Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Under Article 1(1) of the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the parties undertake
to afford each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, the widest measure of mutual assistance in proceedings in respect of offences the punishment of which, at the time of the request for assistance, falls within the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities of the requesting Party. 
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Strasbourg, 20 April 1959, Article 1(1).
According to Article 1(2), the Convention does not apply, however, to “arrests, the enforcement of verdicts or offences under military law which are not offences under ordinary criminal law”. 
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Strasbourg, 20 April 1959, Article 1(2).
Additional Protocol I
Article 88(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The High Contracting Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connexion with criminal proceedings brought in respect of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of this Protocol. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 88(1). Article 88 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.45, 30 May 1977, p. 309.
OAU Convention against Mercenarism
Article 10 of the 1977 OAU Convention against Mercenarism provides:
The contracting States shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with the investigation and criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offence and other acts connected with the activities of the offender. 
Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, adopted by the OAU Council of Ministers at its 29th Session, Res. 817 (XXIX), Libreville, 3 July 1977, OAU Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.3 (1977), Article 10.
UN Mercenary Convention
Article 13 of the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention provides:
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences set forth in the present Convention, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. The law of the State whose assistance is requested shall apply in all cases.
The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not affect obligations concerning mutual judicial assistance embodied in any other treaty. 
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 44/34, 4 December 1989, Article 13.
US-Soviet Memorandum of Understanding on the Pursuit of Nazi War Criminals
Article 1 of the 1989 US-Soviet Memorandum of Understanding on the Pursuit of Nazi War Criminals provides that the Office of the Procurator General of the USSR and the US Department of Justice “agree to provide legal assistance on a reciprocal basis in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of having committed Nazi war crimes or of having assisted in the commission of such crimes”. 
Memorandum of Understanding concerning Cooperation in the Pursuit of Nazi War Criminals between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 19 October 1989, Article 1.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 19 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property concerning “Mutual legal assistance”, which according to its Article 22(1) also applies to armed conflicts not of an international character, provides:
1. Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings brought in respect of the offences set forth in Article 15, including assistance in obtaining evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 in conformity with any treaties or other arrangements on mutual legal assistance that may exist between them. In the absence of such treaties or arrangements, Parties shall afford one another assistance in accordance with their domestic law. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 19.
Convention on Enforced Disappearance
The 2006 Convention on Enforced Disappearance provides:
Recalling … relevant international instruments in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law,
Article 14
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of mutual legal assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of an offence of enforced disappearance, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal that is necessary for the proceedings.
2. Such mutual legal assistance shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the domestic law of the requested State Party or by applicable treaties on mutual legal assistance, including, in particular, the conditions in relation to the grounds upon which the requested State Party may refuse to grant mutual legal assistance or may make it subject to conditions. 
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by UN General Assembly Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Preamble and Article 14.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the parties agreed to institute, with the cooperation of the ICRC, a confidential enquiry system regarding allegations of violations of IHL. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, §§ 11 and 12.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 4 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law states: “Violations of international … humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law carry the duty to … cooperate with and assist States … in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.” 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 4.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), referring to Article 88 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states: “The contracting parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I].” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.08.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states:
The States Signatory to the [1949 Geneva] Conventions have engaged to take a series of measures in order to promote their respect. These measures can be summarized as follows:
3) search for, identification and prosecution before the own courts of the authors of grave breaches, whatever their nationality may be, or extradition of these authors to the State which requests for it, within the limits of the legislation in force. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 55, § 3(3).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states with reference to Article 88 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I that “according to the notion of mutual assistance … the parties … shall accord assistance to one another and collaborate in the pursuit of persons who have violated the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law”. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 96, § 352.34; see also p. 138, § 412.31.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
Respect for IHL by combatants depends on two factors, prevention and repression.
(b) The measures and means of repression [include]:
- International cooperation. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 107.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
II.1. National repression
Grave breaches of international humanitarian law need to be prosecuted not only by the detaining power, but by each State in the power of which the presumed culprit finds himself. One therefore speaks of universal jurisdiction. States must therefore give mutual legal assistance, for example by extraditing an accused if a State renounces criminal prosecution, or by transmitting means of evidence. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 46–47.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:
Means of suppression
These are means which implement the obligation of parties to a conflict to prevent and stop any violation [of IHL]. Concerning mechanisms of suppression, the following are stressed in particular:
- judicial assistance between States in criminal matters. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 14.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states: “The judicial procedure [in case of breaches or violations of IHL] also comprises: assistance between belligerent parties”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 91
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
In 1998 Israel signed the Rome Statute; however, in a Government resolution in June 2002, Israel announced that it did not intend to ratify the Statute. Today, the State of Israel is not a member of the Criminal Tribunal at The Hague, and has sent a letter to the United Nations announcing that it does not intend to ratify the Tribunal’s Statute. Various entities have announced that they will forward complaints to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague relating to various acts performed by Israel in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The State of Israel does not perpetrate war crimes and its acts are covered by routine legal advice. If any Israeli soldier commits any of the crimes addressed by the Statute, Israel itself will put him on trial. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 47.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) notes: “International cooperation for the search, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons who have committed [war crimes] is established.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 86.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “in general, States are obliged to provide judicial assistance to each other to the maximum extent possible with respect to penal procedures concerning grave breaches”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-8.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands provides:
The universality principle is closely linked to the rule on the transfer of persons suspected of having committed or ordered a war crime. Generally, States are bound to grant each other as much mutual assistance as possible in matters of criminal procedures relating to serious violations. They must cooperate as much as possible in handing over war criminals. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1140.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] Art. 88 requires the parties to assist one another in connection with grave breaches, including cooperation in matters of extradition.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1711.4, footnote 76.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “[The parties to the conflict] must provide mutual assistance and cooperate in the repression of grave breaches of international humanitarian law.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 101.c.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “[The parties to the conflict] must provide mutual assistance and cooperate in the repression of grave breaches of international humanitarian law.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 92(c), p. 294.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) provides that each party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions shall cooperate to extradite persons who have committed grave breaches of IHL. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 193, § 4.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “States shall provide each other with the greatest possible mutual assistance for the penal repression of violations, at national and international level.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(4).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
States also undertake to act jointly or individually, in co-operation with the United Nations and in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to deal with serious violations of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977 Additional] Protocols. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 11.3.b.(1).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) notes that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “states that the contracting parties shall to the greatest extent possible assist each other in connection with penal procedures instituted as a consequence of grave breaches of the [1949] Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, p. 97.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
In case of serious violations of international humanitarian law, parties to the armed conflict shall take measures individually and jointly, as well as in cooperation with the United Nations according to the Charter of the United Nations. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.9.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Ensuring respect for the law of armed conflict is a universal responsibility. International co-operation is encouraged by Additional Protocol I, which provides for:
c. mutual assistance in criminal proceedings brought in respect of grave breaches of the conventions or protocol, including assistance with evidence and extradition. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.9(c).
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism (2004) states:
Article 18. Cooperation
The authorities of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan agree to cooperate [to the extent] possible with those of other States for the purposes of information exchange, investigation, and proceedings, provisional measures and confiscations of instruments and proceeds associated with [the] financing of terrorism for purposes of … mutual technical assistance.
Article 21. Purpose of Requests for Judicial Cooperation
1. At the request of a foreign state, requests for judicial cooperation relating to the offences indicated in this law … shall be executed in the following manner:
a) gathering evidence or taking depositions;
b) providing assistance to make detained persons or others available to the judicial authorities of the requesting State in order to give evidence or assist in investigations;
c) serving judicial documents;
d) carrying out searches and seizures;
e) examining objects and sites;
f) providing information and evidentiary items; and
g) providing originals or certified copies of relevant files and documents, including bank statements, accounting documents, and records showing the operations of a company or its business activities. 
Afghanistan, Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism, 2004, Articles 18 and 21(1).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on International Cooperation on Criminal Matters (1997) stipulates that “Argentina shall do its utmost to assist in the investigation, conviction and punishment” of crimes corresponding to the jurisdiction of any State requesting such assistance, and shall act “most diligently” in such procedures. As regards the investigation and conviction of such crimes, the Law provides that “assistance shall be provided even if the act in question is not a crime in Argentina”, although under such circumstances there would be some exceptions to the types of assistance provided. 
Argentina, Law on International Cooperation on Criminal Matters, 1997, Articles 1 and 67.
Australia
Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners Act (1997), as amended in 2004, has as its objects:
(a) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners between Australia and certain countries with which Australia has entered agreements for the transfer of prisoners so that the prisoners may serve their sentences of imprisonment in their countries of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties; and
(b) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners to Australia from countries in which prisoners are serving sentences of imprisonment imposed by certain war crimes tribunals. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 3, p. 1.
The Act defines “tribunal” as “(a) the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal; or (b) the Rwanda Tribunal”. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 4, p. 6.
In a later amendment to the Act, sentences of imprisonment imposed by US military commissions have been included, as follows:
For the purposes of this Act:
(a) a military commission of the United States of America is taken to be a court or tribunal of the United States of America; and
(b) any punishment or measure involving deprivation of liberty ordered by a military commission of the United States of America is taken to have been ordered by a court or tribunal of the United States of America in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction; and
(c) any direction or order given or made by a military commission of the United States of America with respect to the commencement of such punishment or measure is taken to have been given or made by a court or tribunal of the United States of America. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 4A, pp. 8–9.
Australia
Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners (Military Commission of the United States of America) Regulations (2007), states in its Schedule 1 (Arrangement):
1. The undersigned Governments [the United States and Australia] are to afford each other the widest measure of cooperation in respect of the transfer of prisoners in accordance with the provisions of this Arrangement.
2. A person sentenced by a United States military commission in the applicable United States area may be transferred to Australia in accordance with the provisions of this Arrangement, in order to serve the sentence imposed on him or her.
3. Transfer may be requested only by the Government of Australia or the Government of the United States of America, upon application to either by a prisoner desiring to be transferred under this Arrangement. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners (Military Commission of the United States of America) Regulations, 2007, Schedule 1, § 2, p.4.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1878, as amended, provides:
Seized with a complaint pursuant to the paragraphs above [including for serious violations of international humanitarian law] the Federal Prosecutor requires the investigating magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the complaint unless … on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case, it is clear that, in the interest of the proper administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, the matter should be brought … before a court in the place where the facts occurred, or before the courts of the State of which the perpetrator is a national or those of the place where he is present, provided that that court displays the qualities of independence, impartiality and equity resulting inter alia from the relevant international commitments binding on Belgium and that State. 
Belgium, Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1878, as amended, Article 1 bis § 1.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
Seized with a claim pursuant to paragraph 2, the Federal Prosecutor shall request the investigating judge to conduct an investigation into the claim, except if … it results from the specific circumstances of the case that, in the interest of the good administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, this case should be brought before … either the court of the place where the acts were committed, or before the court of the State of which the perpetrator is a national, or before the court of the place where he may be found, and to the extent that this court is competent, independent, impartial and fair. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 7, § 1(3, 4 indent).
Germany
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982) states:
§ 1 Scope of application
(1) Legal assistance in criminal matters with foreign countries is based on this law.
(3) Provisions of international agreements, insofar as they have become directly applicable domestic law, have priority over the provisions of this law. 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, Section 1(1) and (3).
Portugal
Portugal’s Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1999), as amended in 2001, applies to the following forms of international cooperation in criminal matters: extradition; transfer of proceedings in criminal matters; enforcement of criminal judgments; transfer of persons sentenced to any punishment, or measure, involving deprivation of liberty; supervision of conditionally sentenced or conditionally released persons; and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. These “shall apply, as appropriate, to the cooperation between Portugal and any international judicial entities established within the framework of treaties or conventions that bind the Portuguese State”. 
Portugal, Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as amended, 1999, Article 1(1) and (2).
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Organic Law Determining the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts (2004) provides:
The High Court of the Republic shall have jurisdiction to try any person, including non-nationals found within the territory of the Republic of Rwanda, alleged to have committed, outside the national boundaries, any crimes falling within the category of international or cross-border crimes, especially the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, hostage taking, drug trafficking, money laundering, theft of motor vehicles for sale abroad, human trafficking, especially of young girls, slavery and other crimes of similar nature. When the High Court of the Republic is sitting in the exercise of its universal jurisdiction, the President of the Supreme Court may, in the interest of justice and with a view to harmonizing universal jurisprudence over international and cross-border crimes, seek the cooperation of the United Nations or a member State in which the crime was committed, to provide foreign judges to sit with their Rwandan counterparts to hear such cases or request foreign courts to conduct some of the investigations on behalf of Rwandan courts. 
Rwanda, Organic Law Determining the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts, 2004, Article 90.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States (2007) provides:
Chapter 1. General provisions
Article: 1 Scope of application
This Organic Law shall regulate the transfer of cases and other related matters, from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States to the Republic of Rwanda.
This Organic Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence in Rwanda collected by the ICTR in proceedings before a competent court.
Chapter 7. Final provisions
Article: 24 Applicability of this Organic Law to other matters of transfer of cases between Rwanda and other States
This Organic Law applies mutatis mutandis in other matters where there is transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from other States or where transfer of cases or extradition of suspects is sought by the Republic of Rwanda from other States. 
Rwanda, Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States, 2007, Articles 1 and 24.
Article One: Definitions of terms
For the purpose of this Law, the following terms shall mean as follows:
This Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence collected by the ICTR, the Mechanism and other States in proceedings before competent Rwandan courts.
Article 3: Scope of this Law
This Law applies in matters concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the Mechanism and from other States, relating to crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity.
This Law also applies in other matters where there is transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from other States or where transfer of cases or extradition of suspects for other crimes is sought by the Republic of Rwanda from other States. 
Rwanda, Law relating to the transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda, 2013, Articles 1(2) and 2–3.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance (1981), as amended to 2010, states in its general provisions:
1. Unless other federal acts or international agreements provide otherwise, this Act shall govern all procedures of international cooperation in criminal matters, and in particular:
b. assistance aimed at supporting criminal proceedings abroad (Part Three);
c. the transfer of proceedings and punishment of offences (Part Four);
d. the execution of foreign criminal judgments (Part Five).
3. This Act applies only to criminal matters in which recourse to the courts is permitted under the law of the requesting State.
4. This Act confers no right to international cooperation in criminal matters. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 1(1) and (3)–(4).
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Act further states:
Art. 2 Foreign proceedings
A request for cooperation in criminal matters shall not be granted if there are reasons to believe that the foreign proceedings
a. do not meet the procedural requirements of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966;
b. are being conducted so as to prosecute or punish a person on account of his or her political opinions, his or her belonging to a certain social group, his or her race, religion, or nationality;
c. could result in aggravating the situation of the defendant for any of the reasons mentioned under letter b; or
d. have other serious defects.
Art. 3 Nature of the offence
1. A request shall not be granted if the subject of the proceedings is an act which, in the Swiss view, is of a predominantly political nature, constitutes a violation of the obligation to perform military or similar service, or appears to be directed against the national security or military defence of the requesting State.
2. The plea that an act is of a political nature shall not be taken into account under any circumstances:
a. in cases of genocide;
b. in cases of crimes against humanity;
c. in cases of war crimes; or
d. if the act appears particularly reprehensible because the offender, for the purpose of extortion or duress, has endangered or threatened to endanger the life or limb of persons, especially by hijacking aircraft, using means of mass extermination, causing a catastrophe or taking hostages. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Articles 2 and 3.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Criminal Procedure Code (2007), as amended to 2012, which regulates the prosecution and adjudication by the federal and cantonal criminal justice authorities of offences under federal law, including war crimes, states:
Art. 54 Scope of Application of this Code
1. The provision of international mutual assistance and the mutual assistance proceedings are governed by this Code only to the extent that other federal acts and international agreements make no provision therefor. 
Switzerland, Criminal Procedure Code, 2007, as amended to 2012, Article 54(1).
Colombia
In 2006, in the Constitutional Case No. C-370/06, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
The human rights and international humanitarian law treaties do not specifically recognize the rights to peace, truth, justice and reparation. But they do refer to … States’ obligation to cooperate in the prevention and punishment of international crimes and serious violations of human rights. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-370/06, Judgment of 18 May 2006, § 4.3.1.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case C-095/07, the Criminal Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that “various treaties on human rights and international humanitarian law mention … the obligation of States to cooperate in the prevention and punishment of international crimes and serious violations of human rights, and in restoring victims’ rights.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-095/07, Decision of 14 February 2007, p. 35.
(footnote in original omitted)
Germany
In 2010, in the DRC case, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice decided to remand in pre-trial custody a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) who had been living in Germany. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows:
The subject of the arrest warrant is the allegation that as the president of the paramilitary militia organization “Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda” [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda] (hereafter FDLR), which is operating in the provinces North Kivu and South Kivu of the Democratic Republic of [the] Congo … , the accused is criminally liable because he is responsible as superior for crimes against humanity and war crimes and as the ringleader of a terrorist group abroad. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, DRC case, Decision, 17 June 2010, § 2.
The Court held:
60
6. The particular conditions necessary for extending pre-trial custody beyond the period of six months … are fulfilled. Because of particular difficulties faced by the investigations and due to their sizable scope, it has not yet been possible to reach a judgment and therefore the continuation of pre-trial custody is justified.
61
After the accused’s arrest, a number of investigations were conducted, some of which were extensive and time-intensive. The crimes were largely committed in the DRC and thus in a Central African country. Their prosecution by the German criminal authorities required inter alia various investigative measures involving mutual assistance requests to foreign authorities. Submitting requests for mutual assistance to other countries and the United Nations requires a sizable effort. This is particularly true for the questioning of witnesses in the DRC. The situation there requires that intensive measures be taken to locate witnesses and to prepare and carry out the questioning. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, DRC case, Decision, 17 June 2010, §§ 60–61.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court held:
E) Even admitting for purely dialectic purposes that doubts could exist … concerning the rational indications of an offence found by the examining magistrate, it would still be probable that an offence was committed, which would thus have to be determined in an oral trial.
F) … [T]he Treaty on Mutual Judicial Assistance on criminal matters between Spain and the US, signed on 20 November 1990 and ratified on 23 April 1993, relating to Article 27 of the [1969] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [on the observance of treaties], [has been manifestly unfulfilled by the US]. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Segundo, § 1, p. 7; see also Tercero, §§ 1–2, p. 9 and Quinto, §§ 1–2, pp. 10–11.
[emphasis in original]
The Court upheld the appeal against the order of 23 October 2009 by the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court, which declared the termination of the proceedings, and held that “the proceedings must continue, and the outstanding preparatory enquiries must be undertaken, as well as any others arising from the clarification of the events under investigation.” 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section III, pp. 20–21.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated: “An unfailing means [to ensure] the application of Humanitarian law internationally is that States grant each other mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 9.
(emphasis in original)
The tribunal held:
It is a firm and incontrovertible fact that political armed struggle must be governed by the laws of war. As a result, attacks against innocent [people] or against private rights or the rights of individuals are absolutely unjustified, even where a political motive is claimed.
Thus: if such an attack against innocent [persons] and private rights is carried out with such a violence and malicious intent that it causes unnecessary suffering, havoc and terror, it would [constitute the offence of] indiscriminate terrorism, namely [those acts] that are not selective when choosing their targets and expressly target the innocent.
Terrorism, and particularly indiscriminate terrorism, ignores the requirements of Humanitarian … law; it endangers innocent human lives and many times destroys them …
Terrorism takes many forms, as it can be committed through several means. One is the kidnapping [hijacking] of planes, which is one of the acts of which … José María Ballestas Tirado is accused in Colombia. Another is the kidnapping of persons, which is also one of the acts of which … José María Ballestas Tirado is criminally accused (“extortive kidnapping”) in Colombia …
… Solidarity must unite States in the rejection of this type of action. An international problem must have an international solution and, faced with the universalization of terrorism, it is an international duty to lend all the cooperation to this effect: it is indispensable for the application of Humanitarian law that States grant each other mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 9–10.
[emphasis in original]
Belgium
In 2002, upon ratification of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Belgium declared:
The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium shall not act upon a request for judicial cooperation where doing so would lead to discrimination between governmental and non-governmental forces in violation of the principle of international humanitarian law of equality of parties to a conflict, including in the event of armed conflict of a non-international nature. 
Belgium, Declaration made upon ratification of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 6 May 2002.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of the War Crimes Section of its Department of Justice (DOJ):
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the Tribunals and European governments. DOJ began working with European governments and police officials on a response to the issue of the movement of war criminals across borders and the sharing of best practices. The section is also actively involved in providing support to the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] in several on-going investigations in Europe and Africa. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 11.
Canada
In an annual report in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of the War Crimes Section of its Department of Justice (DOJ):
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the International Tribunals and European governments by meeting frequently with their representatives.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service works with the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and the Department of National Defence to support the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. IAG also reviews war crimes related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 10.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The no safe haven policy means that persons involved or complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes are not welcome in Canada. The partners in the coordinated War Crimes Program are the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) …
Taking action against war crimes requires a great deal of international cooperation. Program partners take part in international conferences, training … and provide assistance to other countries and the international criminal tribunals.
The partners in the War Crimes Program have been internationally recognized for their cooperation, assistance and sharing of expertise in the development of other nations’ war crimes programs.
The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies, which are not permitted to conduct criminal investigations in Canada, with regard to the rights of witnesses in Canada. In the past year, the RCMP War Crimes Section was responsible for the Canadian portion of a number of foreign investigations from countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Chile and Denmark.
CIC’s visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the international criminal tribunals.
DOJ officials visited several foreign countries to discuss access for investigative purposes. The DOJ also hosted officials and responded to requests for cooperation from several countries including the United States, Denmark, Norway and Chile.
In June 2004, officials from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom visited Canada for a joint working level meeting with Canada’s War Crimes Program partners to discuss issues of mutual concern, including screening methods, data exchange, caseloads, research, statistics and relations with international criminal tribunals.
In January 2005, officials of the United States Office of Special Investigations (OSI) visited Ottawa to meet with the partners in Canada’s War Crimes Program. The OSI has recently been granted legislative authority to investigate modern war crimes and crimes against humanity cases. The partners shared information on the coordinated war crimes program, legislation, investigative practices and prevention and enforcement activities.
Within the limits of the law, the CBSA shares intelligence and research material with the international criminal tribunals and like-minded countries, particularly the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other European countries. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, p. 5.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The chief objective of the program is denial of safe haven in Canada to persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the same time, Canada contributes to the global fight against impunity for war criminals through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals.
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals.
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ [Department of Justice], and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
… RCMP investigators carry out witness interview trips under bilateral agreements with foreign governments and police officials.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada]/CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether individuals should be referred for criminal investigation.
The DOJ is responsible for handling allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to World War II. Investigations are pursued with the assistance of the RCMP. These investigations are complex, often taking several years to complete, and require the expertise of experienced lawyers, analysts, historians and RCMP officers. Historical research is used to build each case and to compile potential witness lists. Most witnesses live overseas, mainly in central and eastern Europe. The DOJ must first seek the cooperation of foreign countries before lawyers and RCMP officers can conduct interviews.
Canada’s War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential component of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the International Assistance Group of the DOJ’s Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
DOJ officials and RCMP investigators visited several foreign countries during the period covered by this report, including Honduras, Colombia, Croatia and Serbia, to discuss access for investigators and researchers and to develop Memoranda of Understanding on international cooperation. The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies.
CIC visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the various international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international conferences and meetings of international organizations discuss issues related to migration and human rights. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 2, 10, 11 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
On the international stage, Canada plays a leadership role in global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals. Because of its coordinated approach and its capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies, the War Crimes Program has become a model for other countries.
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals …
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal and research support from the DOJ [Department of Justice], and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide before their arrival in Canada. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
… RCMP investigators carry out witness interview trips with the assistance of DOJ officials who liaise with representatives from foreign governments to secure cooperation in accordance with bilateral agreements.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether they should be referred for criminal investigation. In order for an allegation to be added o the RCMP/DOJ inventory, among other considerations, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, and the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated and obtainable in a reasonable and rapid fashion …
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential part of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries enable the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners work closely with other countries on war crimes issues …
The partners provide assistance, information and legal and investigative support to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the ICC. All of the partners are represented in the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the DOJ’s International Assistance Group and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
… The RCMP also provides assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies that travel to Canada to conduct investigations.
CIC visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international meetings are held to discuss issues related to migration and human rights.
Program partners recognize the benefits of international cooperation and outreach in the maintenance of its objective to fight impunity and the importance of spreading this message on a global scale. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 3, 4, 10 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
Canada’s global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals have made Canada a leader on the international stage. The Canadian War Crimes Program’s collaborative approach and capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies has become a model for other countries.
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
International missions: During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, 11 international missions were conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section to investigate suspected war criminals residing in Canada. The investigators traveled to Rwanda, Serbia, Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, Bosnia, Honduras and the United States to further their investigations …
International Cooperation and Outreach
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Strong relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of research, logistics and investigative support.
The CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] War Crimes Section maintains a close working relationship with American, Australian and British war crimes units under the Four Country Conference (FCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Respect to Investigations Relating to Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, signed in April 2007 by the governments of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. In November 2007, the CBSA War Crimes Section hosted a meeting at the Canadian High Commission in the United Kingdom with FCC partners to discuss information sharing issues.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals. During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, CBSA researchers at national headquarters responded to 3,239 requests for information (RFIs) on cases of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity, an increase of 134 percent from 1,386 RFIs in 2006–2007 …
International conferences not only promote the exchange of information, but also improve the overall level of cooperation between countries … The RCMP also provides assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies that travel to Canada to conduct investigations. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 1–8.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Canada’s contribution to the prevention of sexual violence in conflict situations include[s] $18.5 million dollars over the next five years to support victims, as well as contribute to investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators in eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] where rape is used as a weapon of war. Canada has also supported training investigators of sexual violence who can be rapidly deployed to post-conflict areas around the world. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 17 April 2013, p. 2.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated: “Canada and others are working with partners in the field to … prevent and respond to sexual violence, and hold perpetrators to account. For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada assists survivors of sexual violence and brings those responsible to justice.” 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 18 October 2013.
