motivated.

Example: US-UK Extradition Treaty Amendment (1986)

 The amendment states that extradition should not occur if the request is made to try or
punish someone for their political opinions.
 This adds a layer of protection against extradition for individuals who might be
prosecuted for their political beliefs rather than actual crimes.