1ProsecutionandExtradition

The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs

Committee on Crime Prevention

and Criminal Justice

Methods of Prosecution and Extradition

Rutgers Model United Nations

16-19 November 2006

Director: Andrew Silver

© 2006 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)

This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model

United Nations 2006. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more

information, please write us at [email protected]

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1

Background _________________________________________________________________ 2 Restorative Justice ________________________________________________________________ 7 Extradition ______________________________________________________________________ 8

Current Status ______________________________________________________________ 11 Extradition _____________________________________________________________________ 12

Key Positions _______________________________________________________________ 15 Regional Positions________________________________________________________________ 15

North America__________________________________________________________________________15 Europe________________________________________________________________________________16 Asia and the Pacific______________________________________________________________________17 Africa ________________________________________________________________________________19 Latin America and the Caribbean ___________________________________________________________19 Middle East ____________________________________________________________________________21

Non-Government Organizations ____________________________________________________ 22 Media Positions__________________________________________________________________ 23 Public Opinion __________________________________________________________________ 23

United States and North America ___________________________________________________________23 Europe________________________________________________________________________________24 Asia __________________________________________________________________________________24 Africa ________________________________________________________________________________25 Latin America __________________________________________________________________________25

Major Religious Viewpoints _______________________________________________________ 26 Summary___________________________________________________________________ 27

Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 28

Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 29

Works Referenced ___________________________________________________________ 35

Rutgers Model United Nations 2006 1

Introduction In the areas of prosecution and extradition, states need to dispense justice in a

prudent manner while maintaining respect for human rights. Sovereignty also plays a

role in the debate, as the international community attempts to ensure the viability and

effectiveness of humane judicial systems while lacking the ability to force if or how

states make reforms. States with inhumane judiciaries may not be willing to adapt to

international standards, citing their ability as a sovereign state to determine their own

policies. They note that a reduction in the severity of the criminal justice system to

afford more respect for human rights could actually lead to an increase in criminal

activity.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “fair and effective

criminal justice systems which ensure respect for the human rights of all those involved

are a prerequisite for combating criminality, both national and trans-national, and for

building societies based on the rule of law.”1 The efficacy and efficiency of criminal

justice systems has been at the heart of the mission of the United Nations since its

inception. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) explicitly lists

rights individuals are entitled to in relation to the dispensation of justice; however, in

order to deal with the complex issues associated with criminal justice reform, the United

Nations has sponsored numerous conferences to add to the rights provided in this

document, but also to address the manner in which justice can be meted. The first such

Crime Congress took place in Geneva in 1955. Although the conference specifically

dealt with the treatment of prisoners, subsequent meetings expanded on the goal of

effective, humane criminal justice systems.

Recent Crime Congresses in Vienna and Bangkok highlighted modern issues

associated with criminal justice systems and extradition treaties, and raised new concerns

regarding combating international crime. Participants at these Congresses again noted

1 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_prevention.html.


the importance of effective judicial systems that respect human rights, highlighting

especially the need for their establishment in post-conflict states. In areas emerging from

civil war or other forms of unrest, the establishment of a sound criminal justice system is

vital to stability and order. Delegates to the Crime Congresses also recognized the

increasing transnational dimension of crime. The spread of the Internet and the ease with

which criminals and criminal organizations are able to cross borders make it vital that

states work together to prosecute and extradite criminals and share information regarding

their activities. Providing model treaties on extradition to facilitate state agreements and

encouraging states to work cooperatively to solve transnational criminal issues, these

conferences have helped bring about change in criminal justice systems throughout the

world. They have also encouraged more research and development into the concept of

restorative justice, which includes replacing or supplementing traditional forms of

criminal justice with

mediation and meetings

between offenders and

victims of the crime.

They also make simplifying the extradition process a key goal in criminal justice reform,

raising the idea of potentially eliminating conventional extradition treaties in favor of

regional or international arrest warrants.

While many states have criminal justice systems that meet the standards set forth

by the United Nations, the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

remains committed to implementing more positive change. Programs in states such as

Nigeria, for example, are currently working to modernize and reform improper or

ineffective judicial standards.

Background While the establishment of strong criminal justice systems is of primary concern to

states and the United Nations, the organization also recognizes the need to protect basic

human rights while justice is being delivered. An Economic and Social Council

Restorative Justice: Restorative justice is a philosophical approach to responding to crime aimed at repairing the harm caused by a criminal act and restoring the balance in the community affected by the crime. Source: www.gov.bc.ca/prem/popt/service_plans/srv_pln/pssg/appen_a.htm


resolution concerning International Cooperation in Criminal Matters notes that “the

protection of human rights should not be considered inconsistent with effective

international cooperation in criminal matters.”2 Many of the fundamental rights

individuals enjoy can be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 5 through 11 of the UDHR clearly delineate the vision of the United Nations for

criminal justice systems throughout the international community and the rights they must

strive to protect. According to these articles, everyone is equal before the law, has the

right to remedy ills through “competent national tribunals,” is “entitled…to a fair and

public hearing by an independent and impartial

tribunal,” and is innocent until proven guilty.

While listing individual rights, the Declaration

also places restrictions on how states may

enforce justice, as it prohibits cruel and unusual

punishment, arbitrary arrest, and ex post facto

laws.3 Working from these established principles, Member States of the United Nations

outlined further their goals and standards for criminal justice systems in the Geneva

Conventions.

International efforts to develop effective criminal justice systems that also uphold

accepted principles of respect for basic human rights began with the First United Nations

Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva,

Switzerland in 1955. The result of these deliberations is known as the first Geneva

Convention, a document created to ensure the protection of the basic fundamental rights

and liberties of alleged criminals. While this agreement acknowledges it is not a

blueprint for how criminal justice systems should be organized it includes the rights and

privileges of prisoners generally agreed upon by the international community.

2 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “International Cooperation in Criminal Matters.” Economic and Social Council Resolution 1997/26. The Economic and Social Council, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.RES.1997.26.En?Opendocument. 3 United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.

Ex Post Facto Laws: "after the fact." An ex post facto law is one which makes a particular act illegal, and punishes people who committed that crime before the law was passed, ie, when the act was legal. "Ex post facto" means "from a thing done afterward" in Latin. Source: www.historycentral.com/Civics/E.html


Recognizing the inherent differences between states, this convention sought to establish

the minimum acceptable standards for dealing with prisoners, and notes that states should

seek to adhere to basic judicial standards, such as the rule of law, protection from double

jeopardy, and due process. Among the rights afforded to prisoners are clean and healthy

sleeping conditions, access to adequate food for proper nutrition, the ability to exercise,

and medical care. Moreover, the convention states that if a prisoner is disciplined or

restrained, it should only occur in a manner that respects the dignity of the prisoner.4

One of the central principles that member states have sought to ensure is the rule

of law. In the resolution concerning the establishment of an effective UN program for

crime prevention and criminal justice, the United Nations recognized that “justice based

on the rule of law is the pillar on which civilized society rests.”5 Rule of law is

essentially the guarantee that all citizens, including government officials as well as the

government itself, must obey the law. The law should be arrived at openly, enforced with

principles of equality in mind, and administered by an independent judiciary. All of this

must be done while simultaneously respecting internationally accepted human rights

standards.6 In addition to ensuring governments follow the rule of law, the United

Nations is adamant that torture and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment should

never be used. These forms of punishment have been repeatedly condemned regardless

of any mitigating circumstances, and states have been urged by the UN to rectify any

situations in which an accused criminal has been tortured or subjected to other forms of

extreme punishment.7

4 American Society of Criminology. “First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.” American Society of Criminology, https://www.asc41.com/1st%20UN%20Congress%20on%20 the%20Prevention%20of%20Crime/114%20ACONF.61%20First%20United%20Nations%20Congress%20on% 20the%20Prevention%20of%20Crime%20and%20the%20reatment%20of%20Offenders.pdf. 5 “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 46/152. Creation of An Effective United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme,” A/RES/46/152, Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. 6 Economic and Social Council, “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction,” E/CN.15/2006/3, 20 February 2006, Economic and Social Council. 7 “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 59/182. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” A/RES/59/182, Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/.


