page 123 note 1 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 38 and 39.

page 123 note 2 Ibid., pp. 42 and 43; Bonafos, De l’Extraditon (1866), p. 98. Bonafos says that a similar treaty was made between France and Switzerland in 1847, but this is an error. The Swiss treaty neither provided for nor prohibited extradition of nationals of the requested State. Under it we are told that the practice was generally not to extradite nationals, at least with the exception of crime “grave et public.” Billot, op. cit., p. 41.

page 123 note 3 Op. cit., p. 72. Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), V, p. 23, denies that the Charter, Arts. 4 and 62, had any such effect.

page 123 note 4 Billot, op. cit, pp. 101 and 121 to 123. See also Travers, op. cit., p. 22.

page 123 note 5 Billot, op. cit., pp. 72 and 73.

page 124 note 1 Loi concernant les Crimes, les Délits, et les Contraventions commis à l’Etranger, 27 Juin-3 Juillet, 1866, XI Bull. 1400, No. 14, 336. See evidence of M. Treitt, Report from the Select Committee [of the House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), pars. 1372–1384, pp. 73 and 74, also appendix to that report, p. 96.

page 124 note 2 “§2. L’Extradition des malfaiteurs est soumise à des restrictions dont il faut bien se rendre compte. En premier lieu, les puissances ne consentent pas à livrer leurs nationaux: il en resulte que la Prance ne peut réclamer que l’extradition d’un Frangais ou d’un étranger réfugié dans un pays autre que celui auquel il appertient.” Circulaire du Ministre de la Justice du 5 Avril 1841, Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 72 and 416.

page 124 note 3 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 73; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §119, p. 152; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §330, p. 568; Travers, Droit Penal International (1922), V, §§2224, 2231, 2232, pp. 11, 25 to 28.

page 124 note 4 Report of Royal Commission, 1878, see Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 18 to 20; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §330, pp. 568 and 569; Extradition Statute, 1870, Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 124 note 5 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §§129–141, pp. 159–177.

page 124 note 6 Oppenheim, op. cit., §330, p. 569, n. 1. See Regina v. Wilson (1877), 3 Queens Bench Reports, 42, where the prohibition in the treaty prevented extradition by Great Britain of her own national, and the case of Tourville (Oppenheim, op. cit, §330, p. 569, n. 1), where a British subject was extradited under a treaty declaring the parties to be under no obligation to extradite their nationals.

Under circumstances similar to those in the Tourville case, Nicaragua extradited one of her nationals to Honduras. In re Rodriguez, Boletín Judicial de la Gaceta (1919), pp. 2333 to 2387; Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1919 to 1922, p. 269.

page 124 note 7 Citing, “Mr. Fish, Sec’y. of State, to Mr. Delfoese, Belgian Minister, Aug. 11, 1873, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1873, Pt. I, p. 84; Mr. Gresham, Sec’y. of State, to Mr. Bartleman, No. 110, June 11, 1894, Ms. Inst. Venezuela, IV, 304. Moore, Digest of International Law (1906), Vol. IV, p. 288; Mr. Olney, Sec’y. of State, to Mr. Ransom, Minister to Mexico, Dec. 13,1895, For. Rel. 1895, Pt. II, p. 1008, Moore, Digest, Vol. IV, p. 289.”

page 124 note 8 Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. I, §319, p. 578.

page 124 note 9 Moore, Extradition (1896), Vol. I, §§129 to 133, pp. 159 to 162.

page 124 note 10 Ibid., §133, p. 163. Under such treaty the President has no constitutional power to surrender a national. Ibid., §135, pp. 166 to 169.

page 125 note 1 Moore, Extraditon (1891), I, §§138 to 141, pp. 170–177; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §319, pp. 578 and 579; Charlton v. Kelly (1913), 229 U. S. 447.

page 125 note 2 Austria and Hungary under Criminal Code, 1878, Art. 17; Costa Rica, Penal Code, Art. 230; Czechoslovakia, Penal Code, Art. 235; France, Extradition Law, March 10, 1927, Arts. 2 and 5 (Appendix VI, No. 6); Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 2; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, under the provisions of the old Russian Penal Code, 1914, Art. 852 (3); Haiti, Law August 27,1912, Art. 4; Liechtenstein, Penal Code, Art. 36; Norway, Extradition Law, June 13,1908, Art. I; Panama, Extradition Law (No. 44), Nov. 22, 1930, Art. 5; Peru, Extradition Law, Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 3; Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 2 (Appendix VI, No. 13); Turkey, Penal Code, Art. 9 (Appendix VI, No. 14); Uruguay, Penal Code, Art. 10.

