States` Agreement to Return Criminals
In 1987, the court overturned its decision under Dennison. The case involved an Iowaner, Ronald Calder, who beat a couple near Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The husband survived, but the wife, who was eight months pregnant, did not. After the incident, Calder was charged with murder and released on bail. Released on bail, Ronald Calder fled to his home state of Iowa. In May 1981, the Governor of Puerto Rico filed a petition with the Governor of Iowa for the extradition of Ronald Calder to face murder charges. The Governor of Iowa denied the application and the Governor of Puerto Rico filed a petition with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for a writ of mandamus. The court dismissed it and ruled that Kentucky v. Dennison, the governor of Iowa, was not required to return Calder. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld this. The Supreme Court overturned its existing precedent and ruled unanimously that federal courts actually had the power to execute a writ of mandamus and that Kentucky v. Dennison was overwhelmed.
The decision whether or not to authorize extradition by the requested State constitutes, inter alia, an exercise in balance between the interests of the requesting State in obtaining justice over accused persons, the interests of the requested State in retaining control over persons currently in its territory and the rights of extradited persons. [46] Extradition raises human rights concerns in determining this balance with respect to the extradited person. States provide for the recognition of these rights, both in bilateral agreements and through the State`s 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 regional, the European Convention on Human Rights has also been invoked as an obstacle to 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. People who work with a prosecutor may try to include a “no-extradition” clause in their plea agreements. These formal or informal agreements may take effect in the courts. If a foreign country subsequently requests the extradition of the person, the United States faces the unpleasant dilemma of breaking its solemn word either to the person concerned or to his contractual partner. Geisser`s petition, 627 F.2d 745 (5. Cir. 1980), describes the enormous practical problems of solving such a dilemma.
Related issues involve agreements with potential witnesses to prevent or delay their removal. Because of the sensitivity of kidnapping defendants overseas, prosecutors are not allowed to take steps to obtain custody of people outside the United States (by government officials or the use of individuals such as bounty hunters or private investigators) through Alvarez-Machain-type returns without the prior approval of the Department of Justice. Prosecutors should consult with OIA before conducting such a transaction. If a prosecutor expects a defendant to be able to claim that his return was unlawful, he or she must consult with OIA prior to such a return. One concept related to extradition that has a significant impact on transnational criminal law is that of aut dedere aut judicare. [2] This maxim represents the principle that states must either surrender a criminal to a state that wants to prosecute the criminal or prosecute the perpetrator in its own courts. Many international agreements contain provisions on aut dedere aut judicare. These include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the United Nations Convention on Combating Terrorist Bombings and the United Nations. Convention against Corruption, Convention against Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. [2] The consensus in international law is that a state is not obliged to extradite an alleged criminal to a foreign state because a principle of sovereignty is that each state has legal authority over the people within its borders. .