The ten successive Crime Congresses to the original meeting have elaborated and

expanded on the vision set forth at Geneva in 1955. Although they have each had

different themes and have addressed specific issues, each Congress helped suggest and

bring about reform in criminal justice systems. The Tenth Crime Congress met in

Vienna, Austria 10-17 April 2000 to address some of the more modern issues facing the

international community today. It once again took up the issues of promoting the rule of

law, establishing strong criminal justice systems, encouraging combat of transnational

crimes through an international forum, effectively preventing new forms of crime, and

developing fair systems of justice. A central theme to emerge through all of the

conclusions reached by the Congress was the need for bilateral, regional, and worldwide

cooperation in order to effectively deal with crime prevention and the facilitation of the

creation of effective, humane criminal justice systems. The Congress reiterated the

responsibility of states to “establish and maintain a fair, responsible, ethical and efficient

criminal justice system.”8

One area which the Tenth Crime Congress in Vienna recognized as needing

improvement is the elimination of corruption and the development of judicial systems

that try accused criminals fairly. Many states suffer from inadequate judiciaries that

employ individuals who take bribes or who otherwise stand in the way of true justice. In

Cambodia, for example, justice is often difficult to achieve for ordinary citizens. Judicial

officials are easily bribed, guilty criminals are often set free, and victims of crimes

generally do not see retribution.9 Many states in Africa, such as Liberia, also suffer from

criminal justice systems that do not adequately or fairly provide justice. Liberia, which

has suffered from successive wars, faces a difficult situation in which rival factions refuse

to recognize the legitimacy of the judicial branch. The courts must be strengthened so

that the government can reestablish control; however, judges must be trained properly

and the law must be made accessible to average citizens to ensure that the rule of law is 8 “Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century.” Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. Vienna, 10-17 April 2000. 9 Karen J Coates,“Cambodia Tribunal May Pave the Way for Judicial Reform,” Christian Science Monitor, October 14, 2004, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.


accessible and understandable to everyone.10 Similar problems plague states in Latin

America, such as Venezuela. There, attempts to remove the patronage system of

nominating judges met with enormous difficulty, as the government is loathe to give up

its power over the judiciary. Many of the judges that cannot be removed are corrupt,

making the dispensation of fair justice nearly impossible in Venezuela.11

Through what it named the Judicial Integrity Promotion Programme, participants

at the Tenth Congress hope to create more honest, respected criminal justices systems

throughout the world. Among the goals of the Programme are reducing in-court delays,

bringing about public confidence in the judiciary, making judicial appointments merit

based, developing better judicial training, and ensuring that state judiciaries create new

codes of conduct including references to integrity and honesty.12 Out of this spirit of

judicial reform and the elimination of corruption, the Project for Strengthening Judicial

Integrity and Capacity in Nigeria was established in 2001. The primary objectives of this

endeavor included a reintroduction of the rule of law and the establishment of a court

system capable of handling an increasingly complex and difficult case load. The

Nigerian government, working in conjunction with the Centre for International Crime

Prevention (CICP), launched an in-depth investigation into its court system through data

collection, in-person interviews with employees of the judiciary, and a review of the

actual institutional framework of the criminal justice system itself.13 Based upon the

collected information, the government concluded it was vital that reform be sought in

four areas: access to the courts, quality of justice, confidence of the Nigerian citizens in

the criminal justice system, and a more efficient means of handling complaints. While

reform is in progress, it appears that Nigeria is headed toward the establishment of a

10 “Liberia: Resurrecting the Justice System,” Africa News, April 6, 2006, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 11Alexandra Olson, “Venezuela Judicial Watchdog Quits, Blames Corruption,” The Associated Press, August 9, 2000. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 12 Cyrille Fijnaut and Leo Huberts, ed, Corruption, Integrity, and Law Enforcement, (New York: Kluwer Law International, 2002), 324. 13 Ibid, 325.


judiciary that is not corrupt, but instead is capable of dispensing justice while maintaining

respect for basic human rights. 14

Another area of concern for the United Nations is the establishment of law and

order in post-conflict states. In states emerging from conflict, either internally or with

other states, stabilization can only be achieved through the establishment of justice and

order. To this end, the United Nations has been influential in encouraging bilateral and

multilateral treaties with states emerging from conflict to ensure that this goal is

attainable, and, in some cases, developed states have taken it upon themselves to help

underdeveloped states create effective criminal justice systems. The United States, for

example, reported in 2004 that it had helped, or was currently aiding, Afghanistan, Haiti,

Iraq, Kosovo, and Liberia in the development of stronger judicial systems and police

forces in these post-conflict areas. The Netherlands also submitted documentation of

aiding the development of good government and strong executive, legislative, and

judicial branches in thirty-six states in three regions.15

Restorative Justice One idea that seems to be increasingly popular in the international community,

especially for punishment of younger criminals who do not commit violent or serious

offenses, is the concept of ‘restorative justice,’ a process through which “offenders,

victims, and/or others affected by a crime participate, often with the help of a facilitator,

in the resolution of matters arising from that crime.” This form of punishment generally

involves the perpetrator compensating the victim in order to return the victim back to

where he was before the crime took place. If punishment is sought, it is generally

designed to ensure that it is beneficial to both the victim of the crime as well as the

society at large.16 In Ghana, for example, restorative justice has helped reduce the

14 Ibid. 328. 15 “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction,” Op. Cit. 16 Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. “Workshop 2:Enhancing Criminal Justice Reform, including Restorative Justice .” Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. A/CONF.203/10.


workload of criminal courts by moving cases to the local level, where problems can be

mediated without formal court proceedings. By allowing criminals to meet victims and

learn the consequences of their actions, mediation has been successful in reducing the

level of repeat offenses by young citizens. While restorative justice cannot be applied

universally, its proponents argue that working within the framework of any state,

implementation is possible. The majority of sentences issued under this type of system

include community service, damage compensation, or other services that would

simultaneously teach the criminal the error of his ways while at the same time benefiting

society. This form of mediation, where implemented, has proven to be an effective, cost

efficient alternative to traditional forms of punishment. Because the majority of citizens

in these states are young, past experiments in strengthening the criminal justice code

resulted in overcrowded prisons and stretched national budgets. Consequently,

restorative justice saves governments money and, ostensibly, provides adequate levels of

punishment to prevent or discourage future crime.17 Restorative justice can also as a

supplement to traditional criminal justice systems already in place within a state.

Extradition Due to the ever-increasing instances of crime committed across international

borders, extradition has become a far more important aspect of the judicial process.

