[PASSED] Extradition Rights

[Sedgistan]

~ IN QUEUE~

Extradition Rights
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant| Proposed by: Knootoss

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to a fair trial;

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ruled that Member States may not extradite a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture;

HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law;

ENTITLES all persons inside the jurisdiction of World Assembly Member States to a legal appeal in the nation from which extradition is requested;

DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established;

FURTHER DECLARES that a legal appeal against extradition must also be accepted if any of the following are true:
a) The nation requesting extradition cannot provide evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove the act for which extradition is sought;
b) The act for which extradition is sought does not constitute a crime in the nation from which extradition is requested;
c) The crime for which extradition is sought is of a political nature;
d) The punishment for the crime for which extradition is sought would not be administered in the nation from which extradition is requested;
e) The nation from which extradition is requested claims jurisdiction over the crime for which extradition is sought;

CLARIFIES that the nation from which extradition is requested may also refuse to extradite for other reasons, insofar as such refusal does not contradict existing World Assembly resolutions;

ENCOURAGES Member States to enact legislation which facilitates the prosecution of cross-border crime.

Helpful wikipedia links:

• Extradition.
• Components:
  
  • Prima facie (clause a)
  • Political crime (clause c)

This resolution is in queue! Thank you for endorsing it!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Looks promising, honoured ambassador. Ms. Harper may support this.

[Knootoss]

I am not yet sure whether extradition should also require the presence of 'prima facie' evidence. I am inclined to think that it should.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I am not yet sure whether extradition should also require the presence of 'prima facie' evidence. I am inclined to think that it should.

(Image)
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

I think that requests for extradition can be rejected if it is not possible to prove that the crime concerned took place. That would win more votes.

[Knootoss]

Just going to hear out the vox populi on it here.

Also added: "ENCOURAGES Member States to enact legislation which facilitates the prosecution of cross-border crime."

[Darenjo]

It looks pretty good. Except that I'm confused on the meaning of the second-to-last clause.

[Knootoss]

A clarification that states may still set other (stricter) standards for an appeals hearing.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"The Monikian government will definitely lend this support."

[Knootoss]

Any spelling/grammar/legality naggings?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Sionis Prioratus]

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ruled that Member States may not extradite a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture;

HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law;

Preambulatory, but House of Cards still. The word "ruled" only aggravates the situation.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I may be a bit nitpicky, but individuals may be a better term for persons.

[Knootoss]

HAVING PREVIOUSLY ruled that Member States may not extradite a person to a jurisdiction where there is probable cause to believe they would be subjected to torture;

HAVING FURTHER ruled that nations must facilitate the extradition of those suspected of certain severe crimes, subject to national and international law;

Preambulatory, but House of Cards still. The word "ruled" only aggravates the situation.

Yours,

OOC: Hmm. I talked about this issue when I ran through the entire draft with Mouse, and we figured someone would speak out about it. As is, it is simply a description of something that happened in the past. Just like my male circumcision resolution "acknowledges" that in the past, there have been attempts to legislate on the subject. The resolution does not in any way depend on that ruling. However, it does a) name precedent, i.e. something similar has been done before b) explain why torture isn't part of the resolution now.

[Knootoss]

I may be a bit nitpicky, but individuals may be a better term for persons.

Why?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I may be a bit nitpicky, but individuals may be a better term for persons.

Why?


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

According to Amb. Nikolas Eberhart on this post, he recognised that most people do equate "persons" with the sapient specie(s) of a given nation, but there is a possible loophole. Using "persons" may be okay but I'll talk to the ambassador on IRC if I can for a clarification n the suggestion of the use of such terms.

[Knootoss]

OOC: I think I'll keep 'person' here. It goes both ways, as you cannot put a non-person on trial.

[Moronist Decisions]

Not bad, our nation supports this in general.

We support requiring prima facie evidence that the crime has occurred before extradition.

OOC: I think I'll keep 'person' here. It goes both ways, as you cannot put a non-person on trial.

You can put a corporation on trial, however, you can't extradite them.

- I would say that we should require the nation that requests extradition to pay for the costs of arrest, detention, and extradition.

- There needs to also be an exemption for diplomats for extradition, otherwise it may contradict the Diplomat Protection Act.

[Knootoss]

You can put a corporation on trial, however, you can't extradite them.

An extradition request for a corporation would be rejected on those grounds, then.

