Criminal Agreement Between Countries

Under the Extradition Act, extradition cases are dealt with formally by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth. Exceptional agreements are in force with New Zealand, with extradition issues largely dealt with from police to police and not between national governments. Less serious problems may arise due to the diversity of crime qualifications. In the United States, for example, crossing national borders is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise, crimes such as murder, etc., are dealt with by state governments, except in certain circumstances such as the murder of a federal official) [citation required]. It is understandable that this transport clause is absent from the legislation of many countries. Extradition contracts or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often contain a language that states that these criteria should not be taken into account when verifying whether the offence is a crime committed in the country from which extradition should take place. The issues are often complex when the country whose suspects must be extradited is a democratic country with the rule of law. In these countries, the final decision on extradition usually rests with the national executive (Prime Minister, President or equivalent). However, these countries generally allow extradition defendants who use the law, with several appeals.

These can significantly slow down procedures. On the one hand, this can create unjustified international difficulties, because public opinion, politicians and journalists in the applicant country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which the extradition is to take place, when that executive may not have the power to expel the suspect or suspect state alone. On the other hand, some delays or the lack of willingness of local enforcement agencies to try a good extradition case on behalf of the requesting state may be due to the lack of willingness to extradite the country`s executive. In accordance with Article 17 of the agreement, the EU and the United States carried out a review of the operation of the agreement in 2015-2016. The revision concludes that the agreement has generally been a success. The review process has also resulted in recommendations to improve the practical functioning of mutual legal aid relations between the EU and the US, including a better exchange of knowledge between practitioners about the other party`s laws and processes and better use of technology to speed up the transmission of applications and evidence and general communication. Globalisation and the increasing mobility of people in the EU are creating new opportunities for cross-border crime. This is why mutual legal assistance and extradition agreements are essential to put an end to cross-border crime. The determination of the requested state`s authorization of extradition is, among other things, a balance between the interests of the requesting state`s search for justice in respect of those prosecuted, the interests of the state required, the control of those currently detained on its territory and the rights of those extradited. [46] Extradition raises human rights concerns when it comes to determining that balance with respect to the extraditer. States provide for the recognition of these rights, expressed both in bilateral agreements and possibly by state obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is particularly relevant for extradition.

[6] Although at the regional level, the European Convention on Human Rights has also been invoked as a ban on extradition in a number of cases within its jurisdiction, and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have been a useful source of development in this area.