Extradition is the “process by which one state

surrenders to a requesting state persons accused of

crimes against the laws of the requesting state for

prosecution.”18 In order for this process to begin,

there must be a formal request made by one state to

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V05/813/56/PDF/V0581356.pdf?OpenElement 17 “Workshop on Criminal Justice Reform Highlights Need for Restorative Justice as Alternative to Prison, “Eleventh UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 22 April 2005, http://un.org/events/11thcongress/. 18 Christopher H. Pyle, Extradition, Politics, and Human Rights, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), 324.

Extradition: the surrender of an accused or convicted person by one state or country to another (usually under the provisions of a statute or treaty) Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


obtain the transfer of an accused criminal residing in another state.19 States generally

engage in extradition treaties for four reasons: to obtain offenders that they want to try in

reciprocation, to make it easier to punish criminals and establish justice, to avoid

allowing criminals within their borders to potentially repeat past crimes, and to avoid

tension in the international community regarding refusal to turn over wanted

individuals.20 While the majority of extradition treaties are bilateral or regional in nature,

the United Nations has passed resolutions concerning extradition, especially concerning

the extradition of criminals committing transnational crimes. Resolution 2840 notes that

any state that refuses to take part in the extradition process of individuals accused of an

international crime is in violation of the UN Charter and generally accepted international

law. Resolution 3074 elaborates on this statement, recognizing the intrinsic right of

every state to try its own citizens for crimes against the international community.21

However, while states recognize the importance of extradition treaties in ensuring

criminals are brought to justice, there are barriers to the establishment of agreements

regarding such transfers between states. While extradition seems like a fairly non-

controversial issue, it is not without its detractors. Canada, South Africa, and the

European Union, among others, will not extradite criminals to the United States without

the US government’s assurance that capital punishment will not be sought.22 These states

have outlawed the death penalty for crimes on their soil, and will not subject anyone that

they are holding for that sort of punishment. While there are situations where extradition

cannot take place, the 1997 United Nations Declaration on Crime and Public Safety

stresses the need for states to work cooperatively to prosecute and extradite criminals that

cross borders to avoid prosecution.23 To facilitate this goal, the United Nations has taken

several measures to aid states trying to work together to reach extradition agreements, 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid, 325. 21 Robert Cryer. Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 22 Amnesty International, “United States of America: No Return to Execution – The US Death Penalty as a Barrier to Extradition,” Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511712001 23 “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 51/60. United Nations Declaration on Crime and Public Security,” A/RES/51/60, Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/.


including the Model Treaty on Extradition by the Eighth Crime Congress of 1990.24

While not a legally binding treaty, this document nevertheless provides an example of

how to craft an effective extradition treaty. As the Tenth Congress in Vienna in August

2000 later noted, these model treaties are extremely important tools for states seeking to

create extradition treaties.25

A new idea in extradition law is mutual recognition of the validity of warrants.

Under this system, an arrest warrant issued in one state could be enforced by one or more

other states as well.26 The member states of the EU actually implemented this system

beginning in 2004, replacing the extradition process between member states of the

European Union with the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). This new warrant is

applicable in any member state of the European Union. This makes it easier for fugitives

to be returned to the country where they committed their crime, and restricts the ability of

states to refuse to surrender their own nationals to others within the EU. It simplifies the

procedure for turning over criminals, and eliminates the political nature of the extradition

process by making the judiciary the sole arbiter in the decision to extradite. No longer

can a state’s executive branch refuse to turn over a fugitive if he is ordered to do so by

the judicial branch. The treaty formalizing the EAW also reaffirms the basic rights

guaranteed Europeans under the European Convention on Human Rights, and ensures

that rule of law and due process are respected for all individuals.27 As of November

2004, all member states of the European Union, with the exception of Italy, had enacted

legislation accepting and institutionalizing the European Arrest Warrant.28

24 United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network. “Model Treaty on Extradition, Adopted by the Eighth Crime Congress, Havana, 27 August-7 September 1990.” United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network, http://www.uncjin.org/Standards/Rules/r17/r17.html 25 “Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century,” Op. Cit. 26 Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. “Workshop 1: Enhancing International Law Enforcement Cooperation, including Extradition Measures.” Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. A/CONF.203/9. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V05/815/28/PDF/V0581528.pdf?OpenElement 27 EUROPA – Justice and Home Affairs, “European Arrest Warrant Replaces Extradition Between EU Member States,” EUROPA – Justice and Home Affairs, http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/criminal/extradition/wai/fsj_criminal_extradition_en.htm. 28 Europa, “Report From the Commission Based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States,” Europa,


Current Status The most recent Crime Congress was held in Bangkok, Thailand from 18-25 April

2005 and focused on “Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention

and Criminal Justice.”29 The Bangkok Declaration, which emerged from the weeklong

discussions, highlighted several of the successes and failures of past criminal justice

reform endeavors and discussed what is needed to establish viable judiciaries throughout

the international community. Once again emphasizing the importance of the rule of law,

the Congress reaffirmed its commitment “to the development and maintenance of fair and

efficient criminal justice institutions … in accordance with applicable international

standards.”30 In addition to the rule of law, a focal point of the Bangkok Congress was

the use of formal and informal measures to enhance international cooperation in law

enforcement and reform. Stressing bilateral action, the Congress noted the necessity for

states to share information, especially in an age when the rate of transnational crime is

ever-increasing.

While progress in judicial reform has been seen in some areas of the world, such

as the Americas, Europe, and other developed states, the Bangkok Congress pointed out

numerous obstacles to effective cooperation between states. Although states are slowly

beginning to work together, concerns over sovereignty have limited the amount of

information shared between law

enforcement agencies. The diversity of

legal systems, varying law enforcement

practices, an inability to communicate basic

information regarding crimes and criminals

http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_ oc=2005&nu_doc=63. 29 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “UN Crime Congresses: The Eleventh Crime Congress,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_congresses.html. 30 Bangkok Declaration. “Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.” www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/congress11/BangkokDeclaration.pdf.

Sovereignty: Sovereignty refers to the power, and the right to exercise that power of self-government that all independent countries have. They can exercise the power of the state without asking permission from another state. Source: www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm


across borders, and differing priorities and approaches regarding criminal justice reform

have all helped prevent states from effectively working together.31 Moreover, the

conference noted that “the sheer volume of the criminal justice reforms required [of

underdeveloped nations] to keep pace with the rest of the world had been

overwhelming.”32 Establishing strong judicial standards while maintaining respect for

basic human rights through comprehensive reform has been especially difficult.33

Another factor limiting judicial reforms is the high cost it represents to states that often

can not afford to devote a lot of money to this area. As a result, the Congress promoted

continued research into the idea of restorative justice. Recognizing that this idea remains

fairly new, and that there has not been enough research and analysis into its viability, the

Bangkok Congress supported investigation into its merits as a cheaper, yet effective

means of providing justice.34 A follow-up report by the secretary-general in March 2006

concerning standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice noted that many

states commented on their lack of knowledge concerning restorative justice and the

opportunities the United Nations provides in helping implement these programs.35

Extradition The Bangkok Crime Congress made several observations stressing the need for

continued cooperation in the extradition and prosecution of criminals that cross borders.

While criminals continue to evade justice by crossing borders in the hope of reaching

asylum, in today’s world criminals can

commit economic or computer crimes

without leaving their own state. As criminal

organizations and individual criminals

become more mobile, the need for effective

31 “Workshop 1: Enhancing International Law Enforcement Cooperation, including Extradition Measures,” Op. Cit. 32 “Workshop on Criminal Justice Reform Highlights Need for Restorative Justice as Alternative to Prison,” Op. Cit. 33 Ibid. 34 “Workshop 2:Enhancing Criminal Justice Reform, including Restorative Justice,” Op. Cit. 35 Economic and Social Council. “Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Report of the Secretary General.” E/CN.15/2003/10. 12 March 2003. Economic and Social Council.

