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

Part One. Article 16 155“3. 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. 37“4. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of atreaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it hasno extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention the legal basis for extraditionin respect of any offence to which this article applies.“5. States Parties that make extradition conditional on the existence of a treatyshall:“(a) At the time of deposit of their instrument of ratification, acceptance orapproval of this Convention, inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations ofwhether they will take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extraditionwith other States Parties to this Convention; and“(b) When they do not take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperationon extradition, [endeavour to conclude] [consider concluding] treaties on extraditionwith other States Parties to this Convention in order to implement this article.“6. 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.“7. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law ofthe requested State Party or by applicable extradition treaties, including, inter alia,conditions in relation to the minimum penalty requirement for extradition and thegrounds upon which the requested Party may refuse extradition.“8. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligationto extradite if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that therequest has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on accountof that person’s sex, race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinions orthat compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position forany of these reasons. 3837At the informal consultations held during the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Pakistan expressed reservationsregarding this paragraph and suggested that it should be deleted.38Some delegations suggested that this paragraph should be deleted. At the informal consultations held during theeighth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Italy proposed the insertion after paragraph 8 of the following provision:“Without prejudice to the use of other grounds for refusal, the requested State may refuse to extradite on theground that a decision has been issued in absentia only if it is not proved that the case has been tried with the sameguarantees as when a defendant is present and he or she, having knowledge of the trial, has deliberately avoided beingarrested or has deliberately failed to appear at the trial. However, when such proof is not given, extradition may notbe refused if the requesting State gives assurance, deemed satisfactory by the requested State, that the person whoseextradition is sought shall be entitled to a new trial protecting his or her rights of defence.”In the discussion that followed, several delegations expressed serious concerns about whether this provision could be compatiblewith the fundamental principles of their legal systems. Italy undertook to consult further with other interested delegationsand to explore the possibility of reformulating the text in order to meet all concerns. At the informal consultationsheld during the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Poland proposed (A/AC.254/L.159) the insertion after paragraph8 of the following provision:“For the purposes of extradition under this article, the offences established in articles 3, 4, 4 ter and 17 bis ofthis Convention shall not be considered fiscal offences, without prejudice to basic concepts of the domestic legal systemsof States Parties.”That proposal might be reviewed in conjunction with article 14. Luxembourg and Switzerland expressed concerns about theinclusion of such a provision in article 10.