The Necessity of Avoidance of Human Rights Violations during the Extradition

Offender’s extradition is one of the earliest forms of judicial assistance in the context of criminal issues. However in the case of human rights violation, states are obliged to refrain from extradition to the countries that violate fundamental human rights. Whenever human rights violation is imminent, the specific context of extradition offers states a number of ‘avoidance techniques’.
First of all, states have simply alleged that ‘the principle of confidence’ or ‘the rule of non-inquiry’ impedes them from probing into the requesting state’s administration of criminal justice. Secondly, states have relied on their counterparts’ assurances that they will abide by accepted standards and will observe the fugitive’s fundamental rights, including that he or she will not be tortured, that he or she will receive the benefits of a fair trial, and that he or she will not be exposed to capital punishment. Thirdly, states have been placated by the other state’s guarantee that even if the person’s human rights were to be infringed, he or she would be entitled to obtain redress, either by starting appellate proceedings in a domestic court or by submitting a complaint to an international human rights body. Fourthly and finally, states may require the fugitive to hand over abundant evidence buttressing his or her apprehensions, preferably including proof that he or she has been targeted or maltreated before.