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated:
115 … Mention should … be made of the Chadian Government’s willingness to cooperate with foreign judicial bodies, especially that of Belgium and with human rights defence associations by allowing access to the premises and archives of the Documentation and Security Directorate (DDS) and to its premises.
314. With regard to acts of torture committed under the regime of Hissène Habré, several rogatory commissions have been executed in Chad to enable the Belgian judge in charge of the case to collect evidence. However, this desire to provide judicial assistance, seen from the perspective of the [1984] Convention [against Torture] which is the subject of this report, has its limitations inasmuch as the offences mentioned in article 4 do not fall within the scope of these agreements on mutual judicial assistance.  
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 115 and 314.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2008, a training manual by the prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, including war crimes, was adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The training manual states: “Legal implications of sexual violence as an international crime … International crimes imply international cooperation regarding the detection, arrest … and punishment of individuals convicted for such crimes.” 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, pp. 72–73.
France
In 1971, the French delegation explained its abstention in the vote on UN General Assembly Resolution 2840 (XXVI) stating that it
abstained in the vote on the draft resolution because we consider that all the work of the United Nations in connexion with this matter is vitiated by the faulty definition of a number of crimes contained in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, to which France is not a party. Indeed this definition is based on theoretical and practical considerations which are too imprecise for a convention of a penal nature and which are at any rate contrary to the principles of the French Penal Code. 
France, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/PV.2025, 18 December 1971, § 102.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German human rights policy in the context of foreign relations and other policy areas between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2010, which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The office of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecution of crimes under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] is the Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. Together with the Central Unit for the Fight against War Crimes of the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Federal Prosecutor General keeps an eye on the human rights situations in the hotspots and crises around the world. To this end, the Federal Prosecutor General established various observation procedures which make it possible to initiate targeted investigation proceedings on short notice if information on international crimes that can be used for judicial purposes is received. Moreover, he stays in touch … with national war crimes units of other States in order to ensure information exchange. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on its Human Rights Policy in the Context of Foreign Relations and in Other Policy Areas, 26 August 2010, p. 46.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” between July 2007 and July 2010 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
On the basis of international treaties and domestic law, Germany is … providing legal assistance to foreign authorities … carrying out criminal proceedings against those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Since May 2007, members of staff of the focal points with jurisdiction over persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been meeting annually. The Federal Prosecutor General has initiated proceedings concerning genocide in Rwanda which involve comprehensive cooperation within the framework of mutual legal assistance. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on Measures to Implement Security Council Resolution 1325 “Women, Peace and Security”, 3 December 2010, p. 9.
German Democratic Republic
In 1981, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly in relation to the 1954 ILC Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the German Democratic Republic stated that “it was necessary to establish a universal duty to prosecute offences, which included the obligation of States to co-operate in combating international offences”. 
German Democratic Republic, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.60, 26 November 1981, § 26.
Morocco
In 2009, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Morocco stated:
Under Moroccan law no orders from a higher authority, exceptional circumstances, state of war or the threat of war, threat to national security, internal political instability or any emergency situation could be used as justification for the use of torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 
Morocco, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 November 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/MAR/4, submitted 27 April 2009, § 26; see also § 166.
Morocco also stated:
79. Morocco, under its international obligations, is committed to providing adequate assistance to other states in dealing with the offences prescribed by this Convention [against Torture]. For this purpose, national legislation has included provisions in domestic law to facilitate judicial assistance to foreign authorities. With this in mind, a number of international agreements, bilateral and multilateral, have been concluded with the aim of fighting all forms of crime, including torture, and to facilitate judicial assistance among states.
80. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate judicial relations with other foreign authorities (article 713 et seq.). They give the application of international conventions priority over national laws when it comes to international judicial assistance. International requests may include the collection of evidence connected with a crime of torture such as taking witness statements, inspecting sites or confiscating material connected to the crime. Judicial requests are normally passed through the diplomatic channels. But in urgent cases, they may be addressed directly to the competent judges.
81. Moroccan law, upon a request by another state, provides for the seizure of all items that may have been used in the commission of a crime of torture whether found in the possession of the person whose extradition is requested or at a later stage. It is also permitted to handover such items to the requesting state even when the person himself is not extradited for reasons such as death or escape.
82. Morocco also accepts summons by other states for witnesses living on its territory to testify in criminal cases. It is also permitted to temporarily transfer such a person, even when held in a Moroccan prison, to testify or to be questioned in person on condition that such a person is returned to Moroccan custody within a period of time set by the Moroccan authorities and after receiving guarantees for the safety of the witness including protection from physical harm. Morocco also accepts official complaints submitted by other states against Moroccan nationals responsible for crimes of torture or other crimes, inside or outside Morocco. The accused would be investigated and tried in Morocco in accordance with national legislation.
83. The Kingdom of Morocco is bound by a number of international bilateral and multilateral agreements in connection with international judicial assistance when it comes to such cases. This is an indication of Morocco’s determination to cooperate in a positive manner with other states in combating torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 
Morocco, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 November 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/MAR/4, submitted 27 April 2009, §§ 79–83.
With [regards] to accountability for violations and abuse against civilians in armed conflicts, I wish to restate the four important peace proposals emphasized by our Minister for Foreign Affairs in her statement during the open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict held in February (see S/PV.6917). First, justice must be timely. Secondly, rendering justice to victims should be the only objective of accountability mechanisms. Political considerations should have no place. Thirdly, more careful attention should be paid to the principle of subsidiarity when choosing the most appropriate venue for judicial proceedings. Fourthly, the international community should increase the investment in strengthening national judicial capacities. 
Rwanda, Statement by the Political Coordinator of Rwanda before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/PV.7019, 19 August 2013, p. 21.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Switzerland stated in the section on universal jurisdiction:
The military justice system has had occasion, on the basis of article 3 (1), sect. 9, and articles 108 to 114 of the Military Criminal Code, to prosecute and try alleged war criminals (violation of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949). During the reporting period, the military courts handled 25 such cases. … Of the two cases concerning Sierra Leone, one … was the subject of reciprocal judicial assistance. 
Switzerland, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 18 March 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/CHE/6, submitted 2 July 2008, § 110.
United States of America
In 1979, in a diplomatic note addressed to the USSR embassy, the US Department of State stated:
The Department of State requests the cooperation of the Embassy of the USSR in bringing to the attention of the appropriate officials and organs the essential need for … witnesses to testify in the prosecution of war crimes cases in the United States. Without firm assurances on the availability of witnesses the United States Government will be unable to continue these prosecutions. In many cases, therefore, individuals accused of committing serious crimes during 1941–1945 will be allowed to remain free without a proper trial.
We believe that it is in the mutual best interest of the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to cooperate to ensure that this result is avoided and that justice is done in these cases. 
United States, Department of State, Note addressed to the USSR Embassy, 21 March 1979, Department of State File No. P79 0046-0132, reprinted in Marian Lloyd Nash, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1979, US Department of State Publication 9374, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 883–884.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, the United Kingdom stated:
As described in previous reports, the United Kingdom gives full legal assistance under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 to foreign courts or prosecuting authorities. The United Kingdom Central Authority for mutual legal assistance has not, to its knowledge, received any requests for assistance from overseas authorities in connection with offences involving torture. 
United Kingdom, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/67/Add.2, 27 May 2004, submitted 6 November 2003, § 68.
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State, referring to Articles 85–89 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, affirmed: “We support the principle that the appropriate authorities … make good faith efforts to cooperate with one another.” 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 428.
United States of America
In 1989, a study prepared by the Deputy Director of the US Office of Special Investigations summarized the Office’s assistance in investigations involving three Second World War Nazi war criminals outside the United States. The study reported that:
At the time of [Klaus Barbie’s] extradition [from Bolivia to France], OSI [Office of Special Investigations] was asked by Attorney General William French Smith to investigate and report on allegations concerning Barbie’s post-war relationship with American military intelligence and the latter’s efforts to prevent his arrest by French authorities …
In 1985, OSI strongly supported an effort with West German and Israeli authorities to locate [Josef] Mengele’s whereabouts …
Prompted by a request from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, OSI undertook a formal inquiry into the relationship between the United States government and convicted criminal Robert Jan Verbelen. 
United States, Office of Special Investigations, Deputy Director, Study on “The Purpose and History of the Office of Special Investigations”, 1989, Department of State File Nos. P90 0015-0882, 0932/0935, reprinted in Marian Nash (Leich), Cumulative Digest of the United States Practice in International Law, 1981–1988, US Department of State Publication 10120, Washington, D.C., 1993–1995, pp. 1408–1409.
United States of America
In 1992, a report on Iraqi war crimes (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) prepared under the auspices of the US Secretary of the Army noted: “The obligation to investigate violations of the law of war committed against allied personnel is subject to the consent of the ally in question, particularly if the alleged violations occurred within the territory of the ally.” 
United States, Secretary of the Army, Report on Iraqi war crimes (Desert Shield/Desert Storm), unclassified version, 8 January 1992, p. 4.
As regards alleged Iraqi war crimes, the report stated that to carry out US directives dealing with the investigation and prosecution of war crimes:
An interagency meeting was held on 30 August 1990 … [The participants] understood that any formal war crimes investigation would depend upon authorization by appropriate authority and, depending on the scope of the investigation, might also require the consent of the host nation …
Detachments selected for mobilization were the 199th Judge Advocate Detachment … and the 208th Judge Advocate Detachment … Elements of the 199th arrived in Kuwait City on 1 March 1991, and upon arrival, reestablished contact with the Kuwaiti Ministry of Justice. Then, with the consent of the Ministry, they contacted members of Kuwaiti resistance groups … The Ministry of Justice was also investigating Iraqi actions during the occupation, To avoid duplicate effort, and in the spirit of cooperation, the mission of the 199th evolved into establishing the nature and extent of Iraqi offences rather than building cases for prosecution. One of the goals was to accumulate and organize the evidence in a fashion that would facilitate preparation of criminal cases should prosecution of war criminals at a later date become an option. 
United States, Secretary of the Army, Report on Iraqi war crimes (Desert Shield/Desert Storm), unclassified version, 8 January 1992, pp. 4–8.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that “there is a general obligation to try [persons suspected of war crimes other than members of its own armed forces] or to cooperate with another state willing to try them in accordance with international fair trial standards”. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 6.4.
The report also states: “The United States appears to recognize a general obligation on all states to assist each other in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes.” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 6.10.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on hostage-taking and abduction, the UN Security Council,
Considering that the taking of hostages and abduction are offences of grave concern to all States and serious violations of international humanitarian law, …
6. Urges the further development of international co-operation among States in devising and adopting effective measures which are in accordance with the rules of international law to facilitate the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking and abduction as manifestations of terrorism. 
UN Security Council, Res. 638, 31 July 1989, preamble and § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
9. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures, for a period of twelve months, to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of all persons designated by the Committee established by paragraph 14 below, … , any … person determined as responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Côte d’Ivoire on the basis of relevant information … , provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a State to refuse entry into its territory to its own nationals;
14. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the Council (the Committee), to undertake the following tasks:
(a) to designate the individuals and entities subject to the measures imposed by paragraph[…] 9 … above, and to update this list regularly,
(b) to seek from all States concerned, and particularly those in the region, information regarding the actions taken by them to implement the measures imposed by paragraph[…] … 9 … above, and whatever further information it may consider useful, including by providing them with an opportunity to send representatives to meet the Committee to discuss in more detail any relevant issues,
15. Requests all States concerned, in particular those in the region, to report to the Committee, within ninety days from the date of adoption of this resolution, on the actions they have taken to implement the measures imposed by paragraph[…] … 9 … above, and authorizes the Committee to request whatever further information it may consider necessary;
16. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, other organizations and interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on possible violations of the measures imposed by paragraph[…] … 9 … above. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1572, 15 November 2004, §§ 9 and 14(a)–(b), 15–16, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Great Lakes region, the UN Security Council urged all States concerned to “take action to bring to justice perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and to take appropriate measures of international cooperation and judicial assistance in this regard”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1653, 27 January 2006, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in a statement by its President on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council urged member States “to cooperate with the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in the investigation and prosecution of [any persons found to have been involved in … massacres, atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law]”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/20, 13 July 1998, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns the deaths of innocent civilians and human rights abuses in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and calls for such incidents to be fully investigated. Those responsible for atrocities and human rights abuses should be held to account, and the Government of National Unity and Transition should take immediate steps, with support from the international community, to reverse the current climate of impunity. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/21, 22 June 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security condemns with the utmost firmness the massacre of refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which occurred on the territory of Burundi, in Gatumba, on 13 August 2004.
The Security Council calls upon the authorities of Burundi and of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to cooperate actively so that the perpetrators and those responsible for those crimes be brought to justice without delay.
The Security Council requests the United Nations Operation in Burundi and the United Nations Organization’s Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to offer their assistance to the Burundian and Congolese authorities with a view to facilitating the investigation and to strengthening the security of vulnerable populations. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/30, 15 August 2004, p. 1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly called upon all the States concerned “to intensify their co-operation in the collection and exchange of information which will contribute to the detection, arrest, extradition, trial and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2712 (XXV), 15 December 1970, § 4, voting record: 55-4-33-35.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly:
Firmly convinced of the need for international co-operation in the thorough investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity … and in bringing about the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of all war criminals and persons guilty of crimes against humanity who have not yet been brought to trial or punished,
2. Further urges all States to co-operate in particular in the collection and exchange of information which will contribute to the detection, arrest, extradition, trial and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
4. Affirms that refusal by States to co-operate in the arrest, extradition, trial and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity is contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to generally recognized norms of international law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2840 (XXVI), 18 December 1971, preamble and §§ 2 and 4, voting record: 71-0-42-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly requested the UN Commission on Human Rights “to submit to the General Assembly … draft principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3020 (XXVII), 18 December 1972, § 3, voting record: 105-0-18-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1973 on principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly declared:
The United Nations, in pursuance of the principles and purposes set forth in the Charter concerning the promotion of co-operation between peoples and the maintenance of international peace and security, proclaims the following principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity:
3. States shall co-operate with each other on a bilateral and multilateral basis with a view to halting and preventing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and shall take the domestic and international measures necessary for that purpose.
4. States shall assist each other in detecting, arresting and bringing to trial persons suspected of having committed such crimes and, if they are found guilty, in punishing them.
6. States shall co-operate with each other in the collection of information and evidence which would help to bring to trial [persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity] and shall exchange such information. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3074 (XXVIII), 3 December 1973, preamble and §§ 3–4 and 6, voting record: 94-0-29-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly urged all parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
To allow free and secure access to all areas so as to permit and support investigations of the presumed serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, with a view to bringing those responsible to justice, and to cooperate fully to that end with national and international human rights protection mechanisms to investigate alleged human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/196, 22 December 2003, § 4(d), voting record: 81-2-91-17.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1965 on the question of punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN Commission on Human Rights requested ECOSOC:
to urge all States to continue their efforts to ensure that, in accordance with international law and national laws, the criminals responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity are traced, apprehended and equitably punished by the competent courts. For this purpose they should co-operate, in particular, by making available any documents in their possession, relating to such crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 3 (XXI), 9 April 1965, § 1(a), voting record: adopted unanimously (as regards the resolution as a whole), 19-0-2 (as regards subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph 1).
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1988 on prosecution and punishment of all war criminals and persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Commending the co-operation among various States Members of the United Nations which has resulted in the fair trial and just punishment of important war criminals, including the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, for their crimes against humanity,
Urges all States to take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national constitutional systems, to ensure full international co-operation for the purpose of securing, preferably in the place where they committed their deeds, the prosecution and just punishment of all those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/47, 8 March 1988, preamble and sole operative paragraph, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking note of resolution 2001/22 of 16 August 2001 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, entitled “International cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity” and recalling also all previous resolutions of the Sub-Commission on impunity,
5. Calls upon States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consider providing to States, upon their request, concrete and practical assistance and cooperation in seeking to achieve the goals set out in the present resolution;
10. Recognizes that crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture are violations of international law and that perpetrators of such crimes should be prosecuted or extradited by States, and urges all States to take effective measures to implement their obligations to prosecute or extradite perpetrators of such crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/72, 25 April 2003, preamble and §§ 5 and 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Also urges States to assist each other, in accordance with their international obligations and domestic law, in detecting, arresting and bringing to justice persons suspected of having committed international crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/72, 21 April 2004, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon all States to end impunity for perpetrators of crimes committed against children, recognizing in this regard the contribution of the establishment of the International Criminal Court as a way to prevent violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular when children are victims of serious crimes, including the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and to bring perpetrators of such crimes to justice, and not to grant amnesties for these crimes and to strengthen international cooperation towards the goal of ending impunity. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 7, voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 entitled “Right to the truth”, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
4. Encourages other States to consider establishing specific judicial mechanisms as well as, where appropriate, truth and reconciliation commissions to complement the justice system [of concerned States], to investigate and address gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law;
5. Encourages States to provide appropriate assistance on this matter to concerned States.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/66, 20 April 2005, §§ 4–5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Also urges States to assist each other, in accordance with their international obligations and domestic law, in detecting, arresting and bringing to justice persons, including accomplices, suspected of having committed international crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/81, 21 April 2005, § 8, adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights stated:
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights …
Convinced that maximum international cooperation among States is needed in order to ensure a thorough investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as to bring to trial their perpetrators …
1. Affirms that within the framework of international cooperation in the search for, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the highest priority should be given, independently of the circumstances in which these violations are committed, to legal proceedings against all individuals responsible for such crimes, including former heads of State or Government whose exile serves as a pretext for their impunity;
2. Urges all States to cooperate in order to search for, arrest, extradite, bring to trial and punish persons found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity;
3. Reaffirms the principles of international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity recorded in General Assembly resolution 3074 (XXVIII) of 3 December 1973 …
4. Affirms that States have an obligation to cooperate in the arrest, extradition, trial and punishment of persons found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including former heads of State or Government, keeping in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and generally recognized norms of international law. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/22, 16 August 2001, preamble and §§ 1–4
UN Secretary-General
In 2001, in a report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Secretary-General pointed out that “consistent enforcement depends primarily on the commitment and cooperation of national jurisdictions. The prosecution of individuals is, first and foremost, a responsibility of the State concerned.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/2001/331, 30 March 2001, § 12.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a recommendation adopted in 1979 on statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers:
iii. invite member governments to improve their co-operation, co-ordination and exchange of information for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrators of [crimes against humanity and war crimes] by:
a. providing rapidly all relevant information on these crimes to the competent authorities of the member states concerned;
b. providing facilities for rapid direct contacts between the authorities responsible for the search for and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes in member states;
c. studying further possibilities for co-operation and co-ordination in respect of these crimes;
d. preparing a special wanted persons’ list in respect of these crimes;
e. considering the possibility of appointing a special public prosecutor in charge of the prosecution of these crimes. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 855, 2 February 1979, § 10(iii).
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (Rapporteur)
In 1979, during his presentation of a report by the Legal Affairs Committee on the statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated: “We beg member governments to improve their co-operation, their co-ordination and exchange of information for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrators of [crimes against humanity and other very serious crimes].” 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Legal Affairs Committee, Rapporteur, Report on the statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, 30th Ordinary Session, Twenty-fifth Sitting, 2 February 1979, Official Report of Debates, p. 960.
No data.
Human Rights Committee
In its General Comment on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2004, the Human Rights Committee held: “States parties should also assist each other to bring to justice persons suspected of having committed acts in violation of the Covenant that are punishable under domestic or international law.” 
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 [Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant], 26 May 2004, § 18.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
The [High Contracting] Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance with penal proceedings relative to grave breaches of the law of war.
The [High Contracting] Parties shall benefit by the same assistance from neutral States. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 783–784.
No data.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Article 49, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 50, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 129, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 146, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provide:
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 49, second para.; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 50, second para.; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 129, second para.; and Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 146, second para.
European Convention on Extradition
Under Article 1 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, the parties undertake:
to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order. 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 1.
European Convention on Extradition
Article 2(1) of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides:
Extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 2(1).
European Convention on Extradition
Article 4 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides: “Extradition for offences under military law which are not offences under ordinary criminal law is excluded from the application of this Convention.” 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 4.
European Convention on Extradition
Article 11 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides for the possibility to refuse extradition if the offence for which it is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting party. 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 11.
UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Article 3 of the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity provides:
The States Parties to the present Convention undertake to adopt all necessary domestic measures, legislative or otherwise, with a view to making possible the extradition in accordance with international law, of the persons referred to in Article 2 of this Convention [i.e. representatives of the State authority and private individuals who, as principals or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission]. 
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2391 (XXIII), 26 November 1968, Article 3.
Additional Protocol I (draft)
Article 78 of the draft Additional Protocol I, entitled “Extradition” and submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH, provided:
Grave breaches of the Conventions or of the present Protocol, whatever the motives for which they were committed, shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between the High Contracting Parties. The High Contracting Parties undertake to include the said grave breaches as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
If a High Contracting Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another High Contracting Party with which it has no extradition treaty, the Conventions and the present Protocol shall be considered as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the said grave breaches. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested High Contracting Party.
High Contracting Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the said grave breaches as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested High Contracting Party. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 25.
After several proposals of amendment, paragraph 1 of Article 78 was rejected in Committee I of the CDDH by 27 votes in favour, 7 against and 39 abstentions; paragraph 2 was rejected by 41 votes in favour, one against and 29 abstentions; Article 78 was consequently rejected as a whole. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IX, CDDH/I/SR.70, 28 April 1977, pp. 396–397, § 54.
Additional Protocol I
Article 88(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Subject to the rights and obligations established in the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and in Article 85, paragraph 1 of this Protocol, and when circumstances permit, the High Contracting Parties shall co-operate in the matter of extradition. They shall give due consideration to the request of the State in whose territory the alleged offence has occurred. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 88(2). CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.45, 30 May 1977, p. 309.
OAU Convention against Mercenarism
Article 7 of the 1977 OAU Convention against Mercenarism states:
1. A request for extradition cannot be rejected, unless the State from which it is sought undertakes to prosecute the offender in accordance with the provisions of Article Five of the present Convention.
2. When a national is the subject of the request for extradition, the State from which it is sought must, if it refuses, undertake prosecution of the offence committed.
3. If, in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of this Article, prosecution is undertaken, the State from which extradition is sought will notify the outcome of such prosecution to the state seeking extradition and to any other interested Member State of the Organization of African Unity.
4. A state will be regarded as an interested party for the outcome of a prosecution as defined in section 3 of this Article if the offence has some connection with its territory or militates against its interests. 
Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, adopted by the OAU Council of Ministers at its 29th Session, Res. 817 (XXIX), Libreville, 3 July 1977, OAU Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.3, 1977, Article 7.
Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
Article 3 of the 1978 Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition provides that extradition may be refused, under certain conditions, in case it is requested for the purpose of carrying out a sentence or detention order imposed by a decision rendered against a person in absentia. 
Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Strasbourg, 17 March 1978, Article 3.
Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
Article 4 of the 1978 Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition provides: “Extradition shall not be granted for an offence in respect of which an amnesty has been declared in the requested State and which that State had competence to prosecute under its own criminal law.” 
Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Strasbourg, 17 March 1978, Article 4.
Convention against Torture
Article 3(1) of the 1984 Convention against Torture provides: “No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” 
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984, Article 3(1).
Convention against Torture
Article 7(1) of the 1984 Convention against Torture provides:
The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. 
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984, Article 7(1).
UN Mercenary Convention
Article 15 of the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention provides:
1. The offences set forth in articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present Convention shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider the present Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those offences as extraditable offences between themselves, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
4. The offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the State required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 9 of the present Convention. 
International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 44/34, 4 December 1989, Article 15.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America
Article 1 of the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America provides: “the Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons whom the authorities in the Requesting State have charged with or found guilty of an extraditable offense”.  
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Argentina and the United States of America, Buenos Aires, 10 June 1997, Article 1.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America
Article 2 of the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America provides:
1. An offense shall be an extraditable offense if it is punishable under the laws in both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty …
4. In accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, extradition shall be granted for offenses committed in whole or in part within the Requesting State’s territory, which, for the purposes of this Article, includes all places subject to that State’s criminal jurisdiction. Extradition shall also be granted for offenses committed outside the territory of the Requesting State if:
(a) the act or acts that constitute the offense have effects in the territory of the Requesting State; or
(b) the laws in the Requested State provide for punishment of an offense committed outside its territory in similar circumstances. 
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Argentina and the United States of America, Buenos Aires, 10 June 1997, Article 2(1) and (4).
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America
Article 7 of the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America provides: “Extradition shall not be denied on the ground that the prosecution or the penalty would be barred under the statute of limitations in the Requested State.” 
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Argentina and the United States of America, Buenos Aires, 10 June 1997, Article 7.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 18 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, which according to its Article 22(1) also applies to armed conflicts not of an international character, provides:
1. The offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between any of the Parties before the entry into force of this Protocol. Parties undertake to include such offences in every extradition treaty to be subsequently concluded between them.
2. When a Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Party with which it has no extradition treaty, the requested Party may, at its option, consider the present Protocol as the legal basis for extradition in respect of offences as set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c).
3. Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognise the offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) as extraditable offences between them, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested Party.
