5 Common Arguments Used by Lawyers To Avoid Extradition In Your Case

Part 1: The Extradition Process and Common Arguments Used to Avoid it

Extradition is the legal process by which a person is handed over from one jurisdiction to another for the purpose of standing trial or serving a sentence. The process is governed by international treaties and agreements between countries, and is typically used when a person is accused of committing a crime in one country and then flees to another.

However, the process of extradition is not always a straightforward one, and many individuals facing extradition will use various arguments in an attempt to avoid it. In this article, we will explore five typical arguments that lawyers use to make you avoid extradition.

1. The Political Offence Exception

One of the most common arguments used to avoid extradition is the political offence exception. This argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited for an offence that is considered a political crime, as it is seen as a violation of political rights and freedoms.

For example, a person who has been accused of treason in their home country may argue that their crime is a political offence and therefore should not be subject to extradition. Similarly, a person who is accused of participating in a political protest or demonstration may use this argument to avoid extradition.

2. The Human Rights Violation Argument

Another argument that is often used to avoid extradition is the human rights violation argument. This argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if they are likely to face human rights violations in the country where they are being sent.

For example, a person who is facing extradition to a country with a poor human rights record may argue that they will be at risk of torture, inhumane treatment, or other human rights violations if they are sent there. Similarly, a person who is facing extradition to a country with a high risk of capital punishment may use this argument to avoid it.

3. The Dual Criminality Argument

The dual criminality argument is another common argument used to avoid extradition. This argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if the crime they are accused of is not considered a crime in the country where they are being sent.

For example, a person who is facing extradition for a drug offence may argue that the possession and use of drugs is legal in the country where they are being sent, and therefore the crime should not be subject to extradition. Similarly, a person who is facing extradition for a white-collar crime may argue that the crime is not considered a crime in the country where they are being sent, and therefore should not be subject to extradition.

4. The Statute of Limitations Argument

The statute of limitations argument is another common argument used to avoid extradition. This argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if the statute of limitations for the crime they are accused of has expired.

For example, a person who is facing extradition for a crime that was committed more than 10 years ago may argue that the statute of limitations for that crime has expired, and therefore should not be subject to extradition. Similarly, a person who is facing extradition for a crime that was committed in a country with a shorter statute of limitations may use this argument to avoid it.

5. The Speciality Rule Argument

The speciality rule argument is another common argument used to avoid extradition. This argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if they are likely to be charged with a different crime than the one they are being extradited for.

For example, a person who is facing extradition for a drug offence may argue that they will be charged with a different crime, such as terrorism or money laundering, if they are sent to the country where they are being extradited. This can be a concern for individuals who are facing extradition to countries with a history of using extradition for political reasons or for crimes that do not align with the charges for which they were originally extradited.

In conclusion, extradition can be a complex and difficult process, with many potential arguments that can be used to avoid it. Understanding these common arguments and the principles behind them can help individuals and their legal teams navigate the extradition process and make the best decisions for their case. In part 2 and 3, we will delve into more detail on each of these arguments and explore some real-life examples of how they have been used in the past.

Part 2: Exploring the Political Offence Exception and the Human Rights Violation Argument in More Detail

In part 1 of this article, we discussed five common arguments that lawyers use to make you avoid extradition, including the political offence exception and the human rights violation argument. In this section, we will take a closer look at these two arguments and explore some real-life examples of how they have been used in the past.

1. The Political Offence Exception

The political offence exception is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited for an offence that is considered a political crime. This can include crimes such as treason, espionage, and participating in political protests or demonstrations.

One notable example of the political offence exception being used is the case of Roman Polanski, a film director who was accused of statutory rape in 1977 in the United States. Polanski fled the country before he could be sentenced and has been living in France ever since. When he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009, he argued that his crime was a political offence and that he should not be subject to extradition to the United States.

Another example is the case of former President of Panama, Manuel Noriega, who was arrested in France in 1990 on drug trafficking charges. Noriega argued that his crimes were political in nature and that he should not be subject to extradition to the United States.

2. The Human Rights Violation Argument

The human rights violation argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if they are likely to face human rights violations in the country where they are being sent. This can include risks such as torture, inhumane treatment, or the death penalty.