Asylum: a status offered by one nation to a citizen of another nation, because the individual fears harm from the nation of origin. Source: www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/ law30/international/internationalvocab/vocab.html


extradition treaties and international cooperation in bringing criminals to justice is

becoming increasingly important. The delegates of the Bangkok Congress supported

continued efforts to build bilateral treaties and agreements, preferring them to more

complicated, multilateral efforts. Bilateral treaties were emphasized because they are

more specific, can be tailored to the unique needs of two nations, and are generally easier

to negotiate.36

As terrorist activity remains prominent throughout the world, international

agreements regarding deportation and extradition of suspected terrorists are becoming

increasingly important. In March 2005, General Assembly Resolution 59/195 urged

states not to recognize political grounds as a justification for a refusal to extradite.37

States are joining together to draft treaties that allow them to bring suspected terrorists to

justice more efficiently while respecting fundamental rights. One of the most recent

examples of this is the treaty signed between Libya and the United Kingdom. In

exchange for Libya’s promise to deliver justice in a humane manner, Great Britain, which

has been hesitant to extradite individuals to that state for fear that their rights would be

abused, will now send criminals against whom Libya has legitimate legal claims. This

was only made possible after the Libyan government gave repeated assurances to Great

Britain that the safety of deported suspects would be guaranteed. Human rights

advocates like Amnesty International UK denounce the agreement, believing it dangerous

to simply take the Libyan government at its word that it will respect basic rights

considering its history of violence and torture of accused criminals. Yet, the British

government, which is forbidden by the European Union agreement from deporting

individuals to states where they might face cruel punishment or the death penalty,

believes that the deal represents a positive step in allowing for safe deportation of terror

36 “Workshop 1: Enhancing International Law Enforcement Cooperation, including Extradition Measures,” Op. Cit. 37 “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 59.195. Human Rights and Terrorism,” A/RES/59/195, Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/.


suspects. The British are currently working on agreements similar in nature with other

states, as well.38

Regardless of the number of bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties in place

today, the Bangkok Crime Congress notes a pressing need for more treaties and a review

of existing agreements to determine if they can be strengthened, and recommended that

states enact domestic legislation concerning extradition. While this would not replace

extradition treaties between states, it would establish procedures for extradition that could

make the process easier. Moreover, the Congress urged states to take measures to avoid

situations where one nation refuses to extradite an individual, such as cases of dual

criminality. In these instances, an action considered a crime in one state is not considered

a crime in another, which can prevent extradition from taking place. Therefore, the

Congress deemed it essential that, at least at the regional level, states coordinate more

effectively to ensure that such situations do not arise.39

Many states restrict or prohibit the extradition of their own nationals. Some states

such as France, Germany, and Brazil have constitutional barriers prohibiting extradition

of nationals, while others like Mexico and Bolivia can only extradite their own citizens

only under certain circumstances proscribed by law. While the Bangkok Congress noted

that more states are willing to extradite their own citizens, it also suggested that states

accept temporary surrender of alleged criminals to the state that wants to put them on

trial. Then, once the trial is complete, the criminal can serve his sentence in the state

responsible for deporting him. Finally, the Congress suggested that in the interest of

expedient and fair justice, the requirements for proof of a crime prior to extradition be

kept to a minimum. While this is not to suggest that states should freely extradite

individuals without consideration of possible guilt, it is simply an argument to prevent

prolonged proceedings and to simplify the extradition process.40

38 “Britain Signs Deal With Libya on Deporting Terror Suspects,” Agence France Press, October 18, 2005, Lexis Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 39 “Workshop 1: Enhancing International Law Enforcement Cooperation, including Extradition Measures.” 40 Ibid.


Key Positions The very nature of judicial systems relate so closely to sovereignty that states are

often hesitant to let others have significant influence on how they handle their criminal

justice systems. States with traditionally advanced judiciaries are hesitant to surrender

control of it to external bodies, and states that rely on failed criminal systems are often

dependent upon its integral use of corruption and patronage.

Regional Positions As much of the world is broken into regions in which similar forms of

government, religion, and economy are clustered together, it is possible to assess the

status of judiciaries not only within a given state, but also in regions. The following

descriptions are limited in nature, and should only be used to draw comparisons among

seemingly similar states.

North America In the United States, rule of law, respect for fundamental rights, and the right to a

fair trial free of cruel and unusual punishment are paramount in the Constitution and the

Bill of Rights. Likewise, in December 2004 the Mexican Congress passed legislation

aimed at reforming state judicial practices, seeking to protect basic rights and establish a

stronger judiciary, largely through the elimination of torture as a means to extract

confessions or information regarding crimes. While the legislation affords criminals a

presumption of innocence and disallows evidence to be presented in court if it is obtained

illegally, exceptions are made for individuals participating in organized crime. These

Mexican citizens would not be guaranteed the same due process rights as other

criminals.41 Canada has also undergone reform of its judicial process, emphasizing the

use of restorative justice to help mediate conflicts between criminals and their victims.42

41 Human Rights Watch. “Mexico: Anti-Torture Provisions Key to Justice Reform.” Human Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/08/mexico9811.htm 42 Economic and Social Council. “Follow-Up to the Plans of Action for the Implementation of the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Secretary General.” E/CN.15/2005/12. 25 April 2005. Economic and Social Council.


The United States is a party to more than 110 bilateral extradition treaties with

other states, and between 1995 and 2000, more than six hundred criminals were returned

to the United States by its treaty partners. The U.S. has also been responsible,

particularly in Latin America, for helping to eliminate some of the barriers to the

extradition process, leading to the arrest, detention, and extradition of numerous

criminals.43 There are, however, five limitations on extradition to other states by the U.S.

First, the United States requires an extradition treaty with the state requesting the

criminal. Second, extradition is generally limited to crimes listed in these treaties, which

are generally felonies. Third, extradition is usually only granted for crimes that would be

considered criminal offenses had they been committed in the United States. Fourth,

individuals can only be extradited for crimes allegedly committed in the extradition

request. Finally, the US will not extradite individuals accused of committing political

crimes.

Canada has a poor record with regard to extraditing or prosecuting suspected war

criminals. Possibly not wanting to alienate certain sectors of the voting population,

Canada is home to numerous Nazi war criminals, and has not sought prosecution or

extradition for the majority of them.44

Europe The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees accused

criminals certain rights to protect them from arbitrary judgments. Among those rights are

equality before the law, the right to a fair trial,

presumption of innocence and the ability to

defend oneself in court, proportionality between

the crime and the punishment, and the right to be

43 U.S. Department of State, “Report on International Extradition Submitted to the Congress Pursuant to Section 211 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,” US Department of State, www.state.gov/documents/organization/6545.doc. 44 Andrea Mrozek, “Rest Home for the Wicked: Simon Wiesenthal Denounced Canada Years Ago for Failing to Bring War Criminals to the Justice,” Western Standard, October 31, 2005, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.

Double Jeopardy: the prosecution of a defendant for a criminal offense for which he has already been tried Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


free from double jeopardy.45 In Turkey, for example, accused criminals are afforded the

right to legal representation when taken into custody. Time limits exist to prevent

individuals from sitting in prison for excessive amounts of time while waiting for a trial

or sentence. Additionally, elements of restorative justice and alternative forms of

punishment such as community work, compensation for damages, and weekend or home

confinement are in place.