4. If necessary, offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) shall be treated, for the purposes of extradition between Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territory of the Parties that have established jurisdiction in accordance with Article 16 paragraph 1. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 18.
Convention on Enforced Disappearance
The 2006 Convention on Enforced Disappearance provides:
Recalling … relevant international instruments in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law,
Article 13
2. The offence of enforced disappearance shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties before the entry into force of this Convention.
3. States Parties undertake to include the offence of enforced disappearance as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty subsequently to be concluded between them.
4. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the necessary legal basis for extradition in respect of the offence of enforced disappearance.
5. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offence of enforced disappearance as an extraditable offence between themselves.
6. Extradition shall, in all cases, be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the requested State Party or by applicable extradition treaties, including, in particular, conditions relating to the minimum penalty requirement for extradition and the grounds upon which the requested State Party may refuse extradition or make it subject to certain conditions.
7. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s sex, race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinions or membership of a particular social group, or that compliance with the request would cause harm to that person for any one of these reasons. 
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by UN General Assembly Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Preamble and Article 13(2)-(7).
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions
Paragraph 18 of the 1989 Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions provides:
Governments shall either bring … persons [identified by the investigation as having participated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions] to justice or cooperate to extradite any such persons to other countries wishing to exercise jurisdiction. This principle shall apply irrespectively of who and where the perpetrators or the victims are, their nationalities or where the offence was committed. 
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by the UN Economic and Social Council, Res. 1989/65, 24 May 1989, § 18.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 6 of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, dealing with the “Obligation to try or extradite”, provides:
1. A State in whose territory an individual alleged to have committed a crime against the peace and security of mankind is present shall either try or extradite him.
2. If extradition is requested by several States, special consideration shall be given to the request of the State in whose territory the crime was committed.
3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 do not prejudge the establishment and the jurisdiction of an international criminal court. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 6.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Article 9 of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, entitled “Obligation to extradite or prosecute”, provides:
Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court, the State Party in the territory of which an individual alleged to have committed a crime set out in articles 17, 18, 19 or 20 [crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against United Nations and associated personnel, war crimes] is found shall extradite or prosecute that individual. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 9.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Article 10 of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, entitled “Extradition of alleged offenders”, provides:
1. To the extent that the crimes set out in articles 17, 18, 19 and 20 [crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against United Nations and associated personnel, war crimes] are not extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties, they shall be deemed to be included as such therein. States Parties undertake to include those crimes as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider the present Code as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those crimes. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State.
3. State Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those crimes as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State.
4. Each of those crimes shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if it had been committed not only in the place in which it occurred but also in the territory of any other State Party. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 10.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 5 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides: “States shall incorporate within their domestic law … appropriate legislation to facilitate extradition or surrender of offenders to other States and to international judicial bodies.”  
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 5.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraph 5 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
[W]here it is so provided for in an applicable treaty or other international legal obligations, States should facilitate extradition or surrender offenders to other States and to appropriate international judicial bodies and provide judicial assistance and other forms of cooperation in the pursuit of international justice, including assistance to, and protection of, victims and witnesses, consistent with international human rights legal standards and subject to international legal requirements such as those relating to the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, § 5.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states:
The States Signatory to the [1949 Geneva] Conventions have engaged to take a series of measures in order to promote their respect. These measures can be summarized as follows:
3) search for, identification and prosecution before the own courts of the authors of grave breaches, whatever their nationality may be, or extradition of these authors to the State which requests for it, within the limits of the legislation in force. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 55, § 3(3).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states:
The obligation to suppress breaches of the law of war takes the form … of aut dedere, aut judicare. It pledges any State to search for the authors of war crimes or crimes against humanity, either by penal prosecution … irrespective of their nationality, the nationality of the victims or the place where the acts were committed, or by extraditing the authors, according to the law of the State concerned, to the State which requests their extradition in order to prosecute them. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 119; see also Part I bis, pp. 118 and 46.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
II.1. National repression
Grave breaches of international humanitarian law need to be prosecuted not only by the detaining power, but by each State in the power of which the presumed culprit finds himself. One therefore speaks of universal jurisdiction. States must therefore give mutual legal assistance, for example by extraditing an accused if a State renounces criminal prosecution. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 46–47.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) notes: “International cooperation for the search, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons who have committed [war crimes] is established.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 86.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “In general, States … must cooperate as much as possible with respect to the extradition of war criminals.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-8.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] Art. 88 requires the parties to assist one another in connection with grave breaches, including cooperation in matters of extradition.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1711.4, footnote 76.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
IHL imposes on States the obligation to search for and punish all persons who have committed grave breaches [of IHL], irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator or the place where they committed the crime. This obligation stems from the principle called UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION … , and includes the obligation to prosecute them or to extradite them. This obligation falls on all States affected by the commission of the crime. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 24, p. 39; see also § 27, pp. 42–43.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) provides that each party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions shall cooperate to extradite persons who have committed grave breaches of IHL. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 193, § 4.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides:
The States have the obligation to search for persons accused of having committed, or having ordered to be committed, grave breaches, being obliged to make them appear before their own tribunals, regardless of their nationality. They can also agree to the extradition of those persons in order for them to be judged by other States, in accordance with the legal obligations which regulate the said extradition. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(1).
The manual adds: “States shall provide each other with the greatest possible mutual assistance for the penal repression of violations, at national and international level. Such cooperation shall also be accorded in extradition matters.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(4).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
States have a duty to search for those suspected of having committed or having ordered others to commit grave breaches and try them in their own courts, regardless of their nationality. They can also extradite such persons to be tried by another State, provided that legal extradition requirements are met. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 11.7.b.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) notes:
Additional Protocol I … states that the contracting parties shall to the greatest extent possible assist each other in connection with penal procedures instituted as a consequence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions or the Protocol. The States shall also cooperate in extradition cases …
In the extradition request the government can refer to the article in Additional Protocol I concerning mutual assistance in criminal proceedings ([the 1977 Additional Protocol I], Art. 88:2), according to which due consideration shall be given to a request for extradition from the state in whose territory the alleged offence has occurred. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, p. 97.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Each State shall be under the obligation to search for persons who have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, war crimes (including those crimes that were a result of a failure to take precautionary measures that had to be taken).
Any person charged with such crimes shall be handed over to a requesting State unless that person was brought to justice for serious violations of international humanitarian law in its own State. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.9.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Ensuring respect for the law of armed conflict is a universal responsibility. International co-operation is encouraged by Additional Protocol I, which provides for:
c. mutual assistance in criminal proceedings brought in respect of grave breaches of the conventions or protocol, including assistance with evidence and extradition. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.9(c).
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism (2004) states:
Cooperation
The authorities of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan agree to cooperate [to the extent] possible with those of other States for the purposes of information exchange, investigation, and proceedings, provisional measures and confiscations of instruments and proceeds associated with [the] financing of terrorism for purposes of extradition. 
Afghanistan, Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism, 2004, Article 18.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Law against Terrorist Offences (2008) states:
International Cooperation
The competent authorities of Afghanistan may cooperate with other countries in the combat against terrorist offences [including offences committed against protected persons pursuant to article 13 of this law] in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Extradition of Suspects, Accused and Convicts. 
Afghanistan, Law against Terrorist Offences, 2008, Article 25.
Armenia
Armenia’s Penal Code (2003) provides:
In accordance with an international treaty of the Republic of Armenia, the foreign citizens and stateless persons who committed a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Armenia and who find themselves in the Republic of Armenia can be extradited to a foreign State, for criminal liability or to serve a sentence. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 16(2).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals (2004), as amended, provides:
Within the limits set out in Article 108 of the Statute [of the International Criminal Court], Belgium may, pursuant to its legislation, extradite or surrender in any other way a convicted person serving his sentence to the State requesting his extradition or surrender, or to the international tribunal which requested his surrender for the purpose of trial or execution of sentence. 
Belgium, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals, 2004, as amended in 2006, Article 36.
Brazil
Brazil’s Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners (1980), as amended in 1981, states:
Article 76. Extradition may be granted when the requesting government invokes a treaty or promises reciprocity to Brazil.
Article 77. Extradition shall not be granted when:
II - the act which motivates the [extradition] request is not considered a crime in Brazil or in the requesting State;
III - Brazil has jurisdiction, according to its legislation, to prosecute the crime attributed to the person sought;
IV - according to Brazilian law, the crime shall be punished with a sentence of prison of one year or less;
V - the person sought is on trial or has already been convicted or acquitted in Brazil for the same act based on which [the extradition is] requested;
VI - the crime cannot be punished because the statutes of limitation have expired according to Brazilian law or the law of the requesting State;
VIII - the person sought would be subject to an ad hoc court in the requesting State.
Article 78. For an extradition to be granted, the following conditions shall be fulfilled:
I - the crime must have been committed in the territory of the requesting State or the criminal laws of such State must apply to the person sought; and
II - there must be either a final sentence of imprisonment or an arrest warrant for the person sought issued by a judge, tribunal or competent authority of the requesting State, except in the case provided for in article 82 [regarding preventive detention in urgent situations]. 
Brazil, Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, 1980, as amended in 1981, Articles 76, 77(II)–(VI) and (VIII), and 78.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Criminal Procedure Code (2005) provides:
Conditions of Extradition
Section 642
(1) Any act serving as a ground for extradition shall:
(b) by Cameroon law, constitute an ordinary law offence;
(2) …
(b) Offences of universal jurisdiction provided by international conventions and ratified by Cameroon shall be considered as ordinary law offences. 
Cameroon, Criminal Procedure Code, 2005, Section 642.
Canada
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
EXTRADITABLE CONDUCT
3. (1) A person may be extradited from Canada in accordance with this Act and a relevant extradition agreement on the request of an extradition partner [a State or entity with which Canada is party to an extradition agreement, with which Canada has entered into a specific agreement or whose name appears in the schedule attached to the Extradition Act] for the purpose of prosecuting the person or imposing a sentence on – or enforcing a sentence imposed on – the person if
(a) subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the offence in respect of which the extradition is requested is punishable by the extradition partner, by imprisoning or otherwise depriving the person of their liberty for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment; and
(b) the conduct of the person, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence that is punishable in Canada,
(i) in the case of a request based on a specific agreement, by imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or more, or by a more severe punishment, and
(ii) in any other case, by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or more, or by a more severe punishment, subject to a relevant extradition agreement.
(2) For greater certainty, it is not relevant whether the conduct referred to in subsection (1) is named, defined or characterized by the extradition partner in the same way as it is in Canada.
(3) Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the extradition of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment or another deprivation of liberty may only be granted if the portion of the term remaining is at least six months long or a more severe punishment remains to be carried out.
5. A person may be extradited
(a) whether or not the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which it has jurisdiction; and
(b) whether or not Canada could exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances.
6. Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, extradition may be granted under this Act whether the conduct or conviction in respect of which the extradition is requested occurred before or after this Act or the relevant extradition agreement or specific agreement came into force.
6.1 Despite any other Act or law, no person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court or by any international criminal tribunal that is established by resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations and whose name appears in the schedule [the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia], may claim immunity under common law or by statute from arrest or extradition under this Act.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
44. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner;
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction;
(b) the person was convicted in their absence and could not, on surrender, have the case reviewed;
(c) the person was less than eighteen years old at the time of the offence and the law that applies to them in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction is not consistent with the fundamental principles governing the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
(d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person; or
(e) none of the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction.
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in sections 44, 46 and 47 do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court.
ORDER OF SURRENDER
59. Subject to a relevant extradition agreement, the Minister may, if the request for extradition is based on more than one offence, order the surrender of a person for all the offences even if not all of them fulfil the requirements set out in section 3, if
(a) the person is being surrendered for at least one offence that fulfils the requirements set out in section 3; and
(b) all the offences relate to conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would have constituted offences that are punishable under the laws of Canada.
CONSENT
71. (1) A person may, at any time after arrest or appearance, consent, in writing and before a judge, to being surrendered.
(4) When a person consents to being surrendered to the extradition partner, the following sections do not apply:
(b) section 44 (reasons for refusal). 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 3(1)–(3), 5–6.1, 44(1)–(2), 46(1)(a)–(b), 47–47.1, 59 and 71(1) and (4)(b).
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Penal Procedure Code (2010) states:
The Central African Government can, upon the request of foreign Governments, hand over non-nationals found on the territory of the [Central African] Republic if they are subjected to proceedings in the requesting State or to a sentence pronounced by the courts [of this State].
Nevertheless, extradition is only granted if the offence, for which the request has been made, was committed:
- on the territory of the requesting State by a national of that State or by a foreigner;
- outside its territory by a national of the State;
- outside the territory of the State by a foreigner, when Central African law authorizes the prosecution of the offence, even when it was committed by a foreigner outside of the national territory. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Article 379.
China
China’s Extradition Law (2000) states:
The request for extradition made by a foreign state to the People’s Republic of China shall be rejected if:
(4) the person sought is one against whom penal proceedings instituted or punishment may be executed for reasons of that person’s race, religion, nationality, sex, political opinion or personal status, or that person may, for any of those reasons, be subjected to unfair treatment in judicial proceedings. 
China, Extradition Law, 2000, Article 8(4).
Colombia
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states: “Extradition may be requested, conceded or offered in accordance with the public treaties and, failing this, with the law.” 
Colombia, Criminal Procedure Code, 2004, Article 490.
Germany
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982) states: “A foreign person who, in a foreign State, is prosecuted or has been convicted for an offence punishable in that State, can, on the request of a competent authority, be extradited to that State.” 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, § 2(1).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides:
The restriction on granting extradition contained in section 12 of the Extradition Act, 1965 [which states that “extradition shall not be granted for offences under military law which are not offences under ordinary criminal law”], does not apply in the case of an offence involving a grave or minor breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I or a minor breach of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol II. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 11.
Japan
Japan’s Law on Extradition (1953), as amended in 2004, states:
A fugitive shall not be surrendered in any of the following circumstances … [unless] the treaty of extradition provides otherwise:
(3) When the offence for which extradition is requested is not punishable by death, or by imprisonment for life or for a maximum term of three years or more by the laws, regulations or ordinances of the requesting country;
(4) When the act constituting the offence for which extradition is requested would not be punishable under the laws, regulations or ordinances of Japan by death or by imprisonment for life or for a maximum term of three years or more if the act were committed in Japan. 
Japan, Law on Extradition, 1953, as amended in 2004, Article 2.1(3) and (4).
Lithuania
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, provides:
Foreigners who have committed a crime shall be extradited for committing offences in accordance with corresponding international and interstate agreements, or, if there are no such agreements, in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Lithuania.
Foreign nationals shall not be extradited if the acts committed by them are not considered criminal under the criminal laws of the Republic of Lithuania.
Persons shall not be … extradited to foreign countries for committing acts which have been ground for granting asylum in the Republic of Lithuania. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 7.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985) states that, under certain conditions:
Luxembourg can hand over to governments of States parties to the [1949 Geneva Conventions] every foreign person being prosecuted or convicted in these States for an offence provided for in the Geneva Conventions and in Article 1 of this law, provided that sufficient charges are held against [him or her] and that the statutes of limitation for the public prosecution or for the sentencing have not yet been reached under Luxembourg’s law. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 11.
Netherlands
Under the Act on the Surrender of Persons Suspected of War Crimes (1954), as amended in 2003, of the Netherlands, individuals can be surrendered to another power for trial if they are suspected of having committed one of the crimes defined in Article 3 (genocide) and Articles 5 to 8 (war crimes committed in an international or a non-international armed conflict, and torture) and, in so far as it is connected with the offences referred to in those articles, Article 9 of the International Crimes Act. 
Netherlands, Act on the Surrender of Persons Suspected of War Crimes, 1954, as amended in 2003, Article 1.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Extradition Act (1967) states:
3. Restrictions on surrender of fugitives
(2) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if it appears to the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case-
(a) that the request for his surrender, although purporting to be made in respect of an extradition crime, was in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions or was otherwise not made in good faith or in the interest of justice; or
(b) that, if surrendered, he is likely to be prejudiced at his trial, or to be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions,
(3) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that, by reason of-
(a) the trivial nature of the offence for which his surrender is sought; or
(b) the passage of time since the commission of the offence,
it would, having regard to all the circumstances in which the offence was committed, be unjust or oppressive, or be too severe a punishment, to surrender the offender.
(4) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, he-
(a) has been convicted [of the] offence for which his surrender is sought; or
(b) has been acquitted thereof, and that, in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this subsection, he is not unlawfully at large.
(5) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if criminal proceedings are pending against him in Nigeria for the offence for which his surrender is sought.
(6) A fugitive criminal-
(a) who has been charged with an offence under the law of Nigeria or any part thereof, not being the offence for which his surrender is sought; or
(b) who is serving a sentence imposed in respect of any such offence by a court in Nigeria, shall not be surrendered until such time as he has been discharged whether by acquittal or on the expiration of his sentence, or otherwise.
4. Offences under military law
(1) A fugitive criminal may be surrendered notwithstanding that the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence constitutes an offence only under military law or law relating only to military obligations.
5. Liability of fugitives to surrender
Every fugitive criminal of a country to which this Act applies shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be liable to be arrested and surrendered in the manner provided by this Act, whether the offence in respect of which his surrender is sought was committed before or after the commencement of this Act or the application of this Act to that country, and whether or not there is concurrent jurisdiction in any court in Nigeria over that offence.
6. Requests for surrender, and powers of Attorney-General thereon.
(1) A request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal of any country shall be made in writing to the Attorney-General by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of that country and shall be accompanied by a duly authenticated warrant of arrest or certificate of conviction issued in that country. 
Nigeria, Extradition Act, 1967, Articles 3(2)–(6), 4(1), 5 and 6(1).
Portugal
Portugal’s Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1999), as amended in 2001, provides:
1. Extradition may be granted only for the purpose either of instituting criminal proceedings or of executing a sanction or measure involving deprivation of liberty, for an offence that the courts of the requesting State have jurisdiction to try.
2. For any such purpose, surrender of a person shall be possible only in respect of offences, including attempted offences, that are punishable under both the Portuguese law and the law of the requesting State by a sanction or measure involving deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least one year … 
Portugal, Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1999, as amended in 2001, Article 31.
Trial of an extradited person sentenced by Gacaca Courts
A person extradited to be tried in Rwanda and who has been sentenced by Gacaca Courts shall be tried by a competent court as provided by this Organic Law.
However, the decision of the Gacaca Court shall first be nullified by that court. 
Rwanda, Organic Law terminating Gacaca Courts and determining mechanisms for solving issues which were under their jurisdiction, 2012, Article 8.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Extradition Act (1974) states:
Part IGENERAL
2. Public Policy.
(1) No extradition shall be granted under any of the provisions of this Act if, in the circumstances of the particular case, it appears to the Attorney-General that it would be contrary to the public policy of Sierra Leone to do so.
(2) For the purposes of this section the expression “public policy of Sierra Leone” shall be taken to include –
a. the interests of security, public order and good morals; and
b. fundamental human rights and the principles of humane treatment generally accepted among civilised nations.
PART II—SPECIAL PROVISIONS TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
15. Circumstances precluding return.
(1) Section 2 shall not apply to cases under this Part, but extradition shall not be granted if in the circumstances of the particular case it appears to the Attorney-General that –
a. the offence is an offence of a political character; or
b. the request for surrender although purporting to be made for a returnable offence was in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing any person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions; or
c. the person returned may be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions; or
d. the case is of a trivial nature; [or]
e. the accusation against the fugitive was not made in good faith or in the interest of justice; or
f. having regard to all the circumstances it would be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to return the fugitive; or
g. the fugitive has been convicted of the offence of which he is accused and is neither unlawfully at large nor at large in breach of a condition of a license to be at large; or
h. the fugitive has been acquitted, whether within or outside the Commonwealth, of the offence of which he is accused.
17. Offences for which extradition may be granted.
Extradition may be granted for any of the offences set out in the Fourth Schedule [which includes murder; manslaughter; counterfeiting and altering money or bank notes and uttering counterfeit or altered money or bank notes and other offences relating to coinage and bank notes; forgery, counterfeiting and altering and uttering what is forged, counterfeited or altered; embezzlement; larceny; obtaining money or goods by false pretences; offences by bankrupts under any law relative to bankruptcy; fraudulent misappropriation and frauds by a bailee; rape; abduction; child stealing; burglary and housebreaking; arson; robbery with violence; bribery; sinking or destroying a vessel at sea; assault on board a ship on the high seas with intent to destroy life or do grievous bodily harm; revolt by two or more persons on board ship on the high seas against the authority of the master; offences in connection with the slave trade committed on the high seas or on land; kidnapping; false imprisonment; perjury and subornation of perjury; malicious or wilful damage to property; offences against legislation relating to dangerous drugs; offences against the person; any offence of a nature or category similar to any of the above-mentioned offences which is for the time being punishable in Sierra Leone; any conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the above-mentioned offences and the counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting of any such offence or being an accessory before or after]:
Provided that if the offence for which extradition is requested would not be an offence if committed in Sierra Leone extradition shall not be granted without the consent of the Attorney-General.
PART III—SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLYING TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
22. In the case of the Republic of Guinea and such other countries as may from time to time be listed in the Second Schedule[,] the provisions of Part I shall apply subject to the following conditions, limitations and modifications –
a. in any case where extradition is requested for a non-political crime it shall not be granted unless –
i. the crime was committed in the Republic of Guinea; and
ii. the fugitive criminal has not been, and is not liable to be, punished in Sierra Leone for that crime, and
b. in all cases, extradition shall be granted only in respect of a crime which (due regard being had to differences between the legal systems of the respective countries) corresponds to a crime punishable under the criminal law of Sierra Leone. …
PART IV—SPECIAL CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN THE THIRD SCHEDULE
23. Special conditions applying to countries listed in the Third Schedule.
In the case of the countries listed in the Third Schedule the provisions of Part I shall apply subject to the following conditions, limitations and modifications –
a. extradition shall be granted only in respect of a crime which –
i. falls within one of the categories of offences listed in the Fourth Schedule; and
ii. corresponds to a crime punishable in Sierra Leone with imprisonment for a term of twelve months or more; and
b. extradition shall not be granted for any offence which appears to the Attorney-General to be of a political character. 
Sierra Leone, Extradition Act, 1974, Sections 2, 15(1), 17 and 22–23.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Constitution (1991) states:
18. Protection of freedom of movement.
(1) No person shall be deprived of his freedom of movement, and for the purpose of this section the said freedom means … immunity from expulsion [from] Sierra Leone.
(3) Nothing contained in or done under authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision –
e. for the removal of a person from Sierra Leone to be tried outside Sierra Leone for a criminal offence recognised as such by the laws of Sierra Leone, or to serve a term of imprisonment outside Sierra Leone in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted[.] 
Sierra Leone, Constitution, 1991, Section 18(1) and (3)(e).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance (1981), as amended to 2010, states in its general provisions:
Unless other federal acts or international agreements provide otherwise, this Act shall govern all procedures of international cooperation in criminal matters, and in particular:
a. the extradition of persons who are the subject of criminal prosecution or have been convicted. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 1(1)(a).
In the section on extradition, the Act further states:
Foreign nationals may be surrendered to another State for prosecution or enforcement of a sentence involving deprivation of liberty for acts which come under its criminal jurisdiction if that State requests extradition or if it accepts the Swiss request to prosecute the offence or enforce the judgment. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 32.
The Act also states:
1. Extradition is permitted if, according to the documents supporting the request, the offence:
a. is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least one year or a more severe sentence both under the law of Switzerland and under the law of the requesting State and
b. is not subject to Swiss jurisdiction.
2. In determining whether an act is an offence under Swiss law, the following are not considered:
a. its specific degrees of guilt and conditions for criminal liability;
b. the conditions relating to the personal and time-related application of the Swiss Criminal Code and the Swiss Military Criminal Code of 13 June 1927 with regard to the criminal provisions on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 35(1) and (2).
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Act further states:
2. Extradition shall be denied if the request is based on a verdict issued in the absence of the defendant and if the minimum rights of the defence to which a defendant is recognised to be entitled were not respected in the proceedings preceding the verdict; this rule does not apply if the requesting State gives sufficient assurances to guarantee the defendant the right to new court proceedings where the rights of the defence are respected.
3. Extradition shall also be denied if the requesting State fails to guarantee that the defendant will not be sentenced to death, that an already pronounced death penalty will not be carried out, or that he will not be subjected to treatment that will impair his physical integrity. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 37(2) and (3).
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, which also contains a chapter on war crimes, states in the part on general provisions:
Art. 10
1 If the personal conditions are fulfilled, the present code is applicable both to offences committed in Switzerland and to those committed abroad.
1bis The present code applies to persons mentioned in art. 5 [paragraph 1], number 1, letter d and number 5, who have committed abroad one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors] if they are present in Switzerland, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland.
1ter Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there;
c. the necessary evidence cannot be obtained.
1quater The present code applies to persons who have committed abroad, against a Swiss military person, one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors], if they are present in Switzerland or have been extradited there because of this act, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 10(1)–(1quater). The German language version of Article 10(1ter)(b) notes: “the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there; or”.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in in the common provisions under the titles on genocide and crimes against humanity and on war crimes:
Art. 264m
1 A person who carries out an act under Title 12bis and 12ter [on war crimes] or Art. 264k [on the criminal liability of superiors] while abroad is guilty of an offence if he is in Switzerland and is not extradited to another State or delivered to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland.
