CC BY
48
ПРАВО И ОБЩЕСТВО
ЕВРОПЕЙСКАЯ МОДЕЛЬ ЭКСТРАДИЦИИ И ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВО АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ
Р. Т. ГАСАНОВ
Это статья о Европейской модели экстрадиции и законодательстве Азербайджанской Республики. Экстрадиция - форма международного сотрудничества государств в борьбе с преступностью, заключается в аресте и передаче одним государством другому (по запросу последнего) лица, подозреваемого или обвиняемого в совершении преступления либо осужденного преступника. Как правило, выдача осуществляется на основании договора между соответствующими государствами. Это может быть либо двусторонний договор, либо многосторонняя конвенция, участниками которой должны являться как запрашивающее, так и запрашиваемое государство. В рамках деятельности Совета Европы большое значение имеет закрепление механизма сотрудничества государств по борьбе с преступностью, в рамках которого принят комплекс конвенций, регулирующих оказание правовой помощи по уголовным делам, вопросы выдачи преступников; проведена кодификация отдельных транснациональных преступлений; создан целый ряд рабочих органов.
Ключевые слова: преступный, обязательства, права человека, суд, международное право, принцип.
Hugo Grotios asserted that the state of refuge was obligated either to return the accused to the requesting state or punish him under its own laws. Similarly, De Vattel argued that international law imposed a definite legal duty on the state to extradite persons accused of serious crimes. Puffendorf represented a contrary view and argued that the duty to extradite was only an imperfect obligation which required an explicit agreement in order to become fully binding under international law and thus to secure the reciprocal rights and duties of the contracting states. Similarly, Billot took the position that there was no right to extradition save by contract or agreement between states. «Extradition is a municipal legal procedure, often the subject of treaty obligations, by which the criminal justice authorities of one state (the requested State), arrest and surrender to those of another (the requesting State), a suspect or fugitive convict present in the territory of the former State and wanted by the latter» [7; 4]. Extradition as a rule is an internationalisation of jurisdiction [1] and is effected by bipartite treaty.
The need for extradition proceedings was discussed in the 19th century in the English case of In Re Arton where Lord Russel observed the following:
«The law of extradition is, without doubt, founded upon the broad principle that it is to the interests of civilized communities that crimes, acknowledged to be such, should not go unpunished,
and it is part of the comity of nations that one state should afford to another every assistance towards bringing persons guilty of such crimes to justice.»
As Professor Meron states:
There is no reason why universal jurisdiction should not also be acknowledged in cases where the duty to prosecute or to extradite is unclear, but the right to prosecute when offenses are committed by aliens in foreign countries is recognized. Indeed, the true meaning of universal jurisdiction is that international law permits any state to apply its laws to certain offenses even in the absence of territorial, nationality or other accepted contacts with the offender or the victim [6].
Thus, the principle aut dedere aut judicare by definition entails the duty of the state concerned to extradite or to prosecute the accused, while universal jurisdiction may refer only to the right of the state to prosecute the accused.
