The ELA is a growing international forum. We offer access to lawyers for people and foreign governments involved in extradition proceedings. We  organise training and conferences on extradition, and share with members a growing database of information about extradition law and practice, including national and international legislation and judgments. To register as a member of the ELA, please click here.

Members of the ELA receive regular e-mail updates of UK judgments and legislation. As the ELA expands, members will receive extradition judgments and legislation from abroad. 

The information presented in this material has been developed from sources believed to be reliable, but it should not be construed as legal or other professional advice. The Extradition Lawyers' Association accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this material and recommends the consultation with competent legal counsel and/or other professional advisors before applying this material in any particular factual situations.

Havrilova (18 November 2011) - bailii link to Havrilova v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 113 (Scottish High Court of Justiciary)

Section 147(1) Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 - "...a person charged with an offence on summary proceedings shall not be detained in that respect for a total of more than 40 days after the bringing of the complaint..." - defendant in extradition proceedings detained for longer than 40 days - whether section 147 applies to extradition proceedings - section 9(2) of the 2003 Act - applies the rules of summary cause procedure and evidence in extradition proceedings - Goatley - Tollman - Gerhardt - Dytlow - Asliturk - Chaos - section 9 confers powers on the Court not rights of the defendant - section 147 concerned with rights of the accused - section 147 applies only when a person has been charged with a summary offence

Mokallal (10 November 2011) - bailii link to Mokallal v Ukraine (2011) ECHR (App. 19246/10) European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section)

Extradition to Iran - article 5(1)(f) ECHR - [1] detention between 3^rd April and 17^th June 2010 - violation of article 5(1) - Ukrainian domestic extradition law prior to 17^th June 2010 not providing for sufficient legal basis for detention - Soldatenko - Svetlorusov - [2] detention between 17^th June and 29^th June 2010 - violation of article 5(1) - Ukraine domestic law amended on 17^th June 2010 - however Applicant continued to be detained under order of 6^th April 2010 - absence of transitional arrangements - [3] detention between 29^th June and 12^th July 2010 - no violation of article 5(1) - Applicant's detention authorised under post 17^th June 2010 domestic law - Ukrainian law prohibits expulsion of refugees - Applicant with extant undetermined application for refugee status - application yet to be determined - ongoing examination of refugee status does not exclude possibility that might be extradited - future outcome cannot retroactively affect lawfulness of detention - Garkavyy - Dubovik - distinguished - [4] detention between 12^th and 14^th July 2010 - violation of article 5(1) - on 12^th July 2010 Iranian embassy withdrew request for extradition - applicant not released until 14^th July 2010 - some administrative delay understandable but should be kept to minimum - Quinn - Manzoni - K-F - Mancini - administrative delay should not be for more than a few hours - Nikolov - all modern means of communication should be deployed - Eminbeyli

Yakubov (8 November 2011) - bailii link to Yakubov v Russia (2011) ECHR (App. 7265/10) European Court of Human Rights (First Section)

Deportation to Uzbekistan - extradition to Uzbekistan having previously been refused as offences were time barred under Russian law - Applicant said to be a member of proscribed organisation - deportation proceedings initiated - Applicant claimed asylum [1] violation of article 3 - substantial grounds for believing real risk of ill treatment - Saadi - Soering - Ryabikin - Mamatkulov - assessment is relative  - dependant on circumstances of the case - Hilal ­- domestic authorities failed to make an adequate assessment of risk of article 3 mistreatment - Ismoilov - Muminov - arguments first raised in appellate proceedings - not unreasonable - defendant becomes aware of risk of ill-treatment at the moment he learns of decision to expel - requiring defendant to provide "indisputable" evidence of risk is tantamount to requiring proof of existence future event - Article 3 concerned with foreseeable consequences - ECHR judgments between 2002 and 2007 demonstrate systematic use of torture in police custody in Uzbekistan - recent judgments recognise no evidence of improvement - Isakov - Karimov - Yuldashev - Sultanov - defendant member of vulnerable group - incommunicado detention increases risk of ill-treatment - Applicant mistreated in the Uzbekistan before leaving - Garayev - office of the UNHCR considered applicant's case and concluded he was eligible for protection under its mandate - accession to international human rights treaties insufficient where reliable sources report practices manifestly contrary to ECHR - [2] violation of article 13 - Shamayev - requirement of proof of "indisputable" evidence - disproportionate burden - depriving defendant of meaningful examination of his claim

Assange (2 November 2011) - bailii link to Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)