2 Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 264m (1)–(2). The German, Italian and Romansh language versions of Article 264m (2)(a) note: “a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court; or”.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Procedure Code (2009) states:
Extradition is prohibited if:
– Tajikistan has granted political asylum to the person concerned;
– The act cited as grounds for the extradition request is not considered as a crime by Tajikistan;
– A sentence has taken effect or a case has been dismissed in relation to the commission of the same offence by the person concerned;
– There is information suggesting that the person might be subjected to torture in the State requesting extradition (Law No. 1134 of 27.11.14);
– Under Tajik legislation, charges may not be brought or the sentence may not be enforced, on the grounds of extinction or other legal considerations. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 479.
Uganda
Uganda’s ICC Act (2010) states:
27. Refusal of request for arrest and surrender.
(2) The Minister may refuse a request for arrest and surrender of a person, at any time before the surrender of the person only if-
(a) there is a competing request for extradition from one or more States not party to the Statute for the person for the same conduct which forms the basis of the crime for which the ICC seeks the person’s surrender and a decision to extradite to a State is made in accordance with article 90 of the Statute and section 41; or
(b) there is a competing request from one or more States not party to the Statute for the extradition of the person for different conduct from that which constitutes the crime for which the ICC requests the person’s surrender and a decision to extradite is made in accordance with article 90 of the Statute and section 41.
41. Competing requests.
(1) Where a request for surrender of a person is received from the ICC and one or more states also request the extradition of the person for the same conduct that forms the basis of the crime for which [the] ICC seeks a person’s surrender, the Minister-
(a) shall notify the ICC and the requesting state of that fact; and
(b) shall determine whether the person is to be surrendered to the ICC or to the requesting state. 
Uganda, ICC Act, 2010, § 27(2) and 41(1).
United States of America
The US Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (2000), under a provision entitled “Delivery to authorities of foreign countries”, provides:
(a) Any person designated and authorized … may deliver a person described in section 3261(a) [“whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment for more that 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States – (1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States; or (2) while a member of the Armed Forces”] to the appropriate authorities of a foreign country in which such person is alleged to have violated section 3261(a) if
(1) appropriate authorities of that country request the delivery of the person to such country for trial for such conduct as an offence under the laws of that country; and
(2) the delivery of such person to that country is authorized by a treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party. 
United States, Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 2000, § 3263.
United States of America
The US Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004) states with regard to the treatment of aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings or other atrocities abroad:
Sec. 5505. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations.
(a) AMENDMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.—Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations with the authority to detect and investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E) [relating to assistance in Nazi persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings].
(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in making determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E), consideration shall be given to—
(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the basis for removal and denaturalization; or
(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a prosecution for such conduct. 
United States, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 2004, Public Law 108-458, 17 December 2004, Title V, Subtitle E, § 5505(a).
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act (2010) states:
Article 600. Limits of criminal liability of a person extradited to the Republic of Uzbekistan
Individuals extradited to Uzbekistan by a foreign State cannot be prosecuted, punished or transferred to a third State for an offence committed before the extradition, which was not subject to the request for extradition, without the consent of the State which had extradited them …
The General Prosecutor of the Republic of Uzbekistan shall notify the authorities of the foreign State of the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the extradited person. At the request of the said authorities, a copy of the final decision in the criminal case may be sent.
Article 601. Execution of a request for extradition of a person from the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan
A request for the extradition of a person from the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence shall be assessed by the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Uzbekistan in accordance with international treaties Uzbekistan is a party to and with the principle of reciprocity.
The principle of reciprocity shall be confirmed in writing … by the competent authority of the foreign State, which submitted the request for extradition …
Article 603. Refusal to extradite a person from the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan to a foreign state
The extradition of a person present in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan to a foreign State is not allowed if:
– the offence subject to the request for extradition was committed in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan or against the interests of the Republic of Uzbekistan outside its territory;
– a conviction … [or] a decision of a competent authority not to initiate or to terminate criminal proceedings is in force in the Republic of Uzbekistan against the same person and in respect of the same conduct that is the subject of the request for extradition;
– the conduct subject to the request for extradition does not constitute an offence under the laws of the Republic of Uzbekistan;
– in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the criminal proceedings may not be initiated … or the sentence may not be executed due to statutes of limitations or for other legitimate reasons;
– criminal proceedings ha[ve] been initiated in the Republic of Uzbekistan with regard to the same person;
– the person with respect to whom the request was issued was granted asylum in the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the possibility of persecution in the requesting State on the account of race, religion, nationality, membership [of] a particular social group[,] or political opinion. 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2010, Article 603.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
Extradition of a foreign national may only be granted by the appropriate authority, in conformity with the procedures and prerequisites established in the international treaties signed by and in force for Venezuela; absent these, those established under Venezuelan law shall apply.
Extradition of a foreign national may not be granted in cases where the crime in question carries the death penalty or life imprisonment under the requesting State’s legislation. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 6.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2009), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states:
Article 391. Extradition is governed by the provisions of this Title, by the treaties, conventions and international agreements to which the Republic is a party.
Article 395. If a foreign government requests the extradition of a person that is within the territory of Venezuela, the Executive will send a request to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the documentation received [from the country]. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Articles 391 and 395.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Extradition Act (1982) provides:
(1) Subject to this Act, a person may be arrested, detained and extradited from Zimbabwe to a designated country … for an offence in respect of which in the designated country he is accused or has been convicted and is required to be sentenced or to undergo punishment, whether the offence was committed before or after the declaration of the country concerned as a designated country.
(2) This part shall apply to any offence which –
(a) is punishable in the law of the designated country concerned by imprisonment for a period of twelve months or by any more severe punishment; and
(b) would constitute an offence punishable in Zimbabwe if the act or omission constituting the offence took place in Zimbabwe or, in the case of an extraterritorial offence, in corresponding circumstances outside Zimbabwe. 
Zimbabwe, Extradition Act, 1982, Section 14.
Argentina
In the Bohne case in 1966, in which extradition was requested for crimes related to the execution of mentally ill patients during Germany’s Nazi regime, Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice emphasized that it was “a duty under international law to provide mutual support in the pursuit of criminals that represent a danger to all”. It added that the extradition process was founded on the common interest of all States for offenders to be tried, and possibly punished, “by the country whose jurisdiction had cognisance of the criminal acts concerned”. 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Bohne case, 24 August 1966.
Argentina
In the Schwammberger case in 1989 concerning a request for extradition by the Federal Republic of Germany, Argentina’s Cámara Federal de La Plata referred to the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals. The public prosecutor referred to the lawfulness of an extradition for an act committed outside the territory of the requesting State. The Court, invoking the various commitments made at the international level regarding the handing over of individuals accused of war crimes, rejected the request of the defendant to be tried by Argentine courts, an option provided by Argentine law, and affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the request for extradition. 
Argentina, Cámara Federal de La Plata, Schwammberger case (First Instance), 30 August 1989.
In the same case before the Supreme Court of Justice in 1990, both the Attorney-General and the Court considered that:
The prosecution and punishment of crimes committed prior to changes in sovereignty constitutes a discretionary decision for the new power rather than an obligation, but as the new power has expressed an interest in exercising penal authority against such crimes, the international community has no legitimate reason to oppose such measures. 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Schwammberger case (Supreme Court), 20 March 1990.
Argentina
At the hearing of the Public Prosecutor of the First Instance in the Priebke case in Argentina in 1995, the public prosecutor qualified the alleged acts of the requested person as war crimes and stated that the refusal to extradite him to Italy would trigger the international responsibility of Argentina, even if such refusal would be based on a rule of internal law. 
Argentina, Court of Bariloche, Priebke case, Hearing of the Public Prosecutor of the First Instance, 1995.
The extradition request was granted by the Court of first instance which stated that there could be no statutory limitation with regard to the alleged acts and therefore rejected the argument raised by the defence that extradition could not be granted because the acts were prescribed under Argentine law. 
Argentina, Court of Bariloche, Priebke case (First Instance), Judgment, 31 May 1995.
However, the Court of Appeal found that under the terms of Argentine legislation, penal action was extinguished and that, therefore, extradition had to be refused. 
Argentina, Court of Appeal of General Roca, Priebke case, Judgment, 23 August 1995.
The Supreme Court of Justice found in favour of the requested person’s extradition and considered that the acts for which extradition was sought were prima facie genocide. It added: “The classification of offences as crimes against humanity does not depend on whether the requesting or requested State agrees with the extradition process, but instead on the principles of jus cogens of international law.” 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Priebke case, Judgment, 2 November 1995.
Australia
In 2010, in the Zentai case, in which an appeal against a ministerial decision to extradite the applicant to Hungary for the purposes of a preliminary investigation regarding his involvement in alleged war crimes in 1945 was upheld, Australia’s Federal Court held:
190. Article 2, para 5(a) [of the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary 1995 – the Treaty] is directed to excluding from the operation of the Treaty and hence the Act Extradition Act 1988 (Cth)], true cases of foreign legislation with retrospective application. It deals with the creation of substantive criminal liability as in the case of the specified offence of war crime. Such laws can be distinguished from those affecting procedural matters, the validation of ultra vires administrative acts or declarations that rights in issue in legal proceedings shall be the subject of legislative declaration or action.
191. Article 2, para 5(a) of the Treaty gives expression not only to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege requiring the existence of criminal liability at the relevant time but also the principle of nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without law) as incorporated in to Arts 22 and 23 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998. Article 22 provides that the definition of war crime should be strictly construed and should not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity the definition should be interpreted in the favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. From this it follows that not only must the law clearly define the elements of a crime so that an individual might know what acts and omissions will make him liable but it must also prescribe a penalty that is certain. This presupposes that the offence of war crime was both clearly defined in the relevant Hungarian written law and that the penalty was publicised in that statute or decree.
192. Both those conditions were absent on 8 November 1944 when the “crime” was alleged to have been committed.
193. To have retrospective application the language of enactment must be such that no other conclusion is possible than that was the intention of the legislature (Victrawl Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 595 at 622–624 per Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ). Given the transient and evolving nature of the concept of war crimes, the elements of which may vary at different periods of time, this principle of construction is important. Unlike other international instruments such as the ECHR [1950 European Convention on Human Rights], the ICCPR [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] and the [1998] Rome Statute Establishing the International Criminal Court where retrospectivity is qualified by an exception in the case of war crime, the Treaty contains no such exception.
194. Had it been intended to qualify that exception to exclude “war crimes”, it would and should have done so in clear, direct and unequivocal terms. That is not only an Australian drafting approach but is also well known to international humanitarian law pursuant to the various conventions discussed above.
195. It follows therefore that the proviso to Art 2, para 5(a) unqualified by any reservation in the case of war crimes should be read strictly and according to its plain meaning so that extradition must not be ordered unless the nominated offence existed in domestic and Hungarian law at the time of the relevant accepted acts.
199. The fact that Hungary might have sought his extradition for an offence of murder for acts committed in November 1944, does not operate as a de facto or de jure surrogate for the war crime for which Mr Zentai’s surrender (for interrogation) is actually sought.
200. Significantly, the offence of “war crime” requires additional elements such as, relevantly, the killing of civilians by a military person during war or occupation. It imposes a different penalty. Mr Zentai argues that if Hungary relies on an equivalent offence of murder under the Hungarian Criminal Code, it should have requested extradition for prosecution of that offence.
201. Further, the fact that other bilateral extradition treaties that Australia concluded after 1985 do not incorporate the well-known reservations in respect of retrospective war crimes, does not explain the failure of Art 2 to include such a reservation in Art 2, para 5(a) or assist in its construction.
209. I accept that if Art 2(5)(a) is ambiguous, nothing has been produced to resolve the ambiguity. On its face, it reflects an important international human rights principle against retrospectivity. There is no modifying clause equivalent to well-known provisions in the ECHR and ICCPR that seek to counterbalance the international human rights principle of protection of the individual against arbitrary punishment with a premium placed by international humanitarian law in punishing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
210. Murder is not the same thing as a war crime. It may be that killing someone is an element of the offence of murder and the offence of war crime involves killing someone. It does not necessarily mean that they are the same. The penalties, also, are different.
211. Making every possible allowance for the obligations of co-operative, sensible, purposive and liberal interpretation contended for by the Commonwealth, Mr Zentai’s argument is well made in my view. An offence of “war crime” is a different offence from the offence of murder. That is so under Australian law and, on the evidence, on Hungarian law. Secondly, the penalties are different.
212. The Treaty deals with offences. It does not deal with “conduct” as the Department advised the Minister. While it is not surprising that at the end of the war Hungary made the offence of war crime retrospective so that those charged with war crimes during the war might be prosecuted with war crimes, not with murder, that does not overcome the plainest of language in the Treaty. The offence of war crime did not exist in Hungary at the time it was allegedly committed.
394. [In summary] … war crime[s], in any event, did not exist in Hungary at the date it was allegedly committed, and the Treaty proscribes retrospectivity with no exception for War Crimes. 
Australia, Federal Court, Zentai case, Judgment, 2 July 2010, §§ 190–195, 199–201, 209–212 and 394.
[emphasis in original]
Bolivia
In the Barbie extradition case in 1974, Bolivia’s Supreme Court turned down France’s request for the extradition of Klaus Barbie, the head of the Gestapo in Lyon during the Second World War, who had been found guilty of war crimes in absentia. The rejection was based on the absence of an extradition treaty between the two States. 
Bolivia, Supreme Court, Barbie extradition case, 11 December 1974.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Lučić case, the Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
Any restriction imposed by a State in relation to the extradition, without prosecution, of the persons suspected of having violated international humanitarian law constitutes a violation of the international obligations of that State. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lučić case, Judgment, 19 September 2007, p. 61.
Cameroon
In March 1996, in the Bagosora case, Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request concerning the aforementioned Théoneste Bagosora, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrant dated 29 May 1995 issued against him by the investigating judge of the Court of First Instance of Brussels [Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon;
Having regard to the international Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 additional to these Geneva Conventions;
Whereas, on 19 January 1996, the Belgian government seized the Cameroonian government with an extradition request concerning the aforementioned Théoneste BAGOSORA, of Rwandan nationality, residing in Cameroon since July 1995;
Whereas, in support of this request, the Belgian government states that the person concerned is charged by the Belgian judicial authorities in context with the murder of ten Belgian paratroopers at Kigali (Rwanda) and the genocide which followed the murder of the Rwandan and Burundian heads of State on 6 April 1994;
Whereas, following this charge, an arrest warrant was issued on 29 May 1995 by the investigating judge responsible for these proceedings in Brussels;
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and the discussions during the hearing that the aforementioned BAGOSORA is seriously suspected of carrying a direct responsibility in the massacres that followed the attack committed against the Rwandan presidential airplane on 6 April 1994, and in the murder of the ten Belgian blue helmets;
Whereas these massacres resulted in more than 500,000 victims and constitute violations of international law such as provided for in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and in the Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 additional to these Conventions, applicable to Cameroon, in Belgium and to Congo [sic];
Whereas Belgium, Cameroon and Rwanda acceded to these conventions on 12 December 1977, 16 March 1984 and 19 November 1984, respectively;
Whereas, furthermore, Article 7 of the Belgian Law of 16 June 1993 permits Belgian courts to exercise jurisdiction over such violations, independent of the place where they were committed, whenever a Belgian national is involved;
Whereas the international arrest warrant issued against the aforementioned BAGOSORA clearly mentions that he is charged with an attack committed against the Rwandan presidential airplane on 6 April 1994, and for the death of ten blue helmets during that massacre;
Whereas these acts are of a nature to lead to a principal penalty of correctional imprisonment of one year, or to a more severe penalty not exceeding 15 years of hard labour;
Whereas these acts are ordinary law offences from the point of the Cameroonian Penal Code;
Whereas it follows from the above that the conditions provided for in Article 11 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition regime in Cameroon are thus fulfilled, the extradition […] , in fact, not aiming at a political purpose;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region [i]ssues a favourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of the extradition request formulated by the Belgian government. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Bagosora case, Judgment, 15 March 1996.
Cameroon
In May 1996, in the Ruzindana case, Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Rusindena, Jean Baptiste Butera and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the persons concerned on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996 the Rwandan government seized the Cameroonian government for the purpose of the extradition of the aforementioned RUSINDENA Augustin, BUTERA Jean Baptiste, MUGENZI Justin, MUTABAMKLA Sylvain, NTAGERURA André, SEMANZIA Laurent, MPIRANYER Protais, MUBERUKA Félicien, BARIHENDA Augustin, SEKAKO Ephrein, NKUNDIYE Léon, NSENGIYUMBA Anatole, MUSABE Pasteur, NZIRORERA Joseph, NAHIMANA Ferdinand, BIZIMUNGU Télésphore, BAKUZAKUNDI Michel, BARAYAGWIZA Jean Bosco;
Rwandan citizens currently living in Cameroon;
Whereas it follows both from the request and from the aforementioned international arrest warrants, enforced on 29 March 1996, that the aforementioned persons, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July 1994, committed genocide, massacre of civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda;
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is already operational; that the Tribunal’s Prosecutor, on 15 April 1996, asked the Cameroonian judicial authorities for assistance by proceeding to the preliminary arrest of the aforementioned Rwandans on the basis of counts of serious violations of international humanitarian law and of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the said International Tribunal;
Whereas Article 13 of the internal Rules [of Procedure and Evidence] of the aforementioned International Tribunal prohibits national courts from exercising jurisdiction in a matter as soon as the said Tribunal is seized of them;
Whereas, according to Article 8 of [the 1994 ICTR Statute, annexed to] UN Security Council Resolution 955 of 9 November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is a supranational court and has primacy over the national courts of the country concerned;
Whereas its decisions are applicable immediately and are not subject to the extradition régime;
Whereas it follows from the above that at the current stage of the proceedings the extradition request by the Rwandan Government can no longer be examined since the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is operational;
Whereas it is necessary to stay adjudication until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region], on the application of the Public Prosecutor, stays adjudication regarding the extradition request presented by Maître Paul Nhanag on behalf of the Rwandan Government until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case, Judgment, 31 May 1996.
Cameroon
In 1997, in the Ruzindana case (No. 2), Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Ruzindana and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the aforementioned persons on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon, modified by Law No. 97/010 of 10 January 1997;
Having regard to Judgment No. 615/ADD of 31 May [1996] of this Court ordering a stay of adjudication;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996, the Rwandan Government, acting by and through its counsel in Cameroon, Maître Paul Nhanag, seized the Minister of Justice of Cameroon for the purpose of the extradition of 19 Rwandans said to be residing within the borders of the Republic of Cameroon;
Whereas in support of that request the Rwandan Government annexed 19 international arrest warrants signed on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General of Kigali and containing an identical accusation: genocide and grave violations of international humanitarian law;
Whereas the international arrest warrants issued against 11 of these Rwandans were enforced on 29 March 1996, and thus joined the first, colonel Bagosora, who already was the object of an international arrest warrant by the Kingdom of Belgium, enforced since 9 March 1996;
Whereas it follows both from the request submitted and from the international arrest warrants attached that the aforementioned Rwandans, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July [1994], committed, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda, genocide and other crimes against humanity by launching widespread and systematic attacks against civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds;
Whereas, by doing this, the Rwanda Government seeks their extradition in order that they answer for their crimes before the Rwandan courts;
Whereas the aforementioned Théoneste Bagasora, André Ntageura, Ferdinand Nahimana and Anatole Nsengiyumva, charged for the same acts by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, have been transferred to the seat of that Tribunal in Arusha, at the request of that court and in application of Decrees No. 97/005, 97/006, 97/007 and 97/008 by the President of the Republic of Cameroon, authorizing that transfer;
Whereas the present request currently only concerns eight Rwandans, for whom the arrest warrant had been enforced, namely:
1. RUZINDANA AUGUSTIN
2. BUTERA JEAN BAPTISTE
3. SEMANZA LAURENT
4. MUBERUKA FELICIEN
5. MUSABE PASTEUR
6. RIZIMUNGU TELESPHORE
7. BAKUZAKUNDI MICHEL
8. BARAYAG[W]IZA JEAN BOSCO.
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the request by the Rwandan Government was not made through diplomatic channels, as it is required by Article 15 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified;
Whereas, in fact, that law requires imperatively that every extradition request must pass through diplomatic channels in order to allow the Minister of External Relations to make sure of the authenticity of the documents annexed to the request, before any seizing of the judicial authorities;
Whereas the documents provided by the Rwandan Government were produced in photocopy and not in the original, as the legislation on the matter demands it; that request is irregular;
Whereas, furthermore, the new Article 29 of the Law laying down the extradition regime provides that no person can be extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture;
Whereas, finally, the Office of the Prosecution of the International Criminal Tribunal [for Rwanda], after investigation, has dropped the case against the 8 Rwandans currently detained;
Whereas, according to UN Security Council Resolution 955, which created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and according to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, that tribunal has primacy over the national courts;
Whereas it would be inappropriate to allow the national Rwandan courts to exercise jurisdiction over the same facts regarding the eight Rwandans;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to issue an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of that extradition request;
Whereas Article 25 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified, provides that when the Court issues an unfavourable decision, the foreigner must be released immediately; whereas it is necessary to order the immediate release of the eight Rwandans;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region] issues an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of the extradition request by the Rwandan Government;
Orders the immediate release of the eight Rwandans concerned, if they are not detained in relation to another matter. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case (No. 2), Judgment, 21 February 1997.
Canada
In 2008, in the Ribic case, Canada’s Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal of a Canadian national who had been convicted of hostage-taking. Justice Cronk, who gave the leading judgment, stated:
[1] In 1995, Bosnia was in the throes of a bitter and prolonged civil war between Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. The war had a complicated and violent history. Throughout, a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force, assisted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was deployed in Bosnia.
[2] The appellant, Nicholas Nikola Ribic, is a Canadian citizen of Yugoslavian origin. At some point around 1995, he travelled to Bosnia and became involved with the Serbian war effort. On May 26, 1995, Ribic and several companions took three unarmed UN military observers hostage at gunpoint in the Bosnian town of Pale and used them as human shields by shackling them to Serbian ammunition bunkers that were the target of an ongoing NATO air strike. During the initial hostage-taking, Ribic repeatedly threatened to kill the hostages if the NATO bombing did not stop. The hostages were detained for almost three and a half weeks, until their negotiated release on June 18, 1995. …
[3] On February 17, 1999, Ribic was charged with four counts of hostage-taking in relation to two of the UN observers – one of whom is a Canadian citizen – under s. 279.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the Code). Ribic was then residing in Germany. He was extradited and brought to Canada to stand trial. Canada’s jurisdiction over the hostage-taking, assumed under s. 7(3.1) of the Code, was conceded by the defence.
[4] Ribic’s first trial began in October 2002. It ended on January 20, 2003 with the declaration of a mistrial. On June 12, 2005, following a second trial before a judge and jury, Ribic was convicted of two counts of hostage-taking and, on September 14, 2005, was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
[5] Ribic appeals his convictions. … I would dismiss the appeal. 
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ribic case, Judgment, 24 November 2008, §§ 1–5, per Cronk J.A.
France
In the Barbie case in 1983, France’s Court of Cassation quoted the Court of Appeal which had stated that it was competent to examine the submissions made in the application by Barbie, according to which his detention was a nullity since there did not exist any extradition treaty between France and Bolivia and it was the result of a “disguised extradition”:
In the absence of any extradition request, the execution of an arrest warrant on national territory, against a person who has previously taken refuge abroad, is not subject to his voluntary return to France or to the institution of extradition proceedings. Furthermore, by reason of their nature, the crimes against humanity do not simply fall within the scope of French municipal law but are subject to an international criminal order to which the notions of frontiers and extradition rules arising therefrom are completely foreign. 
France, Court of Cassation, Barbie case, Judgment, 6 October 1983.
The Court of Cassation stated: “In giving this ruling … the Court of Appeal gave a proper legal basis to its decision, without inadequacy or contradiction.” Referring to the 1945 London Agreement and UN General Assembly Resolution 3(I) of 1946 on extradition and punishment of war criminals, the Court ruled that:
It results from these provisions that “all necessary measures” are to be taken by the Member States of the United Nations to ensure that war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity are punished and that those persons suspected of being responsible for such crimes are sent back “to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those countries”. By reasons of the nature of those crimes, these provisions are in accordance with the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. 
France, Court of Cassation, Barbie case, Judgment, 6 October 1983.
France
In 2008, in the Ntawukuriryayo case, the Criminal Chamber of France’s Court of Cassation was called upon to decide about the transfer of the appellant to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The appellant claimed that his transfer to that tribunal would be merely a prelude to his extradition to Rwanda, where he would not receive a fair trial. The Court stated:
[W]hen a French … authority … transfers a person to a foreign authority due to an international warrant in order for the person to be tried [abroad], the French authority has the obligation to ensure that, as a result of the transfer, the person’s fundamental rights and judicial guarantees, as established by France’s Constitution and international obligations, will not be violated. This absolute obligation implies necessarily that the judge … must receive guarantees that the requesting authority will not subsequently transfer the … person to a third authority which does not guarantee the respect for such rights. 
France, Court of Cassation (Criminal Chamber), Ntawukuriryayo case, Judgement, 7 May 2008, p. 2.
Germany
In 2003, in the Al-Moayad case, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court held:
The constitutional complaint is rejected as unfounded.
Grounds:
A.
1
By way of his constitutional complaint, the complainant challenges orders of the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court … that declared the complainant’s extradition to the United States of America for criminal prosecution admissible and rejected the remonstrances that the complainant made against the orders as unfounded.
I.
2
1. According to his own statement, the complainant is an adviser of the Yemeni Minister for Religious Foundations in the rank of an undersecretary of state and imam of the Al-Ihsan Mosque in Sanaa/Yemen.
3
He was arrested in Frankfurt am Main on 10 January 2003, together with his secretary. The arrest was based on an arrest warrant of 5 January 2003 issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The United States prosecution authorities charge the complainant with having provided money, weapons and communications equipment to terrorist groups, in particular Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and with having recruited new members for these groups, between October 1997 and his arrest.
