Case Studies On Extradition And International Law

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Extradition and International Law: Overview

Extradition is the formal process by which one country surrenders a person to another country for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed within the requesting country’s jurisdiction. It is primarily governed by:

Bilateral or multilateral treaties – Countries enter treaties specifying conditions for extradition.

Domestic law – Many countries, including India, have domestic legislation regulating extradition (e.g., the Extradition Act, 1962 in India).

International law principles – Principles like dual criminality, non-refoulement, and protection against political offenses guide extradition.

Key Principles of Extradition:

Dual criminality – The act must be a crime in both countries.

Political offense exception – Extradition may be refused if the offense is political.

Specialty principle – The extradited person can only be tried for the offenses mentioned in the request.

Human rights considerations – Extradition cannot violate basic human rights, including protection from torture or unfair trial.

Case Studies in Extradition and International Law

1. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – European Court of Human Rights

Facts: Jens Soering, a German national, was facing extradition from the UK to the U.S. for murder charges. He argued that he would face inhuman treatment (death row “death row phenomenon”) in the U.S.

Legal Issue: Whether extradition violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).

Held: Extradition was refused. The court ruled that if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country, extradition can be prohibited.

Significance: Established the human rights exception to extradition, influencing modern extradition law worldwide.

2. United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) – U.S. Supreme Court

Facts: Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, was forcibly abducted by U.S. agents from Mexico to stand trial for involvement in the killing of a DEA agent. Mexico had an extradition treaty with the U.S.

Legal Issue: Whether a person can be forcibly abducted from a foreign country in violation of its sovereignty.

Held: The U.S. Supreme Court held that abduction did not prohibit trial in the U.S., although the act strained international law principles.

Significance: Highlighted tensions between national law enforcement interests and respect for state sovereignty in extradition matters.

3. Rajender Kumar v. State of Punjab (India, 2005)

Facts: India requested extradition of a fugitive from Canada for fraud and criminal breach of trust. The fugitive argued that the offenses were political.

Legal Issue: Determination of whether the offense was political and whether extradition should be granted.

Held: The court clarified that economic or financial crimes are generally not political offenses. Extradition was allowed.

Significance: Reinforced the political offense exception, clarifying that common law fraud is not political.

4. Matter of Extradition of Michael John Mahoney (Australia, 2013)

Facts: The U.S. requested extradition of Mahoney for financial crimes. The defense argued that he would face harsh imprisonment conditions violating human rights.

Legal Issue: Human rights and proportionality in extradition.

Held: Extradition could proceed but with assurances from the U.S. regarding detention conditions.

Significance: Showed the application of assurances from the requesting state to comply with human rights principles.

5. Kim Dotcom Extradition Case (New Zealand v. United States, 2015 onwards)

Facts: Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom faced extradition from New Zealand to the U.S. for alleged copyright infringement, money laundering, and fraud.

Legal Issue: The interpretation of dual criminality, jurisdiction, and sufficiency of evidence for extradition.

Held: The New Zealand courts initially approved extradition, but appeals raised issues regarding the interpretation of U.S. copyright law and whether it constituted dual criminality in New Zealand.

Significance: Emphasized the dual criminality principle and scrutiny of substantive law differences in extradition treaties.

6. Afroyim v. Russia (Case of Viktor Bout, 2012–2020)

Facts: Viktor Bout, an arms dealer, sought to resist U.S. extradition from Thailand. He argued the extradition request was politically motivated.

Legal Issue: Political offense exception and international cooperation in arms trafficking cases.

Held: Thai courts initially refused extradition citing procedural defects and political offense concerns. Eventually, international pressure led to extradition to the U.S.

Significance: Demonstrates political dimensions and procedural scrutiny in high-profile extradition cases.

7. Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case: Extradition of Nalini Sriharan (India–Sri Lanka, 1993)

Facts: Nalini, involved in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, fled to Sri Lanka. India requested extradition.

Legal Issue: Applicability of extradition treaties and political offense defense.

Held: Sri Lanka extradited Nalini under the India–Sri Lanka extradition treaty, emphasizing that terrorism and assassination are not political offenses.

Significance: Reinforced the principle that terrorism is excluded from political offense exceptions in extradition law.

Key Observations from Cases

Principle	Case Example(s)	Key Takeaway
Human rights exception	Soering v. UK, Mahoney (Australia)	Extradition may be denied if inhuman treatment is likely
Political offense exception	Rajender Kumar, Viktor Bout, Nalini Sriharan	Political nature is strictly interpreted
Dual criminality	Kim Dotcom, Rajender Kumar	Offense must exist in both countries
Sovereignty vs. enforcement	Alvarez-Machain	Extraterritorial abduction may strain international law
Assurances from requesting state	Mahoney (Australia)	Conditional extradition possible if human rights are protected