Page images


Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

1. When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

2. When the person whose surrender is sought has been tried and acquitted or has undergone his punishment in a third State for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

3. When the prosecution or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the requesting Party or would be barred by lapse of time according to the laws of the requested Party had the offense been committed in its territory.

4. No person shall be surrendered if the offense for which his extradition is requested is of a political character, or if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this article, the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall decide.

5. The provisions of the first sentence of paragraph 4 of this Article shall not be applicable to:

a. A murder or other serious assault, or an attempt to commit such an offense, except in open combat, against the life or physical integrity of a person to whom the requesting State has the duty according to international law to give special protection; or

b. The unlawful seizure of an aircraft engaged in commercial services and carrying passengers.


When the offense for which the extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting Party and the laws of the requested Party do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party provides such assurances as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.


When, at the time of the presentation of the request for extradition, the person whose extradition is requested is under the age of eighteen years and has permanent residence in the requested State and the competent authorities of that country determine that the extradition would prejudice the social readjustment and rehabilitation of that person, the requested State may suggest that the request for extradition be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor.


When the person whose extradition is requested is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested Party for an offense other than that for which extradition has been requested, his surrender may be deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings and the full execution of any punishment he may be or may have been awarded.


The determination that extradition based upon the request therefor should or should not be granted shall be made in accordance with the domestic law of the requested Party and the person whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use such remedies and recourses as are provided by such law.


The request for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel. The request shall be accompanied by a description of the person sought, a statement of the facts of the case, the text of the applicable laws of the requesting Party including the law defining the offense, the law prescribing the punishment for the offense, and the law relating to the limitation of the legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense.

When the request relates to a person who has not yet been convicted, it must also be accompanied by a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or other judicial officer of the requesting Party and by such evidence as, according to the laws of the requested

Party, would justify his arrest if the offense had been committed there, including evidence proving the person requested is the person to whom the warrant of arrest refers.

When the request relates to a person already convicted, it must be accompanied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, if any, passed against him in the territory of the requesting Party, by a statement showing how much of the sentence has not been served, and by evidence proving that the person requested is the person to whom the conviction refers.

The warrant of arrest and deposition or other evidence, given under oath, and the judicial documents establishing the existence of the conviction, or certified copies of these documents, shall be admitted in evidence in the examination of the request for extradition when, in the case of a request emanating from , they bear the signature or are accompanied by the attestation of a judge, magistrate or other official or are authenticated by the official seal of the Ministry of Justice and, in any case, are certified by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in or when, in the case of a request emanating from the United States, they are signed by or certified by a judge, magistrate or officer of the United States and they are sealed by the official seal of the Department of State.


In case of urgency a Contracting Party may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought pending the presentation of the request for extradition through the diplomatic channel. The application shall contain a description of the person sought, an indication of intention to request the extradition of the person sought and a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or a judgment of conviction against that person, and such further information, if any, as would be necessary to justify the issue of a warrant of arrest had the offense been committed, or the person sought been convicted, in the territory of the requested Party.

On receipt of such an application the requested Party shall take the necessary steps to secure the arrest of the person claimed.

A person arrested upon such an application shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of 45 days from the date of his arrest if a request for his extradition accompanied by the documents specified in Article X shall not have been received. However, this stipulation shall not prevent the institution of proceedings with a view to extraditing the person sought if the request is subsequently received.


If the requested Party requires additional evidence or information to enable it to decide on the request for extradition, such evidence or information shall be submitted to it within such time as that Party shall require.

If the person sought is under arrest and the additional evidence or information submitted as aforesaid is not sufficient or if such evidence or information is not received within the period specified by the requested Party, he shall be discharged from custody. However, such discharge shall not bar the requesting Party from submitting another request in respect of the same offense.


A person extradited under the present Convention shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting Party for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted nor be extradited by that Party to a third State unless:

1. He has left the territory of the requesting Party after his extradition and has voluntarily returned to it;

2. He has not left the territory of the requesting Party within 60 days after being free to do so; or

3. The requested Party has consented to his detention, trial, punishment or to his extradition to a third State for an offense other than that for which extradition was granted.

These stipulations shall not apply to offenses committed after the extradition.


A requested Party upon receiving two or more requests for the extradition of the same person either for the same offense, or for different offenses, shall determine to which of the requesting States it will extradite the person sought, taking into consideration the circumstances and particularly the possibility of a later extradition between the requesting States, the seriousness of each offense, the place where the

offense was committed, the nationality of the person sought, the dates upon which the requests were received and the provisions of any extradition agreements between the requested Party and other requesting State or States.


The requested Party shall promptly communicate to the requesting Party through the diplomatic channel the decision on the request for extradition.

If a warrant or order for the extradition of a person sought has been issued by the competent authority and he is not removed from the territory of the requested Party within such time as may be prescribed by the laws of that Party, he may be set at liberty and the requested Party may subsequently refuse to extradite that person for the same offense.


To the extent permitted under the law of the requested Party and subject to the rights of third parties, which shall be duly respected, all articles acquired as a result of the offense or which may be required as evidence shall, if found, be surrendered if extradition is granted.


The right to transport through the territory of one of the Contracting Parties a person surrendered to the other Contracting Party by a third State shall be granted on request made through the diplomatic channel provided that conditions are present which would warrant extradition of such person by the State of transit and reasons of public order are not opposed to the transit.