Particularly significant is the question of extraditing nationals of the asylum state. In some times, this protection is absolute, particularly in the case of common-law states, and at other times, only when a specific treaty to the contrary is absent. This is not to say that the individual sought will not be punished -this is one instance in which the latter half of the Gro-tian aut dedere aut judicare, trial of the accused within the legal system of the asylum state, is applied. For example, in 1997, Samuel Sheinbein, a young Ameri-
can man of Jewish extraction, committed a murder in the United States and fled to Israel. Israeli’s policy of nonextradition of nationals, intended for the protection of Israelis from malicious, i.e., anti-Semitic, prosecution abroad, became unflattering frontpage news in the United States, when Israeli denied the U.S. request for extradition on the grounds of nationality. Public outrage in the U.S. was palpable enough for some in Congress to call for sanctions against Israel in response. The Israeli Department of State, however, was disposed to view Sheinbein’s claims of citizenship as tenuous, for they were grounded only in his father’s birth in the pre-Israeli British Mandate territories from 1944 to 1950. The case made its way to the Beyt Ha-Mishpat Ha’Elyon (Israeli Supreme Court), and although that body had previously held that there was a valid distinction between «citizenship for nationality and citizenship for extradition,» and that tenuous citizenship need not be recognized in international law, the appeal was decided in Sheinbein’s favor and he was not extradited. Israel was more than amenable in fulfilling it’s obligations under aut judicare, sentencing Sheinbein to twenty-four years in prison, and outrage in the United States eventually died down. In subsequent proceedings against Sheinbein’s father for helping him flee, a Maryland court ruled that, «any country maintains the right to control the conduct of its citizens, regardless of where that conduct occurs», but Maryland had a «direct interest» in prosecuting him that Israel lacked. The Sheinbein case shows a degree of U.S. acceptance of Israeli aut judicare as an alternative to aut dedere, but the diplomatic sparks that flew between the two countries are indicative of just how seriously refusals of extradition can be taken [2].
The uncertainties surrounding the status of this principle under international law directly affect both the scope of its application and its effectiveness. Practically, the alternative obligation of states either to surrender or to prosecute exists insofar as has been expressly spelled out in an international instrument or, only exceptionally, in the domestic legislation. It has been a standard policy to have the principle aut dedere aut judicare included in general extradition treaties, either bilateral or multilateral, [11] especially with respect to the refusal of surrender of nationals1.
Extradition model in Council of Europa
Extradition is a mechanism of international cooperation by which one or more States agree to assist
1 See the formula recommended for inclusion in bilateral treaties which appears in Article 4 of the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, G.A. Res. 45/116, U.N. Doc. A Res/45/116 (1991).
each other in criminal matters. Extraditing means surrendering an individual to the requesting State so that he or she can be prosecuted or a sentence can be served. This can occur either on the basis of a multilateral or bilateral Treaty or without a previous arrangement. Most common law countries allow extradition only on the basis of a Treaty [3]. Where an agreement already exists, it normally imposes upon the requested State an obligation to extradite the criminal or, in alternative, to prosecute him/her (aut dedere aut judicare principle 34). Otherwise, no such duty can be identified in international law: the procedure relies exclusively on reciprocity and (as some argue) comity. The first steps were taken within the framework of the Council of Europe. The 1957 European Convention was the result of the growing legal and political homogeneity of the European States [5]. It was the first example in Europe of a multilateral arrangement which gave up some of the features of the old model, in accordance with the modern view that the sought person must be considered the subject, rather than merely the object of criminal proceedings. It provided a general scheme which each State Party may supplement by way of bilateral or multilateral arrangements. Some important changes were introduced. First of all, under this Convention Member States are not required to provide evidence of a prima facie case of guilt, except where the requested State has made a specific reservation [9]. However, some evidence will still be needed in order to assess whether the conduct for which a request has been made is an offence punishable by deprivation of liberty or detention order for a maximum of at least one year, or (if a sentence or detention order have already been issued) for which a punishment of at least four months is awarded.
Secondly, some innovations were introduced in relation to the grounds for refusal. Their rationale lies in the need to preserve State sovereignty, although their effect is also the protection of the individual against abuse. A secondary effect is that they may seriously prevent cooperation in the suppression of criminality. As can be argued from the provisions of the Convention, they were clearly the result of a compromise between different approaches but did not achieve the objective of making the procedure more rapid and effective: instead, they had the opposite outcome. Indeed, a major flaw of the 1957 Convention was the abundance of such grounds, conferring upon the requested State a very wide discretion when deciding whether or not to allow surrender. In particular, concerning nationality, the right to refuse extradition is recognised (Article 6), although it is combined with the aut dedere aut judicare principle [8].