Within the borders of the European Union, extradition has been replaced by the

European Arrest Warrant, which is a simple process for criminals to be sent from one

country to another. As a result, the extradition process between states of the European

Union is depoliticized, and it requires less time to request and deliver fugitives. Outside

of its own borders, the European Union does not recognize an absolute right to

extradition. Article 19 Clause 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union, for example, notes that no one may be extradited to a state where there is a

possibility that the individual “would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, or other

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”46 Additionally, some states, such as

France and Germany, constitutionally prohibit extradition of their citizens to states that

are not members of the European Union.47

Asia and the Pacific Due to the crackdown on criminal endeavors by the United States, Europe, and

parts of Asia, there is a possibility that criminal organizations may relocate to the remote

islands of the Pacific Ocean. As a result, the islands have taken collective action to

ensure that justice prevails, including strengthening communication between

governments, law enforcement agencies, and bank systems. Individual states have also

established programs designed to introduce needed judicial reforms. In 2004, the

Maldives developed a four year plan to address flaws in its criminal justice system.

45 Official Journal of the European Communities, “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,”

European Union, http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf. 46 Ibid. 47 U.S. Department of State, 4.


Goals for reform include improving the prison system, revising the penal code, and

introducing modern techniques for gathering evidence to ensure more certainty of guilt or

innocence.48 Japan has incorporated elements of restorative justice into its penal code.

The state encourages settlements between victims and offenders, and the judiciary takes

such agreements into account when issuing criminal sentences.49

China has been notoriously slow in reforming its judicial standards to recognize

human rights. Although torture was technically made illegal in a series of 1996 reforms

to Chinese judicial practices, a special envoy from the United Nations concluded in

December 2005 that, while on the decline, torture still remains widespread in China. To

bring state judicial standards to the level sought by the United Nations, China would first

need to include rights such as that to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until

guilt is proven. However, although China’s adjustments to its criminal justice system

have not brought the capacity to dispense justice up to international standards, that China

allowed United Nations investigators to examine criminal justice procedures and

interview prisoners is seen as a step in modernizing the process.50 Likewise, Cambodia is

plagued by an inefficient and corrupt judiciary. People are often arrested and illegally

detained, defendants are not provided lawyers, and government officials who should be

addressing these issues are themselves accused of participating in illegal activities.51 The

judiciary of Vietnam is controlled by an undemocratic regime that effectively controls the

entire court system, denying the defense an opportunity to call witnesses and generally

proceeding through trial without providing the defendant a lawyer. Accused criminals

are sometimes beaten, and when sent to prisons are forced to endure terrible conditions.52

48 Economic and Social Council. “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction.” E/CN.15/2006/3. 20 February 2006. Economic and Social Council. 49 “Follow-Up to the Plans of Action for the Implementation of the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Secretary General,” Op. Cit. 50 Ching-Ching Ni, “Torture Still Common in China, U.N. Team Concludes,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2005, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 51 Freedom House, “Country Report: Cambodia,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. 52 Freedom House, “Country Report: Vietnam,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org.


Africa Africa has recently taken many steps to reform its judicial standards, most recently

at the Pan-African Conference on Prison Reform, which took place in 2002.53 Nigeria’s

criminal justice system is undergoing extensive change to make it more cost efficient,

humane, and effective. Although its criminal justice system suffered while the state was

under military rule, Nigeria’s reemergence as a democratic state in 1999 led to

modernization of its judicial standards. The ministry of justice underwent extensive

change, and prison congestion was reduced through implementation of alternative

punishments. Overall, justice was made more accessible and fair. Morocco also began

judicial reforms in 2003 based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Legal

proceedings are now carried out under time limits, reducing the time needed to dispense

justice. Prisons are monitored more closely, with visits from judges and officers of the

law, among others, to ensure that prisoner rights are respected. Morocco now guarantees

accused criminals access to legal representation. 54 Likewise, Senegal implemented a ten

year plan beginning in 2003 designed to bring about more efficient judicial services,

including the development of jurisdictions. Senegal also adopted elements of restorative

justice, including using public works as sentences and allowing prosecutors to propose

mediation between the criminal and victim. The Senegalese government also established

a committee to reform the state’s penal code.55

Latin America and the Caribbean The international community views Haiti as maintaining a seriously flawed

criminal justice system. The courts are corrupt and inefficient, highlighted best by the

use of French instead of Creole, the language spoken by a majority of Haitians, to

conduct official proceedings. Prison conditions are terrible, and extra-judicial killings by

the police and other members of the state apparatus are prevalent.56 Likewise, conditions

53 “Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Report of the Secretary General,” Op. Cit. 54 “Workshop on Criminal Justice Reform Highlights Need for Restorative Justice as Alternative to Prison,” Op. Cit. 55 Ibid. 56 Freedom House, “Country Report: Haiti,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org.


in Colombia often prevent citizens from receiving fair judicial treatment. The judicial

system is extremely corrupt and extortion is common. Those citizens that are sentenced

to prison face perilous conditions, as jails are overcrowded and marred by rioting. While

these states still face problems with their judicial systems, some Latin American states

have reformed previously corrupt and inefficient systems.57 Chile began reform of its

judicial practices in 2000 in the hopes of bringing its criminal justice system up to its

Constitutional standards, establishing the right of any accused criminal to receive legal

assistance and called for more open proceedings with established procedures, and

eliminated the process in which the prosecutor also served as the judge. Defendants were

also granted many basic rights they previously lacked, such as the right to be informed of

the crime of which they are being accused, the right to an attorney, and the right to

remain silent. As a result of these changes, many more people took advantage of legal

representation provided to them by the state, and public confidence in the judicial process

has grown. 58 Additionally, governments in Guatemala and El Salvador have clarified

their legal codes to bring them up to the standards of the international community.59

States in the region also took part in the Latin American Conference on Penal Reform

and Alternatives to Imprisonment in 2002 to discuss possible changes to judicial

systems.60 In addition to legal reforms, many states in Latin America participate in

extradition treaties, yet there are also barriers to the successful extradition of criminals

from Latin American states. Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia all have laws making it illegal

to extradite their own citizens, meaning that their citizens can commit crimes in other

states and return home without fear of being extradited back to the state in which the

crime was committed.61

57 Freedom House, “Country Report: Colombia,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. 58 “Workshop on Criminal Justice Reform Highlights Need for Restorative Justice as Alternative to Prison,” Op. Cit. 59 “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction.” 60 “Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Report of the Secretary General,” Op. Cit. 61 U.S. Department of State, 4.


Middle East Many states in the Middle East suffer from corrupt criminal justice systems that

fail to dispense justice in a fair manner. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the monarchy is

the final judicial authority, and controls all levels of the court system. The government

fails to meet international standards with regard to the rule of law and often holds

secretive trials. Accused criminals are held for inordinate amounts of time and are

subjected to torture to extract confessions and other information.62 Additionally, while

Egypt is widely considered to have modern judicial standards, their criminal justice

system is nevertheless plagued with problems. Security and terrorism-related cases are

often sent to military courts instead of the traditional civil courts, where judges are

appointed by the king, removing their independence from other branches of government,

and the level of evidence needed to convict in these trials is generally not as high as in

civil cases. Accused criminals are often forced to confess by state officials.63

Some states in the Middle East have fair judicial practices, or are working to

develop effective, humane judiciaries. Oman has constitutional provisions establishing

the rule of law as the legal basis for the legitimacy of the government. Additionally, the

constitution separates powers between different government branches, establishes a

judicial branch independent of all other government organizations, and guarantees certain

individual rights to citizens and foreigners traveling in the state. Oman has also taken

steps to implement restorative justice, believing it could lead those affected by a crime to

effectively reintegrate into society. Likewise, the Syrian Ministry of the Interior has

attempted to ensure the rule of law, combat terrorism, and prevent crime. Criminal

justice institutions were amended in the state to allow it to better deal with these issues.64

Israel’s legal system dictates that while its citizens may be extradited to other states, any

sentence imposed on the fugitive will be carried out by Israeli law enforcement.