4
Instrumental in making the complainant travel to Germany were conversations that a Yemeni citizen maintained with the complainant in Yemen in an undercover mission of the United States investigation and prosecution authorities. The confidential informant convinced the complainant that he could bring him into contact with another person abroad who was willing to make a major financial contribution. In this context, it is controversial for what purposes the money was supposed to be donated. According to the statement made by the complainant’s secretary in his interrogation by the German investigation authorities in which he was heard as a person charged with a criminal offence, the decision to travel to Germany was based on the complainant’s voluntary decision.
5
2. On the basis of the order of the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court of 14 January 2003, the complainant was placed under provisional arrest pending extradition. On 24 January 2003, the Embassy of the United States sent a request for the complainant’s extradition for criminal prosecution to the federal government. The request for extradition was based on the extradition treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America of 20 June 1978 … in conjunction with the supplementary treaty of 21 October 1986 …
9
5. In a verbal note of 22 May 2003, the United States Embassy assured that the complainant would not be prosecuted by a military tribunal pursuant to the Presidential Military Order of 13 November 2001 (U.S. Federal Register of 16 November 2001, Vol. 66 No. 222, pp. 57831 et seq.) or by any other extraordinary court. The assurance was given preserving the United States’ legal opinion that the military commissions provided in the Presidential Military Order are no extraordinary courts within the meaning of Article 13 of the extradition treaty between Germany and the United States of America.
II.
22
By way of his constitutional complaint, the complainant challenges a violation of Article 101.1 sentence 2 in conjunction with Article 100.2, Article 2.2 in conjunction with Article 25, Article 2.1, Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 and Article 19.4, Article 103.1 and 103.2 of the Basic Law and of his right to a fair trial.
B.
31
The admissible constitutional complaint is unfounded.
V.
74
The complainant’s rights under Article 2.1 in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Basic Law and Article 19.4 of the Basic Law have not been violated. The Higher Regional Court declared the extradition admissible in accordance with the constitutional preconditions. This also applies to the extent that the complainant had applied for a further investigation into the facts of the case as concerns methods of interrogation in the United States that are allegedly contrary to due process of law. The Higher Regional Court had rejected this submission with reference to a lack of indications to this effect in the United States’ practice. This reasoning is constitutionally unobjectionable.
75
On the one hand, the reasoning is consistent with the Federal Constitutional Court’s recent case-law, pursuant to which in mutual assistance concerning extradition, especially if it is rendered on the basis of treaties under international law, the requesting State is, in principle, to be shown trust as concerns its compliance with the principles of due process of law and of the protection of human rights. This principle can claim validity as long as it is not shaken by facts to the contrary (Order of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03 –, Extradition to India). Such facts did not exist at the point in time of the Higher Regional Court’s decision.
76
On the other hand, decisive consideration must be given to the fact that the United States precluded the possible application of the Presidential Military Order of 13 November 2001 by their assurance of 22 May 2003. Thus, the United States have entered into the obligation, which is binding under international law, neither to bring the complainant before an extraordinary court after his extradition nor to apply the procedural law that is provided in the Order of 13 November 2001 nor to take the complainant to an internment camp. There are no indications to suggest that the United States would, upon the complainant’s extradition, not comply with the assurance given.
77
Moreover, it is to be taken into consideration that the relations of mutual judicial assistance that exist between Germany and the United States on the basis of treaties under international law have been intensified even more by the signing of the Agreement on Mutual Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters on 14 October 2003. This circumstance confirms the assumption that, in principle, the United States will comply with their obligations vis-à-vis Germany (on this, cf. the Order of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03 –, III 2.b).
78
Moreover, it can be assumed that the federal government itself will observe the further proceedings in the United States through its diplomatic missions. 
Germany, Federal Constitutional Court, Al-Moayad case, Order, 5 November 2003, §§ 1–5, 9, 22, 31 and 74–78.
Mexico
In the decision in the trial of first instance in the Cavallo case in 2001, a Mexican court allowed the extradition, on the request of a Spanish judge, of Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, a former military officer of Argentine citizenship charged with committing acts of genocide, torture and terrorism during the 1976–1983 “dirty war” in Argentina. The Court’s decision was based, inter alia, on the principle of universal jurisdiction. 
Mexico, Federal Court of the First Circuit, Cavallo case, Decision, 11 January 2001.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on the obligation to prosecute or extradite persons responsible for grave breaches. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 13.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in the Ahmad and Aswat case, the England and Wales High Court of Justice held:
Introductory: Background Facts
1. This is another case about extradition to the United States of America pursuant to provisions contained in the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) …
2. … On 6 October 2004 a federal grand jury sitting in Bridgeport, Connecticut, returned an indictment against Mr Ahmad alleging the commission of four felonies between 1997 and August 2004: conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country; and money laundering …
4. Mr Aswat is wanted to stand trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York … The essence of the allegations is that he became involved in a conspiracy with Abu Hamza and others to establish a jihad training camp in Bly, Oregon …
The 2003 Act
5. In order to understand the nature of the extradition process, its application on the facts of this case, and the basis of the appeals, it is convenient first to introduce the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act.
7. Part II deals with “category 2” territories. These are also designated by order of the Secretary of State [and include countries to which the framework decision of the Council of the European Union on the European arrest warrant (2003) does not apply]. A principal category 2 territory is the United States … S.70 requires the Secretary of State to issue a certificate “if he receives a valid request for the extradition to a category 2 territory of a person who is in the United Kingdom”. In this case there is no dispute as to the statutory validity of the request that was made in respect of either claimant. Upon the certificate’s issue the Secretary of State must (s.70(9)) send the documents to the appropriate judge … The judge may then (s.71(2)) “issue a warrant for the arrest of the person whose extradition is requested” if certain conditions are fulfilled …
8. As for the extradition hearing itself … the judge must next proceed under s.79 which is cross-headed “Bars to extradition”. There are four such bars, of which the second (s.79(1)(b)) is “extraneous considerations” and is engaged by one of Mr Fitzgerald’s [appearing as counsel for the appellants] submissions. “Extraneous considerations” are dealt with in s.81, which provides in part:
“A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that –
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.”
9. … S.87 provides:
“(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 84 …) he must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) If the judge decides the question in subsection (1) in the negative he must order the person’s discharge.
(3) If the judge decides that question in the affirmative he must send the case to the Secretary of State for his decision whether the person is to be extradited.”
Military Order No 1
20. On 13 November 2001, thus almost exactly two months after the atrocities of 11 September 2001, the President of the United States issued Military Order No 1 on the “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism” …
Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.
(a) The term “individual subject to this order” shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:
(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy …
Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense. Any individual subject to this order shall be –
(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;
Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.
(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.
21. The reference in Section 3(a) to “an appropriate location” for the detention of persons subject to the order includes, in the events which have happened, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. A major theme of these appeals consists in the appellants’ contention that if they are extradited there is a real prospect that they will be made subject to Military Order No 1 by a determination of the President under Section 2(a) and thereafter detained indefinitely, it may be at Guantanamo Bay, pursuant to Section 3, and/or put on trial before a military commission pursuant to Section 4. Were that to happen they would suffer violations of their rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) (no detention save on strict conditions) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial before an impartial and independent tribunal).
22. The district judge found that given the allegations against the appellants it would be open to the President of the United States to designate them as “enemy combatants”, which in this context is a shorthand for the application of the criterion set out in Section 2(a)(1)(ii) of Military Order No 1. The judge also found that their exposure to Military Order No 1, if that were to happen, would involve violations of their Convention rights …
23. None of these conclusions is challenged before us by the US government, nor, as I understand it, were they controversial in the court below … Each appeal accordingly proceeds on the premise that if subjected to Military Order No 1 following his extradition, the appellant would suffer violations of his Convention rights, notably those guaranteed by Articles 5 (no detention without trial) and 6 (fair trial), and it may be Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture).
24. Yet in each case the judge found that the appellant’s ECHR rights would not in fact be violated upon his extradition. He did so principally (there were other points, as I shall show) because of the effect, as he found it to be, of Diplomatic Notes issued out of the United States’ Embassy in London.
The Diplomatic Notes
25. In Mr Ahmad’s case Diplomatic Note No 25 was issued on 23 March 2005 … In Mr Aswat’s case Diplomatic Note No 114 was issued on 20 December 2005. In both cases the Notes were before the district judge and considered by him. The terms of Diplomatic Note No 25, which was the first in time, are as follows:
“The Embassy of the United States of America at London, England, presents its compliments to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and has the honor to refer to Note No. 100 dated November 15, 2004, requesting the extradition of Babar Ahmad to the United States of America…
Pursuant to Article IV of the Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States hereby assures the Government of the United Kingdom that the United States will neither seek the death penalty against, nor will the death penalty be carried out, against Babar Ahmad upon his extradition to the United States.
The Government of the United States further assures the Government of the United Kingdom that upon extradition to the United States, Babar Ahmad will be prosecuted before a Federal Court in accordance with the full panoply of rights and protections that would otherwise be provided to a defendant facing similar charges.
Pursuant to his extradition, Babar Ahmad will not be prosecuted before a military commission, as specified in the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001; nor will he be criminally prosecuted in any tribunal or court other than a United States Federal Court; nor will he be treated or designated as an enemy combatant …”
The Note in Mr Aswat’s case did not refer to the death penalty. The offences for which extradition was sought are not so punishable.
26. In his decision of 17 May 2005 in Mr Ahmad’s case the district judge said this:
“I have had to consider the status of that Diplomatic Note. I am satisfied whilst it does not provide any personal protection to this defendant; the Diplomatic Note does bind the American Government, which includes the President of the United States. As such I am satisfied that the risk of an order being made under Military Order No. 1 is almost entirely removed. Although I have received evidence of extraordinary rendition to another State, the Government denies that such action takes place. If such steps do take place I am satisfied that in this case, in the light of the Undertaking not to invoke Military Order No. 1, the risk of extraordinary rendition is negligible.”
The judge’s conclusions in Mr Aswat’s case were to the same effect.
The Course of these Proceedings: The Appeal Points Outlined
28. There are four points common to both appeals, which I may describe in barest outline as follows, but must of course explain more fully:
1) There is a substantial risk that if extradited each appellant would face detention and/or trial by military commission under Military Order No 1, and thus suffer violations of his Convention rights.
2) There is a like risk that each appellant would be subjected to what is called “extraordinary rendition”, and thus, again, suffer violations of his Convention rights.
3) There is a like risk that each appellant, even if he were remanded for trial by the ordinary federal civilian courts, would be subjected to what are called “special administrative measures” (“SAMs”) which would also involve violations of his Convention rights. In addition there would on this ground be a bar to extradition by force of s.81(b) of the 2003 Act.
4) Any trial, albeit in the ordinary federal civilian courts, would involve evidence obtained by torture in violation of the appellants’ rights under ECHR Article 6.
30. I have also foreshadowed the remaining point in Mr Aswat’s case, which concerns the potential witness Ujaama. The argument is that the terms and circumstances of Ujaama’s plea agreement mean that his evidence, if given at any trial of Mr Aswat, would be coerced: tainted, in effect, by a threat of torture or at least of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of the standard set by ECHR Article 3. Accordingly it is submitted that the use of his evidence would constitute a flagrant denial of justice and in those circumstances Mr Aswat’s extradition would violate his right to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6. The arguments here overlap with those arising on point (4) above, which I will deal with directly.
Use of Evidence Obtained by Torture at any Trial in the Federal Civilian Courts (Point (4) above)
32. The argument is that at any trial in the United States, it is “inevitable” (Mr Ahmad, skeleton argument paragraph 1.11) that evidence obtained by torture and/or inhuman treatment will be deployed against the appellants. Mr Fitzgerald relies on an affidavit sworn on 5 July 2006 by Mr Clive Stafford Smith, a United States qualified attorney with long and distinguished experience of representing indigent defendants facing the death penalty in the United States, and also persons alleged to be terrorists … He says … that at trials involving alleged Al-Qaida conspirators, such as the appellants, an FBI witness is routinely and inevitably called at the start to outline the history of Al-Qaida and of the defendant’s part in the conspiracy. This material, says Mr Stafford Smith, will in part be based on evidence obtained by torture and other improper means from detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Baghram and other places of secret detention that are not subject to the rule of law. It is contended that to return either appellant to a trial at which evidence obtained in that manner will be deployed against him would be to perpetrate a flagrant denial of justice in violation of ECHR Article 6. Mr Fitzgerald places much reliance on the decision of their Lordships’ House in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2006] 2 AC 221, [2005] UKHL 71, in which Lord Bingham roundly stated (paragraph 52):
“The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice. But the principles of the common law do not stand alone. Effect must be given to the European Convention, which itself takes account of the all but universal consensus embodied in the Torture Convention.”
33. Mr Hugo Keith, who appeared with Miss Clair Dobbin for the United States government on Mr Aswat’s appeal, submitted first that this ground of appeal lacked an evidential foundation and second that relevant courts in the United States could be relied on to respect relevant guarantees …
34. The first submission concerns evidential foundation. Mr Stafford Smith’s evidence on this aspect of the case is of necessity general in nature, although he seeks to draw inferences as to the subject-matter of the testimony that would be given at the appellants’ trials … This is no criticism of Mr Stafford Smith, but it means that this court cannot know precisely what the evidence would be. Thus it cannot know to what extent such evidence might be controversial, or in what particular circumstances it might have been obtained. In A (No 2) Lord Bingham continued (paragraph 53):
“The appellants broaden their argument to contend that all the principles on which they rely apply to inhuman and degrading treatment, if inflicted by an official with the requisite intention and effect, as to torture within the Torture Convention definition. It is, of course, true that article 3 of the European Convention (and the comparable articles of other human rights instruments) lump torture and inhuman or degrading treatment together, drawing no distinction between them. The European Court did, however, draw a distinction between them in Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 25, holding that the conduct complained of was inhuman or degrading but fell short of torture, and article 16 of the Torture Convention draws this distinction very expressly:
Ill-treatment falling short of torture may invite exclusion of evidence as adversely affecting the fairness of a proceeding under section 78 of the 1984 Act, where that section applies. But I do not think the authorities on the Torture Convention justify the assimilation of these two kinds of abusive conduct. Special rules have always been thought to apply to torture, and for the present at least must continue to do so. It would, on the other hand, be wrong to regard as immutable the standard of what amounts to torture …”
It is to be noted that Article 16(1) does not apply the exclusionary rule of evidence contained in Article 15 (which I have already set out) to “other forms [short of torture] of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
35. The distinction between torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment is of some importance given the limits of Mr Stafford Smith’s testimony. Mr Fitzgerald accepted in reply that the appellants could not be specific. In the absence, unavoidable as it is, of information as to the precise circumstances in which any evidence to be given in US courts against these appellants would or might have been obtained I am not prepared to hold that it would be distinctly obtained by torture, so that process against the appellants would be tainted by violation of ECHR Article …
36. Mr Keith’s second submission concerned respect given by United States courts to relevant guarantees. Two points arise on this part of the case. The first is that while, as I understand it, it is common ground that the law of evidence in federal criminal cases in the United States does not generally contemplate the exclusion of testimony on the basis that it has a tainted source, we may reasonably suppose that the court would arrive at a proper decision upon any submission made to it that particular evidence should be excluded by force of Article 15 of the Torture Convention. The second is that the court would no doubt be amenable to argument that the weight to be accorded to any particular evidence was greatly lessened, perhaps extinguished, by virtue of its having been obtained by other forms of ill-treatment. I venture to cite some words of my own in the Court of Appeal in A (No 2) – with great diffidence, given the House of Lords’ very firm overruling in that case of the majority conclusion (to which I was party) in the Court of Appeal on the issue of admissibility of evidence obtained by torture. However not least having regard to the distinction accepted by Lord Bingham between torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment, I think Mr Keith was justified in submitting that this passage (so far as it relates to non-torture cases) was not disapproved in their Lordships’ House:
[I expressed reservations about the decision of this court in Ramda [2002] EWHC Admin 1278] “… as regards the impact on the fairness of a prospective trial of the fact that the trial court may be asked to consider evidence against the accused (not consisting in a statement made by himself) which was or may have been obtained by oppressive conduct. If we are looking, as article 6 in terms enjoins us, at fairness, why is fairness not satisfied by the availability of robust argument going to the weight of the tainted evidence?”
37. I conclude that the case on point (4) set out above is not made out and the appellants are not entitled on account of it to be discharged pursuant to s.87 of the 2003 Act.
Mr Aswats Case: The Witness Ujaama
38. It is convenient to deal with this argument next, because of its affinity with point (4) which I have just addressed. I have already summarised the submission. In barest outline it is that the terms and circumstances of Ujaama’s plea agreement mean that his evidence, if given at any trial of Mr Aswat, would be tainted by threat of torture or at least of inhuman and degrading treatment, and in those circumstances its use would constitute a flagrant denial of justice in violation of Mr Aswat’s right to a fair trial under ECHR Article 6.
39. There is a good deal of evidence before the court about Mr Ujaama …
43. In any case Mr Keith was I think right to submit that even if Mr Ujaama was threatened with SAMs and with indefinite detention, this falls short of a finding that he was in fact subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 15 of the Torture Convention has, I think, no application on Mr Aswat’s own case; and A (No 2) (not least given paragraph 53, which I have read) does not indicate that Mr Ujaama’s being called to the witness-box would be repugnant either to any principle of the common law or to ECHR Article 6. I recognise that this court has held (Ramda [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1278, paragraph 22) that trial on evidence obtained in breach of ECHR Article 3 can amount to a flagrant denial of justice contrary to Article 6, but in my judgment the material before us cannot be said to support such an outcome in the event that Mr Ujaama were to give evidence against Mr Aswat. The reliability of any such evidence would, no doubt, be well tested by vigorous cross-examination.
44. For all these reasons there is in my judgment no force in Mr Fitzgerald’s argument on behalf of Mr Aswat concerning the potential witness Mr Ujaama.
Subjection to Military Order No 1 (Point (1) above)
51. On this part of the case the court is invited to hold that the United States would not honour the Diplomatic Notes given in each case, or at least that there is a substantial risk that they would not.
54. The appellants’ case has been put in various ways but may fairly be summarised in three propositions:
i) The Diplomatic Notes do not bind the President (and would not bind any future President) and are ultra vires, or are legally unacceptable undertakings not to apply the general law of the requesting state.
ii) The Diplomatic Notes are drafted in such a way that it would be possible for the United States authorities to apply Military Order No 1 to the appellants after their return, and yet claim that there was no breach of the undertakings in the Notes.
iii) As a matter of fact, the Notes are not to be relied on.
(i) Legal Status of the Diplomatic Notes
55. A good deal of evidence has been deployed by the appellants to support this part of their case … Now, there is plainly a difference between the question whether the Notes are in some sense legally binding on the United States authorities including the President, and the question whether in fact they would be honoured. The first of these questions, being one of law, cannot depend upon any evidence unless the issue is whether the Notes are binding by force of the domestic law of the United States; in which case evidence about that law’s effect would be admissible, because of the common law rule that foreign law is a matter of fact. Evidence is, of course, also receivable as to the conditions of international practice in relation to the giving of assurances such as are contained in the Notes.
56. However as I understand it there is no issue of domestic American law. The United States government does not rely on any rule of domestic law giving binding or enforceable effect to the assurances set out in the Notes. The real question is whether in all the circumstances, against the background of relevant international law and practice, this court should accept the Notes as being in fact effective to refute, for the purposes of the 2003 Act, the claims of potential violation of Convention rights and associated bars to extradition.
57. There is, however, more to say at this stage about the law. First, the proposition that the Notes are in some sense ultra vires is in my judgment misplaced. There is no suggestion that they were issued in defiance of some binding rule of United States law with whose application they are inconsistent. That might have been the case if Military Order No 1 (which, I accept, is part of the corpus of United States law) required the President to designate any foreign national to whom the Section 2(a) criteria applied. But it does not; the President has a discretion so to designate. There is therefore no inconsistency between the terms of the Notes and the terms of the Order. The force of the point is illustrated by an observation made by my Lord Walker J in the course of the argument concerning Mr Ujaama: on Mr Fitzgerald’s own case the fact, demonstrated by the plea agreement, that the Americans were prepared to forego the subjection of Mr Ujaama to military custody (in his case, as he is a United States national, at the North Carolina brig) shows that they do not regard such a course of action as mandatory or inevitable in every case where it might, on the facts, be put into effect.
58. Nor is it, I think, suggested that this ultra vires argument is supported by any notion that the Notes were in some sense unauthorised by the President or the United States government. Nor could it be. The Notes, as I have said, were issued by the United States Embassy in London. The Ambassador “is the mouthpiece of the Head of his home State and its Foreign Minister, for communications to be made to the State to which he is accredited” (Oppenheim’s International Law, Ninth Edition, Vol 1, paragraph 483). Mr Keith in his skeleton argument in Mr Aswat’s case at paragraph 2.18, citing authority of the International Court of Justice (Advisory Opinion as to the Customs Arrangements between Germany and Austria, 5 September 1931: Series A/B 41, p.47), correctly submits that international law recognises the use of Diplomatic Notes as a means of recording binding engagements between States. In the eye of international law such a Note is regarded as binding on the State that issues it. This, and this only, is the sense in which the Notes are indeed “binding”.
59. Next, Mr Fitzgerald would have us disregard the Notes, or at least treat them with considerable circumspection, because of what he says is the effect of the decision of their Lordships’ House in Armah v Government of Ghana and Anor [1968] AC 192 …
60. Mr Fitzgerald principally relies on what was said by Lord Upjohn, but I may first note these observations of Lord Reid at 235G–236B:
“[I]n general it appears to me to be very undesirable that a foreign government should be encouraged to offer not to apply the ordinary law of its country to one of its own subjects if he is returned to that country. There may not be the same objection to the foreign government stating that it does not intend to take certain executive action with regard to the accused person and it might be proper to accept an undertaking on the lines of section 3(2) of the Extradition Act, 1870. But any undertaking or statement of intention is liable to create misunderstanding and perhaps acute difficulties in the event of a change of circumstances.”
The material passage from Lord Upjohn’s speech is at 262G–263E:
“[T]he Divisional Court accepted the undertakings of the Government of Ghana (1) that if tried and acquitted the appellant would not be taken into protective custody and would be free to leave Ghana; (2) that the appellant would be tried under the Criminal Procedure Code and not under the Corrupt Practices (Prevention) Act, 1964. The bona fides of the Government of Ghana and of its Attorney-General are not for one moment in doubt, but I think it is wrong in principle to permit such undertakings to be given or to take them into account. The appellant can surely come to the superior court (where alone, of course, section 10 arises) and say:
‘My liberty is at stake, I am a British subject, judge of the laws of the country to which my return is sought as they stand. It is most unjust to me that to attain their ends the Government should unilaterally be permitted to say that I alone of all the inhabitants am to be freed from those laws which I submit would make it oppressive and unjust to return me.’
So I think that the matter should be judged upon the laws as they stand and it then becomes a matter for the exercise of the discretion of the court under section 10 to consider the relevance of any laws to which the applicant may draw attention and their weight in the balance against other considerations such as the seriousness of the alleged offence, the strength or thinness of the case against the fugitive and all other relevant circumstances. In addition, it was readily conceded that the word ‘undertaking’ is a misnomer; it is no more than an expression of intention. Speaking generally, and not with any special reference to the Government of Ghana, there may be a change of government who may not feel bound by the acts of their predecessor. There may be a genuine difference of opinion as to the proper interpretation of the undertakings. Finally, it might in some circumstances be the duty of a government to depart from its expressed intention in the discharge of its duty in the good governance of the country and its inhabitants as a whole.”
61. In light of this authority Mr Fitzgerald submits that it would be wrong in principle for the court to rely on the Diplomatic Notes as a basis for concluding that Military Order No 1 would not be applied to the appellants. I do not think this is right. First, it is in my view significant that the “undertaking” in Armah was given by counsel in court. No doubt it was given on instructions, but it cannot have carried the weight or authority of a formal Diplomatic Note issued out of the State’s Embassy. As I have shown, State to State assurances, taking the form of such Notes, possess a recognised status in public international law. State to State assurances are commonly given in extradition matters, for example to demonstrate the requesting State’s loyalty to the specialty rule. Moreover such assurances are specifically contemplated on the face of Article IV of the 1972 UK-USA Extradition Treaty (which I have set out) in relation to the death penalty. The Note in Mr Ahmad’s case contained, in terms, Article IV assurances.
62. Secondly, an important theme of the reasoning in Armah consists in their Lordships’ concern that a foreign State might in effect offer to suspend its ordinary law as the price of obtaining a fugitive’s return. No such concern can arise in this case. On the contrary, the Diplomatic Notes contain assurances that the ordinary law – prosecution before the civilian Federal Court “with the full panoply of rights and protections” – will be applied. The position might well be different if the President were obliged by the terms of Military Order No 1 to designate any persons falling within the Section 2(a) criteria. But as I have already said the President has a discretion to designate; and where he does so, he must determine (Section 2(a)(2)) that “it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order”. On any view these are special or exceptional measures. The argument which Lord Upjohn puts in the mouth of an appellant to the English court has no place here on the facts. Armah was distinguished both in Launder (No 2) [1998] QB 998 (see per Simon Brown LJ as he then was at 1006G) and in Lodhi (No 1) [2001] EWHC Admin 178 (see per Brooke LJ giving the judgment of the court at paragraph 88) on the ground that in contrast to Armah there was no question of the relevant undertaking being to do other than apply the ordinary law of the requesting State.
