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

152 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crimepolitical opinions or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to thatperson’s position for any of these reasons. 26“7. States Parties shall endeavour to expedite extradition procedures and tosimplify evidentiary requirements relating thereto in respect of any offence to whichthis article applies.“7 bis. States Parties shall consider surrendering to each other, subject to theirdomestic law, under speedy and simplified procedures, any person sought for the purposeof extradition, subject to the agreement of the requested State and the consentof that person, provided that the consent has been expressed voluntarily and in fullawareness of the consequences. The requested State shall afford that person the rightto legal counsel. 27“8. Subject to the provisions of its domestic law and its extradition treaties,the requested State Party may, upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrantand are urgent and at the request of the requesting Party, take a person whose extraditionis sought and who is present in its territory into custody or take other appropriatemeasures to ensure his or her presence at extradition proceedings.“9. (a) The State Party in the territory of which the offender or the allegedoffender is found shall, in cases where this [Convention] [article] applies, if it doesnot extradite that person [for the purpose of prosecution], 28 be obliged, at the requestof the State Party seeking extradition, whether or not the offence was committed inits territory, to submit the case without undue delay to its competent authorities forthe purpose of prosecution, [provided that it has established jurisdiction over such26As indicated above, some delegations suggested that a request for extradition could be refused if the offence in questionwas punishable by capital punishment in the requesting State (see, for example, the proposal submitted by Ukraine(A/AC.254/L.80) at the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee). One delegation opposed such a provision and noted thatparagraph 5, on the statutory conditions for extradition, would be sufficient. UNHCR further requested that a paragraphshould be incorporated in the draft convention that would prohibit extradition for the purposes of the convention in casesof “political offences”. UNHCR suggested the following wording: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respectof which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offence, an offence related thereto or an ordinarycriminal offence prosecuted for political reasons.” One delegation noted that it was prepared to allow such an exception,but not in the case of heinous offences. Poland suggested that for the purposes of extradition, the offences established inarticles 3, 4 and 4 ter of the draft convention should not be considered political offences or regarded as politically motivated,without prejudice to the constitutional principles and basic concepts of the domestic legal systems of States parties (seeA/AC.254/5/Add.7). At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, China proposed the insertion of the following provision:“Before refusing extradition pursuant to this paragraph, the requested State Party shall consult with the requesting StateParty to provide it with ample opportunity to present its opinions and to provide information relevant to its allegation.” Atthe fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, the United States stated that this provision should be formulated in such a wayas not to create additional grounds for refusal that would apply to extradition treaties already in force that would permitextradition for the offence in question. The drafting would need to be considered further. Lithuania was of the opinion thatparagraph 6 should provide a definition of the term “prejudice”, since that term might be used in two senses, to mean either“an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason” or “any preconceivedopinion or feeling, either favourable or unfavourable”. Enforcement in the convention according to the latter meaning of theterm, and thus establishment of the right of States parties to refuse extradition on the grounds that the State requesting extraditionmight impose an unreasonably mild punishment on the offender, would be a risky though progressive step towardslimiting even further the possibilities for members of organized criminal groups to find a “safe haven” (seeA/AC.254/5/Add.9).27At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, this paragraph, based on a proposal initially submitted by France(see A/AC.254/L.47), followed by a proposal submitted by Australia, France and Sweden (A/AC.254/L.72), was inserted onthe understanding that its drafting should be improved. For example, Ireland proposed the inclusion of a reference to givingconsent before a judicial authority, while several other delegations suggested that it should be made clear that consentwould refer to the simplified procedures and not to the principle of extradition. China indicated that it had legal difficultiesin accepting the inclusion of the paragraph. The Syrian Arab Republic proposed its deletion.28At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, three options were presented with regard to this point. In option 1,the phrase “solely on the basis of his or her nationality” would be inserted here (see, for example, the proposal submittedby France (A/AC.254/L.47) at the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee). According to option 2, the phrase “on theground that the person whose extradition is sought is its own national or that a type of punishment that does not exist inthe requested Party may be imposed on that person in the requesting Party” would be inserted here (see A/AC.254/L.75).According to option 3, neither of the above phrases would be inserted here (see A/AC.254/L.34 and A/AC.254/L.64).