Punishment of non-citizens extradited by Israel may, however, be fulfilled by the 62 Freedom House, “Country Report: Saudi Arabia,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. 63 Freedom House, “Country Report: Egypt,” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. 64 “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction,” Op. Cit.


receiving state. Israel is able to set such a policy because if a state refuses to accept the

stipulation that Israel will enforce the punishment, the accused criminal will not be

extradited or tried.65

Non-Government Organizations The Bangkok Congress recognized the importance of non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and reiterated the United Nations’ commitment to utilizing them to

strengthen judiciaries.66 NGOs are proponents of ensuring that effective criminal justice

systems maintain respect for basic human rights. To protect human rights and govern

effectively, Amnesty International believes that the “rule of law is the cornerstone of the

protection of human rights and systems of governance based on the values of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”67 Their primary focus is not the viability of

criminal justice systems, but rather respect for human rights and dignity. Moreover,

organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are invaluable in

visiting prisons to determine whether or not basic rights are being respected and upheld, a

right granted them by the Geneva Conventions. In this way, they help to expose states

that restrict guaranteed rights, highlighting the need for effective reform.68

Additionally, NGOs are adamant that criminals should not be extradited to states

that lack effective judicial systems or violate human rights. Amnesty International,

Human Rights Watch, and the civil rights group Liberty, for instance, are outraged over

the extradition agreement between Libya and Great Britain. While recognizing the

British government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks like the July 2005 bombings and

bring perpetrators to justice, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do not

believe that Britain, or other states, should accept the promise of states like Libya not to

torture suspects. These organizations claim to have documentation regarding beatings of

65 U.S. Department of State, 4. 66 “11th U.N. Crime Congress Concludes With Adoption of Bangkok Declaration Calling for Action Against Organized Crime, Terrorism,” Hindustan Times, April 25, 2005, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 67 Amnesty International, “Building an International Human Rights Agenda: Reforming and Strengthening the Justice Sector,” Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/hragenda-4-eng 68 “Workshop 2:Enhancing Criminal Justice Reform, including Restorative Justice,” Op. Cit.


prisoners, the use of electric shock treatment, and feel that “deporting suspects to Libya

would put them at serious risk of torture.”69

Media Positions The media is extremely important in exposing flawed criminal justice systems and

drawing attention to the plight of individuals and groups facing unfair judicial practices.

The Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of

Offenders noted that the mass media must play a role if effective criminal justice reform

is to take place.70 According to United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Breyer, a

critical media is an essential element in making citizens confident in their judiciary.

While noting that judicial officials might not always agree with their portrayal in the

media, Breyer stressed that the media “is a necessary institution in a society if we’ll have

the rule of law.”71

Public Opinion One of the challenges of a fair and effective judicial system is ensuring that it has

the support of the population. During times of duress, people often agree to overlook

specific legal protections to ensure the safety of the masses. Moreover, they are

sometimes willing to forego human treatment of prisoners if they have been convicted of

particularly violent crimes.

United States and North America In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, American citizens believed that

using extradition treaties was not sufficient for bringing terrorists to justice. Rather, by a

margin of almost thirty percent in New York and Washington, they supported military

attacks against states known to have links to terrorist activity.72 Additionally, in an effort

to ensure that those responsible for the deaths from those attacks were punished, the 69 “Britain Signs Deal With Libya on Deporting Terror Suspects,” Op. Cit. 70 “Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century,” Op. Cit. 71 “Critical Media Good for Judiciary,” Manila Standard, November 30, 2005, Lexis-Nexis. http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 72 “Attack Terrorists, Don’t Extradite: US Poll.” SAPA, September 18, 2001. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.


American government implemented a process that allowed for the capture of alleged

criminals in one state, and the transfer to another for interrogation and imprisonment.

This process, while initially supported in the United States has undergone intense

criticism, both from American citizens and the international community.

Europe The United States asked Serbia to sign a treaty pledging not to extradite U.S.

nationals to the International Criminal Court, causing a gap between the government and

the people. While the political elite favor the agreement, fifty-seven percent of Serbians

believed that it would be wrong for the government to agree to the deal.73 In Russia, the

citizenry is becoming increasingly concerned with the efficacy of the judicial system.

They believe that in order to better implement the rule of law, that Russian judges should

be held to the same standards as the rest of society and made criminally accountable for

their actions.74

Asia In China, much of the criminal caseload is dealt with at the local level. Because of

low pay and long hours in rural settings, the Chinese are experiencing difficulty

recruiting competent judges to fill these positions. Increasingly, the Chinese public is

becoming dissatisfied with the situation and calling for reform.75 In 2001, Japan

attempted to reform its judicial systems based on public sentiment. Believing that the

court system was not in agreement with the views of the public, Japan introduced the idea

of allowing citizens to take a more proactive role in judicial decisions by creating a jury

system.76

73 “Serbia: Poll Shows Majority Siding With Old Europe, Denying US Immunity Request,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, June 10, 2003, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 74 “Opinion Poll: 91% Think That Judges Should Be Made Criminally Accountable,” Ros Business Consulting Database, November 16, 2001, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 75 Shi Jiangtao, “Reforms Depend on Doing Justice to Grass-Roots Courts: Judiciary,” South China Morning Post, March 14, 2006, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 76 “Proposals Tip Scales of Justice in Favor of Public Opinion,” The Nikkei Weekly, November 19, 2001, Lexis Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.


Africa In Nigeria, reforms have been made to create a judiciary more in line with

international standards; however, more needs to be done by the government to garner the

trust of its citizens. Nigerians feel that the most significant flaws in the judicial system

occur in the selection of judges, including a non-

transparent recruiting process, appointment using

the spoils system, and a lack of accessibility to

those not of the highest class.77 As part of the

Judicial Integrity Promotion Programme, a public opinion survey in Uganda highlighted

many of the issues going on in the state. Two-thirds of Ugandans had been forced to

bribe the police, while half had paid off individuals working in the court system. More

alarmingly, almost one-fifth of the population believes that corruption is only getting

worse, and among workers there is very little support for firing or punishing corrupt

individuals.78

Latin America Although the relationship between Colombia and the United States is strong, there

is increasing disillusionment among Colombian citizens over the extradition relationship

with the United States. In its attempt to combat the drug trade, the U.S. is trying drug

dealers and traders without extraditing them to Colombia; however, the majority of

Colombian citizens believe that the United States should honor its extradition treaty

commitments and allow their judiciary, which they feel is competent, to punish

individuals for drug-related charges.79

77 “Nigeria, Judicial Reform: Proposals for Reform.” Africa News, February 28, 2006. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 78 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Uganda,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption_projects_uganda.html. 79 “Extradition Muddies US Relations.” Andean Group Report, April 12, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.