(ii) Scope of the Diplomatic Notes
64. This part of the argument depends on the words “[p]ursuant to his extradition” in each of the diplomatic notes. The point is crisply articulated in Mr Fitzgerald’s skeleton argument for Mr Ahmad as follows:
“[T]he Note only provides that ‘pursuant to extradition’ the Appellant would be [not] treated as an enemy combatant. No doubt this wording was carefully chosen. It would be open to the US prosecuting authorities to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the Appellant and then to designate him as an enemy combatant. In these circumstances it would be open to the US to claim that the detention was not ‘pursuant to extradition’ because that process had come to an end with the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings alleged in the request.”
65. The implicit suggestion appears to be (“No doubt this wording was carefully chosen”) that the possibility of such action being taken was in the minds of the American authorities at the time when the Diplomatic Notes were drafted and issued. If so, it is a very serious allegation of bad faith. It amounts to an accusation that the Notes are nothing but a smoke screen to conceal the United States’ true intentions. It is little wonder that Mr Fitzgerald did not pursue the suggestion explicitly. I shall have more to say about the Notes’ reliability under the next head – (iii) – but I should make it clear at once that there is not a sliver of justification, in any of the evidence we have seen, for so grave a charge.
66. I should however acknowledge this assertion made in Mr Fitzgerald’s skeleton argument in Mr Aswat’s case (paragraph 54):
“It is important to recognise that the Appellant’s primary case does not require the Court to determine that the US Government would or might act in bad faith by knowingly disregarding an undertaking binding as a matter of international law. His case is that the US may decide to designate him as an enemy combatant, and try him in a military commission, whilst maintaining the position that such treatment falls outside the terms of Diplomatic Note 114, which is not legally binding in any event.”
67. In argument Mr Fitzgerald submitted that the risk of such a decision would continue even if Military Order No 1 were amended or replaced. In so far as the case sought to be made is not one of bad faith, but merely a suggestion that if the appellants are extradited they may hereafter encounter the fate described because new information becomes available, then as it seems to me it is contradicted by Article XII of the 1972 Treaty which I have set out. It was submitted that Article XII, on its plain terms, governs only detention in the “territory of the requested party” and therefore does not cover detention in Guantanamo or elsewhere in the world. In order to send the detainee to such a destination, however, it would be necessary first to detain the person in question within the territory of the United States. Another submission was that information presented to the President after the extradition as to the risk posed by the Appellants in the view of the FBI or CIA would necessitate the President’s consideration of the application of Military Order No 1 to the Appellants. However by Article XII further action can be taken only in relation to crimes or “matters arising” after the extradition. Absent an accusation of bad faith it is plainly to be presumed that the United States will be loyal to their Treaty obligations. It is to be noted that a Treaty entered into by the United States becomes part of its domestic law upon its coming into effect, without more: see Article VI of the US Constitution. If of course either appellant were accused of an entirely fresh crime or other matter said to have been committed after the extradition, different considerations might arise (see Article XII(2)); but such a contingency cannot form the genesis of any complaint in these proceedings.
(iii) The Diplomatic Notes Reliability
68. But Mr Fitzgerald does not merely submit that the United States authorities might expose the appellants to the rigours of Military Order No 1 while asserting, by reference to the language of the Diplomatic Notes, that the assurances there given are not violated. He submits that the United States might simply breach the assurances in any event. The appellants’ evidence (principally the affidavits of Mr Loflin and Mr Stafford Smith) is presented in such a way as to intertwine this argument with (i) above (relating to the Notes’ legal status). But in my judgment we must address fair and square the submission of fact that the Notes would not be honoured. The issue is closely allied to that which arises on Mr Fitzgerald’s second principal contention, namely that both appellants face a substantial risk of being subjected to what is called “extraordinary rendition”, not least given the district judge’s finding that “in the light of the Undertaking not to invoke Military Order No. 1, the risk of extraordinary rendition is negligible”. However it is convenient to deal with that separately because of the structure of the arguments as they were presented before us.
72. … it is asserted that given his past approach to the duties of his office the President would feel free to disregard the assurances in the Notes, “particularly in the light of any new information or evidence that was provided to him by the FBI or the security services as to the alleged risk posed by [either] Appellant” (Mr Ahmad skeleton, paragraph 3.17).
73. It is also said (but it is really part of the same point) that the President has demonstrated his commitment to the use of military commissions …
74. In short we are asked, as I have already said, to hold that the United States would not honour the Diplomatic Notes given in each case, or at least that there is a substantial risk that they would not. How is this court to provide a conscientious response to such an argument? The starting point, I think, is the statement of Kennedy LJ in Serbeh v Governor of HM Prison Brixton (31 October 2002, CO/2853/2002) at paragraph 40:
“[T]here is (still) a fundamental assumption that the requesting state is acting in good faith.”
The assumption, of course, may be displaced by evidence. We must consider whether it is displaced here.
75. I have already referred to Mr Keith’s submission that the assurances in the Notes were given by a mature democracy. So much goes without saying. But the United States is also a State with which the United Kingdom has entered into five substantial treaties on extradition over a period of more than 150 years. Over this continued and uninterrupted history of extradition relations there is no instance of any assurance given by the United States, as the requesting State in an extradition case, having been dishonoured. In Bermingham & ors [2006] EWHC 200, [2006] 3 AER.239 and Welsh and Thrasher [2006] EWHC 156, [2006] 3 AER.204, decided in this court, Ouseley J and I were much concerned with a similar issue – or perhaps a particular application of the same issue – being called on in effect to decide whether the United States authorities could be relied on to abide by the specialty rule in relation to the prospective extradition of the appellants in those cases. Undertakings had been given on the point. In Thrasher Ouseley J said (paragraph 35):
“First, if there had been a routine disregard of the specialty rule, I would have expected that over the decades of extradition to the US from the UK, and in particular from those countries with which the US enjoys a land frontier, the UK Courts and the Courts of other sending states would have refused extradition in decisions which would be available to us. The 1972 and 2003 Treaties would not have been agreed in the terms on which they were agreed.”
In Bermingham I said (paragraph 142):
“In the present case I consider that the undertaking confirms the position which the United States courts would anyway adopt. They will be satisfied, not least by the terms of this court’s judgment, that the defendants’ extradition is ordered on the precise basis that the accusation they will face at trial will be limited to, and travel no wider than, the case which is essentially formulated in paragraphs 10 and 23 of the Texas indictment and reflected in the charge drafted for the proceedings at Bow Street. And the American courts will be loyal to this expectation: not merely because in general they respect the specialty rule, but because by their own express jurisprudence … it is “essential to determine … whether the surrendering state would regard the prosecution as a breach” … This test is meticulously applied. It means, in short, that the American courts will give effect to the views of the Secretary of State and of this court (as to which there will be no room for doubt) of the requirements of s.95 of the 2003 Act.”
76. I see no reason to doubt that the American authorities would likewise give effect to the views of this court as to the critical importance of the integrity of the Diplomatic Notes. Indeed the case may perhaps be said to be a fortiori: the Notes have the special status of having been issued out of the Embassy. The American authorities will appreciate, not least from the terms of the judgments in this case, that their request for the appellants’ extradition to the United States has been acceded to expressly on the faith of the Notes, read and interpreted as this court reads and interprets them. Acts of the US executive such as have attracted the kind of criticisms described and levelled by Mr Stafford Smith and Mr Loflin, being, however, acts touching only the internal affairs of the United States, cannot in my judgment begin to constitute a premise from which this court should conclude that the Diplomatic Notes will not be fully honoured.
77. This view is lent some support by the circumstances of a case to which both Mr Keith and Mr Hardy referred. Mr Al-Moayad, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Frankfurt on 10 January 2003, a warrant having been issued on 5 January 2003 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Mr Al-Moayad was wanted for having, among other things, supplied money and equipment to terrorist groups including Al-Qaida. The United States requested his extradition and there were extradition proceedings before the Higher Regional Court at Frankfurt. What was referred to as a “verbal note” was issued by the American Embassy providing an assurance that if he were returned Mr Al-Moayad would not be prosecuted before a military tribunal pursuant to Military Order No 1. The Frankfurt court allowed the extradition (I use this expression since, unsurprisingly of course, there is no exact fit between the procedural terminology here and in the German courts). Mr Al-Moayad brought a constitutional complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court. We have an English language text of the judgment downloaded from the internet, bearing the serial number 2 BvR 1506/03. Various points were taken with which we need not be concerned. The relevant finding is at paragraph 76:
“… [D]ecisive consideration must be given to the fact that the United States precluded the possible application of the Presidential Military Order of 13 November 2001 by their assurance of 22 May 2003. Thus, the United States have entered into the obligation, which is binding under international law, neither to bring the complainant before an extraordinary court after his extradition nor to apply the procedural law that is provided in the Order of 13 November 2001 nor to take the complainant to an internment camp. There are no indications to suggest that the United States would, upon the complainant’s extradition, not comply with the assurance given.”
78. So Mr Al-Moayad was extradited to the United States. There is a postscript. We have a copy of a piece in the New York Times for 29 July 2005. It shows that Mr Al-Moayad was, indeed, not subjected to Military Order No 1. He was tried before a federal court in Brooklyn. After a five week trial he was convicted of conspiracy to support Al-Qaida and other offences and sentenced to the maximum penalty of 75 years imprisonment. Condign punishment: but no subjection to Military Order No 1.
80. On this part of the case I conclude for all the reasons I have given that the district judge was right to place confidence in the Diplomatic Notes.
Extraordinary Rendition (Point (2) above)
81. Mr Fitzgerald has supplied us with a document entitled “Rendition Appendix”. It collates primary materials to be found elsewhere in the papers before us. One meaning (but not the only meaning) of the practice, or alleged practice, of extraordinary rendition consists in the transfer of a person, by the agency or with the complicity of the United States, to a foreign State in circumstances where there is a substantial risk that the individual in question will be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
82. Both appellants assert that if returned they will be at risk of being subjected to this practice …
86. The position of the United States is that while it does carry out renditions, it does not practise extraordinary rendition. However the premise of this position is a particular understanding of what extraordinary rendition involves. Mr Appleton, who is a federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, says this (affidavit of 24 February 2005, paragraph 13):
“… I am advised by the Office of the Legal Adviser and the Office of International Affairs that the United States is committed to complying with its international law obligations under the [Torture Convention]. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is more likely than not that they will be tortured.”
This “more likely than not” is of some importance. As Mr Fitzgerald submits it is a palpably different test of the prospect of being tortured than that of substantial risk, which is applied in the Strasbourg jurisprudence on ECHR Article 3 (see Ullah, to which I have referred above). Thus it is said that the American approach as Mr Appleton describes it is perfectly consistent with the use by the United States authorities of rendition to States where there is a substantial risk, though not a probability (“more likely than not”) of torture – and thus, in effect, extraordinary rendition.
87. The appellants’ case, then, is that they may be subjected to extraordinary rendition with at least a substantial risk of torture in a third State, particularly if they are acquitted in the federal civilian court; and the Diplomatic Notes provide no assurance against such an eventuality.
88. If either appellant, having been acquitted in the federal court, were then removed from the United States to a third country where he faced a substantial risk of torture (never mind “more likely than not”), that would in my view be a plain violation at least of the spirit, and I would have thought the letter, of Article XII of the 1972 Treaty and (whatever one makes of the precise terms of the Diplomatic Notes) a gross breach of the trust subsisting between the United States and the United Kingdom.
89. The United States has submitted to the United Nations Committee Against Torture that
“The obligation under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture requires a country not to return, expel or refouler an individual. For more than a decade, the position of the US Government, and our courts, has been that all of those terms refer to returns from, or transfers out from the United States.”
So the view taken is that the Article 3 obligation does not apply to the position of persons seized outside the United States and their alleged treatment in centres in third countries, but applies strictly in relation to those within United States territory. As for the construction of Article 3(1), I have already set out its terms. It has the words “… where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. That language is plainly close to the postulate of a substantial risk. Thus rendition of either appellant to a third country where he would face a substantial risk of torture would constitute a violation of Article 3 on at least one, perfectly viable, interpretation of the Article.
90. There is in fact no evidence whatever that any person extradited to the United States, from the United Kingdom or anywhere else, has been subsequently subjected to rendition, extraordinary or otherwise. All the evidence concerning the appellants themselves is that they are sought for the purposes of being tried in the federal civilian courts, and not for any collateral purpose. If convicted they may face the prospect of lengthy sentences. I have indicated that the issue on extraordinary rendition (point (2)) is closely allied to that relating to Military Order No 1 (point (1)) with which I have dealt at greater length, and so it is. I would reject Mr Fitzgerald’s case on point (2) for reasons much the same as I have given for rejecting his case on point (1). I regard the material before us which relates to the Americans’ treatment of instances where no question of extradition is involved as a wholly insufficient basis for concluding that the United States in these present cases would perpetrate so great a breach of trust (and I think of their legal obligations) as would be involved in their subjecting these appellants to extraordinary rendition.
SAMs (Point (3) above)
91. Mr Loflin (second affidavit, 24 January 2005, paragraph 4) describes Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) as
“special confinement measures that can be imposed on prisoners when there is a ‘substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons, or substantial damage to property that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury to persons.’ [the quotation is from the United States Code of Federal Regulations] These measures may include, but are not limited to, housing the defendant in administrative detention, and/or limiting the defendant’s correspondence, visiting rights, contacts with the media, or telephone use.”
… Mr Fitzgerald submits that if they were applied to either appellant they would significantly impair his ability properly to prepare his defence and would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Mr Loflin’s evidence is to the effect that he knows of no case in which a non-Muslim defendant has been subjected to SAMs …
92. There are thus, on analysis, three points relating to SAMs. (1) By the imposition of SAMs each appellant would be “punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his … religion” and so there would be a bar to extradition under s.81(b) of the 2003 Act. (2) They would also be prejudiced in the preparation and/or conduct of their defence, principally by inhibitions placed upon communication with their legal advisers, and so there would be violations of ECHR Article 6 quite apart from s.81(b). (3) And there would be violations of ECHR Article 3 given that SAMs involve or may involve solitary confinement.
93. It is convenient to deal first with ECHR Article 3. I did not understand Mr Fitzgerald to press this aspect as part of the forefront of his case. It is clear from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that solitary confinement does not in itself constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Regard must be had to the surrounding circumstances including the particular conditions, the stringency of the measures, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects: McFeeley v UK 3 EHRR 161, paras 49–50. Applying this approach, the evidence before us does not begin to establish a concrete case under Article 3. The argument on SAMs is really about the other two points.
95. I turn next to the point on ECHR Article 6. As is well known the United States Constitution vouchsafes a guarantee of fair trial whose terms, as I observed in Bermingham (paragraph 110), are strikingly similar to those of ECHR Article 6. The Sixth Amendment provides:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”
This does not expressly protect lawyer/client privilege, but it must be inherent in the measure. In any event recent authority of the Supreme Court cited by Mr Loflin himself … affirms its importance: Swidler & Berlin v United States 524 US 399, 403. And the imposition of SAMs is open to judicial scrutiny: US v Reid 369 F. 3d 619 (1st Circuit 2004); US v Ali; E.D. Va Oct 24, 2005; US v El-Hage 213 F. 3d 74 (2nd Circuit 2000).
96. The United States has provided express evidence that the appellants’ Sixth Amendment rights and attorney/client privilege will be honoured and protected … While Mr Fitzgerald submits that the district judge “erred in his assessment of the effect of SAMs on the trial process” … there is as I understand it no challenge to his specific finding that “there is judicial control to see that communication passing between the defendant and his lawyers, although monitored, does not reach the eyes and ears of those prosecuting”…
97. In my judgment the evidence does not begin to show that the imposition of SAMs, were that to occur (as it may), would mean that either appellant would be “prejudiced at his trial” (s.81(b) of the 2003 Act), or that it would violate the appellants’ rights under ECHR Article 6, not least given that a flagrant denial of justice has to be shown. Nor, for good measure, does it show (what Mr Fitzgerald must I think establish) that the United States authorities would knowingly perpetrate a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the American Constitution.
98. There remains the submission that the appellants would be subjected to SAMs on a discriminatory basis. The appellants’ case to that effect depends upon Mr Loflin’s evidence that he knows of no instance, and none has been identified, in which SAMs have been imposed upon a non-Muslim defendant. Ms Killion denies that SAMs are imposed only on Muslims …
99. … like the district judge I am quite unable to infer from Mr Loflin’s statement that SAMs are applied only to Muslims that the United States authorities deliberately flout the Regulations so as to punish Muslim defendants for their religion.
100. I would reject this part of Mr Fitzgerald’s argument, like the others.
Conclusion
101. For all the reasons I have given I would dismiss these appeals. Taking stock of the whole case, I would make these final observations. There are I think two factors which constitute important, and justified, obstacles to the appellants’ claims. They are obstacles which might arise in other cases. The first is the starting-point: Kennedy LJ’s observation in Serbeh that “there is (still) a fundamental assumption that the requesting state is acting in good faith”. This is a premise of effective relations between sovereign States. As I have said the assumption may be contradicted by evidence; and it is the court’s plain duty to consider such evidence (where it is presented) on a statutory appeal under the 2003 Act. But where the requesting State is one in which the United Kingdom has for many years reposed the confidence not only of general good relations, but also of successive bilateral treaties consistently honoured, the evidence required to displace good faith must possess special force. The second obstacle is linked to the first. It is a general rule of the common law that the graver the allegation, the stronger must be the evidence to prove it. In this case it has been submitted that the United States will violate, at least may violate, its undertakings given to the United Kingdom. That would require proof of a quality entirely lacking here.
102. This court acts on the faith that the United States will be true to the spirit and the letter of the Diplomatic Notes and the obligations of the 1972 Treaty. It goes without saying that they will be true to the US Constitution. The terms of this judgment express the legal expectations and understanding of the United Kingdom court. I apprehend that these will be well fulfilled and honoured when the appellants are extradited. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division), Ahmad and Aswat case, Judgment, 30 November 2006, §§ 1–2, 4–5, 7–9, 20–26, 28, 30, 32–39, 43–44, 51, 54–62, 64–68, 72–78, 80–82, 86–93 and 95–102.
[emphasis in original]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in the Zakaev case, the UK Bow Magistrates’ Court considered the case of a Russian national whose extradition was sought by the Russian Federation in order to prosecute him for war crimes allegedly committed in Chechnya. The Court considered “that the events in Chechnya in 1995 and 1996 amounted in law to an internal armed conflict.” 
United Kingdom, Bow Magistrates’ Court, Zakaev case, Decision, 13 November 2003.
The Court held:
[T]here has been a delay in bringing these proceedings of some 7 years. In view of the gravity of the allegations … that delay in itself is [not] sufficient to warrant a finding of abuse of process. However, there are other factors to be added to that delay. In particular, there is the delay in the proper investigation of these alleged offences and the fact that Government officials and others were led to believe that there were no charges pending against the defendant. The initial request to Denmark included allegations in relation to the Moscow theatre siege and to the murder of Father Philip, on which it is now conceded there was no evidence whatsoever. When those factors are added together the inevitable conclusion is that it would now be unjust and oppressive to return Mr Zakaev to stand his trial in Russia.
… [I]t is more likely than not that the motivation of the Government of the Russian Federation was and is to exclude Mr Zakaev from continuing to take part in the peace process and to discredit him as a moderate.
… [T]here is a substantial risk that Mr Zakaev would himself be subject to torture. … [S]uch punishment and detention would be by reason of his nationality and political opinions. [Therefore,] Mr Zakaev … should not be returned to face trial in the Russian Federation. 
United Kingdom, Bow Magistrates’ Court, Zakaev case, Decision, 13 November 2003.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2009, in the Brown case, the England and Wales High Court of Justice (Divisional Court) was called upon to decide an appeal by four Rwandese nationals whose extradition from the United Kingdom had been requested by the Government of Rwanda in order to try them for genocide before a Rwandan domestic court. Lord Justice Laws, who gave the judgment to which both members of the court had contributed, summarized the main issue before the court as follows:
[T]he principal focus of this judgment is the appellants’ claim that they would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. The GoR [Government of Rwanda] proposes that they be tried for genocide in the High Court of Rwanda, a court of criminal jurisdiction established in 2004. It is to be contrasted with the local gacaca courts, and also, of course, with the ICTR. The appellants submit that if they are returned to Rwanda for trial before the High Court, they will not receive a fair trial. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice, Brown case, Judgment, 8 April 2009, § 20.
The appeal was allowed and the Secretary of State’s order for extradition was quashed. Lord Justice Laws set out the relevant law, namely Article 6 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the 2003 UK Extradition Act. He stated:
21. The 2003 [UK Extradition] Act contains two provisions which in effect impose fair trial requirements in the courts of the requesting State (being a category 2 territory) in extradition cases. [Category 2 territories are designated by order of the Secretary of State and include countries to which the framework decision of the Council of the European Union on the European arrest warrant (2003) does not apply.] We repeat them for convenience. First, s.81:
81 A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(b) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.
Secondly, s.87:
87(1) … [The judge] … must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the Convention [i.e. ECHR] rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) If the judge decides the question in subsection (1) in the negative he must order the person’s discharge.
23. Clearly the kind of bias contemplated by s.81(b), at least so far as it affects the trial process, might readily also constitute a denial of the right to “a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal” pursuant to Article 6 [ECHR]; and to that extent there is a potential overlap between the provisions. We find it convenient to concentrate on Article 6.
Fair Trial – the Law: the Test for Article 6
24. Under Article 6, the question for the court is whether, if they are returned to Rwanda for trial before the High Court, the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice – “flagrant” because in such a case the ECHR rights apply exceptionally and by extension, to protect the individual from being consigned by a State Party to the ECHR to another territory where he might suffer ill-treatment in violation of the Convention standards. In R v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah [2004] 2 AC 323 Lord Bingham said at paragraph 24:
While the Strasbourg jurisprudence does not preclude reliance on articles other than article 3 [ECHR] as a ground for resisting extradition or expulsion, it makes it quite clear that successful reliance demands presentation of a very strong case. In relation to article 3, it is necessary to show strong grounds for believing that the person, if returned, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment … Where reliance is placed on article 6 it must be shown that a person has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the receiving state …
We should also cite the cross-reference at paragraph 10 of Lord Bingham’s opinion (and, for the context, we will set out paragraph 9):
9. Domestic cases as I have defined them are to be distinguished from cases in which it is not claimed that the state complained of has violated or will violate the applicant’s Convention [ie ECHR] rights within its own territory but in which it is claimed that the conduct of the state in removing a person from its territory (whether by expulsion or extradition) to another territory will lead to a violation of the person’s Convention rights in that other territory. I call these “foreign cases”, acknowledging that the description is imperfect, since even a foreign case assumes an exercise of power by the state affecting a person physically present within its territory. The question was bound to arise whether the Convention could be relied on to resist expulsion or extradition in a foreign case. It is a question of obvious relevance to these appeals, since the appellants do not complain of any actual or apprehended interference with their article 9 [ECHR] rights in the United Kingdom.
10. A clear, although partial, answer to this question was given in Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR [European Human Rights Reports] 439, a case in which the applicant resisted extradition to the United States to stand trial in Virginia, contending that trial there would infringe his right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention and that his detention on death row, if convicted and sentenced to death, would infringe his rights under article 3 [ECHR]. Neither the conduct of the trial nor the conditions of detention would, of course, be within the control or responsibility of the United Kingdom. The [European] Court [of Human Rights] did not reject the applicant’s complaint under article 6 as ill-founded in principle, but dismissed it on the facts in paragraph 113 of its judgment:
“113. The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, as embodied in Article 6, holds a prominent place in a democratic society. The Court does not exclude that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country. However, the facts of the present case do not disclose such a risk.” 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice, Brown case, Judgment, 8 April 2009, §§ 21 and 23–24.
Lord Justice Laws examined whether the judge at the lower court had applied the correct test. Lord Justice Laws stated:
Fair Trial – the Law: Did the Judge Apply the Wrong Test?
33. As we have stated, the legal test by which the fair trial issue has to be judged is whether the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if they were extradited for trial in Rwanda. It is contended on their behalf that the judge misunderstood or misapplied the test. …
34. We should … record our concern at certain passages in the judge’s judgment. At paragraphs 369–372 the judge cited Ullah at some length. Accordingly one would ordinarily suppose that he had the correct test well in mind. However at paragraph 373 this appears: “It is clear, therefore, from these judgements that the test is a very high one and that the burden of proof lies on the defence on a balance of probabilities.”
And at paragraph 536:
The burden is on the defence to satisfy the court that there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice or fair trial. On the evidence produced they have failed to satisfy on a balance of probabilities the high test which has been set. Reliance was placed on the amicus brief of HRW [Human Rights Watch], but the conclusions reached do not justify the reliance placed on it when seeking to cross the high hurdle which the defence have to. In its conclusions, when dealing with the question of fair trial the brief states on seven occasions that the matters in question … may lead to a violation. It is put no higher than that and does not come near the higher Article 6 [ECHR] test.
The test is correctly stated in the opening sentence of paragraph 536. Notwithstanding that, the judge appears to have directed himself that the appellants carried the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that there would be a flagrant denial of justice if they were extradited. But “real risk” does not mean proof on the balance of probabilities. It means a risk which is substantial and not merely fanciful; and it may be established by something less than proof of a 51% probability. The approach is the same as that taken in refugee cases, where the asylum seeker has to show a real risk that if he is returned to his home State he will be persecuted on any of the grounds set out in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention (see Sivakumaran [1988] 1 AC 958). We think that despite his citation of the correct test the judge fell into error here. He may have been distracted by the second part of the test – “flagrant denial”: so much is suggested by his repeated references to the “high” or “very high” test. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice, Brown case, Judgment, 8 April 2009, §§ 33–34.