page 125 note 3 Belgium, Extradition Law, March 15, 1874, Art. 1 (Appendix 6, No. 2); Poland, Extradition Act, April 6, 1875, Art. 1; Luxembourg, Extradition Law, March 13, 1870, Art. 1.

page 125 note 4 Germany, Extradition Law, Dec. 23, 1929, Art. 15 (Appendix VI, No. 7); Yugoslavia, Penal Code, 1929, Art. 494; Siam, Extradition Act, E.E. 2472, Arts. 13 and 16.

page 125 note 5 Italy, Penal Code, Art. 13 (Appendix VI, No. 10—“Extradition of citizens is not granted unless specifically provided for in international convention”); Japan, Law No. 42, Aug. 10, 1895, Art. 1 (Appendix VI, No. 11); El Salvador, Penal Code, Art. 41.

page 125 note 6 Great Britain, Extradition Act, 1870 (Appendix VI, No. 8); British India, Extradition Act, Nov. 4,1903; Australia, Extradition Act, Oct. 21,1903; Canada, Extradition Act, 1927 (Appendix VI, No. 4); Iraq, Extradition Law, 1923; Transjordan, Extradition Law, 1927.

page 125 note 7 United States Code Annotated, Vol. 18, §§651–668, pp. 241–353 (Appendix VI, No. 15).

page 125 note 8 Code of Penal Procedure, Bk. III, Title 6 (Appendix VI, No. 5).

page 125 note 9 Ibid., Arts. 590–615.

page 125 note 10 Mexican Law, May 17, 1897, Arts. 10–11.

page 125 note 11 Ecuador, Law of Oct. 8, 1921, Art. 41.

page 125 note 12 Spain, “Instructions for Administration and Despatch of Business of the Ministry of State,” Art. 148.

page 125 note 13 Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, §2 (Appendix VI, No. 12).

page 125 note 14 Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §330, p. 569; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §133, p. 163. See, for example, Estonia-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 4; Latvia Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 6; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 28; Great Britain-Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 46.

page 126 note 1 Appendix V, No. 1.

page 126 note 2 Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §330, p. 569. Under treaties to which the United States is a party and which provide that neither party shall be bound to extradite its nationals, the President has been held without constitutional power to deliver a national of the United States. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §135, pp. 166–167.

page 126 note 3 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 126 note 4 Ibid., No. 2.

page 126 note 5 Ibid., No. 3.

page 126 note 6 Ibid., No. 4.

page 126 note 7 Ibid., No. 5.

page 126 note 8 Ibid., No. 6. The United States by reservation refused to assume an obligation to try its own nationals in case it failed to extradite them (Art. 2), denied the right of the requested State to refuse extradition when the person claimed is wanted for a trial before an extraordinary tribunal (Art. 3-d), allowed a subsequent requisition after the extradition had been refused for the same act, contrary to the provisions of the convention (Art. 12), denied the delivery of property in cases when the person claimed cannot be extradited (Art. 15), charged to the requesting State the expenses of extradition (Art. 16), and denied the obligation of extradition in transit (Art. 18).

page 126 note 9 Ibid., No. 7.

page 126 note 10 Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 126 note 11 Ibid., No. 2.

page 126 note 12 Ibid., No. 3.

page 127 note 1 Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 127 note 2 Ibid., No. 5.

page 127 note 3 Ibid., No. 6.

page 127 note 4 Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 18 and 19; Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), Vol. V, §2225, p. 11.

page 127 note 5 Ibid.

page 128 note 1 See, for example, Constitution of the United States, Amendment VI; New York Code of Criminal Procedure, §§233, 355; Halsbury’s Laws of England (1909), IX, pp. 66 to 70; France, Code d’Instruction Criminelle, Art. 6.

page 128 note 2 See opinions quoted later in this comment.

Originally Great Britain refused to extradite to the United States persons charged with piracy by international law, though the treaty between the two countries included “piracy” in the list of extraditable crimes. This refusal was based upon the fact that British courts by international and municipal law had jurisdiction to punish such piracy, and so there was no reason to extradite for that offense, and the piracy provided for in the treaty must mean piracy by municipal law only. However, this was thought to be bad policy, where British and foreign courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and proof of the offense can better be advanced in the other country. The British law was changed to allow extradition in such a case. Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §113, p. 143; British Extradition Act, 1870, Art. 6 (Appendix VI, No. 8); Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 72.

page 128 note 3 Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), Vol. V, §2229, pp. 23 and 24. Travers cites: Weiss, Des Conditions a l’Extradition, p. 38; Garraud, Traité de Droit Pénal Français (3d ed., 1913), I, §217, p. 452, note 17; Le Poittevin, Code d’Instruction Criminelle Annoté, app. to arts. 5, 6, 7, §104 citing authors on both sides; Merignhac, Traité de Droit Public International, II, p. 744.

