View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

150 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime“[14. States Parties shall designate an authority, or when necessary authorities, 16which shall have the responsibility and power to execute requests for extradition orto transmit them to the competent authorities for execution. The Secretary-Generalshall be notified of the authority or authorities designated for this purpose.Transmission of requests for extradition and any communication thereto shall beeffected between the authorities designated by the Parties. 17 This requirement shallbe without prejudice to the right of a Party to require that such requests and communicationsbe addressed to it through the diplomatic channel.] 18“[Articles 11, 12 and 13 were merged into new article 10]”Fifth session: 4-15 October 1999Notes by the Secretariat1. The version of article 10 contained in document A/AC.254/4/Rev.1 remainedunchanged in the intermediate drafts of the convention (A/AC.254/4/Revs.2-4).Rolling text (A/AC.254/4/Rev.5)“Article 1019, 20, 21“Extradition16Several delegations noted that this provision was based on the corresponding provision in the 1988 Convention, but thatin the latter the provision concerned mutual assistance. They noted that the use of central authorities instead of diplomatic channelsfor the purpose of extradition, as well as the designation of several authorities for that purpose, might be problematic.17Several delegations proposed that reference should be made to the possibility of using modern means of communicationin the transmission of requests. One delegation proposed that, if any provisions on the consideration of extradition wereincluded in the convention, the corresponding article in the Model Treaty on Extradition (General Assembly resolution 45/116,annex) should be used. Two delegations proposed that the issue of interim arrest in anticipation of extradition should be noted.Another delegation was of the view that the matter was sufficiently well covered in current extradition practice.18Several delegations supported the transfer of this paragraph to the present article from a separate article that hadappeared in document A/AC.254/4. Some delegations, however, were of the view that it should be combined with the correspondingprovision on central authorities in article 14 (Mutual legal assistance) and placed in a separate article entitled“Transmission of requests for extradition and mutual assistance”, to precede the articles on those issues (see, for example,the proposal submitted by New Zealand contained in document A/AC.254/L.41). One delegation was of the view that thisseparate article should more generally include provisions that were common to all forms of international judicial cooperation.19India had proposed (A/AC.254/L.43) the insertion following paragraph 10 of this article of a new paragraph dealingwith requests for extradition of the same person or persons. Following discussions on that proposal at the fifth sessionof the Ad Hoc Committee, India indicated that it would present at a subsequent session a new draft that would contain languagethat was less obligatory. That proposal was supported by the Syrian Arab Republic (see A/AC.254/L.66 and Corr.1).Several delegations noted, however, that in their view the subject was adequately covered in paragraph 5.20Italy had proposed (see A/AC.254/5/Add.8) the insertion of a new paragraph after paragraph 6 of this article to dealwith the extradition of persons sentenced in absentia. The proposed text was as follows:“1. The fact that a judgement has been issued in absentia shall not be a ground for refusal if it appears that thecase has been tried with the same guarantees as when a defendant is present and if one of the following has occurred:“(a) The defendant, having knowledge of the trial, has deliberately avoided being arrested; or“(b) The defendant, having been regularly summoned, has deliberately failed to appear at the trial.“2. When such conditions are not met, extradition shall in any case be granted if the requesting State givesassurance, deemed satisfactory by the requested State, that the person whose extradition is sought shall be entitled toa new trial protecting his or her rights of defence.”That proposal was supported by the Syrian Arab Republic (see A/AC.254/L.66). Following discussion at the fifth sessionof the Ad Hoc Committee, Italy indicated that it would present a revised version of its proposal at a subsequent session ofthe Ad Hoc Committee.21Poland had proposed (see A/AC.254/5/Add.7) the insertion of three new paragraphs at the end of this article to dealwith jurisdictional issues, the exception of fiscal and political offences and the double criminality requirement (for the latter,see also footnote 23 below). Following the discussion at the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Poland stated thatit would take into account the observations and comments of delegations, especially regarding the deletion of references topolitical offences, and present a reformulated version of its proposal.