One notable example of the human rights violation argument being used is the case of Roman Polanski, who also used this argument to avoid extradition to the United States. Polanski argued that he would be at risk of human rights violations if he were sent to the United States, as he would be subject to a long and harsh prison sentence.

Another example is the case of Gary McKinnon, a hacker who was accused of breaking into United States government computer systems in 2002. McKinnon argued that he would be at risk of human rights violations if he were sent to the United States, as he has Asperger's syndrome and would not be able to cope with the harsh prison conditions.

These are just a few examples of how the political offence exception and the human rights violation argument have been used in the past to avoid extradition. While these arguments can be effective in certain cases, they are not always successful and ultimately it is up to the court to decide whether to grant or deny extradition.

In part 3, we will take a closer look at the remaining arguments discussed in part 1, including the dual criminality argument, the statute of limitations argument, and the speciality rule argument.

Part 3: Exploring the Dual Criminality Argument, the Statute of Limitations Argument, and the Speciality Rule Argument in More Detail

In part 2 of this article, we looked at the political offence exception and the human rights violation argument in more detail. In this section, we will take a closer look at the remaining arguments discussed in part 1, including the dual criminality argument, the statute of limitations argument, and the speciality rule argument.

1. The Dual Criminality Argument

The dual criminality argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if the crime they are accused of is not considered a crime in the country where they are being sent. This can include crimes such as drug possession and use, which may be legal in some countries but not in others.

One example of the dual criminality argument being used is the case of Marc Emery, a Canadian citizen who was arrested in the United States on charges of selling marijuana seeds. Emery argued that the sale of marijuana seeds is legal in Canada and therefore should not be subject to extradition to the United States.

Another example is the case of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who was arrested in the United Kingdom on charges of skipping bail. Assange argued that the crime of skipping bail is not considered a crime in Ecuador, where he had been living in asylum, and therefore should not be subject to extradition to the United States.

2. The Statute of Limitations Argument

The statute of limitations argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if the statute of limitations for the crime they are accused of has expired. This can include crimes that were committed many years ago and may no longer be subject to prosecution.

One example of the statute of limitations argument being used is the case of Roman Polanski, who also used this argument to avoid extradition to the United States. Polanski argued that the statute of limitations for his crime of statutory rape had expired, and therefore he should not be subject to extradition.

Another example is the case of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-American who was accused of being a Nazi war criminal. Demjanjuk argued that the statute of limitations for his crimes had expired and therefore he should not be subject to extradition to Germany.

3. The Speciality Rule Argument

The speciality rule argument is based on the principle that a person should not be extradited if they are likely to be charged with a different crime than the one they are being extradited for. This can include crimes such as terrorism or money laundering that may not align with the charges for which the individual was originally extradited.

One example of the speciality rule argument being used is the case of Roman Polanski, who also used this argument to avoid extradition to the United States. Polanski argued that he would be charged with additional crimes if he were sent to the United States, such as perjury and obstruction of justice.

Another example is the case of Gary McKinnon, who also used this argument to avoid extradition to the United States. McKinnon argued that he would be charged with additional crimes, such as espionage, if he were sent to the United States, which were not aligned with the charges for which he was originally extradited.

These are just a few examples of how the dual criminality argument, the statute of limitations argument, and the speciality rule argument have been used in the past to avoid extradition. While these arguments can be effective in certain cases, they are not always successful and ultimately it is up to the court to decide whether to grant or deny extradition.

Disclaimer: Always speak directly with a lawyer; blog posts are not a sufficient source of information to make decisions, may not be appropriate for your situation, and may not be current by the time you read them, always speak directly with an attorney first.

If it is your first time, here are some examples of the results our tax lawyers can help you achieve:

- international tax optimization, to cut down your taxes (even to zero)

- analyze your specific situation and your business situation to help you choose the best country/countries for your specific needs, which guarantees you both tax savings and everything you wish for;

- protect your assets, making them "untouchable";

- become an international / global entrepreneur, able to use all world regulations and tax advantages to your benefit;

- making you profit using tax havens;

- acquire multiple residences;

- acquire new passports;

Check our main page now and contact us https://yourinternationaltaxlawyers.net

If you are not yet ready to contact us, use the mailing list form on the main page to stay updated with our tips and once-in-a-lifetime promotions.