Spoils System: the system of employing and promoting civil servants who are friends and supporters of the group in power Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Major Religious Viewpoints Some Islamic states reported that, for religious purposes, they adopted elements of

restorative justice. Judges in Oman, for instance, look to the Koran and Sunnah to

support conciliation and mediation.80 Catholicism also calls for reform of international

criminal justice systems. According to U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, “a Catholic

approach begins with the recognition that the dignity of the human person applies to both

victim and offender.” As such, in addition to rejecting the idea of mandatory sentences,

Catholics believe in compassion for crime victims and rehabilitating criminals.81

Individual Catholic organizations, such as Pax Romana, attempt to establish effective

criminal justice systems and reduce crime by fighting poverty and injustice. Working at

the local level, these organizations try to prevent urban crime and support adherence to

the United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,

especially with regard to independent judiciaries.82 During the years following the

Holocaust, the Jewish community, especially due to the leadership of Simon Wiesenthal,

supported extradition treaties that would bring Nazi war criminals to trial. Although the

number of living Nazi war criminals is diminishing, Jewish organizations strongly

support their extradition.83

80 “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction,” Op. Cit. 81 John Rivera, “Bishops Call for Justice Reforms, Compassion for Victims of Crime,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 16, 2000, Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. 82 “Follow-Up to the Plans of Action for the Implementation of the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Secretary General,” Op. Cit. 83 Mrozek, Op. Cit.


Summary The need to effectively provide justice while respecting human rights is of primary

concern to the United Nations. Moreover, while international consensus builds toward

judicial reform, it is necessary to consider the sovereign right of states to dispense justice

in the manner they see fit. Since its inception in 1948, the United Nations has repeatedly

held conferences and issued resolutions seeking to fulfill its mission of ensuring that

states are able to provide justice and protect basic individual rights. Beginning with the

Geneva Convention of 1955, which addressed the rights of prisoners during times of war,

and continuing through the ten successive Crime Congresses, the UN has sought to create

minimum standards for criminal justice systems. While parts of the world, such as

China, must continue working to modernize their judicial practices, United Nations

action has helped states like Nigeria and Mexico make important changes in their

criminal justice procedure.

Recently, the emphasis on criminal justice reform has focused on extradition, new

forms of dealing with criminals such as restorative justice, and international cooperation

to combat new forms of crime. Extradition treaties, such as that recently signed by the

United Kingdom and Libya, highlight the ability of states to work through differences to

establish treaties aimed at facilitating criminal prosecution. More states are also working

to implement aspects of restorative justice into their penal code. A cheaper method of

dealing with criminals, continued research into restorative justice could prove it to be

valuable as a replacement or supplement for existing judicial practices, especially in poor

states. With the advent of the Internet and the increased ease with which criminals are

able to cross borders, the United Nations considers it fundamentally important that states

work cooperatively to deal with criminals and criminal organizations.


Discussion Questions • How important are viable criminal justice systems? How important is it that these

systems also respect human rights? • Is your state’s criminal justice system up to the standards and norms outlined by

the United Nations? If not, how has it worked to meet these goals? • What international or regional accords has your state been a party to regarding

criminal justice reform or extradition? • How has your state sought to reform its criminal justice system? Has action been

undertaken at the international, regional, or bilateral level? • What is your state’s policy regarding extradition? Has your state concluded

treaties with other nations? If not, what barriers or obstacles have prevented the state from doing so?

• Do regional arrest warrants, such as the European Arrest Warrant, provide a viable

option as a replacement for extradition either regionally or globally? Why or why not?

• How effective has United Nations action in the area of criminal justice reform and

extradition policy been? How can it be strengthened? • How can the United Nations encourage and implement judicial reform while

respecting national sovereignty? • What are the major principles and ideals that your state attempts to uphold in its

criminal justice system? • Has your state introduced elements of restorative justice into the penal code? If

so, have these measures proved effective alternatives to traditional punishments, such as incarceration?


Works Cited “11th U.N. Crime Congress Concludes With Adoption of Bangkok Declaration Calling

for Action Against Organized Crime, Terrorism.” Hindustan Times, April 25, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. “Constitution and By-Laws.” Academy of

Criminal Justice Sciences, http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_664_8214.cfm. American Society of Criminology. “First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of

Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.” American Society of Criminology. https://www.asc41.com/1st%20UN%20Congress%20on%20the%20Prevention%2

0of%20Crime/114%20ACONF.6.1%20First%20United%20Nations%20Congress%20on%20the%20Prevention%20of%20Crime%20and%20the%20Treatment%20of%20Offenders.pdf

Amnesty International. “Building an International Human Rights Agenda: Reforming and

Strengthening the Justice Sector.” Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/hragenda-4-eng Amnesty International. “United States of America: No Return to Execution – The US

Death Penalty as a Barrier to Extradition.” Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511712001 “Attack Terrorists, Don’t Extradite: US Poll.” SAPA, September 18, 2001. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Bangkok Declaration. “Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime

Prevention and Criminal Justice.” www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/congress11/BangkokDeclaration.pdf. “Britain Signs Deal With Libya on Deporting Terror Suspects.” Agence France Press,

October 18, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Center for Justice and International Law. “Programs: Legal Defense Program.” Center for

Justice and International Law, http://www.cejil.org/programas.cfm.


Coates, Karen J. “Cambodia Tribunal May Pave the Way for Judicial Reform.” Christian Science Monitor, October 14, 2004. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Critical Media Good for Judiciary.” Manila Standard, November 30, 2005. Lexis-Nexis. http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Cryer, Robert. Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International

Criminal Law Regime. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Economic and Social Council. “Follow-Up to the Plans of Action for the Implementation

of the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century: Report of the Secretary General.” E/CN.15/2005/12. 25 April 2005. Economic and Social Council.

Economic and Social Council. “The Rule of Law and Development: Strengthening the

Rule of Law and the Reform of Criminal Justice Institutions, Including in Post-Conflict Reconstruction.” E/CN.15/2006/3. 20 February 2006. Economic and Social Council.

Economic and Social Council. “Standards and Norms in Crime Prevention and Criminal

Justice: Report of the Secretary General.” E/CN.15/2003/10. 12 March 2003. Economic and Social Council.

Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

“Workshop 1: Enhancing International Law Enforcement Cooperation, including Extradition Measures.” Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. A/CONF.203/9.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V05/815/28/PDF/V0581528.pdf?OpenElement

Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

“Workshop 2:Enhancing Criminal Justice Reform, including Restorative Justice .” Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. A/CONF.203/10.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V05/813/56/PDF/V0581356.pdf?OpenElement

Europa. “Report From the Commission Based on Article 34 of the Council Framework

Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States.” Europa,


http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=63.

“Extradition Muddies US Relations.” Andean Group Report, April 12, 2005. Lexis-

Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Fijnaut, Cyrille and Leo Huberts, ed. Corruption, Integrity, and Law Enforcement. New

York: Kluwer Law International, 2002. Freedom House. “Country Report: Cambodia.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: China.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: Colombia.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: Egypt.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: Haiti.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: Saudi Arabia.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Freedom House. “Country Report: Vietnam.” Freedom House, http://freedomhouse.org. Human Rights Watch. “Mexico: Anti-Torture Provisions Key to Justice Reform.” Human

Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/08/mexico9811.htm Jiangtao, Shi. “Reforms Depend on Doing Justice to Grass-Roots Courts: Judiciary.”

South China Morning Post, March 14, 2006. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Liberia: Resurrecting the Justice System.” Africa News, April 6, 2006. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.