Lord Justice Laws examined whether the applicants’ right to a fair trial would be violated because witnesses who could give important evidence for the defence will be too afraid of possible reprisals to testify. Having reviewed evidence on this matter, Lord Justice Laws concluded that “if they were extradited to face trial in the High Court of Rwanda, the appellants would suffer a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice by reason of their likely inability to adduce the evidence of supporting witnesses.” 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice, Brown case, Judgment, 8 April 2009, § 66.
Lord Justice Laws then considered the independence and impartiality of the Rwandan judiciary. He held:
[T]he question whether a court is independent and impartial cannot be answered without considering the qualities of the political frame in which it is located. We have had no day-by-day details from the GoR [Government of Rwanda] of the conduct of the Rwandan High Court’s business. No details of trials; of defences run, successfully or unsuccessfully; no details of any of the myriad events that show a court is working justly. We have reached a firm conclusion as to the gravity of the problems that would face these appellants as regards witnesses if they were returned for trial in Rwanda. Those very problems do not promise well for the judiciary’s impartiality and independence. The general evidence as to the nature of the Rwandan polity offers no better promise. When one adds all the particular evidence we have described touching the justice system, we are driven to conclude that if these appellants were returned there would be a real risk that they would suffer a flagrant denial of justice. It follows that the appeals of all four appellants under s.103 of the 2003 [Extradition] Act, against the decision of the judge to send the case to the Secretary of State must be allowed. They are accordingly entitled to be discharged, and the Secretary of State’s order for extradition must automatically fall. 
United Kingdom, England and Wales High Court of Justice, Brown case, Judgment, 8 April 2009, § 121.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated:
[A]rticle 391 of the Penal Procedure Code provides: “Extradition is governed by the provisions of this Title, by the treaties, conventions and international agreements to which the Republic is a party”.
… [T]he Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Republics of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru signed the Bolivarian Extradition Agreement on 18 July 1911 in Caracas … [which provides]:
Article 5.- Extradition shall not be granted in the following cases:
a) If according to the laws of one of the States, the sentence does not exceed by six months the maximum applicable sentence for the offence of which the person is accused, and for which extradition has been requested.
b) When, according to the laws of the State to which the [extradition] request has been sent, the statute of limitations on the proceedings or the punishment against the person … has run out.
c) If the individual whose extradition is requested has already been judged and set free, or has served his or her sentence, or if the acts for which he or she is accused have been the object of an amnesty or a pardon.
In addition, Article 8 of the mentioned Treaty provides:
Article 8.- The extradition request must be accompanied [with the necessary documentation] …
By virtue of the provisions of the present Treaty, the extradition of fugitives will be in conformity with the extradition laws of the State to which the request has been made.
In no case will the extradition take place if a similar act is not punishable by the law of the Nation [to which the extradition has been] requested. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 4–5.
[emphasis in original]
In determining whether the acts of the case were considered offences in Venezuela thus permitting extradition, the tribunal held:
The Venezuelan Penal Code, meanwhile, criminalizes and punishes the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, extortion, seizure and diversion of aircraft and wrongful death in Articles 153, 452, 461, 368 and 411 respectively … [This] fulfills the principle of “dual criminality” (that the offences for which the [extradition] request [was formulated] are also offences in Venezuelan law), as required by Article 6 of the Venezuelan Penal Code in order to grant extradition. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 10–11.
[emphasis in original]
In concluding on whether extradition can be granted, the tribunal held:
[T]his Supreme Tribunal of Justice considers it pertinent to grant the extradition of … [the accused], requested by the Government of Colombia … for the offences of extortive kidnapping, and seizure and diversion of aircraft, which … are punished by the national legislation of both the requested State, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as the requesting [State], the Republic of Colombia; which are classified as offences giving rise [to extradition] … in the Extradition Treaty; which are not time-barred, and would not make the [extradited person] liable to a death or life sentence.
Similarly, Article 271 of the Constitution provides:
Article 271.- In no case can the extradition of foreigners be denied [when they are] responsible for committing the offences of … international organized crimes, acts against the public heritage of other States and against human rights.
The Chamber, in compliance with the abovementioned constitutional provision, … grants the extradition of … [the accused] for the alleged commission of the ordinary offence of extortive kidnapping, which … also constitutes, in general, [the offence of] international organized crimes, and of terrorism in particular … It notes, in addition, that the natural judges to determine if Ballestas is … [criminally responsible] are in Colombia, as it is the place where the offences under investigation were committed. It is there where the evidence of the offences of which Ballestas is accused can be found. The Chamber notes that the sentence to be applied, if criminal responsibility is declared, must not exceed thirty years as established in Article 44(3) of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is so decided. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 12–14.
[emphasis in original]
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2004, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
Criminal offences that can be interpreted in the article 4 of the Convention against Torture can be the sufficient basis for extradition of the suspect to the state requesting the extradition irrespective of whether Bosnia and Herzegovina has or has not a treaty on extradition with that state. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 29 July 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/21/Add. 6, submitted 4 October 2004, § 351.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The IOG [Interdepartmental Operations Group] ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. Another of its purposes is to ensure that Canada complies with its international obligations. This includes the … extradition or surrender of war criminals … as well as cooperation with the international tribunals. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The Canadian Government can choose from several approaches in dealing with war criminals, including investigation and criminal prosecution in Canada, extradition to foreign governments, surrender to international tribunals, denial of visas outside Canada or of admission to Canada, exclusion from refugee protection in Canada, revocation of citizenship, admissibility hearings and removal from Canada. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
When a potential war criminal does manage to enter Canada or is found already living in Canada, the partners in the War Crimes Program have recourse to a number of enforcement measures, including … extradition, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis. The amendments also allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless and until the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, pp. 2 and 5.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. The partners have complementary roles in applying these remedies: criminal proceedings under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, on which the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and the DOJ [Department of Justice] work closely together; enforcement under the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canadian Border Services Agency], including deportation and denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection; and citizenship revocation proceedings under the Citizenship Act handled by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada]. The CBSA only deals with modern cases. The DOJ leads the development of World War II cases with the assistance of the RCMP. The DOJ also handles extradition and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 3 and 12.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following: criminal proceedings jointly administered by the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and deportation; citizenship revocation led by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the DOJ; and extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act, led by the DOJ.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 4 and 12.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Revocation of Citizenship
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001. The hearing concluded on September 15, 2006, with the judge reserving his decision. On November 13, 2007, the Federal Court concluded that Mr. Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation and by knowingly concealing his place of birth, his association with the security police and his activities as a camp guard …
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
Italy requested the extradition of Michael Seifert, who was convicted in absentia by an Italian Military Tribunal in November 2000 for war crimes related to the Second World War. Mr. Seifert was surrendered to Italy in February 2008. Citizenship revocation proceedings against Mr. Seifert are ongoing. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 2–6.
Canada
In 2010, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Canada stated:
Article 7
Prosecution of persons alleged to have committed torture
44. As noted in Canada’s Fifth Report, an interdepartmental group, the Program Coordinating Operations Committee (PCOC) (formerly entitled the Interdepartmental Operations Group), coordinates investigation of allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes under Canada’s War Crimes Program. The Committee ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. It also ensures that Canada complies with its international obligations.
46. If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following:
(a) Criminal proceedings that are based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act …
(b) Enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and removal proceedings;
(c) Citizenship revocation;
(d) Extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act. 
Canada, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 June 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/6, submitted 4 October 2010, §§ 44 and 46.
Canada
In 2012, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Committee against Torture with regard to Canada’s sixth periodic report, Canada stated:
51. The Government of Canada re-introduced Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act, on June 16, 2011, in order to combat the threat posed by human smuggling …
52. With the new bill, Canada will continue to uphold its obligations under the Convention, including the commitment not to employ torture as defined in Article 1 or to expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing the individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture in accordance with Article 3 [of the 1984 Convention against Torture] …
129. With respect to the extradition context, after a judge has determined that the evidence provided by the requesting state is sufficient to justify the committal of the person sought for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether the person sought ought to be surrendered … Pursuant to section 44 of Extradition Act, the Minister of Justice must refuse surrender if the surrender would be unjust or oppressive or if the person sought will face a substantial risk of torture in the country seeking extradition. This test has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be sufficient to respect the principle of non-refoulement.
180. Canada’s War Crimes Program is based on the dual underlying purposes of ensuring that Canada will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as making an effective contribution to the global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate impunity for such crimes. A committee composed of members of each department of the War Crimes Program reviews and scrutinises all allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including torture, to ensure compliance with existing and emerging international obligations to extradite or prosecute. 
Canada, Written replies by the Government of Canada to the Committee against Torture concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the sixth periodic report of Canada, 2012, §§ 51–52, 129 and 180.
[footnote in original omitted]
Canada
In 2012, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued a press release entitled “Minister Kenney applauds Alberta court ruling on accused war criminal Jorge Sosa”, which stated:
The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, issued the following statement:
The Government of Canada welcomes yesterday’s decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal upholding an extradition order against accused Guatemalan war criminal Jorge Sosa. The Court’s decision clears the way for Mr. Sosa to be extradited to face perjury charges in the United States concerning his past military activities in Guatemala.
In addition to the immigration charges he faces in the U.S., Jorge Sosa is also wanted for war crimes in his native Guatemala, where he has been accused of participating in one of the bloodiest events of the brutal Guatemalan civil war – the notorious massacre of more than 200 villagers at Dos Erres in 1982. Mr. Sosa has evaded justice for far too long. 
Canada, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, “Minister Kenney applauds Alberta court ruling on accused war criminal Jorge Sosa”, Press Release, 9 August 2012.
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated:
186. There are several instruments governing extradition in Chad, namely the Code of Criminal Procedure, the General Agreement of 12 September 1961 on Cooperation in Judicial Matters and the Franco-Chadian agreement (No. 138/CSM of 6 March 1976) on mutual legal assistance.
187. These instruments govern the conditions and effects of extradition and the procedures to be followed and, more generally speaking, cases in which extradition is not permitted.
188. Under article 447 of the Criminal Code, no extradition is permitted:
When the crime or offence has been committed on Chadian territory;
When the crime or offence, although not committed on Chadian territory, has been prosecuted and formed the subject of a final judgment in Chad;
… When under the laws of the requesting or the requested State legal action has become statute-barred before the request for extradition is made;
If there has been an amnesty in the requesting or the requested State.
197. Chad is now a party to the [1984] Convention against Torture. It cannot undertake an extradition without taking into account all relevant considerations, including, where present, the existence in the requesting State of a pattern of systematic, grave, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. This is a moral duty and a necessary safety precaution. 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 186–188 and 197.
Regarding extradition for the crime of torture, Chad stated:
297. The criminal legislation of Chad does not envisage or punish torture as a criminal act. Consequently the discovery within the country of a suspected perpetrator of an act of torture committed outside the country cannot give rise either to extradition or to prosecution by the Chad authorities, even where there is a cooperation or mutual judicial assistance agreement between Chad and the requesting State.
298. Under article 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Government of Chad may hand over to foreign governments at their request any person not of Chadian nationality in the territory of the Republic who is the subject of prosecution introduced in the name of the requesting State or of a sentence handed down by the courts of that State. However, extradition is granted only if the offence which has given rise to the request was committed outside the country by a person who is a non-national of that State and when the offence is one which, under Chadian law, may be prosecuted in Chad even if the offence was committed outside the country.
299. The last paragraph of article 445 goes still further. It stipulates that: “In no case shall extradition be granted if the act is not punishable under Chadian law with a penalty of criminal or délit rank.” Since torture is neither a crime nor a délit under Chadian law, not only can no request for extradition be met but in addition it will no longer be possible to undertake proceedings of any kind. Thus the introduction of the provisions of the [1984] Convention against Torture into the domestic legal order is necessary for purposes of trial or extradition of perpetrators of acts of torture.
300. However, if a specific act of torture in respect of which extradition is requested is deemed to be an act giving rise to a penalty of criminal or délit rank under the provisions of domestic instruments (such as the administration of a harmful substance during interrogation by a public official), extradition will be granted, since such acts are punishable under article 245 of the Chadian Criminal Code.
301. The request for extradition would then only have to meet the conditions laid down in the Criminal Code and the requirements of reciprocity. 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 297–301.
Chile
In 2002, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Chile stated:
Chile has included in bilateral extradition treaties which have been concluded or have entered into force since 1994, clauses in which offences relating to torture are incorporated as extraditable offences. These treaties are listed below:
(b) Treaty on extradition and judicial assistance in criminal matters between the Republic of Chile and the Kingdom of Spain, which was concluded on 14 April 1992 and entered into force in January 1995. In article 5, this treaty excludes extradition for political or related offences, which will not include “war crimes and crimes committed against peace and the security of mankind, in conformity with international law”;
(c) Extradition treaty between the Republic of Chile and Australia, which was signed on 6 October 1993 and entered into force in January 1996. In article IV relating to exceptions to extradition, the treaty excludes extradition for political offences, among which “war crimes and crimes committed against peace and the security of mankind, in conformity with international law” are not included. 
Chile, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 69(b)–(c).
China
Upon accession to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, China stated:
At present [i.e. in 1983], Chinese legislation has no provisions concerning extradition, and deals with this matter on a case-by-case basis. For this reason China does not accept the stipulations of Article 88, paragraph 2, of Protocol I. 
China, Reservation made upon accession to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 14 September 1983.
China
In 2007, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a representative of China stated:
At the 59th session, the ILC [International Law Commission] considered the second report of the Special Rapporteur on the topic of the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), including one draft article. We wish to express appreciation to the Special Rapporteur Mr. Galicki for his outstanding work. Now I’d like to comment on a few questions.
First, I believe that the application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute should not compromise the judicial jurisdiction of States, nor should it affect the immunity of State officials from criminal judicial jurisdiction.
Second, on the scope of application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, draft article one stipulates that the present draft articles shall apply to the establishment, content, operation and effects of the alternative obligation of States to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. The Chinese delegation supports in principle the alternative nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute as contained in the draft article, namely, States have the alternative to extradite or prosecute. As for the so-called third alternative related to the jurisdiction of other international judicial organs, we take a cautious approach, but we believe that it is necessary to set necessary limits to the alternative obligations of States. We suggest that the draft articles stipulate that in opting for extradition or prosecution, States should abide by the relevant rules on jurisdiction priorities. For example, it is necessary to ensure the priority of the State where the crime occurred and the State of nationality of the suspect in exercising jurisdiction.
We also suggest a clarification of the meaning of “jurisdiction” in draft article one concerning the State obligation to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. It is our understanding that the above jurisdiction refers to territorial jurisdiction or actual control of a State and does not include extraterritorial jurisdiction of a State over individuals outside its territories on the basis of the principles of personal jurisdiction, protective jurisdiction or universal jurisdiction, because the obligation to extradite or prosecute is based on the actual jurisdiction or control of the State over an individual. In light of this, we suggest that the wording “under their jurisdiction” in draft article one be changed to “on their territories or under their actual jurisdiction or control”, or that corresponding explanation be made in the commentary.
Third, on the nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, my delegation believes that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is basically a treaty obligation and States undertake this obligation mainly on the basis of treaty provisions. However, if the crime to which the obligation to extradite or prosecute is applied is a crime under the customary law universally acknowledged by the international community, the obligation to extradite or prosecute may also become an obligation under international customary law.
Fourth, on crimes covered by the obligation to extradite or prosecute, in the view of my delegation, they should primarily include international crimes and transnational crimes endangering the common interest of the international community as confirmed by the international law, and serious crimes endangering national and public interest as stipulated by domestic law. Making a non-exhaustive list of crimes in the draft articles can be an option.
Fifth, my delegation believes that the core issue of this topic is the conditions for the extradition and prosecution obligations of States. We suggest that the Commission study the applicability of the conditions for the prohibition of extradition contained in the extradition rules of various States and the conditions for prosecution provided for in the criminal procedural laws of States. Then the Commission can see if it is necessary to establish a set of common criteria for extradition and prosecution. The relations between this obligation and other rules of international law, including universal jurisdiction, can also be further studied. 
China, Statement by the Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, at the Sixth Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, on Item 82 “Report of the International Law Commission” (Reservations to Treaties, Shared Natural Resources, Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute), 1 November 2007.
Croatia
According to the Report on the Practice of Croatia, Croatia has concluded treaties on extradition with a number of States. The report also notes:
According to Article 134 of the Croatian Constitution [which provides that “international agreements concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution and made public are part of the Republic’s internal legal order and are in terms of legal effect above law”], Croatian courts should directly apply the European Convention on Extradition with its two additional protocols and also existing bilateral agreements on extradition. 
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the obligation to extradite or prosecute and treaties over time, the representative of Cuba stated:
The Cuban delegation would like to emphasise that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is aimed at combating impunity, by ensuring that persons accused of certain crimes are denied safe haven and are brought to trial for their criminal acts.
We consider that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is based primarily on international treaties; and in the case of certain crimes of the most serious nature, it has acquired a character that may be considered customary.
Some of the crimes that include this obligation include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity … [and] torture. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 81: Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 64th Session – Part IV: The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute and Treaties Over Time, 2 November 2009, p. 1.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2008, a training manual by the prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, including war crimes, was adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The training manual states: “Legal implications of sexual violence as an international crime … International crimes imply international cooperation regarding the … extradition … of individuals convicted for such crimes.” 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, pp. 72–73.
Djibouti
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Djibouti stated:
86. The prohibition on extraditing a person to another State where he is in danger of being tortured can be deduced, by interpretation, from all the judicial cooperation agreements concluded by Djibouti with other States. …
87. … As a party to the [1984] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Djibouti may not extradite a person without taking all relevant facts into consideration, including, where appropriate, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. This is a safety issue and a moral obligation.
88. … Djiboutian law prohibits the extradition of any individual to a State where he is in danger of being tortured. …
118. … [Extradition agreements] … include a formal prohibition on extraditing a person … for expressing certain views, on grounds of race, religion or nationality.
119. Thus, article 4 of the extradition agreement between Djibouti and France stipulates that extradition … may be refused if the requested State has serious reasons to believe that the extradition request was made in order to prosecute or punish a person on grounds of race, religion, nationality or political belief or that the person’s situation may be aggravated for one or other of these reasons. 
Djibouti, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 18 January 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/DJI/1, submitted 21 July 2010, §§ 86–88 and 118–119.
Georgia
In 2012, in its fourth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Georgia stated:
10. Georgia adopted the [L]aw on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters in 2010, which entered into force together with the new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia on October 1, of the same year. The new Law covers international cooperation, including extradition. Accordingly, extradition procedures are generally carried out on the basis of bilateral or multilateral treaties binding for Georgia. However, in case of non-existence of [an] extradition treaty with a relevant state, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia is authorized to conclude an ad hoc agreement with the appropriate foreign authorities and thereby carry out extradition procedures (Article 2). Article 29 §1 of the Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters excludes extradition if the competent authorities of Georgia have substantial grounds to believe that the extradition of a person is requested for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing that person on account of his race, nationality, ethnic origin, religious belief, political opinion or other similar reasons. Therefore, in case of the circumstances referred to above, the competent Georgian authorities find extradition inadmissible.
11. In addition, the Parliament of Georgia adopted the Law on Refugees and Humanitarian Status in December 2011, which fully envisions the principle of non-refoulement. … Article 21 §3 [of that Law] states that it is inadmissible to expel or extradite from Georgia a person holding a refugee or humanitarian status to the country where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the person will be the victim of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. …
113. The Law of Georgia on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters represents an internal legislative act regulating issues concerning extradition. This law entered into force in October 2010 and is in full compliance with Georgia’s international agreements and international standards. According to the above-mentioned Law, the extradition of a person shall be granted with respect to those offences which are punishable under the laws of Georgia and the foreign State by deprivation of liberty for a period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. Where a conviction has occurred, the punishment awarded must be for a period of at least four months (Article 18.1).
114. The Law of Georgia on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters sets out important safeguards with respect to extradition. Namely, extradition is not allowed if the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death penalty, if there exists reasonable suspicion that the extradition of the person is requested for the purpose of [making] him/her liable for or punishing him/her on the ground of his/her race, nationality, ethnic origin, religious or political views or due to other similar circumstances, if there exists reasonable suspicion that a person will be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, if a crime in relation to which an extradition is requested is regarded as a political offence by Georgia, if the requesting State rendered the judgment in absentia of that person and if a person was not properly informed about court hearings or if an accused person was not provided with proper time for p[repar]ation and the minimum rights of defence. 
Georgia, Fourth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 1 November 2012, UN Doc. CCPR/GEO/4, submitted 25 June 2012, §§ 10–11 and 113–114.
Iraq
In 2012, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Iraq stated:
Accused persons may be extradited to a requesting State in the event that an extradition treaty between the requesting State and the Government of the Republic of Iraq is in force, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 23 of 1971) which prohibits extradition for political or military offences. 
Iraq, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 18 October 2013, UN Doc. CAT/C/OPAC/IRQ/1, submitted 9 May 2012, § 41.
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, Israel has signed extradition agreements with numerous countries. It has also cooperated with other countries for the extradition, mainly for trial in Israel, of suspected Nazi war criminals. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 6.11.
Kuwait
At the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, Kuwait expressed the view that States should cooperate for the extradition of war criminals. 
Kuwait, Remarks and Proposals of the Ministry of Justice concerning the draft Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, § 4.
Malaysia
According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, the extradition of persons having committed grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is governed by Malaysia’s Extradition Act. Under this act, if there is no extradition treaty with the requesting State, the Minister of Home Affairs may permit the extradition if he/she deems fit. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 6.4, referring to the Extradition Act, 1992, Sections 1 to 6.
Mexico
In 2001, with regard to the Cavallo case, the Mexican Foreign Relations Secretariat issued a directive on this matter, stating:
Based on Article 28, part XI, of the Federal Public Administration Law and in conformity with articles 30 of the International Law of Extradition, and articles 1, 9, 14 and 25 of the Treaty of Extradition and Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters between the United Mexican States and the Kingdom of Spain, it is resolved: … to grant the extradition of the individual in question, Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, known as Miguel Angel Cavallo, requested by the government of Spain through its embassy in Mexico, to face charges of genocide, torture and terrorism. 
Mexico, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Communication No. 021/01, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs grants Spain’s Request to extradite Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, Directive of 2 February 2001, § 2.
Morocco
In 2009, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Morocco stated:
While extradition, in principle, is the norm in all ordinary crimes, if the Moroccan authorities … [have] reason to believe that a request for extradition lacks objective grounds, and that the request has to do with the person of the individual himself for considerations relating to his ethnicity, race, nationality, or religious or political beliefs, and that such considerations would put his life or liberty at risk or may lead to torture, extradition is denied (article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). A number of bilateral agreements concluded between Morocco and some European and Arab countries take into account such considerations. A case in point is the agreement with the Arab Republic of Egypt … and the agreement with the Kingdom of Belgium. 
Morocco, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 November 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/MAR/4, submitted 27 April 2009, § 38.
Morocco further stated:
73. In accordance with article 8 of the Convention against Torture, Moroccan law contains a series of legal provisions relating to crimes of torture or the attempt to use torture when dealing with extradition mechanisms as part of international judicial cooperation.
74. While provisions under Moroccan law governing the extradition of criminals do not make a specific reference to the crime of torture because the Code of Criminal [P]rocedure does not enumerate in detail the offences that may be the subject of extradition, the Code does, however, recognise the offences and acts punishable under the laws of the requesting state.
75. As such, perpetrators of crimes of torture, under Moroccan law, are subject to extradition in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
76. The same principle applies to the bilateral agreements Morocco has entered into with other states. Moroccan law, does not exclude perpetrators of crimes of torture from extradition when a state with which Morocco has entered into a bilateral agreement, makes such a request. Exclusions only apply to political, military and customs offences.
77. Morocco has received and responded to a number of requests for extradition, some of which relate to acts of assault and violence, from a number of states. One example is the request in 2008 by the French judicial authorities to their Moroccan counterparts to hand over a Dutch national accused of committing acts of violence and assault. The request was granted.
78. Under bilateral extradition agreements, there is no prohibition on the handing over of perpetrators of acts of torture except when it comes to observing the provisions of international conventions. Moroccan law gives the application of international instruments precedence over domestic law when it comes to international judicial cooperation, having ascertained that persons extradited would not be tortured in the requesting state. This reflects Morocco’s commitment to extend judicial cooperation in fighting crime, especially acts of torture that may be committed by public officials entrusted with enforcing the law. 
Morocco, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 November 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/MAR/4, submitted 27 April 2009, §§ 73–78.
Senegal
In 2011, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Senegal stated:
I. Information on new measures and new developments relating to the implementation of the [1984] Convention [against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]
Article 3 of the Convention
94. To date, there have been no cases in Senegal of expulsion, refoulement or extradition of a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
95. Act No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971 covers the conditions, procedures and consequences of extradition in situations where no relevant treaty applies, as well as any other aspects not expressly regulated by any such treaty.
96. Thus, the legislation on extradition expressly gives primacy to international law and, in particular, to article 3 of the Convention, which is considered a self-executing provision.
Article 5 of the Convention
Paragraph 2
114. By adopting Act No. 2007-05 of 12 February 2007, which amends the [1965] Code of Criminal Procedure, the State of Senegal has taken the necessary measures to establish the competency of the Senegalese criminal courts to try all acts of torture in cases where the alleged offenders are present in Senegalese territory if no order for their extradition has been issued.
115. In line with this law, any foreigner who has been accused of committing or aiding in the commission of any of the crimes mentioned in article 295-1 of the [1965 Penal] Code outside Senegalese territory may be tried under Senegalese law or laws applicable in Senegal if he or she is under Senegalese jurisdiction or if one of the victims resides in the territory of Senegal, or if the Government secures the alleged offender’s extradition.