The Party to which the person has been extradited shall reimburse the Party through whose territory such person is transported for any expenses incurred by the latter in connection with such transportation.


Expenses related to the transportation of the person sought shall be paid by the requesting Party. The appropriate legal officers of the country in which the extradition proceedings take place shall, by all legal means within their power, assist the officers of the requesting Party before the respective judges and magistrates. No pecuniary claim, arising out of the arrest, detention, examination and surrender of persons sought under the terms of this Convention, shall be made by the requested Party against the requesting Party other than as specified in the second paragraph of this Article and other than for the lodging, maintenance and board of the person sought.

The legal officers, other officers of the requested Party, and court stenographers, if any, of the requested Party who shall, in the usual course of their duty, give assistance and who receive no salary or compensation other than specific fees for services performed, shall be entitled to receive from the requesting Party the usual payment for such acts or services performed by them in the same manner and to the same amount as though such acts or services had been performed in ordinary criminal proceedings under the laws of the country of which they are officers.


This Convention shall apply to offenses specified in Article II committed before as well as after the date this Convention enters into force: Provided, That no extradition shall be granted for an offense committed before the date this Convention enters into force which was not an offense under the laws of both countries at the time of its commission.


This Convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged in as soon as possible.

This Convention shall enter into force upon the exchange of ratifications. It may be terminated by either Contracting Party giving notice of termination to the other Contracting Party at any time and the termination shall be effective six months after the date of receipt of such notice.

§ 6

Protection of Human Rights

Western Hemisphere


Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, in an address to the Sixth Regular General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) at Santiago on June 8, 1976, proposed that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, an organ of the OAS, be given a stronger mandate and an enlarged staff and budget to investigate the status of human rights without having to wait for the submission of complaints. Excerpts from Secretary Kissinger's address follow:

One of the most compelling issues of our time, and one which calls for the concerted action of all responsible peoples and nations, is the necessity to protect and extend the fundamental rights of humanity.

The precious common heritage of our Western Hemisphere is the conviction that human beings are the subjects, not the objects, of public policy; that citizens must not become mere instruments of the state.

The central problem of government has always been to strike a just and effective balance between freedom and authority. When freedom degenerates into anarchy, the human personality becomes subject to arbitrary, brutal, and capricious forces. When the demand for order overrides all other considerations, man becomes a means and not an end, a tool of impersonal machinery. Clearly, some forms of human suffering are intolerable no matter what pressures nations may face or feel. Beyond that, all societies have an obligation to enable their people to fulfill their potentialities and live a life of dignity and self-respect.

Human rights are the very essence of a meaningful life, and human dignity is the ultimate purpose of government. No government can ignore terrorism and survive, but it is equally true that a government that tramples on the rights of its citizens denies the purpose of its existence.

The rights of man have been authoritatively identified both in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the OAS's American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. There will, of course, always be differences of view as to the precise extent of the obligations of government. But there are standards below which no government can fall without offending fundamental values-such as genocide, officially tolerated torture, mass imprisonment or murder, or comprehensive denials of basic rights to racial, religious, political, or ethnic groups. Any government engaging in such practices must face adverse international judgment.

The international community has created important institutions to deal with the challenge of human rights . . . the United

Nations, the International Court of Justice, the OAS, and the two Human Rights Commissions of the United Nations and the OAS. In Europe, an even more developed international institutional structure provides other useful precedents for our effort.

International law and experience have enabled the development of specific procedures to distinguish reasonable from arbitrary government action on, for example, the question of detention. These involve access to courts, counsel, and families; prompt release or charge; and, if the latter, fair and public trial. Where such procedures are followed, the risk and incidence of unintentional government error, of officially sanctioned torture, of prolonged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, are drastically reduced. Other important procedures are habeas corpus or amparo, judicial appeal, and impartial review of administrative actions. And there are the procedures available at the international level-appeal to, and investigation and recommendations by established independent bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an integral part of the OAS and a symbol of our dedication to the dignity of man.

The Inter-American Commission has built an impressive record of sustained, independent, and highly professional work since its establishment in 1960. Its importance as a primary procedural alternative in dealing with the recurrent human rights problem of this hemisphere is considerable.

The United States believes this Commission is one of the most important bodies of the Organization of American States. At the same time, it is a role which touches upon the most sensitive aspects of the national policies of each of the member governments. We must ensure that the Commission functions so that it cannot be manipulated for international politics in the name of human rights. We must also see to it that the Commission becomes an increasingly vital instrument of hemispheric cooperation in defense of human rights. The Commission deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, evenhandedness, and constructive potential.

... the two reports submitted to this General Assembly by the Commission. . . . are sobering documents, for they provide serious evidence of violations of elemental international standards of human rights.

In its annual report on human rights in the hemisphere, the Commission cites the rise of violence and speaks of the need to maintain order and protect citizens against armed attack. But it also upholds the defense of individual rights as a primordial function of the law and describes case after case of serious governmental actions in derogation of such rights.

A second report is devoted exclusively to the situation in Chile. We note the Commission's statement that the Government of Chile has cooperated with the Commission, and the Commission's conclusion that the infringement of certain fundamental rights in Chile has undergone a quantitative reduction since the last report. We must also point out that Chile has filed a comprehensive and responsive answer that sets forth a number of hopeful prospects which we hope will soon be fully implemented.

Nevertheless the Commission has asserted that violations con

« PreviousContinue »