page 132 note 1 In the following discussion the author points out that confidence in the judicial systems of other States must be assumed for extradition, that if it does not exist there should be no extradition at all, and the advantages of trial in foro delicti commissi.

page 132 note 2 The opposing view is expressed by Von Martitz, Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (1888), pp. 235, 237.

page 132 note * [Author’s note: Conf. Kluit, De deditione prof., 2° partie, p. 32 et 34.—Calvo, Dr. intern., t. I, p. 529.—Bonafos, p. 70.—Billott, p. 70.—Villebrun, L. du 27 juill. 1866, p. 110.—Mareschal, p. 33.—Charles-Antoine, p. 33.—Fiore, Dr. pen. intern., p. 526, et Renault, p. 17.—Asser, Bluntschli, Brocher, Brusa, Dubois, Holland, Holtzendorn, Hornung, Martens, d’Olivecrona, Saripolos, Westlake, Weiss.]

page 133 note * [Author’s note: “It is laid down by Berner, as a universal principle, that a state ought never to surrender a native to a foreign criminal jurisdiction. The reasons by which he supports this position are, that every man has an innate right to remain on the soil where he was born; that a man's right to his own home is of divine origin; and that the surrender of a native subject is inconsistent with national dignity. Such declamatory reasons as these raise a presumption that the writer was unable to adduce arguments founded on political utility.” Lewis on Foreign Jurisdiction, etc., p. 51.]

page 134 note * [Author’s note: Moniteur Universal, 31 Mai 1866, p. 657, col. 1.]

page 134 note † [Author’s note: Bernard, Traité de l’extradition, t. II, pp. 109 et s.; Bomboy et Gilbrin, De l’extradition, pp. 34, 35; Saint-Aubin, L’extradition, p. 300; Billot, Traité de l’extradition, pp. 67 et s.; Weiss, Etude sur les conditions de l’extradition, pp. 46 et s.; Louis Renault, Ann. de l’Institut de dr. internat., t. V, 1881–1882, p. 78; Mérignhac, Traité de dr. internat., t. II, p. 742, reproduisant les conditions formulées par l’Institut de droit international, voir, infra, ce n° Stieglitz, De l’extradition, p. 58; Beauchet, Traité de l’extradition, p. 68, n° 115; Despagnet, Cours de dr. internat. public, 4^e ed. par de Boeck, 1910, §285, p. 410. Voir, sur l’extradition des nationaux, Le Poittevin, Cl., De l’extradition des nationaux, 1903, pp. 24 et s.; et, contre son admission, Deloume, Principes généraux de dr. international en matière criminelle, p. 81.]

page 135 note * [Author’s note: “Un jour viendra peut-être, … où, par l’effet du rapprochement des peuples, grace au progres des lumières, a l’uniformité des lois et des institutions, cette exception (refus de remise des nationaux) n’aura plus de raison d’être et où tous les malfaiteurs, nationaux ou autres, seront indistinctement livrés à la justice étrangère qui les réclamera.” Journ. off., 11 déc. 1876, p. 9227, col. 3.]

page 136 note 1 Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §142, p. 177; Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), Ch. III ; Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), Vol. V, §2261, p. 51; Regina v. Ganz (1883), 9 Queens Bench Division, 93.

page 136 note 2 Moore, op. cit., §142, pp. 177 and 178.

page 136 note 3 Ibid., §§143 to 147, pp. 178 to 193.

page 136 note 4 Regina v. Ganz, supra, n. 1.

page 136 note 5 Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), Vol. V, §2264, pp. 53 and 54; Bomboy & Gibbons, Traité Pratique de l’Extradition (1886), p. 26.

page 136 note 6 Travers, op. cit., §2267, p. 57, but the only example given is an agreement applicable between Algiers and Tunis.

page 136 note 7 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 87 to 89, referring to various French treaties on the subject.

page 136 note 8 Treaty between Prance and Portugal, July 13, 1854, Art. 6, providing that: “If the person accused or condemned is not a subject of that one of the contracting parties which demands him, he shall not be delivered up until his government shall have been consulted and given opportunity to make known the reasons which it may have to oppose his extradition,” involved in the Case of Silveira (1867), Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §144, pp. 179 to 184.

Treaty between Belgium and Italy of Jan. 15,1875, in accordance with the terms of which the Italian minister gave notice to our government that United States citizens had been demanded by Belgium and that his government was “waiting to be informed whether the Government of the United States intends to ask that these persons be surrendered to it, or not.” Ibid., §146, pp. 187 to 191.

In the present treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia (Art. 2, par. 2) Appendix I, No. 11, it is declared that either party, to whom requisition is presented for a national of a third State, may give notice to such third State, so that that State may also have an opportunity to make requisition for the person claimed.

A group of modern treaties provide that, when two or more States have already requested the extradition of the same person, the requested State shall give notice to the State of allegiance, “granting it a period of 15 days in which to decide whether it also intends to apply for extradition.” Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, ibid., No. 52; Bulgaria-Greece, ibid., No. 62: Bulgaria-Spain, ibid., No. 73; Latvia-Spain, ibid., No. 74. A similar clause is proposed in the Draft of an Extradition Convention, Art. 13, approved by the International Penal and Prison Commission, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 137 note 1 See (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, No. 18; Estonia-Finland, No. 33; Austria-Estonia, No. 45; Colombia-Panama, No. 54; Austria-Finland, No. 59; Hungary-Latvia, No. 64; Austria-Sweden, No. 72; Denmark-Estonia, No. 77; Estonia-Sweden, No. 80; Brazil-Italy, No. 87.

page 137 note 2 See (references are to Appendix I): Germany-Czechoslovakia, No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia, No. 12; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, No. 16; Albania-Yugoslavia, No. 44; Hungary-Yugoslavia, No. 61.

page 138 note 1 Moore, Extradition (1891) I, §103, pp. 134 and 135; Case of Carl Vogtalios Stupp, 14 Opinions of Atty.-General (1873), 281; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §328, p. 591; Clarke, Extradition (4th ed., 1903), pp. 111 and 145; Case of Allsop (1858), Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, 368.

page 138 note 2 See (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, No. 7; United States-Venezuela, No. 13; United States-Latvia, No. 14; United States-Estonia, No. 15; United States-Finland, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, No. 24; Great Britain-Finland, No. 25; United States-Lithuania, No. 26; United States-Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Great Britain-Albania, No. 47; Liberia-Monaco, No. 48; United States-Poland, No. 57; United States-Austria, No. 71 and United States-Great Britain, Appendix V, No. 1.

page 138 note 3 See (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Norway, No. 35; Latvia-Norway, No. 55; Norway-Estonia, I, No. 76.

page 138 note 4 See (references are to Appendix I): Rumania-Czechoslovakia, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, No. 52; Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Bulgaria-Spain, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, No. 74.

page 138 note 5 Brazil, Law No. 2416, of June 28,1911, Art. 7 (1), Appendix VI, No. 3; Ecuador, Law of Oct. 8, 1921, Art. 48; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, following the Russian Penal Code of 1914, Art. 852 (9); Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 10; Norway, Extradition Law, June 13,1908, par. 7; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 11,1913, §12, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 14, Appendix VI, No. 13. Panama gives preference to the State of nationality: Extradition Law, No. 44, Nov. 22,1930, Art. 14.

page 138 note 6 Extradition Law, Mar. 10, 1927, Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 138 note 7 Bustamante Code, Art. 347, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 138 note 8 South American Convention of 1911, Art. 13, Appendix III, No. 4; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 6, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 138 note 9 This is clear in the Oxford Resolutions, Art. 9, Appendix IV, No. 2, and the Rio de Janeiro Draft of the International Law Association of 1928, Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 5. The Draft of the International Penal and Prison Association of 1931, Art. 13, leaves full discretion to the requested State, but points out that preference is usually based upon territoriality, Appendix IV, No. 6. Travers' Draft gives preference to the State agreeing to re-extradite, and if that provision is not applicable to the State where the act was done, and, clearly, when claims are made for the same act, the provision for re-extradition is not ordinarily applicable, Appendix IV, No. 4. Field says (Art. 224): “In case two or more nations claim a person, upon the charge of violating a provision of the Code, the nation within which the offense was committed has the prior right, unless proceedings upon the charge have already been commenced by the other nation.” Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 139 note 1 See opinions in the comment on Article 7 of this Convention.

page 140 note 1 I.e., the United States treaties provide only for extradition to a State within whose territory an extraditable offense has been committed, and some of those treaties, where requisitions are made by two such States, provide for extradition to the one first making requisition.

page 141 note 1 Finland-Norway, Art. 8, Appendix I, No. 35; Latvia-Norway, Art. 8, Appendix I, No. 55; Norway-Estonia, Art. 8, Appendix I, No. 76.

page 142 note 1 France-Latvia, Art. 10, Appendix I, No. 29; Prance-San Marino, Art. 5, Appendix I, No. 43.

page 142 note 2 Supra, note 4, p. 138.

page 142 note 3 Supra, notes 1 and 2.

page 142 note 4 Ecuador, Law of Oct. 8,1921, Art. 48; Estonia-Latvia and Lithuania following Russian Penal Code of 1914, Art. 852 (10); Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11,1922, Art. 10; Panama, Extradition Law, No. 44, Nov. 22, 1930, Art. 14; Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1882, Art. 14, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 142 note 5 Norway, Extradition Law, June 13, 1908, §8; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, §13, Appendix VI, No. 12.

page 142 note 6 Art. 6, see Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 142 note 7 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 142 note 8 South American Convention of 1889, Art. 27, Appendix III, No. 2; Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 6, Appendix III, No. 3; Bustamante Code, Art. 348, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 142 note 9 South American Convention of 1911, Art. 13, Appendix III, No. 4; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 6, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 142 note 10 Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 142 note 11 Resolutions of Oxford, Art. 10, Appendix IV, No. 2; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 12, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 143 note 1 Art. 15, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 143 note 2 Model Convention, Art. 13, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 143 note 3 Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 5.

page 143 note 4 See (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 8, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 10, No. 18; Austria-Estonia, Art. 10, No. 45; Colombia-Panama, Art. 11, No. 54; Austria-Finland, Art. 9, No. 59; Hungary-Latvia, Art. 10, No. 64; Austria-Sweden, Art. 9, No. 72; Denmark-Estonia, Art. 10, No. 77; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 9, No. 80; Brazil-Italy, Art. 11, No. 87. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in accordance with the Eussian Penal Code of 1914, Art. 852 (10); Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 10; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, §13, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 14, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 143 note 5 Article 6, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 144 note 1 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 233 to 236; Bernard, L’Extradition (2d ed., 1890), I, pp. 148–155; Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), V, §2343, pp. 114–119.

page 144 note 2 The decision upon conflicting requisitions is to be made by the executive, when the sufficiency of the requisitions has been judicially determined. In re Doelitzsch (1923), Foro Italiano II (1924), pp. 6 to 8; Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (1923–24), p. 274.

page 145 note 1 United States Constitution, Amendment V; Stimson, American Statute Law (1886), §137, p. 30. And see, generally, Barbey, De l’Application Internationale de la Règie Non Bis in Idem en Matière Répressive (1930), pp. 23 to 48.

page 145 note 2 See Barbey, op. cit.; Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, of the Research in International Law, Art. 14.

page 146 note 1 Treaty of Nov. 7, 1844, Art. 2, Sec. 1, Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 239.

page 146 note 2 Treaty of May 14, 1872, Art. 4, id.

page 146 note 3 Treaty of May 22, 1880, Art. 4, Moore, Extradition (1891), II, p. 1123.

page 146 note 4 Travers, L’Entr’aide Répressive International (1928), §§144 to 148, pp. 138 to 142; Barbey, De l’Application de la Règle Non Bis in Idem en Matière Répressive (1930), pp. 81 to 83.

a. Bipartite treaties which say nothing as to the situation (dealt with in Article 10) of receipt of the requisition while the prosecution is in progress in the requested State (references are to Appendix I): Switzerland-Uruguay,- Art. 3, No. 19; France-Latvia, Art. 5, No. 29; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, No. 61; Finland-Italy, Art. 5, No. 66; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6, No. 69 (exception made where law of requested State allows trial to be reopened); Brazil-Italy, Art. 6, No. 87.

b. Bipartite treaties in which there is also a provision covering the situation (here dealt with in Article 10) in which a criminal prosecution is in progress in the requested State when the requisition is received. (References are to Appendix I. Asterisks indicate treaties in which an exception is made where law of requested State allows trial to be reopened): Austria-Hungary-Greece, Art. 4, No. 1; Germany-Greece, Art. 4, No. 2; Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 10, No. 8; Finland-Sweden, Art. 4, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 6, No. 18; Great Britain-Latvia, Art. 4, No. 20; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4, No. 22; Great Britain-Finland, Art. 4, No. 25; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 6, No. 27; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6, No. 28; Great Britain-Estonia, Art. 4, No. 30; France-Poland, Art. 4, No. 32; Austria-Norway, Art. 5, No. 34; * Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No.36; * Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 37; * Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 38; * Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 39; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 5, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 42; Great Britain-Lithuania, Art. 4, No. 46; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 5, No. 48; * Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 50; * Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 51; * Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 53; Colombia-Panama, Art. 4, No. 54; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 3, No. 56; United States-Poland, Art. 5, No. 57; Belgium-Finland, Art. 3, No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 4, No. 59; *Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3, No. 62; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 3, No. 63; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 65; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 3, No. 68; United States-Germany, Art. 6, No. 70; Austria-Sweden, Art. 5, No. 72; * Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3, No. 73; Estonia-Norway, Art. 5, No. 76; * Denmark-Estonia, Art. 6, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 5, No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 5, No. 79; * Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 83; Belgium-Poland. Art. 3, No. 85; * Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 89; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 91; Austria-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 92; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 4, No. 95.

page 147 note 1 Appendix I, Nos. 16 and 44 (Art. 4 of each treaty).

page 147 note 2 Art. 4, Appendix I, No. 11, and Art. 4, Appendix V, No. 3.

page 147 note 3 Art. 4, No. 81, and Art. 3, Appendix V, No. 6.

page 147 note 4 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 147 note 5 Ibid., No. 3.

page 147 note 6 Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 147 note 7 Ibid., No. 2.

page 147 note 8 The following say nothing about receipt of a requisition while prosecution is in progress (see Article 10); South American Convention of 1911, Art. 4, Appendix III, No. 4; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 2 (4), Appendix III, No. 7; International Law Association Draft of 1928, Art. 4, Appendix IV, No. 5.

The following deal also with receipt of a requisition while prosecution is in progress: Bustamante Code, 1928, Art. 358, Appendix III, No. 5; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 4(a), Appendix IV, No. 3; Draft of International Prison and Penal Association, 1931, Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 147 note 9 South American Convention of 1889, Art. 19(5), Appendix III, No. 2; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 3(c), Appendix III, No. 6; Travers' Draft Convention, 1922, Art. 3, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 147 note 10 Art. 3(b), Appendix III, No. 6.

page 147 note 11 Art. 2(5), Appendix III, No. 7.

page 148 note 1 “Extradition is not granted … when the offenses though not committed in France, or French colonies, have been there prosecuted and definitely judged.” French Extradition Law of 1927, Art. 5, Appendix VL, No. 6. See also to the same effect: Argentine Law No. 1612, Aug. 25, 1885, Art. 3; Costa Rica, Penal Code, Art. 230(2); Germany, Extradition Law of 1929, Art. 4, Appendix VI, No. 7; Panama, Law No. 44, Nov. 22,1930, Art. 5; Mexico, Extradition Law of 1897, Art. 7; Peru, Law of Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 3.

page 148 note 2 Extradition Act, B.E. 2472, Art. 5.

page 148 note 3 Criminal Code, 1929, Art. 494.

page 149 note 1 “L’extradition n’aura pas lieu, lorsque la demande en sera motivéd sur le même crime ou délit pour lequel l’individu réclamé aura été ou sera encore poursuivi dans le pays où il s’est réfugié” Treaty of Nov, 7, 1844, Art. 2, Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 239.

page 149 note 2 Treaty of May 12, 1872, Art. 4, id.

page 149 note 3 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §103, pp. 134 and 135.

page 149 note 4 See the texts of treaties in Moore, op. tit., II, pp. 1072 to 1161.

page 149 note 5 Treaty of May 22, 1880, Art. 4, Moore, op. cit, II, p. 1123.

page 149 note 6 Treaty of April 29, 1886, Art. 3, Moore, op. cit, II, p. 1110.

page 149 note 7 See (references are to Appendix I): Austria-Hungary-Greece, Art. 4, No. 1; Germany-Greece, Art. 4, No. 2; Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 10, No. 8; Finland-Sweden, Art. 4, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 6, No. 18; Great Britain-Latvia, Art. 4, No. 20; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4, No. 22-Great Britain-Finland, Art. 4, No. 25; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 6, No. 27; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6, No. 28; Great Britain-Estonia, Art. 4, No. 30; France-Poland, Art. 4, No. 32; Austria-Norway, Art. 5, No. 34; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 39; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 5, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 42; Great Britain-Lithuania, Art. 4, No. 46; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 5, No. 48; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 53; Colombia-Panama, Art. 4, No. 54; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 3, No. 56; United States-Poland, Art. 5, No. 57; Belgium-Finland, Art. 3, No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 4, No. 59; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3, No. 62; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 3, No. 63; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 65; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 3, No. 68; United States-Germany, Art. 6, No. 70; Austria-Sweden, Art. 5, No. 72; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3, No. 73; Estonia-Norway, Art. 5, No. 76; Denmark-Estonia, Art. 6, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 5, No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 5, No. 79; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art, 3, No. 83; Belgium-Poland, Art. 3, No. 85; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 89; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 91; Austria-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 92; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 4, No. 95.

A similar provision is found in the Bustamante Code of 1928, Art. 358, Appendix III, No. 5; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 4, Appendix IV, No. 3; Draft of International Penal and Prison Association, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 150 note 1 Ecuador, Law of Extradition and Naturalization, Chap. VI, Art. 39; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, following the Russian Penal Code of 1914, Arts. 852(4) and (5); Finland, Law of Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 7(1); Holland, Law of April 6, 1875, Art. 4; Sweden, Law No. 68 of June 4, 1913, sec. 9(1), Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Extradition Law of 1892, Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 150 note 2 After declaring that extradition shall not be granted where there has been acquittal or conviction of the person claimed for the same act, the following treaties provide that “extradition may be refused while proceedings are in progress or if the case is not proceeded with” (references are to Appendix I ) : Estonia-Latvia, Art. 4, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 4, No. 5; Estonia-Finland, Art. 5, No. 33; Estonia-Austria, Art. 5, No. 45. Latvia-Hungary, Art. 5, No. 64, omits the second clause of the provision just quoted. The Finland-Latvia treaty, Art. 5, No. 21, makes clearer the meaning of the provision quoted above in these words: “Extradition may be refused while proceedings are in progress or if the case is dismissed for lack of sufficient ground.”

page 150 note 3 Treaties 34, 63, 72, 76 and 78 in Appendix I. (See note 7, p. 149.)

page 150 note 4 Treaties 1, 8, 17, 22, 27, 32, 36, 38, 40, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 62, 63, 65, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 85, 89, 91 and 95 in Appendix I. (See note 7, p. 149.)

page 150 note 5 Treaties 2, 20, 25, 28, 30, 40, 41, 42, 46, 56, 58, 68, 70 and 92 in Appendix I. (See note 7, p. 149.)

page 151 note 1 Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 237 to 251.

page 151 note 2 Ibid., p. 239.

page 151 note 3 Extradition (1891), I, §366, p. 558.

page 152 note 1 He cites “Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 237; Foelix, Droit int. privé, tom, ii, §609; Heffter, Bergson’s ed., §63; Brigstock’s Case, 1 Op. 83, Lee, 1798; Case of Portuguese Seamen, 2 Op. 559, Taney, 1833.”

page 152 note 2 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 419; Report from Select Committee [of the House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), p. 148.

page 152 note 3 Law of 13 August, 1849, Art. 17.

page 152 note 4 15 and 16 Vict., c. 26.

page 152 note 5 Report from Select Committee, ibid., pars. 1527 and 1528, p. 83.

page 152 note 6 This rule was carried into Extradition Act, 1870, Art. 3, par. (3), in the following terms: “A fugitive criminal who has been accused of some offense within English jurisdiction, not being the offense for which his surrender is asked, or is undergoing sentence under any conviction in the United Kingdom, shall not be surrendered until after he has been discharged, whether by acquittal or on expiration of his sentence or otherwise.”

page 152 note 7 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 249 to 251.

page 153 note 1 Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §366, pp. 557 and 558.

page 153 note 2 Treaty with Austria-Hungary of July 3, 1856, Moore, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 1074.

page 153 note 3 Appendix V, No. 1.

page 153 note 4 (References are to Appendix I): Greece-Germany, Art. 5 (No. 1); Estonia-Latvia, Art. 6 (No. 4); Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 6 (No. 5); Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 6 (No. 6); Finland-Sweden, Art. 5 (No. 17); Denmark-Finland, Art. 7 (No. 18); Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 12 (No. 19); Bulgaria-Roumania, Art. 8 (No. 22); Hungary-Rumania, Art. 9 (No. 27); Estonia-Finland, Art. 6 (No. 33); Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 11 (No. 36); Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 37); Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 38); Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 39); Belgium-Estonia, Art. 4 (No. 41); Belgium-Latvia, Art. 4 (No. 42); Greece-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 50); Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 4 (No. 56); Belgium-Finland, Art. 4 (No. 58); Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 6 (No. 61); Bulgaria-Greece, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 62); Latvia-Hungary, Art. 6 (No. 64); Denmark-Estonia, Art. 7 (No. 77); Poland-Sweden, Art. 6 (No. 81); Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 11 (No. 83); Belgium-Poland, Art. 5 (No. 85); Austria-Belgium, Art. 9 (No. 90).

See cases of Velasco, 1923,1^er Sem., Gaceta de los Tribunates, 351, where it was determined that person claimed would be surrendered to Uruguay, but only after trial in Chile for crimes committed there.

