Extradition and Human Rights

In some cases, the provisions of extradition treaties vary considerably depending on the states involved. For example:

• Most nations, “including the United States, will not surrender a fugitive wanted for a political crime. The rise in terrorism, however, has brought about some limitations to the political offense exception.”(1)
• Many countries, including most European states, Mexico, and Canada, have provisions which forbid the extradition to death penalty -allowed jurisdictions, save guaranties are presented of not application of capital punishment measures on the extradited person.
• In several states, such as France and Germany, extradition of nationals is not allowed by law, but they permit prosecution of those nationals in case of serious criminal acts abroad.
• In some countries, such as Venezuela, extradition of a citizen of that country is prohibited by the Constitution.
• See also the special case of extradition in Federal Jurisdictions.

The article “Extradition and Individual Rights” (KI Rebane, 1995, Fordham University) traces the history of extradition and its safeguards and express the view that current extradition practices violate international law.

“There is currently a “sharper need in extradition cases to find a proper balance between the recognition of states’ claim to sovereignty, on the one hand, and respect for individuals’ civil and human rights, on the other. The existing system of extradition already incorporates safeguards for individuals’ rights, such as the political offense exception, the rule of double criminality, and the principle of ‘specialty’ which specifies that the extradited individual will only stand trial for the offense specified in the extradition. But not all civil and human rights concerns are as easily dealt with in extradition. Conflicts in specific cases have revolved around the use of the death penalty, torture in criminal proceedings, harsh interrogation methods, questionable trial and incarceration conditions, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.” (2)

“In order to more effectively protect human rights, extradition could benefit from a conditional agreement whereby the state that receives an extradition request is allowed to monitor the judicial process of the extradited individual. This would also include monitoring the extradited person in prison. Because of sovereignty concerns, however, such a monitoring system will be politically unacceptable to many countries, making extradition ironically more difficult.”(3)

Notes

1. Deflem, Mathieu, and Kyle Irwin. 2006. “Extradition, International.” Pp. 352-354 in Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties, edited by Otis H. Stephens, Jr., John M. Scheb II, and Kara E. Stooksbury. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
2. Id.
3. Id.

See Also

• Extradition
• Concept of Extradition
• History of Extradition
• International Extradition
• Interstate Extradition
• Extradition Treaties
• Human Rights and Extradition
• Extradition in Federal Jurisdictions

Further Reading

• Dugard, John, and Christine Van den Wyngaert. “Reconciling Extradition with Human Rights.” The American Journal of International Law 92(2):187-212, 1998.
• Epps, Valerie. “The Development of the Conceptual Framework Supporting International Extradition.” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 25:369-387, 2003.
• Gilbert, Geoff. Aspects of Extradition Law. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991.
• Pyle, Christopher H. Extradition, Politics, and Human Rights. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.
• Rose, Thomas. “A Delicate Balance: Extradition, Sovereignty, and Individual Rights in the United States and Canada.” The Yale Journal of International Law 27:193-215, 2002.