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

Part One. Article 16 151“1. This article shall apply to the offences covered by this Convention. 22“2. Each of the offences to which this article applies shall be deemed to beincluded as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between StatesParties. The Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences inevery extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 23“3. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of atreaty receives a request for extradition from another Party with which it has no extraditiontreaty, it may 24 consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition inrespect of any offence to which this article applies. Parties that require detailed legislationin order to use this Convention as a legal basis for extradition shall considerenacting such legislation as may be necessary. [States Parties shall declare whetherthey intend to apply this paragraph.]“4. States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence ofa treaty shall recognize offences to which this article applies as extraditable offencesbetween themselves.“5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law ofthe requested State Party or by applicable extradition treaties, including the groundsupon which the requested Party may refuse extradition.“6. In considering requests pursuant to this article, the requested State mayrefuse to comply with such requests if it has substantial grounds for believing thatthe request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person onaccount of that person’s [gender,] 25 race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or22At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, additional paragraphs proposed by the Netherlands were supported byseveral delegations. Some other delegations suggested that the provisions of those paragraphs should be clarified. The Netherlandsstated that it would present reformulated versions of the paragraphs at a subsequent session. The paragraphs read as follows:“1 bis. State Parties shall apply this article also if the request for extradition includes several serious offences, punishableunder the laws of the requesting and the requested States Parties by deprivation of liberty for at least [...] years,although some of the offences are other than those envisaged in paragraph 1 of this article.“1 ter. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and [1 bis] of this article, States Parties may apply this article also to seriousoffences punishable under the laws of the requesting and the requested States Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximumperiod of at least [...] years or by a more severe penalty.”For the reformulated versions of these paragraphs, see A/AC.254/5/Add.20.23As indicated above, one delegation noted the need for a paragraph on the application of the principle of double criminalityto extradition cases. Australia proposed the insertion of the following text (see A/AC.254/L.48):“(...) In considering a request for extradition pursuant to this article for an offence established under article 3, paragraph1 (b), of the Convention, the requested State Party may refuse to comply with the request if the acts or omissions constitutingthe offence would not be punishable under the law of the requested State Party by imprisonment for a maximumperiod of at least one year or by a more severe penalty.“(...) For the purpose of this article, in determining whether the acts or omissions constituting the offence would be punishableunder the law of the requested State Party, it shall not matter whether:“(a) The laws of the States Parties place the acts and omissions constituting the offence within the same category ofoffence or denominate the offence by the same terminology;“(b) Under the laws of the States Parties the constituent elements of the offence differ, it being understood that the totalityof the acts or omissions as presented by the requesting State Party shall be taken into account.”24At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, some delegations stated their preference for the more mandatory wording“shall” over the more discretionary wording “may”.25Several delegations noted that it was their understanding that the term “gender” referred to men and women. The inclusionof this term as a possible basis for discrimination might therefore depend on its clarification.