[1] construction of Part 1 - Pupino - Dabas - court must consider carefully where 2003 Act and Framework decision differ - Armas - dual purpose of Framework decision - simplification and protection of ECHR and Charter rights - mutual confidence not advanced unless executing State scrutinises EAWs with intensity - mutual recognition - Caldarelli - more intense scrutiny required where EAW not issued by a judge - unless decisions of prosecutor have been subject to scrutiny of judge - [2] section 2(2) - judicial authority not confined to a judge who adjudicates - prosecutor is a judicial authority - Article 1 Framework decision - Enander - Schiesser - Skoogstrom - Medvedyev - Van der Hollst - Speight - Ministry of Justice not a judicial authority - independence - Goatley -  designation by issuing State under Article 6(3) Framework decision not always conclusive - Anderson - Ovakimyan - Enander - different principles may apply in conviction cases - SOCA certificate not conclusive - Harmatos - [3] section 2(4)(c) - Castillo - Palar - La Torre - description of conduct must be fair and accurate - Ektor - Murua correctly decided - Murua modifies Castillo - court can have regard to extraneous material to determine accuracy of description of conduct only in accordance with principles in Murua - not where EAW is clear and extraneous materials do not demonstrate different case to that set out in EAW - - normally only where extraneous materials show fundamental error [plainly wrong] or fundamental unfairness or bad faith - not necessary to spell out entire context of conduct alleged, only that which is necessary for the prosecution to prove  - [4] section 64(3) - dual criminality - conditional consent to sex  - Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Clarence - Dee - Linekar - B - Jheeta - [5] section 64(2) - Framework List offences - Article 2.2 Framework decision - conduct described in EAW amounted to rape - meaning of rape - MC - Kunarac - Framework List designation by issuing state not conclusive - should ordinarily be accepted by executing State unless there is obvious inconsistency between the description of the offence and the category ticked under the law of the issuing State - Desjatknikovs - Tighe - Palar - Arteaga - no requirement that conduct must be reasonably capable of amounting to an offence under the law of the executing State - [6] section 2(3) -Article 1.1 Framework decision - meaning of accused - Ismail - additional safeguard under the 2003 Act - Armas - Asztaslos - Bartlett - Dabas - court to be careful not to give technical procedural meaning - express statement not necessary so long as EAW clear - EAW clear - extraneous information  - not necessary to decide whether Asztaslos correctly decided - case law shows different approaches - Vey - McCormack - Thompson - Trenk - Bartlett - extraneous evidence clear that no decision to charge yet made - fact that may be required to answer further questions before decision to charge is made not decisive - use of word suspect not relevant - defendant may be accused even though final decision to prosecute or charge not yet taken question - EAW contains precise description of conduct - following detailed investigation - case has moved from suspect where proof may be lacking to accusation supported by proof - Hussein - Ismail contains more than one test that may be used - [7] proportionality - COM(2011) 175 Final - Charter - NS - C - assuming without deciding that proportionality a legal requirement of issuance - no breach

Ahorugeze (27 October 2011) - bailii link to Ahorugeze v Sweden (2011) ECHR (App. 37075/09) (Fifth Section)

Extradition to Rwanda - ICTR transfer decisions and international domestic extradition practice examined - Brown - [1] no violation of Article 3 ECHR - general principles - Soering - Mamatkulov - Chahal - D - N - very high threshold for medical condition to raise an issue under Article 3 - no compelling humanitarian grounds - no evidence of general risk of persecution or of particular personal circumstances engendering such a risk - prison conditions - assurances that defendant will be detained in specific prisons - monitoring available - risk of breach of assurance speculative - sentence of life imprisonment in isolation not available - [2] no violation of Article 6 ECHR - flagrant denial of justice test - synonymous with manifestly contrary to the provisions or principles of Article 6 - Sejdovic - stringent test - beyond mere irregularities or lack of safeguards such as might amount to a breach in a domestic context - must amount to nullification or destruction of very essence of an Article 6 right - same burden and standard as under Article 3 - Saadi - for defendant to adduce evidence capable of proving substantial grounds for believing exposure to real risk of flagrant denial of justice - then for government to dispel any doubts - substantial improvements in Rwanda since 2008/2009 - fair trials now possible - defence witness testimony possible - judicial independence - life imprisonment in isolation not possible - qualified lawyers and legal aid available - courts independent from gacaca courts

The ELA is pleased to recieve judgments from other countries thought to be of interest to ELA members   

Nemeth (25 November 2010) - Nemeth v Republic of Canada [2010] 3 SCR 281 (Suypreme Court of Canada)

Defendants with refugee status vis-à-vis persecution by Requesting State - Article 33 Refugee Convention 1951 - non-refoulement principles apply to extradition - [1] no international law norm preventing extradition of person with refugee status only once status ceased or revoked - non-refoulement protection provided by [extraneous considerations provisions of sections 13 & 81 of the UK Act] - [2] no ‘shock the conscience' threshold applicable - [3] to give proper effect to Article 33, prejudice not limited to prosecution or punishment - Article 3 European Convention on Extradition - UK Act drafted differently - Hilali - Sneddon - [4] refugee status provides prima facie entitlement to protection of [ss13 & 81] - no burden on defendant to show that his conditions have not changed - non-refoulement obligations must be given proper weight in extradition decisions - State bears the burden of proof that circumstances previously justifying refugee status no longer exist - [5] duty of fairness owed to defendant - includes adequate disclosure of case against, a reasonable opportunity to respond to it and a reasonable opportunity to state his case - [6] Articles 1E & 1F Refugee Convention - serious crime exception - ‘serious non-political crime' - Canada immigration law deems offences punishable with 10 years imprisonment