The Necessity of Avoidance of Human Rights Violations during the Extradition

Document Type : Original Article



Offender’s extradition is one of the earliest forms of judicial assistance in the context of criminal issues. However in the case of human rights violation, states are obliged to refrain from extradition to the countries that violate fundamental human rights. Whenever human rights violation is imminent, the specific context of extradition offers states a number of ‘avoidance techniques’.
First of all, states have simply alleged that ‘the principle of confidence’ or ‘the rule of non-inquiry’ impedes them from probing into the requesting state's administration of criminal justice. Secondly, states have relied on their counterparts' assurances that they will abide by accepted standards and will observe the fugitive's fundamental rights, including that he or she will not be tortured, that he or she will receive the benefits of a fair trial, and that he or she will not be exposed to capital punishment. Thirdly, states have been placated by the other state's guarantee that even if the person's human rights were to be infringed, he or she would be entitled to obtain redress, either by starting appellate proceedings in a domestic court or by submitting a complaint to an international human rights body. Fourthly and finally, states may require the fugitive to hand over abundant evidence buttressing his or her apprehensions, preferably including proof that he or she has been targeted or maltreated before.


Agiza v. Sweden, 24 May 2005, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003.
Al-Moayad v. Germany (n 38).
AS (Lybia) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 289, [2008] HRLR 28; Miklis v. Lithuania, 11 May 2006, 4 All ER 809 [2006].
Bite v. Latvia, Divisional Court, 6 October 2009, [2009] EWHC 3092 (Admin) Official Transcript.
CAT, 16 December 1998, Chipana v. Venezuela, CAT/C/21/D/110/1998.
Cf Dutch Supreme Court (S Ct), 1 July 1985, NJ (Nederland Jurisprudentie ‘Netherlands Law Reports’) 1986, S Ct, 28 May 1985, NJ 1985, 892; S Ct, 1 July 1986, NJ 1987, 256 and S Ct, 2 December/17 February 1987, NJ 1987.
Cf N v. Finland, (App No 38885/02) (2006) 43 EHRR 12.
Cf Soering v. United Kingdom (n 1).
Chahal v. United Kingdom (n 10).
Constitutional Court of Slovenia, 29 June 2000, Official Gazette RS, No 66/2000.
Constitutional Court of South Africa, 28 May 2001, Mohamed and another v. President of the Republic of South Africa and others, CCT 17/01.
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 3 May 2006, ‘European Arrest Warrant’, Pl US 66/04.
Czech Republic v. Moravek, Appeal judgment, 8 November 2004, ILDC 641 (CA 2004), analysis by Stéphane Beaulac. Australian extradition law similarly marginalizes the courts’ position: see Vasiljkovic v. Australia and others, Constitutional complaint procedure, 3 August 2006, ILDC 530 (AU 2006), analysis by Rosemary Rayfuse.
Dutch Supreme Court, 15 October 1996, NJ 1997.
Dutch Supreme Court, 30 March 1990, NJ 1991.
Erika De Wet and Jure Vidmar, “Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights”, Oxford, Scholarship Online, May-2012.
Extradition’s “Rule of non-inquiry”, The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, <>
Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F2d 77 (US Ct of Apps (2d Cir), 1960).
Geuking v. President of South Africa and others, Final Judgment of the Constitutional Court, 12 December 2002, ILDC 283 (ZA 2002), analysis by HA Strydom.
Gomes v. Trinidad and Tobago, House of Lords, 29 April 2009, 2009 WL 1096085.
HLR v. France, (App No 11/1996/630/813) (1998) 26 EHRR 29.
HLR v. France, (App No 11/1996/630/813) (1998) 26 EHRR 29.
Judge v. Canada (n 18).
Kaplan, 4 Aus. (a) 308/02-147-203-204.03111, 27 May 2003; cited in: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Background Paper on Extradition and Human Rights in the Context of Counter-terrorism, ODIHR.GAL/22/07, 20 March 2007.
Kindler v. Canada, (470/1991), 30 July 1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/48/ D/470/1991.
Krzyzowski v. Poland, 23 November 2007, [2007] EWHC 2754 (Admin.); [2008] Extradition LR 19.
Peroff v. Hylton, 563 F2d 1099 (US Ct of Apps (4th Cir) 1977.
R (on the application of Bary) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2009] EWHC 2068 (Admin) Times, 14 October 2009, Official Transcript.
Ryabkin v. Russia, (App No 8320/04) (2008), 19 June 2008, 48 EHRR 55.
S Ct, 11 March 2003, NJ 2004, 42; confirmed in S Ct, 7 September 2004, NJ 2004, 595.
S Ct, 15 October 1997, NJ 1997.
S Ct, 27 March 1984, NJ 1984.
S Ct, 27 March 1984, NJ 1984.
S Ct, 29 May 1990, NJ 1991, 467; S Ct, 9 April 1991, NJ 1991.
S Ct, 7 September 2004, NJ 2004, 595, annotation by Klip.
Saadi v. Italy (App No 37201/06) (2008), 27 February 2008, paras 147/148 (not yet published).
Saadi v. Italy (n 70) para. 139. Compare similarly UN Human Rights Committee, Maksudov et al v. Kyrgyzstan (n 87).
Scholarship Online, May-2012.
Sholam Weiss v. Austria, 8 May 2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/ 1086/2002.
Soering v. United Kingdom (n 1).
Supreme Court of Cyprus, 21 January 2005, Scattergood v. Attorney General, Appeal decision, Civil Appeal No 12/2005; ILDC 921 (CY 2005),analysis by Aristotle Constantinides.
Suresh v. Canada (n 32).
The Kesbir case (S Ct, 7 May 2004, NJ 2007)
UN Human Rights Committee, 31 July 2008, Maksudov, Rakhimov, Tashbaev and Pirmatov v. Kyrgyzstan, CCPR/C/93/D 1461, 1462, 1476 and1477/2006.
UN Human Rights Committee, 31 October 1994, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/ D/539/1993, para 10.3.
United States v. Alvarez Machain, 504 US 655 (1992).
United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 SCR 283.
United States v. Toscanino, 500 F2d 267, 276–80 (US Ct of App (2d Cir), 1974).
Yuen Kwok-Fung v. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, Appeal Judgment, [2001] 3 NZLR 463, 13 June2001; ILDC 218 (NZ 2001), analysis by Claudia Geiringer.