- I would say that we should require the nation that requests extradition to pay for the costs of arrest, detention, and extradition.

I saw this in the Bears Armed resolution. In principle, I would agree. However it seems mini-managing to include this in the resolution. This can be arranged in bilateral treaties.

- There needs to also be an exemption for diplomats for extradition, otherwise it may contradict the Diplomat Protection Act.

Would it? It'd be considered part of "other reasons", as far as I can see.

[Moronist Decisions]

- I would say that we should require the nation that requests extradition to pay for the costs of arrest, detention, and extradition.

I saw this in the Bears Armed resolution. In principle, I would agree. However it seems mini-managing to include this in the resolution. This can be arranged in bilateral treaties.

True. But since, at least based on my reading of the proposal as it stands (by default), evidently this is the responsibility of the extraditing nation. I would say that it needs to be "permitted", at the minimum.

The value I see in this resolution, in my opinion, is to provide a framework for extradition in cases where no bilateral treaty exists.

[Knootoss]

This resolution requires the existence of a bilateral or multilateral treaty, in order to facilitate extradition. The purpose of this resolution is the promotion of human rights, not judicial expediency. Resolutions mandating that nations drag their own people off the street, handcuff them, and put them on a plane to some nation that they may not at all have relations with, nor know much about, are the purview of others in this assembly.

[Embolalia]

Very nicely done.

If you're really concerned about a HoC violation (which I'm not sure you have...), you could possibly note it as "currently existing international law" or something, and perhaps recognize the possibility said law could be repealed.

I would also support the "prima facie" clause, personally. The sensible delegates, I imagine, will also agree. It's worth noting the crazy people won't, so it's really a matter of whether you need their support.

-E. Rory Hywel

[Knootoss]

Very nicely done.

If you're really concerned about a HoC violation (which I'm not sure you have...), you could possibly note it as "currently existing international law" or something, and perhaps recognize the possibility said law could be repealed.

I would also support the "prima facie" clause, personally. The sensible delegates, I imagine, will also agree. It's worth noting the crazy people won't, so it's really a matter of whether you need their support.

-E. Rory Hywel

Thanks. I'm not really concerned about House of Cards, though one of the Powers-that-be can feel free to correct me. This is merely a nod to previous legislation on a similar topic, without actually mentioning them by name, or requiring their continued validity as an intrinsic part of the resolution. This proposal stands alone. As I understand House of Cards, a Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all the referenced resolutions were struck from existence. This is perfectly possible with this proposal.

Similarly, this draft avoids contradicting the ICC, since the ICC requires extradition is to an international body, not to member nations.

Since 'prima facie' seems popular, I'll add it.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Sionis Prioratus]

I wish to announce my full supoort to this well-thought put piece of legislation. May it soon find its place in the books.

Yours,

[Knootoss]

Added, and changed the order and wording of the clauses slightly, for clarity:

FURTHER DECLARES that a legal appeal against extradition must also be accepted if any of the following are true:
a) The nation requesting extradition cannot provide evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove the act for which extradition is sought;
b) The act for which extradition is sought does not constitute a crime in the nation from which extradition is requested;
c) The crime for which extradition is sought is of a political nature;
d) The punishment for the crime for which extradition is sought would not be administered in the nation from which extradition is requested;
e) The nation from which extradition is requested claims jurisdiction over the crime for which extradition is sought;

[Knootoss]

OOC: After some comments from a legally schooled friend I would like to submit the following supplement for commentary:

"DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established;" [supplement in italics].

This will explicitly allow member nations to to establish a legal mechanism which states the conditions where extradition is allowed, thereby removing the necessity of negotiating treaties with everyone.

[Mousebumples]

"DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established;" [supplement in italics].

As I've stated on IRC, I support this draft. I especially like the latest edition of the above-quoted clause for the following reasons:

• It allows for nations to create a list of minimums, in the event that some of the present WA law is ever repealed (i.e. no extradition to nations where the individual is likely to be tortured, no extradition in case of the death penalty - particularly for more minor offenses, etc.)
• It allows for continued extradition in the instance that a given nation's government is in flux (due to an uprising, change in leadership, change in type from monarchy to democracy, etc.) and a new treaty has not been formally agreed upon.
• Generally allows for more national flexibility/sovereignty. (And, yes, my support on those grounds is likely shocking to many of my fellow ambassadors. )

Full support as presently written!

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island