The 1957 Convention mentions two additional grounds for refusal: capital punishment, which allows a State whose law does not provide for death penalty to refuse surrender, unless the requesting State gives assurance that the penalty will not be carried out (Article 11)1; and lapse of time, granting the sought person immunity from prosecution or punishment (Article 10). A further guarantee for the rights of the individual was provided for by the Second Additional Protocol (Article 3): a request made following judgement in absentia can be rejected if the requested Party believes that the minimum rights of defence were not respected in that judgement, unless the other Party gives an assurance that a right to a (fair) re-trial will be granted. However, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights can sometimes provide a measure of assistance. According to this provision no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The European Court of Human Rights held in its judgment in the 1989 Soering case that Article 3 prohibits the extradition of a person who is threatened with torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country. Extradition in such circumstances would, according to the Court, plainly be contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Article and would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the Convention. In two cases decided in 1991 the Court held that the same considerations apply to expulsion cases. Thus the Court confirmed the position held for about 30 years by the European Commission of Human Rights. The Court’s reasoning is convincing and has been widely accepted. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the conditions under which a person can avoid forcible return under Article 3. Some procedural aspects will also be discussed. Recent case-law of the Strasbourg institutions will be reported and, where appropriate, commented on critically.
The traditional approach that was still visible in the 1957 Convention was, as already said, neither ef-
1 The issue of extradition for death penalty was particularly relevant in ECtHR Soering v. UK, 7 July 1989, Application no. 14038/88, in which the ECtHR stated that a lengthy wait before execution falls within the definition of “inhuman and degrading punishment” under Article 3 ECHR, also in the light of both age and mental conditions of the sought person. Indeed, capital punishment is not prohibited by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4/11/1950, ETS n. 5); Protocols n. 6 and 13 later abolished the death penalty. Although the ECHR does not grant the fugitive a right not to be extradited, it is believed that he or she can rely on Article 3 ECHR to argue that his or her fundamental rights may be violated by the requesting country. See W. Schabas, The abolition of the death penalty in International Law, (3rd ed. CUP 2002).
fective nor efficient2. As a result, it was repeatedly revisited. Apart from the two Additional Protocols, which have been previously mentioned, some significant changes were made by the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, concluded in 19773. The Convention attempted to modify the political offence exception through a double formula. On the one hand, it listed a number of exemptions for some particularly serious terrorism-related offences (such as kidnapping, taking of hostages, use of bombs or seizure of aircraft)4. All States that have ratified the Convention with no reservation are bound by this provision. On the other hand, States that have made a reservation retain the right to qualify those acts as political offences, although they undertake to take into account a few criteria included in Article 13 when assessing the nature of the offence5.
Non Bis in idem
The non bis in idem or double jeopardy [12] rule is contained in Articles 7, 8 and 9. This is a general principle of criminal procedure, which allows no more than one prosecution for the same offence and is therefore a shield for individual rights. In particular, it is mandatory if final judgement has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party in respect of the same offence. It is optional in two circumstances: a) where the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to initiate or to terminate proceedings concerning the same offence and the same person (ordonnance de non lieu); b) where they are currently proceeding against that
2 In the Recommendation n. R (80) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Concerning the Practical Application of the European Convention on Extradition, 27 June 1980, www.coe.int it was pointed out that “(...) with a view to expediting extradition (...) consideration should be given to the use of a summary procedure enabling the rapid surrender of the person sought without following ordinary extradition procedures, provided that the person concerned consent s to it”. This would be put into practice only 15 years later with the 1995 and 1996 EU Conventions (see infra p.20-21)
3 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, and Related Explanatory Report, ETS n. 90, Strasbourg, 27/01/1977, ratified by all Member States; Protocol Amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, ETS n. 190, Strasbourg, 15/05/2003 (which has only been ratified by 10 Member States and is not in force yet).
