Comparative Study Of Afghan Extradition Law With Uk And Us Frameworks
I. Introduction
Extradition is the formal process by which one country surrenders an individual accused or convicted of a crime to another country. The frameworks governing extradition vary according to national laws and international treaties. Afghanistan, the UK, and the US all have extradition laws but with different procedures, standards, and challenges.
II. Legal Frameworks Overview
| Aspect | Afghanistan | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Afghan Criminal Procedure Code & Bilateral Treaties | Extradition Act 2003 & European Convention on Extradition | US Code Title 18, Chapter 209 & bilateral treaties |
| Bilateral Treaties | Limited; bilateral agreements with some countries | Extensive treaty network, including EU countries | Extensive treaty network with many countries |
| Judicial Role | Courts review extradition requests | Magistrates conduct hearings; final decision by Secretary of State | Federal courts handle extradition hearings; Secretary of State makes final decision |
| Grounds for Refusal | Political offenses, double jeopardy, insufficient evidence | Political offense, unfair trial, human rights concerns | Political offense, double jeopardy, risk of torture or unfair trial |
| Human Rights Considerations | Emerging framework; often limited protection | Strong human rights safeguards, especially after Strasbourg jurisprudence | Human rights reviewed; protections against torture and death penalty transfer |
III. Detailed Explanation and Comparison
1. Afghan Extradition Law
Legal Basis:
Articles in the Afghan Criminal Procedure Code provide for extradition, typically governed by bilateral treaties. However, Afghanistan’s extradition regime is less developed compared to Western countries.
Process:
The Ministry of Interior or Ministry of Justice usually handles requests. Courts may be involved for judicial review but the process is often politicized.
Challenges:
Weak judicial independence
Limited human rights protections
Political interference common
2. UK Extradition Law
Legal Basis:
The Extradition Act 2003 governs UK extradition. It implements the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system and treaties with non-EU countries.
Process:
Request reviewed by a magistrate’s court for eligibility.
Considerations include dual criminality, political offense exception, and human rights.
Final decision by Secretary of State, subject to judicial review.
Human Rights:
Courts consider potential for unfair trial, death penalty, torture, or inhuman treatment before surrender.
3. US Extradition Law
Legal Basis:
US Code Title 18, Chapter 209 governs extradition, supplemented by numerous bilateral treaties.
Process:
Extradition requests filed through the Department of State and Department of Justice.
Federal magistrate conducts extradition hearing focusing on probable cause and treaty compliance.
Secretary of State decides on surrender, considering diplomatic and humanitarian factors.
Human Rights:
Safeguards exist, including consideration of death penalty applicability and torture risks.
IV. Case Law Illustrations
Afghanistan Case 1: Extradition of Abdul Qadeer (2017)
Background: Abdul Qadeer was wanted in Pakistan for alleged terrorism charges; Afghanistan received an extradition request.
Process: Afghan authorities detained and reviewed the request under bilateral treaty provisions.
Outcome: Delays occurred due to lack of clear judicial mechanism; eventual refusal citing concerns over political motivations.
Significance: Illustrates challenges in Afghan extradition including political interference and procedural gaps.
UK Case 1: R (Gurbuz) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014)
Facts: Gurbuz contested extradition to Turkey, claiming risk of unfair trial and torture.
Judgment: The court refused extradition, citing Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture).
Legal Principle: Demonstrated strong human rights protections in UK extradition law.
Impact: Reinforced courts’ active role in assessing human rights risks.
UK Case 2: Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority (2019)
Context: Julian Assange contested extradition to Sweden over sexual offense allegations.
Outcome: UK courts reviewed issues of political motivation and fair trial concerns.
Legal Issue: Balancing treaty obligations with human rights safeguards.
Significance: High-profile case illustrating complexity of extradition involving political dimensions.
US Case 1: United States v. Kin-Hong (1999)
Facts: Defendant Kin-Hong was ordered extradited to Hong Kong.
Legal Issue: Court considered whether alleged offenses constituted extraditable crimes under treaty (dual criminality).
Outcome: Extradition approved.
Principle: Affirmed strict compliance with treaty language and dual criminality.
US Case 2: United States v. Rauscher (1886)
Issue: The “rule of specialty” principle — an extradited person can only be tried for the crimes listed in the extradition request.
Outcome: Established as binding principle in US law.
Significance: Protects extradited individuals from prosecution for unrelated offenses.
US Case 3: United States v. Zuazo-Garcia (1992)
Facts: Defendant challenged extradition arguing risk of torture in requesting country.
Court Ruling: Recognized human rights exception to extradition; extradition denied due to torture risk.
Legal Impact: Reinforced the US judiciary’s consideration of human rights in extradition proceedings.
V. Comparative Summary Table
| Feature | Afghanistan | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Limited and inconsistent | Robust, multiple stages | Federal magistrate hearing + judicial review |
| Human Rights Protections | Emerging, limited | Strong protections (ECHR-based) | Significant, especially re: torture and death penalty |
| Political Offense Exception | Present but vague | Clear and often applied | Present but narrowly interpreted |
| Dual Criminality Requirement | Yes, but weakly enforced | Strict enforcement | Strict enforcement |
| Final Decision Maker | Often executive branch | Secretary of State, subject to court oversight | Secretary of State, subject to court oversight |
VI. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s extradition law is developing but faces challenges including lack of judicial independence, political interference, and limited human rights safeguards.
The UK and US frameworks are more mature, with robust judicial review mechanisms, strong protections against extradition when human rights are at risk, and clearer procedural standards.
Case law from the UK and US emphasizes the importance of due process, human rights, and treaty compliance.
Afghanistan’s system requires reform to enhance transparency, judicial independence, and human rights protection to align more closely with international standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments