Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Richard B. Lillich, The Soering Case, 85 AJIL 128 (1991); John E. Parkerson, Jr., & Steven J. Lepper, Case Note, Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 85 AJIL at 698.
2 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989), 11 Eur. H.R. Rep. 439 (1989); Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, Judgment of Mar. 30, 1990, Hoge Raad, excerpted and translated in 29 ILM 1388 (1990). French courts have also refused to extradite to countries where the death penalty still exists. Fidan, Judgment of Feb. 27, 1987, Conseil d’état, 1987 Recueil Périodique et Critique II 305; Gacem, Judgment of Dec. 14, 1987, Conseil d’état, 62 La Semaine Juridique [J.C.P.] IV 86 (1988).
3 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982 (UK), ch. ll, sched. B, 1985 R.S.C., App. II, No. 44.
4 Kindler picked up where he left off, in the appeals process in the state of Pennsylvania. Ng’s preliminary inquiry was held in the autumn of 1992 and his trial is scheduled for early 1993.
5 Treaty on Extradition, Dec. 3, 1971, Can.-U.S., Art. 6, 27 UST 983, 1976 Can. TS 3;
When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State and the laws of the requested State do not permit such punishment for that offense, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides such assurances as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty shall not be imposed, or, if imposed, shall not be executed.
The provision is of no real significance in extradition to Canada, which has not carried out the death penalty since 1962, and which in 1976 abolished capital punishment except in a limited number of military offenses. Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1976, 1974-75-76 S.C., ch. 105; National Defence Act, 1985 R.S.C., ch. N–4, §§63–66, 68–70 and 95; also id. §55.
6 Extradition Act, 1985 R.S.C., ch. E–23. Section 25 states:
Subject to this Part, the Minister of Justice, on the requisition of the foreign state, may, under his hand and seal, order a fugitive who has been committed for surrender to be surrendered to the person or persons who are, in the Minister’s opinion, duly authorized to receive the fugitive in the name and on behalf of the foreign state, and the fugitive shall be so surrendered accordingly.
7 Reference Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486.
8 Canada v. Schmidt, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500.
9 Altun v. Germany, App. No. 10308/82, 36 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 209 (1983), 5 Eur. H.R. Rep. 611 (1983).
10 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, GA Res. 44/128 (Dec. 15, 1989), reprinted in 29 ILM 1464 (1990).
11 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.1011, para. 26 (1990); see also Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. No. 40, para. 65, UN Doc. A/46/40 (1991).
12 An indication of the evolution of Canadian judicial thinking on this matter is shown by a comparison with a 1977 case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the death penalty did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Miller & Cockriell v. Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680. See Walter S. Tarnopolsky, Just Deserts or Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment: Where Do We Go from Here?, 10 Ottawa L. Rev. 1 (1978); Katherine Lippel, In the Light of the Recent Supreme Court Judgment: Regina v. Miller and Cockriell, 12 Themis 355 (1977).
13 They are closely in line with the concurring reasons of Judge De Meyer in the Soering case, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989). Besides the cases cited supra note 2, and the articles cited supra note 1, see John Andrews & Ann Sherlock, Extradition, Death Row and the Convention, 15 Eur. L. Rev. 87 (1990); David L. Gappa, European Court of Human Rights—Extradition—Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Soering Case, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989), 20 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 463 (1990); Wattendorff & du Perron, Human Rights v. Extradition: The Soering Case, 11 Mich. J. Int’l L. 845 (1990); Colin Warbrick, Reasonableness and the Decision to Extradite: Re Kirkwood, 1984 Pub. L. 539; John Quigley & Adele S. Shank, Death Row as a Violation of Human Rights: Is it Illegal to Extradite to Virginia?, 30 Va. Int’l L.J. 241 (1989); Colin Warbrick, Coherence and the European Court of Human Rights: The Adjudicative Background to the Soering Case, 11 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1073 (1989–90); Christine van den Wyngaert, Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora’s Box?, 39 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 757 (1990); Susan Marks, Yes, Virginia, Extradition May Breach the European Convention on Human Rights, 49 Cambridge L.J. 194 (1990); van der Meersch, L’extradition et la Convention europeenne des droits de l’homme. L’affaire Soering, 1990 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 5; Frédéric Sudre, Extradition et peine de mort—arrêt Soering de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme du 7 juillet 1989, 94 Revue Generale de Droit International Public 103 (1990); Henri Labayle, Droits de l’homme, traitement inhumain et peine capitale: Réflexions sur l’édification d’un ordre public européen en matière d’extradition par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, 64 J.C.P. I, No. 3452 (1990).
14 Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.
15 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221.
16 R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697. Yet a more recent decision, relying on U.S. authorities and making no mention of international human rights law, holds the “false news” provisions of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. R. v. Zundel (Can. Sup. Ct. Aug. 27, 1992, unreported).
17 Provisional measures were declared pursuant to Rule 86 of the Committee:
The Committee may, prior to forwarding its final views on the communication to the State party concerned, inform that State as to its views whether interim measures may be desirable to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. In doing so, the Committee shall inform the State party concerned that such expression of its views on interim measures does not. imply a determination on the merits of the communication.
UN Doc. CCPR/C/3/Rev.l (1979); see also UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.17, paras. 25, 26 (1977); UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, Ann. II, at 15 (1985). The provision is a somewhat toned-down version of the original draft Rule 86, which read:
The Committee may at any time request the State party concerned to take interim measures in order to avoid irreparable damage to the victim of the alleged violation. In doing so, the Committee or the Group shall inform the State concerned that such a request does not imply a determination as to the admissibility or the substantive validity of the communication.
UN Doc. CCPR/C/L.2 and Adds.1 and 2 (1977). During debate, some argued that such a power could only be to recommend. UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.13, para. 30 (1977). Others felt the power to issue interim orders was implicit in the jurisdiction of any tribunal. Id., para. 39.
18 Canada acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol on May 19, 1976, and the two instruments came into force for Canada three months later. More than 50 communications originating in Canada have been considered by the Committee. When the Human Rights Committee, in Lovelace v. Canada, No. 24/1977, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, supra note 17, at 83, held that a section of the Indian Act was contrary to the Covenant, Parliament repealed the provision. Ottawa then proudly told the Committee: “Canada has responded, in a constructive and responsible manner, to the views communicated to it by the Human Rights Committee … .” UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, Ann. I, at 225, para. 14 (1990). See also William A. Schabas, International Human Rights law and the Canadian Charter (1991).
19 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A), paras. 4, 24, 78 (1989); O.E. v. S., No. 22/1977, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, supra note 17, at 5, para, (b); id. at 6, para. 1; X. v. S., No. 210/1986, UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, supra note 18, at 3; X. v. S., No. 252/1986, id. at 4; Report of the Human Rights Committee, UN GAOR, 42d Sess., Supp. No. 40, at 107, para. 404, UN Doc. A/42/40 (1987); id., 43d Sess., at 154, para. 655, UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988); id., 44th Sess., at 143, para. 634, UN Doc. A/44/40 (1989); id., 45th Sess., vol. I, at 138, para. 618, UN Doc. A/45/40 (1990); see also Dominic McGoldrick, The Human Rights Committee 131–32 (1991).
20 Cruz Varas v. Sweden, No. 46/1990/237/307, Mar. 20, 1991, reprinted in 12 Hum. Rts. L.J. 142 (1991). For background, see Requête du Chilien Hector Cruz Varas et de sa famille contre la Suàde classé recevable, 2 Revue Universelle des Droits de l’Homme [RUDH] 183 (1990). The decision was by an extremely close vote of ten to nine. As in the United Nations system, with rare exceptions the requests from the Commission had always been respected. Lynas v. Switzerland, App. No. 7317/75, 6 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 141 (1976). See also Marc-André Eissen, Les mesures provisoires dans la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, 2 Revue des Droits de l’Homme 252 (1969); Council of Europe, Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquy about the European Convention on Human Rights 796–800 (1989) (comments of K. Rogge).
21 Opened for signature Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS 123.
22 See also Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71, doc. 6, rev.1, at 117, Art. 23(4) (1987); Bustíos & Royas v. Peru, 2 RUDH 347 (1990).
23 Kindler v. Canada, No. 470/1991, UN Doc. CCPR/C/45/D/470/1991, at 11.
24 Cox v. Canada, No. 486/1992, UN Doc. CCPR/C/45/D/486/1992. Early in 1992, the Minister made such a request concerning the extradition to Florida of Lee O’Bomsawin. The assurance was obtained and O’Bomsawin extradited to Florida, where he was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
25 Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 3 (Advisory Opinion of Sept. 8, 1983), reprinted in 23 ILM 320 (1984). For the views of the Inter-American Commission on capital punishment, see Roach & Pinker-ton v. United States, Case 9647, Inter-Am. C.H.R., reported in OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71, doc. 9, rev.l, at 147 (1987), 8 Hum. Rts. L.J. 345 (1987); Celestine v. United States, Case 10,031, reported in OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76, doc. 44 (1989), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.77, rev.l, doc. 7, at 62 (1990); Cuthbert v. Jamaica, Case 9190, reported in OEA/Ser.L/V/II.68, doc. 8, rev.l, at 55 (1986); Champagne v. Jamaica, Case 7505, reported in id. at 51; Riley v. Jamaica, Case 3102, reported in OEA/Ser.L/V/II.57, doc. 6, rev.l, at 89 (1982).
26 See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 112 S.Ct. 2188 (1992). The Canadian Government filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, reprinted in 31 ILM 921 (1992), challenging the United States Government’s position that abduction of an individual to the United States, in defiance of an extradition treaty, did not deprive domestic courts of jurisdiction to prosecute.