4 Article 1 European Convention, supra. Many of these offences were covered by UN Conventions, although these did not directly impact on the scope of the political offence exception, unlike the Terrorist Bombing Convention, infra note 64
5 At the same time, Article 2 allowed Contracting States to exclude from the scope of this exception all other serious offences involving an act of violence against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person, an act against property creating a collective danger against persons as well any attempt to commit these offences or participation as an accomplice.
person for the same act. Furthermore, a State which is about to initiate proceedings for an offence that has been committed in whole or in part on its territory, may refuse extradition (as an application of territoriality). The 1957 Convention mentions two additional grounds for refusal: capital punishment, which allows a State whose law does not provide for death penalty to refuse surrender, unless the requesting State gives assurance that the penalty will not be carried out (Article 11) [10]; and lapse of time, granting the sought person immunity from prosecution or punishment (Article 10). A further guarantee for the rights of the individual was provided for by the Second Additional Protocol (Article 3): a request made following judgement in absentia can be rejected if the requested Party believes that the minimum rights of defence were not respected in that judgement, unless the other Party gives an assurance that a right to a (fair) re-trial will be granted.
Extradition in European Union
The acceding states will not have the possibility to ‘opt out’ of some of the provisions provided by the Framework Decision, as some current member states have freely decided to do. All of them are required to fully apply the new EU extradition system from 1 May 20041. The first specific reference to a mandate for developing an improved extradition procedure that would force suspected individuals to face justice may be found at the Tampere European Council Conclusions. Point 35 states the objective that «The formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the member states as far as persons are con-cerned.and replaced by a simple transfer of such persons, in compliance with Article 6 TEU». In addition, in January 2001, the European Commission and the Council presented a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. The programme highlighted, as a goal, the establishment of a single EU legal and judicial area of extradition. In this way, the door was officially open for the European Commission to start working towards the development of proactive judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which would play a key role in fighting threats such as cross-border crime across the EU. Among other measures, the meeting called for the urgent adoption of the EAW, which «would allow wanted persons to be handed over directly from one judicial authority to another». Although different in substance, the EAW
1 The 2002 Regular Reports prepared by the Commission of the European Communities, C0M(2002) 700 final, 9.10.2002, which specifically look at the sections on the Cooperation in the field of justice and home.
was psychologically linked to those legal instruments envisaged to fight terrorism2. The final result of the political push and willingness to arrive at a more integrated and trust-based system on extradition is indeed much wider in scope and character than it was initially intended to be. Further, as widely noted by human rights organisations, civil society groups and academia, while the new system was supposed to be fully operative by now, human rights and fundamental freedoms (particularly adequate protection of the rights to defence and fair trail provided by, for instance Art. 6.3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Art. 48.2 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights) have not been widely guaranteed in the Framework Decision. The deadline for implementation of the Framework Decision, as stated by Art. 34, was 31 December 2003. As of 1 July 2004, it should fully replace the following traditional EU legal instruments on extradition procedures:
- the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957;
- the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism as regards extradition of 1978;
- the Agreement on simplifying the transmission of extradition requests of 26 May 1989;
- the Council Act of 10 March 1995, adopted on the basis of Art. K.3 of the TEU, drawing up the Convention on a simplified extradition procedure between the member states of the European Union;
- the Council Act of 27 September 1996, adopted on the basis of Art. K.3 of the TEU, drawing up the Convention relating to Extradition between the member states of the European Union and all the relevant provisions set out in the Schengen agreement.
In contrast with the European Convention on Extradition (ECE),3 which differentiates in Art. 16 (Provisional Arrest) between the request of the provisional arrest of the person sought and the request for extradition,4 the EAW provides for the new possibility of issuing the arrest and surrender jointly. The EAW will be issued by a custodial sentence or a detention order against a «requested person» or «extra-diturus» (traditionally called «fugitive»), for a crime
2 See also the Framework Decision on combating terrorism, 2002/475/JHA, of 13 June 2002; for an overview of the legislative developments on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, see J. Apap & S. Carrera (2003a).20 See for instance the report by Amnesty International (2004), p. 6.