page 153 note 5 Argentina, Law No. 1612, Aug. 25,1885, Art. 7 (Appendix VI, No. 1); Canada, Extradition Act, Revised Statutes, 1927, Chap. 155, sec. 24 (Appendix VI, No. 4); Costa Rica, Penal Code, Art. 231; Ecuador. Law of Extradition, etc., chap. VI, Art. 42; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, by Russian Penal Code of 1914, Art. 852 (6); Finland. Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 8; France, Extradition Law, March 10, 1927, Art. 8 (Appendix VI. No. 6); Holland, Act of April 6, 1875, Art. 6; Italy, Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 670 (Appendix VI, No. 10); Japan, Law No. 42, Aug. 10, 1895, Art. 5 (Appendix VI, No. 11); Mexico, Extradition Law, May 19, 1897, Art. 6; Panama, Law No. 44, Nov. 22, 1930, Art. 5–d; Transjordan, Extradition Law, 1927, Art. 6-c; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, Sec. 10 (Appendix VI, No. 12); Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 13 (Appendix VI, No. 13); Yugoslavia, Penal Code, 1929, Art. 493.

page 153 note 6 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 154 note 1 South American Convention of 1889, Art. 25 (Appendix III, No. 2); Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 4 (Appendix III, No. 3); South American Convention of 1911, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 4); Bustamante Code, Art. 346 (Appendix III, No. 5); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 6 (Appendix III, No. 6); Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 5 (Appendix III, No. 7).

page 154 note 2 Field’s Code, Art. 225 (Appendix IV, No. 1); Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 3); Travers’ Projet, 1922, Art. 4 (Appendix IV, No. 4); International Law Association Draft, Art. 4 (Appendix IV, No. 5); Model Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission, Art. 38—by implication, since it provides for conditional extradition “in specially urgent cases”—(Appendix IV, No. 6).

page 154 note 3 Appendix IV, No. 2.

page 154 note 4 See the Draft Convention of the Research in International Law on this subject.

page 154 note 5 E.g., Bustamante Code, Art. 346 (Appendix III, No. 5); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 6 (Appendix III, No. 6).

page 155 note 1 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 248.

page 155 note 2 Art. 4, ibid., pp. 248 and 419.

page 155 note 3 Billot, op. cit., p. 250.

page 155 note 4 The treaties between Belgium and Lithuania and between Belgium and Finland (Appendix I, Nos. 56 and 58), contain the peculiar provision that any loss which private obligees may incur by reason of an extradition shall be borne by the State making the requisition.

page 155 note 5 (References are to Appendix I): Greece-Germany, Art. 5 (No. 1); Estonia-Latvia, Art. 6 (No. 4); Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 6 (No. 5); Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 6 (No. 6); Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 12 (No. 19); Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 8 (No. 22); Hungary-Rumania, Art. 9 (No. 27); Belgium-Estonia, Art. 4 (No. 41); Belgium-Latvia, Art. 4 (No. 42); Belgium-Poland, Art. 5 (No. 85; Appendix V, No. 6); Austria-Belgium, Art. 9 (No. 90).

page 155 note 6 Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 4 (Appendix III, No. 2).

page 155 note 7 Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 7 (Appendix IV, No. 3); Model Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission, Art. 12 (Appendix IV, No. 6).

page 156 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 36); Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 37); Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 38); Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 39); Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 50); Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 12 (No. 62); Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 83).

page 156 note 2 See following bipartite treaties (references are to Appendix I): Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 11 (No. 36); Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 37); Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 38); Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 39); Greece-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 50); Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 6 (No. 61); Bulgaria-Greece, Arts. 11 and 12 (No. 62); Poland-Sweden, Art. 6 (No. 81); Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 11 (No. 83). See also South American Convention of 1889, Art. 25 (Appendix III, No. 20); South American Convention of 1911, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 4); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 6 (Appendix III, No. 6); Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 3).

page 156 note 3 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 240 and 241.

page 157 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 5 (No. 5); Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 5 (No. 6); Finland-Sweden, Art. 5 (No. 17); Denmark-Finland, Art. 7 (No. 18); Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 8 (No. 22); Hungary-Rumania, Art. 9 (No. 27); Estonia-Finland, Art. 6 (No. 33); Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 36); Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 37); Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 38); Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 39); Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 50); Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 4 (No. 61); Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 12 (No. 62); Latvia-Hungary, Art. 6 (No. 64); Denmark-Estonia, Art. 7 (No. 77); Poland-Sweden, Art. 6 (No. 81); Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12 (No. 83).

page 157 note 2 Argentina, Law No. 1612, Aug. 25, 1885, Art. 7 (Appendix VI, No. 1); Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 8; France, Extradition Law, March 10, 1927, Art. 8 (Appendix VI, No. 6); Holland, Act of April 6,1875, Art. 6; Italy, Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 670 (Appendix VI, No. 10); Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4,1913, Sec. 10 (Appendix VI, No. 12); Switzerland, Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 13 (Appendix VI, No. 13); Jugoslavia, Penal Code, 1929, Art. 493.

page 157 note 3 Sweden, see preceding note.

page 157 note 4 Those of Travers, Art. 4 (Appendix IV, No. 4), and of the International Penal and Prison Commission, Art. 38 (Appendix IV, No. 6).