EXTRADITION TREATY LAW AND PROCEDURE
Through bilateral and multilateral treaties, cooperating nations have been able to formulate acceptable solutions to countless problems arising out of today's broad approach at reigning in those charged with crimes. While all countries maintain a strong interest in safeguarding the rights of their citizenry and individuals who fall under the protection of their laws, nations now more that ever, are seeking to extend the reach of their judiciaries to gain access to or prosecute individuals who are beyond their borders. Countries are increasingly asserting jurisdiction based on the nationality of the offender, on the nationality of the victim, on the place where the offense is intended to have its primary effect, and on the protection of a particular governmental interest.
This trend, however, is not absent cause for concern. Because the approach nations take varies in the way in which they handle those charged with crimes, requests for extradition made by nations whose laws substantially differ from that of the host nation can present moral and ethical dilemmas for the nation responding to such a request. The laws of the nation requesting extradition may, for example, promote the death penalty as an acceptable method of punishment (e.g. United States), while the nation possessing the individual to be extradited finds capital punishment unacceptable (e.g. France).
In order to clarify a nation's position on extradition, agreements between nations are typically treaty-based. Treaties are governed by international law and by design contain language setting forth conditional terms for extradition and applicable procedures addressing how individuals are to be dealt with once extradition occurs. These provisions can usually belay many concerns a surrendering nation will have over the treatment or procedural safeguards afforded the extraditee. Yet, many situations remain which bypass treaty provisions.
Utilized by the United States since 1795, extradition treaties remain the most common tool among nations for the surrender of individuals accused of crime, and who are now beyond the jurisdiction of the requesting country.
For more information, please explore the links below.Judicial Officer Authorized to Conduct the Extradition Hearing
Place of Extradition Hearing
Admissibility of Documentary Evidence in Extradition Hearing
Admissibility of Testimonial Evidence in Extradition Hearing
Amount of Evidence Required for a Finding of Extraditability
Extraditability of United States Nationals
Responsibilities of Judicial Officer Upon Finding Evidence Sufficient to Permit Extradition
Release on Bail After Commitment for Extradition
Issuance of Surrender Warrant by Secretary of State
Scope and Content of Surrender Warrant Issued by Secretary of State
Effect of Delay in Removal from the United States
Place of Surrender
Authorization of Agent of Foreign Government in Removing Extraditee from United States
Escape After Apprehension, Commitment, or Surrender
Expenses Associated with Extradition
Definition of an Extraditable Offense
Multilateral Conventions that Extend List of Extraditable Offenses
Fiscal Offenses As Extraditable Offenses
Retroactive Effect of Treaty
Replacement Treaties and Their Effect on Proceedings Pending Under Prior Treaties
Effect of Pending, Unrelated Proceedings in the United States
Effect of Serving a Sentence in the United States on an Unrelated Offense
Restrictions on Prosecution or Punishment in Requesting Country for Offense for Which Extradition Not Granted By United States
Restrictions on Re-Extradition to Third Country
Requests Made By More Than One Country for Extradition of Same Person
Seizure and Surrender of Evidence or Fruits of Offense Found Within the United States and in Connection with an Individual's Request for Extradition
Effect of Statute of Limitations The articles and material on this web site are made available for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. The transmission and receipt of information contained on this web site or any other web site operated by McNabb Associates, P.C. do not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. McNabb Associates, P.C. accepts no liability in relation thereto. The areas of law discussed are particularly fast moving, and legal issues develop rapidly. Therefore up-to-date information should always be checked. Anyone receiving information on or from this web site should not act upon the information without seeking professional legal counsel. For additional information concerning pending criminal matters, please contact McNabb Associates, P.C..
This trend, however, is not absent cause for concern. Because the approach nations take varies in the way in which they handle those charged with crimes, requests for extradition made by nations whose laws substantially differ from that of the host nation can present moral and ethical dilemmas for the nation responding to such a request. The laws of the nation requesting extradition may, for example, promote the death penalty as an acceptable method of punishment (e.g. United States), while the nation possessing the individual to be extradited finds capital punishment unacceptable (e.g. France).
In order to clarify a nation's position on extradition, agreements between nations are typically treaty-based. Treaties are governed by international law and by design contain language setting forth conditional terms for extradition and applicable procedures addressing how individuals are to be dealt with once extradition occurs. These provisions can usually belay many concerns a surrendering nation will have over the treatment or procedural safeguards afforded the extraditee. Yet, many situations remain which bypass treaty provisions.
Utilized by the United States since 1795, extradition treaties remain the most common tool among nations for the surrender of individuals accused of crime, and who are now beyond the jurisdiction of the requesting country.
For more information, please explore the links below.
- Brief United States Historical Perspective
- United States Statutory Provisions
- Extradition by Treaty or Legislative Authorization
- Filing of Complaint for Apprehension (Request for Extradition)
- Judicial Review of Determination in Extradition Hearings
- Complaint for Warrant of Apprehension
- Issuance of a Warrant of Apprehension
- Offenses Warranting Issuance of a Warrant of Apprehension
- Relevance on the Place Where the Offense was Committed
- Jurisdiction to Issue a Warrant of Apprehension, Location of Person Sought
- Persons Who May Execute a Warrant of Apprehension and Places Where Such Warrants May Be Executed
- Procedure Following Apprehension
- The Appointment of Counsel
- Release from Custody Pending Extradition Determination
For additional information please contact us.