3 See the Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, Paris, ETS 024, 13.12.1957.
4 Art. 16 on provisional arrest states, «In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. 4) Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within a period of 18 days after arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 12.»
whose punishment is at least of a period of one year, or four months when the person has been already convicted, the sentence has been passed or a detention has been made. This is a brand new possibility in comparison with the previous extradition system provided by the European Convention on Extradition and the 1996 EU Convention on Extradition (ECE)1.
The 32 concrete EU offences or ‘Euro-crimes’ that have been politically agreed within Art. 2.2 of the Framework Decision on the EAW can be summarised as follows:
- participation in a criminal organisation and terrorism;
- trafficking in human beings and facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence;
- sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;
- illicit trafficking in
1) narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
2) weapons, munitions and explosives
3) hormonal substances and other growth promoters
4) nuclear or radioactive materials
5) human organs and tissue
6) cultural goods, including antiques and works of art
7) stolen vehicles
- corruption, fraud and counterfeiting currency
- laundering of the proceeds of crime
- computer-related crime
- environmental crime
- murder, grievous bodily injury, kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking, rape, arson, organised or armed robbery, swindling
- racism and xenophobia
- racketeering and extortion
- counterfeiting and piracy of products
- forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein, and of means of payment
- crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
- unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships, sabotage.
Legislation of Republic of Azerbaijan
The extradition of persons living or present in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan (non-citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan) to foreign countries or trial for crimes committed beyond the borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan or for the execution of a punishment delivered by a court is governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Law
1 See the Council Act of 27 September 1996, drawing up the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union, Official Journal C 313, 23.10.1996.
No. 132-IIQ «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime» of 15 May 2001, the Decree of the President on approval of the abovementioned Law No. 499 of 11 June 2001, the Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 493-504), and other legislative instruments and international treaties in this sphere concluded by the Republic of Azerbaijan with foreign countries. In the absence of an extradition treaty between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the requesting country, extradition can be guided by the principle of mutual legal assistance and based on the clauses of the Law «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime»2. If international treaties to which the Republic of Azerbaijan is a signatory contain different clauses concerning the extradition of criminals, then they shall prevail3. Simultaneously with the adoption of the abovementioned law, the Parliament of Azerbaijan ratified the European Convention on Extradition signed in Paris on 13 December 1957, its Additional Protocol of 15 October 1975 and its Second Additional Protocol of 17 March 1978. The Republic of Azerbaijan is also a party to two regional documents
- the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (20.04.1959) and its Additional Protocol (1978), and the Chisinau Convention «On Legal Assistance and Legal Affairs in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters» (07.10.2002)
- and to a number of bilateral treaties (Bulgaria, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Iran etc.).
Countries which have no agreement with Azerbaijan may request legal assistance in accordance with the Law «On Legal Assistance in Criminal Mat-ters» of 29 June 2001. Foreign nationals or persons without citizenship present in the Republic of Azerbaijan who commit any of the crimes listed in Article 13.2 of the Criminal Code outside the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan may be extradited to foreign countries for trial or execution of a sentence in accordance with the Law «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime», other legislative acts, and international agreements to which the Republic of Azerbaijan is a signatory.
Basic Principles
The Law «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime» forbids the classification of terrorist activities as political crimes,
2 Law No. 132-IIQ of the Republic of Azerbaijan «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime» of 15 May 2001: Article 1.2.
3 Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 13.4. Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, Articles 12 (3) and 13 (3). Baku: (2011). 332 p.
thus ensuring their extradition1. Furthermore, national legislation provides for the possibility of bringing terrorists to trial in accordance with the Criminal Code in cases where the request for their extradition is de-nied2. The legislation of Azerbaijan in relation to terrorism and other international crimes is based on the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. Citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan who commit any of the crimes listed in Article 13.1 of the Criminal Code in other countries cannot be extradited to those countries. The matter of charging such persons is resolved in accordance with the clause of criminal legislation providing for responsibility for crimes committed outside the territory of them Republic of Azerbaijan3. That clause is based upon the 53rd Article of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan stating that citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan cannot be exiled or extradited to a foreign country under any circumstances4.