Mrozek, Andrea. “Rest Home for the Wicked: Simon Wiesenthal Denounced Canada Years Ago for Failing to Bring War Criminals to the Justice.” Western Standard, October 31, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Ni, Ching-Ching. “Torture Still Common in China, U.N. Team Concludes.” Los Angeles

Times, December 3, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Nigeria, Judicial Reform: Proposals for Reform.” Africa News, February 28, 2006.

Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Official Journal of the European Communities. “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

European Union.” European Union, http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf. Olson, Alexandra. “Venezuela Judicial Watchdog Quits, Blames Corruption.” The

Associated Press, August 9, 2000. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Opinion Poll: 91% Think That Judges Should Be Made Criminally Accountable.” Ros

Business Consulting Database, November 16, 2001. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Proposals Tip Scales of Justice in Favor of Public Opinion.” The Nikkei Weekly,

November 19, 2001. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 46/152. Creation of An Effective United

Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme.” A/RES/46/152. Access UN,

http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 59/182. Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” A/RES/59/182. Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 59.195. Human Rights and Terrorism.”

A/RES/59/195. Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/.


Rivera, John. “Bishops Call for Justice Reforms, Compassion for Victims of Crime.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 16, 2000. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Serbia: Poll Shows Majority Siding With Old Europe, Denying US Immunity Request.”

BBC Monitoring International Reports, June 10, 2003. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “International Cooperation in

Criminal Matters.” Economic and Social Council Resolution 1997/26. The Economic and Social Council.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.RES.1997.26.En?Opendocument.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.”

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_prevention.html. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “Uganda.” United Nations Office on Drugs

and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption_projects_uganda.html. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “UN Crime Congresses: The Eleventh Crime

Congress.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_congresses.html. U.S. Department of State. “Report on International Extradition Submitted to the Congress

Pursuant to Section 211 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.” US Department of State,

www.state.gov/documents/organization/6545.doc. “Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first

Century.” Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. Vienna, 10-17 April 2000.


“Workshop on Criminal Justice Reform Highlights Need for Restorative Justice as Alternative to Prison.” Eleventh UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. 22 April 2005.

http://un.org/events/11thcongress/.


Works Referenced Anello, Robert J. and Robert G. Morvillo. “White Collar Crime: Prosecutorial

Limitations in Cross-Border Investigations.” New York Law Journal, April 5, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Askar, Yusuf. Implementing International Humanitarian Law: From the Ad Hoc

Tribunals to a Permanent International Criminal Court. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Borch, Fred L. and Paul S. Wilson, ed. International Law and the War on Terror.

Newport: Naval War College, 2003. Breinholt, Jeff. “The Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War in the Post-9/11 and Iraq

World: Seeking Synchronicity: Thoughts on the Role of Domestic Law Enforcement in Counterterrorism.” American University Law Review, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. “Report on the Ninth Session.”

Supplement No. 10. 18-20 April 2000. E/CN.15/2000/7. Council of Europe. “European Convention on Extradition.” Paris, 13.XII.1957, http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm. Crowe, Kenneth C. “A Cold Case Starts to Heat Up.” The Times Union, December 19,

2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Dareini, Ali Akbar. “Iran Refuses to Hand Over Terrorists.” The New York Sun, August

5, 2003. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Del Ponte, Carla. “The Dividends of International Criminal Justice.” Address at Goldman

Sachs, London, 6 October 2005. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2005/speech/cdp-goldmansachs-050610-e.htm. Dupret, Baudouin, ed. Standing Trial: Law and the Person in the Modern Middle East.

New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004.


Economic and Social Council. “International Cooperation in Combating Transnational Crime.” E/CN.15/1998/6. 23 March 1998. Economic and Social Council.

Economic and Social Council. “Reform of the Criminal Justice System: Achieving

Effectiveness and Equity.” E/CN.15/2002/3. 26 February 2002. Economic and Social Council.

Economic and Social Council. “United Nations Standards and Norms in Crime

Prevention and Criminal Justice.” E/CN.15/2006/13. 3 March 2006. Economic and Social Council.

EUROPA – Justice and Home Affairs. “European Arrest Warrant Replaces Extradition

Between EU Member States.” EUROPA – Justice and Home Affairs, http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/criminal/extradition/wai/fsj_criminal_

extradition_en.htm. Flory, Maurice and Rosalyn Higgins, ed. Terrorism and International Law. New York:

Routledge, 1997. Greenhouse, Linda. “The War on Terrorism, From Tripoli to Belfast.” The New York

Times, April 30, 1986. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Guidelines of the Role of Prosecutors.” Adopted by the Eight United Nations Congress

on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990.

“International Co-Operation in Civil and Criminal Matters.” Mondaq Business Briefing,

February 4, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, Htt[://web.lexis-nexis.com. “A Letter for Stethem.” The New York Sun, January 12, 2006. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. “Libyan Fundamentalists Resident in UK Reportedly Fear Extradition to Libya.” BBC

Monitoring International Reports, October 24, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. McGrory, Daniel. “Official Bungle May Let Al-Qaeda Suspect Go Free.” The Times

(London), November 18, 2005. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.


Messitte, Peter J. “Centennial Universal Congress of Lawyers Conference – Lawyers and Jurists in the 21st Century: Remark: Expanding the Rule of Law: Judicial Reform in Central Europe and Latin America.” Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Newman, Dwight G. “The Rome Statute, Some Reservations Concerning Amnesties, and

a Distributive Problem.” American University International Law Review, 2005. Lexis-Nexis,

http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Geneva Convention Relative to the

Treatment of Prisoners of War.” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. Pura, Raphael. “Indonesian Arrests Could Bolster Ties With US.” Wall Street Journal

Abstracts, January 13, 2006. Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com. Pyle, Christopher H. Extradition, Politics, and Human Rights. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press, 2001. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 51/60. United Nations Declaration on

Crime and Public Security.” A/RES/51/60. Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 56/261. Plans of Action for the

Implementation of the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century.” A/RES/56/261. Access UN,

http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 58/183. Human Rights In The

Administration of Justice.” A/RES/58/183. Access UN, http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. 59/159. Strengthening the United

Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, In Particular Its Technical Cooperation Capacity.” A/RES/59/159. Access UN,

http://www.infoweb.newsbank.com/.


Snyder, Francis, ed. The Europeanisation of Law: The Legal Effects of European Integration. Portland: Hart Publishing, 2000.

Sriram, Chandra Lekha. Globalizing Justice for Mass Atrocities: A Revolution in

Accountability. New York: Routledge, 2005. Stack, John F., Jr. and Mary L. Volcanesk, ed. Courts Crossing Borders: Blurring the

Lines of Sovereignty. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2005. United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network. “Model Treaty on Extradition,

Adopted by the Eighth Crime Congress, Havana, 27 August-7 September 1990.” United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network,

http://www.uncjin.org/Standards/Rules/r17/r17.html United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “Criminal Justice Reform.” United Nations

Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/criminal_justice.html. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “Previous Congresses on the Prevention of

Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_previous_congresses.html. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “UN Crime Congresses: The Eleventh Crime

Congress.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_congresses.html. Viano, Emilio, ed. Global Organized Crime and International Security. Brookfield,

Ashgate, 1999. Whitelaw, Kevin. “On A Dagger’s Edge.” US News & World Report, March 13, 2006.

Lexis-Nexis, http://web.lexis-nexis.com.

Date post:	30-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	idia
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

1ProsecutionandExtradition

Documents