EXTRADITION

2010
1. Introduction
Ordinarily every state exercises and enjoys complete jurisdiction over all the
persons within its jurisdiction but sometimes there may be cases where a person
after committing crime runs away to another country. In such a situation, the
state finds itself helpless to exercise jurisdiction to punish such persons. The
term extradition denotes the person whereby under a treaty or upon a basis of
reciprocity one state surrenders to another state at its request a person accused
or convicted of a criminal offence.
2. Meaning of Extradition
Delivery, handing over or surrender of an accused or convicted person from one
state to another
3. Definition of Extradition
ccording to Oppenheim, extradition is the delivery of an accused or a
convicted individual to the state on whose territory he is alleged to have a
committed or to have been convicted of a crime by the state on whose
territory the alleged criminal happens to be for the time being.
ccording to Starke,
ccording to Grotrious
4. Basis of Extradition
This principle is based on a !atin maxim
Aut Punise Aut debare
"The runaway offender must be punished by the refugee state or surrendered to
the state affected. "
. O!"ect of Extradition
To ensure that serious criminals do not go unpunished
That state in which the crime is committed, is the best state to try and
punish the offender.
6. Who Can Be Extradited?
The requesting state may claim a runaway offender of following categories
Its own #ational
#ational of third state
#. Is a state dut$ !ound to grant extradition%
No General Rule:
There is no general $ule under International !aw which binds a state to grant
extradition.
nder Extradition !reat"
Only in case of an extradition treaty an injured state can claim run away offender
to the other state party.
Case Reference: State of Madras Vs G.C. Memon (1954)
It was held that %xtradition with foreign states except with exceptional cases only
governed under bilateral treaty or any regional arrangement.
#n a Good $aith
state may surrender the runway offender to requesting state in a good faith and
for the sa&e of International peace and 'ustice.
Case Reference: Lockerbie Case (1992)
t !as "e#d t"at in case of more t"en one state "as $%risdiction o&er an offence a
state can insist on t"e e'tradition of a defendant from a state !"ic" is !i##in( to
)rosec%te t"e offence itse#f.
&. Exce'tions to Extradition
I. No Treaty
Case Re%eren&e: Osama (in !adin case
II. Political Offence
Case Re%eren&e: M%rta*a +"%tto Case
Case Re%eren&e: Recastioni Case (1,91)
III. Religious Offence
Case Re%eren&e: )alman $ushdi *ase
IV. Common Offence
V. Military Offence
VI. Prima Facia Case
VII. Inadequate Evidence
Case Re%eren&e: !a'ashar Extradition Case
It was held that accused was discharged because no proper evidence was made against him.
VIII. Rule of !eciality
Case Re%eren&e: S (s Ra's&her
It was held that $avscher may tried only for that offence for which extradition was granted.
I". Formalities
". #ou$le Criminality
(. Ma"or E)ents of Extradition
1*.Difference !et+een Ex'u,sion and Extradition
+nder ,oreigners ct -./0, following are the differences between %xpulsion and
%xtradition,
%xpulsion without request
%xtradition is on request
%xpulsion can be made on any grounds under state law.
%xtradition can be requested on certain grounds
%xpulsion involved only one state
%xtradition is the involvement of two states
11.Different Extradition -ractices in Different .tates
British Practices The Extradition Act 1870
French Practices French Extradition Policy
Pakistan Practices the Extradition Act 1903
12./onc,usion