Conclusion
The terms expulsion and extradition have been distinguished. It is concluded that both concepts involve the removal of an individual from one state to another, though the circumstances may differ. The concepts do not also mean the same thing legally. It is therefore being suggested that in effecting the removal of persons from their territories, states must endeavour to apply each concept when and where applicable so that the terms will not be applied at times when they would not have been available e.g. disguised extradition which is the deportation of a person where an extradition attempt has failed. It follows that the acclaimed principle of mutual recognition cannot be implemented on its own in the area of criminal matters. Approximation should be pursued more decisively, in order to make the product of a foreign legal system more «recognisable».
Literature
1. Bamford C. Extradition and the Commercial World 28 Comp. Law. 97. 2007. P. 51.
2. Barnes L. Maryland murder case prompts threat to cut U.S. aid to Israel. WASH. REP. MID. EAST AFF. 1 at 61. 1997. P. 41.
1 Law No. 132-IIQ of the Republic of Azerbaijan «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime» of 15 May 2001: Article 3, Note: paragraph 1, clauses «s» and «ç».
2 Law No. 132-IIQ of the Republic of Azerbaijan «On Hand Over (extradition) of Persons who have Committed a Crime» of 15 May 2001: Article 3, Note: paragraph 3; Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 13.3.
3 Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 12.
4 Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 53 (II). Baku (2011).
3. Bassiouni M. C. Reforming International Extradition: Lessons of the Past for a Radical New Approach, Loyola International and Comparative Law Review. 2003. P. 389.
4. Doobay A. The non-taxing weekly for top practitioners. Tax Journal. 2006. P. 25.
5. Mackarel M., Nash S. Extradition and the European Union. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1997. P. 948.
6. Meron T. International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities, 89 AM. J. INT’L L. 554, 570 [hereinafter Meron, International Criminalization]. 1995.
7. O’Keefe R. Double-plus good or double trouble. case comment 68 C.L.J. 9. 2009.
8. Plachta M. The Role of Double Criminality in International Cooperation in Penal Matters // N. Jareborg (ed.), Double Criminality Studies in International Criminal Law (Iustus Forlag, Uppsala 1989).
9. Poncet D., Gully-Hart P. The European Approach // M.C. Bassiouni (ed.), International Criminal Law, Procedural and Enforcement Mechanisms (2nd ed., Transnational Publishers 1999). p. 277.
10. Schabas, W. The abolition of the death penalty in International Law. 3rd ed. CUP 2002.
11. Shearer I. Extradition in International Law. P. 116117, 124-125. 1971.
12. Van Den Wyngaert, Stessens G. The International Non Bis in Idem Principle: Resolving Some of the Unanswered Questions’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 779. On this principle, see also infra, chapter 4. 1999. P. 131.
* * *
EUROPEAN EXTRADITION MODEL AND LEGISLATION OF AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC
R. T. Gasanov
This article is about the European Extradition model and legislation of Republic of Azerbaijan. Extradition is the official process where by one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. International law does not establish a general duty to extradite. A legal obligation for one State (the requested State) to surrender a person wanted by another State (the requesting State) exists only on the basis of bilateral or multilateral extradition agreements, or if the requested State is a party to an international instrument which institutes a duty to extradite, as is the case with respect to specific offences such as, for example, genocide or apartheid. Other international instruments impose an obligation to extradite or prosecute - that is, if surrender is refused, the requested. State must prosecute the wanted person in its own courts. Starting in the 1950s, the members of the Council of Europe, all of which are liberal democracies, have negotiated multilateral conventions designed to facilitate extradition among them.
Key words: criminal, obligation, human rights, court, international law, principle.