Article 7 of the Convention
Paragraph 1
120. As mentioned above, the only known case concerning an alleged perpetrator of acts of torture residing in Senegalese territory is the case of Hissène Habré, former President of the Republic of Chad. In this case, the State of Senegal has undertaken, in conformity with the mandate entrusted to it by the African Union, to conduct a trial, to be heard by Senegalese judges, in compliance with the universally recognized fundamental legal principle of a just and fair trial. …
121. As a general rule, extradition is regulated in Senegal by Act No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971. Article 5 of this law lists the cases in which extradition shall not be granted:
(1) When the subject of the request is a Senegalese national and was recognized as such at the time of the commission of the offence for which extradition is requested;
(2) When the crime or offence is of a political nature or if the circumstances indicate that the extradition request is politically motivated. Acts committed during a rebellion or civil war by one of the parties involved in order to further its cause are extraditable only if they constitute acts of extreme barbarity or destructiveness prohibited by the laws of war and only after the civil war has ended;
(3) When the crime or offence was committed in Senegal;
(4) When the crime or offence, even if committed outside Senegal, has been prosecuted in Senegal and a final decision rendered;
(5) When, according to the laws of the requesting State or the requested State, the time limit for bringing an action has passed before the extradition request is served, or the time limit for the enforcement of the sentence has passed before the arrest of the individual whose extradition is requested and, generally, whenever the criminal proceedings have been completed.
Article 8 of the Convention
129. Even though none of the treaties on mutual judicial assistance, in particular extradition, concluded by Senegal with third States contains a specific list of offences for which a person may be extradited, this in no way constitutes a barrier to the extradition of perpetrators of offences classified as torture upon the request of another State.
130. The Senegalese State does not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty. Act No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971 applies to all requests from States with which Senegal does not have a judicial assistance agreement.
131. With the exception of the cases mentioned above, extradition is possible if:
(a) The acts in question are defined as an offence and carry criminal or correctional penalties of at least 2 years of imprisonment;
(b) The acts in question are punishable offences under Senegalese law.
Article 9 of the Convention
132. Senegal provides extensive judicial assistance during all stages of proceedings related to torture in conformity with the treaties on mutual assistance to which it is party.
II. Implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee
B. Compliance with the Committee’s decision concerning communication No. 181/2001
Recapitulation of facts and procedures
237. Mr. Hissène Habré, who was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990, was ousted on 1 December 1990. Following a stay in Cameroon, he moved to Senegal, where he has been ever since.
238. In January 2000, [a victim] and others submitted a complaint together with an application for indemnification to the senior examining judge of the Dakar special regional court …
239. On 3 February 2000, the senior examining judge indicted Mr. Hissène Habré …
241. On 4 July 2001, the Indictment Division dismissed the charges, thereby putting an end to the legal proceedings against him, on the grounds that the judge dealing with the case lacked jurisdiction.
242. On 20 November 2001, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal lodged by the complainants on 7 July 2001 against the Indictment Division’s ruling of 4 July 2001, thus reaffirming that decision.
243. The Court of Cassation advanced the following reasoning for its decision:
Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on 10 December 1984, provides that each State party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set out in article 4 in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him or her;
Consequently, article 79 of the [2001] Constitution cannot be applied since the implementation of the Convention requires Senegal to adopt prior legislative measures;
No procedural text confers universal jurisdiction upon Senegalese courts to try presumed perpetrators of or accomplices to acts covered by the legislation of 28 August 1996, which aligned Senegalese law with article 4 of the Convention, in cases where such persons are found on Senegalese territory if the acts in question were committed outside Senegal.
244. Subsequently, the victims brought the same case before the Belgian courts. On 19 September 2005, the Belgian examining judge, after an investigation that lasted for years, issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Habré. On the same day, Belgium sent an extradition request to Senegal.
245. On 25 November 2005, the Indictment Division of the Dakar Court of Appeal, in response to the request to extradite Mr. Hissène Habré to Belgium, concluded that it was not competent to do so for the following reasons.
246. “Article 101 of the Constitution of Senegal and the High Court of Justice Organization Act of 14 February 2002 instituted exceptional legal proceedings in respect of any proceedings against the President of the Republic.
247. The Indictment Division, as an ordinary court, cannot extend its jurisdiction to investigating and prosecuting a Head of State for acts allegedly committed during his or her time in office.
248. Therefore, the lack of jurisdiction must also exist in respect of the extradition request, since legal proceedings can only be instituted after basic inquiries have been made, which include having the accused appear in court and be questioned. Moreover, given that the extradition itself would be the result of legal proceedings and enforcement measures delegated by the requesting State to the State receiving that request, it must, at every stage of the judicial process, comply with the rules governing the competence and structure of criminal courts, which are a bastion of national sovereignty. Mr. Hissène Habré’s immunity does not exempt him from criminal responsibility, however, but is merely procedural in nature, as in the case of the arrest warrant issued for Yoro Abdoulaye Ndombassi on 14 February 2002 by the International Court of Justice in the case involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Belgium.
249. This immunity remains in place even after a president ceases to hold office, regardless of his or her nationality or of the existence of any mutual assistance treaty.
250. It may be inferred from these comments that the Indictment Division lacks jurisdiction over cases concerning the legality of proceedings against a Head of State or the validity of an arrest warrant issued for a Head of State.”
251. In the light of that decision, Senegal referred the case to the African Union, which, on 2 July 2006, pursuant to the recommendations of a committee of eminent African jurists appointed in January 2006, requested Senegal to try Mr. Hissène Habré on behalf of Africa.
253. Prior to the African Union’s adoption of this position, the complainants who had referred the case to the senior examining judge of the Dakar special regional court had, on 18 April 2001, also submitted a complaint to the Committee against Torture under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture. The Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government of Senegal on 17 May 2006.
254. The Committee, drawing on all of the aforementioned legal decisions, recalled that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, “each State Party shall […] take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him […]”.
256. The Committee also recalled that: “under article 7 of the Convention, ‘the State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution’”.
257. “It notes that the obligation to prosecute the alleged perpetrator of acts of torture does not depend on the prior existence of a request for his extradition. The alternative available to the State party under article 7 of the Convention exists only when a request for extradition has been made. The State party has the power to choose between proceeding with extradition and submitting the case to its own judicial authorities for the institution of criminal proceedings, the objective of the provision being to prevent any act of torture from going unpunished.”
261. It went on to say that: “Moreover, under article 7 of the Convention, the State party is obliged to submit the present case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or, failing that, to comply with [an extradition] request, or, should the case arise, with any other extradition request made by another State, in accordance with the Convention.”
264. The State of Senegal has taken note of the decision.
265. Following the decision of the African Union, President Abdoulaye Wade made a solemn vow before his peers to have Mr. Hissène Habré prosecuted in Senegal.
266. This strong political commitment reaffirms the legal obligations entailed by the Convention against Torture, which Senegal ratified on 21 August 1987 and which is the legal basis for the proceedings against Mr. Hissène Habré.
269. All the necessary substantive and procedural legislative amendments have now been made to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention and to ensure that Mr. Hissène Habré can have a just, fair and speedy trial in Senegalese courts presided over by Senegalese judges. 
Senegal, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 October 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/SEN/3, submitted 9 February 2011, §§ 94–96, 114–115, 120–121, 129–132, 237–239, 241–251, 253–254, 256–257, 261, 264–266 and 269.
Spain
In 2010, in its report of 23 July, Spain’s Council of Ministers stated:
Extradition to Bosnia of Veselin Vlahovic for crimes against humanity
The Council of Ministers has approved the surrender in extradition to Bosnia and Herzegovina of Veselin Vlahovic, for crimes against persons and property protected in the event of armed conflict.
Vlahovic’s extradition is sought for having committed grave crimes against humanity during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. He has been accused, as a member of the armed forces of the República Srpska, of terrorising the population of Grbavica (Sarajevo), persecuting the civilian population of non-Serb origin, personally killing a large number of people, committing pillage, rape, abuses, torture and other crimes.
The European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 applies to Vlahovic, who is being held on remand in custody. 
Spain, Ministry of the President, Council of Ministers, Report, 23 July 2010, p. 61.
Spain
In 2010, in its report of 1 October, Spain’s Council of Ministers stated:
Continuation of the proceedings for the extradition to Bosnia of Veselin Vlahovic
The Council of Ministers has approved the continuation of the proceedings for the first extension of the passive extradition of the Montenegrin citizen Veselin Vlahovic, requested by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[Vlahovic] is suspected of having committed grave crimes against humanity during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a member of the armed forces of the República Srpska, between 1992 and 1995. Concretely, the new facts state that in 1992 [Vlahovic], together with other members of the so called “White Angels”, took fifteen members of a family to a Jewish cemetery in Novo Sarajevo where they were machine gunned, including among those killed a boy of six and a woman. In July of the same year, in Grbavica he removed a couple from their home and killed them both.
The facts described constitute a war crime against the civilian population under the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which constitutes a crime against persons or property protected in the event of armed conflict under the Spanish Penal Code in force.
[Vlahovic]’s extradition was also requested by the Serb authorities, for the crime of murder and by the Montenegrin authorities for the crime of violent robbery and war crimes.
The surrender of Veselin Vlahovic is proposed, in the first instance, to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 applies to all three requesting States, because the crimes committed by [Vlahovic] in Bosnia and Herzegovina are both quantitatively and qualitatively of relatively greater gravity. This State sent a request for extradition through the diplomatic channel on 8 March 2010, before the other two States. The extradition took place on 25 August 2010. 
Spain, Ministry of the President, Council of Ministers, Report, 1 October 2010, p. 41.
Spain
In 2011, in its report, Spain’s Council of Ministers stated:
Extension of extradition to Bosnia of Veselin Vlahovic for crimes against humanity
The Council of Ministers has approved the continuation of the procedure for the second extension of the extradition to Bosnia and Herzegovina of Veselin Vlahovic, accused of committing grave crimes against humanity during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992–1995.
The second extension of the extradition requested by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina for prosecution refers to facts not included in the original request. They now claim that he is suspected of having carried out in Sarajevo (Bosnia), between April and June 1992, together with other members of the so called “White Angels” acts against the non-Serb civilian population including kidnapping, extortion, threats, thefts, injury, rapes and murders.
On 25 August 2010 he was surrendered to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a previous extradition request.
The acts described constitute the crime of war crimes against the civilian population under the Penal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which corresponds to the crime against protected persons and property in the event of armed conflict under section 607 onwards of the Spanish penal code in force. 
Spain, Ministry of the President, Council of Ministers, Report, 11 February 2011, p. 21.
Sri Lanka
In 2009, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, Sri Lanka stated:
Non-refoulement
33. Article 3 of [the 1984] Convention against Torture prohibits … extradition of a person where there are substantial grounds for believing that such person faces the threat of torture in the receiving State. Sri Lanka as a policy does not extradite persons where such threats exist and there have been no instances of persons in Sri Lanka seeking to refute an extradition order based on allegations of torture.
34. Additionally, no allegations have been levelled against the State for any action in breach of this principle. Any such concerns will be dealt with at the Executive level.
35. The Extradition Law No. 8 of 1977 of Sri Lanka incorporates restrictions on extradition which includes the possibility of punishment, detention or restriction by reasons of race, nationality or political opinion. This provision covers the situations envisaged by Section 3 of [1984] CAT [Convention against Torture]. Further there are adequate provisions under the laws governing Immigration and Emigration, and Extradition to honour this principle.
Universal jurisdiction
38. Article 7 of the [1984] Convention against Torture states that if the authorities should decide not to extradite the accused then it should submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. This provision is reflected in sections 7, 8, and 9 of the CAT Act [Convention against Torture Act(1994)]. 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, §§ 33–35 and 38.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Sri Lanka further stated:
47. … Sri Lanka has also undertaken to inform any other State having jurisdiction of the offence, or any other State that requests the extradition of the accused, the measures that have been or will be taken to extradite or prosecute such person for that offence.
50. In accordance with Sections 8 of the CAT Act [Convention against Torture Act (1994)], Sri Lanka has amended its extradition law to provide for torture as an extraditable offence. Although as per the Extradition Law of 1977, extradition is conditional on the existence of an extradition treaty, unless the request is made by a commonwealth country, Section 9(2) of the CAT Act provides that the Minister may, in the absence of such an extradition agreement, by order published in the gazette, treat the Convention as an extradition agreement for extradition [in] respect of the offence … [of] torture. Extradition is also possible against those who aid and abet acts of torture. 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, Annex, §§ 47 and 50.
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Introduction
Although international humanitarian law is intended mainly for States and parties to a conflict (e.g. armed groups), many of its provisions must also be respected by individuals. States are obliged to respect the norms, to suppress any violations, and either themselves prosecute persons responsible for grave breaches, in particular of war crimes, or extradite such persons. …
Implementation
… Furthermore, governments must take all necessary measures to suppress violations. In the case of grave breaches, the States must themselves prosecute the perpetrators, or hand them over to another contracting party for prosecution. …
War crimes
War crimes are grave breaches of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 protecting persons and objects as well as other serious violations of the laws and customs that apply to an international or non-international Armed conflict. … States are under an obligation to prosecute or extradite persons suspected of having committed war crimes on their territory. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 4, 24 and 40.
Tajikistan
In 2010, in its second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Tajikistan stated:
Extradition is prohibited if:
(a) Tajikistan has granted political asylum to the person concerned;
(b) The act cited as grounds for the extradition request is not considered as a crime by Tajikistan;
(c) A sentence has taken effect or a case has been dismissed in relation to the commission of the same offence by the person concerned;
(d) Under Tajik legislation, charges may not be brought or the sentence may not be enforced, on the grounds of extinction or other legal considerations. 
Tajikistan, Second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 16 March 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/TJK/2, submitted 16 December 2010, § 125.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for the Home Office stated regarding a new bilateral extradition treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America:
The current UK-USA extradition treaty was agreed in 1972 and ratified in 1976 with supplementary provisions from 1986. It is outdated and can be significantly improved.
The new treaty reflects best modern practice in extradition. In particular, it provides that any crime attracting a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more in both the requesting and the requested state is extraditable rather than containing a list of offences which are extraditable, as the present treaty does. The advantage of that is that it encompasses offences, such as computer related crime, which did not exist when the 1972 treaty was drawn up.
The new treaty brings the evidential rules for requests from the United States into line with those for European countries and simplifies the procedures for the authentication of documents.
As with the existing treaty, the new treaty provides that in death penalty cases, extradition may be refused unless an assurance has been received that no death sentence will be carried out.
The new treaty also maintains the present position that political motivation cannot be used to block extradition in the case of terrorist or other violent crimes. The treaty stipulates that neither nationality nor statutes of limitations will be a bar to extradition.
The treaty also provides the standard speciality protection against onward extradition or surrender, and we have confirmed our understanding that this covers surrender to the International Criminal Court.
The United States is one of our key extradition partners and there is a significant volume of extradition business between the two countries. It is therefore important that our bilateral extradition treaty should be as effective as possible. I am pleased that it has been possible to reach agreement on the new treaty and that I have the opportunity in person to affirm our commitment to the closest possible co-operation in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Hansard, 31 March 2003, Vol. 402, Written Ministerial Statements, cols. 41WS–42WS.
Uzbekistan
In 2011, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Uzbekistan stated:
A person situated in Uzbekistan may be extradited in the following cases:
(a) If the act committed by that person is punishable under the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan with deprivation of liberty for at least 1 year or a more severe penalty, where the purpose of extradition is criminal prosecution;
(b) If the person whose extradition is sought has been sentenced to deprivation of liberty for at least 6 months or a more severe penalty;
(c) Where the foreign State requesting extradition guarantees that the person whose extradition it is requesting will be prosecuted only for the offence referred to in the request and, after the trial has ended and the sentence has been served, will be free to leave the territory of that State and will also not be deported, handed over or extradited to a third State without Uzbekistan’s consent, or subjected to torture, violence or other cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment, or be subject to the death penalty. 
Uzbekistan, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 29 February 2012, UN Doc. CAT/C/UZB/4, submitted 29 December 2011, § 211.
In the report, Uzbekistan also stated:
Pursuant to article 603 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extradition of a person situated in Uzbekistan to a foreign State is not permitted:
(a) Where the person sought is a national of Uzbekistan;
(b) Where the offence in connection with which extradition is sought was committed on Uzbek territory or against Uzbek interests outside Uzbek territory;
(c) Where a final sentence or court ruling or unrevoked decision of an authorized official not to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate them is in place in Uzbekistan in respect of the person sought and for the same act;
(d) Where the request is made on the grounds of an act that is not an offence under Uzbek law;
(e) Where, under Uzbek law, criminal proceedings may not be brought or must be terminated, or a sentence cannot be executed, owing to expiry of the statute of limitations or on other legal grounds;
(f) Where the person sought is prosecuted for the same act in Uzbekistan;
(g) Where the person sought has been granted asylum in Uzbekistan because of the possibility of persecution in the requesting State for reasons of race, religion, citizenship, ethnicity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 
Uzbekistan, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 29 February 2012, UN Doc. CAT/C/UZB/4, submitted 29 December 2011, § 225.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1946 on extradition and punishment of war criminals, the UN General Assembly:
recommends
that Members of the United Nations forthwith take all the necessary measures … to cause [war criminals who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in war crimes, crimes against peace and against humanity] to be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done, in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those countries;
and calls upon
the governments of States which are not Members of the United Nations also to take all necessary measures for the apprehension of such criminals in their respective territories with a view to their immediate removal to the countries in which the crimes were committed. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3 (I), 13 February 1946, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1947 on surrender of war criminals and traitors, the UN General Assembly
Recommends Members of the United Nations, which desire the surrender of alleged war criminals or traitors (that is to say nationals of any State accused of having violated their national law by treason or active collaboration with the enemy during the war) by other Members in whose jurisdiction they are believed to be, to request surrender as soon as possible and to support their request with sufficient evidence to establish that a reasonable prima facie case exists as to identity and guilt. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 170 (II), 31 October 1947, voting record: 42-7-6-2.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1969 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the … extradition and punishment of persons responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity … constitute an important element in the prevention of such crimes, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the encouragement of confidence, the furtherance of co-operation among peoples, and the promotion of international peace and security. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2583 (XXIV), 15 December 1969, preamble, voting record: 74-5-32-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly stated:
Convinced that … the … extradition and punishment or persons guilty of [war crimes and crimes against humanity] – wherever they may have been committed – … are important elements in the prevention of similar crimes now and in the future, and also in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the strengthening of confidence and the development of co-operation between peoples, and the safeguarding of international peace and security,
2. Calls upon States to take measures, in accordance with recognized principles of international law, to arrest such persons and extradite them to the countries where they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so that they can be brought to trail and punished in accordance with the laws of those countries. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2712 (XXV), 15 December 1970, preamble and § 2, voting record: 55-4-33-35.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly:
Urges all States to implement the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and to take measures in accordance with international law … to ensure the punishment of all persons guilty of [war crimes and crimes against humanity], including their extradition to those countries where they have committed such crimes. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2840 (XXVI), 18 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 71-0-42-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1973 on principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly declared:
The United Nations, in pursuance of the principles and purposes set forth in the Charter concerning the promotion of co-operation between peoples and the maintenance of international peace and security, proclaims the following principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity:
5. Persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if found guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in the country in which they have committed those crimes. In that connexion, States shall co-operate on questions of extraditing such persons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3074 (XXVIII), 3 December 1973, preamble and § 5, voting record: 94-0-29-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the UN General Assembly called upon “States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to fulfil their obligation to submit for prosecution or extradite those alleged to have committed acts of torture”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/148, 18 December 2007, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1988 on prosecution and punishment of all war criminals and persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Noting with satisfaction the spirit of co-operation shown by several Member States in facilitating the extradition of war criminals who, in the aftermath of the Second World War, attempted to elude responsibility for their deeds by taking refuge in other countries,
Welcoming the interest shown in this problem by numerous Member States regarding alleged war criminals residing in their territories and the assistance given by other Member States in providing evidence making possible the extradition and prosecution of such individuals. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/47, 8 March 1988, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution on impunity adopted in 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizes that crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture are violations of international law and that perpetrators of such crimes should be prosecuted or extradited by States, and urges all States to take effective measures to implement their obligations to prosecute or extradite perpetrators of such crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2002/79, 25 April 2002, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of the death penalty, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Requests States that have received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that capital punishment will not be carried out. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/67, 24 April 2003, § 7, voting record: 23-18-10.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizes that crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture are violations of international law and that perpetrators of such crimes should be prosecuted or extradited by States, and urges all States to take effective measures to implement their obligations to prosecute or extradite perpetrators of such crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/72, 25 April 2003, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of the death penalty, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Requests States that have received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that capital punishment will not be carried out, and calls upon States to provide such effective assurances if requested to do so. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/67, 21 April 2004, § 7, voting record: 29-19-5.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizes that States must prosecute or extradite perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture in accordance with their international obligations, and urges all States to take effective measures to implement these obligations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/72, 21 April 2004, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the question of the death penalty, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Requests States that have received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that the death penalty will not be carried out, and calls upon States to provide such effective assurances if requested to do so, and to respect them. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/59, 20 April 2005, § 10, voting record: 26-17-10.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizes that States must prosecute or extradite perpetrators, including accomplices, of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture in accordance with their international obligations in order to bring them to justice, and urges all States to take effective measures to implement these obligations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/81, 21 April 2005, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights:
Urges all Governments to implement the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies and to take measures in accordance with international law to … ensure the punishment of all persons found guilty of [war crimes and crimes against humanity], or their extradition to those countries where they have committed such crimes, even when there is no treaty to facilitate that task. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/22, 16 August 2001, § 5.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
Human Rights Watch
In 1994, in a report on Ethiopia, Human Rights Watch noted:
The SPO [Special Prosecutor’s Office] believes that some 300 government and military officials fled Ethiopia when the Mengistu regime collapsed. Other Dergue officials guilty of human rights violations may have left the country earlier, having fallen out of favor with the regime. The SPO has investigated the whereabouts of at least sixty fugitive officials. The largest number of fugitives are believed to be in the United States and Kenya, with others in Europe and Djibouti … Ethiopia does not have extradition treaties in force with the countries where the fugitives are believed to be. 
Human Rights Watch, Reckoning under the Law, Series Human Rights Watch/Africa, Vol. 6, No. 11, New York, December 1994, p. 16.
Extradition Treaty between Peru and France
Article 1 of the 1874 Extradition Treaty between Peru and France provides:
The Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Republic of Peru undertake by the present Convention, to surrender to each other persons taken refuge in France and in the French colonies from Peru, and taken refuge in Peru from France and the French colonies, with the exception of their own nationals, who are charged or have been convicted as perpetrators or accomplices, by the competent courts for the offences listed in section 2 below.
If the extradition of the person sought is not possible because of his nationality, the Government of the country where the crime was committed will facilitate the communication of all the available evidence to the proceedings that may be initiated at the country of origin.
The extradition request must always be made through diplomatic channels. 
Extradition Treaty between Peru and France, Paris, 30 September 1874, Article 1.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Spain
Articles 1 and 3 of the 1881 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Spain provides:
Article 1. The Government of Argentina and the Government of Spain agree by this Treaty to the reciprocal surrender of individuals taken refuge from one of the two countries in the other, who were convicted or indicted by the competent courts, as perpetrators or accomplices of the crimes listed in the following article.
Article 3. The extradition obligation does not extend under any circumstances to nationals of the two countries. However, the High Contracting Parties undertake to prosecute and indict, according to the law, their respective nationals who commit offences against the laws of one of the two States, after the State Government whose laws have been violated submits a formal request by diplomatic or consular means, if those violations can be classified in a category referred to in article 2. The application shall be accompanied by objects, records, documents and other necessary information, proceeding as if the claimant country authorities had to qualify the crime themselves. In such a case, records and documents will be made free, but prosecution is not to be initiated in the courts of the country of the nationals of the High Contracting Parties, if he has been indicted and tried for the same crime in the territory where the incident occurred, although he has been acquitted.  
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Spain, Buenos Aires, 7 May 1881, Articles 1 and 3.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Belgium
Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the 1886 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Belgium provides:
Article 1. The Government of Argentina and the Belgian Government agree to the mutual surrender of individuals prosecuted, charged or convicted as perpetrators or accomplices to the crimes or offences set forth in Article 2 and who are refugees in the other State.
Article 3. Extradition shall not take place: 1. When the person sought is a citizen by birth or naturalization.
Article 4. In cases where, according to the provisions of this Treaty, extradition should not be agreed, the person sought shall be tried, if appropriate, by the courts of the requested country in accordance with its laws, and this country shall communicate the final decision to the requesting Government. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Belgium, Brussels, 12 August 1886, Articles 1, 3 and 4.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United Kingdom
Articles 1 and 3 of the 1889 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United Kingdom provides:
Article 1. – The High Contracting Parties agree to surrender to each other in the circumstances and conditions set forth in this Treaty, persons who are accused or convicted of any crime or crimes listed in Article II, committed in the territory of the other State.
Article 3. – Each of the two High Contracting Parties reserves the right to deny or grant the request of his own subjects or citizens. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United Kingdom, Buenos Aires, 22 May 1889, Articles 1 and 3.
Montevideo Treaty on International Criminal Law
Under Article 20 of the 1889 Montevideo Treaty on International Criminal Law concluded between Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay, extradition is granted regardless of the nationality of the person for whom it is requested. 
Treaty on International Criminal Law concluded between Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay, Montevideo, 23 January 1889, Article 20.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the Netherlands
Articles 1, 3 and 7 of the 1893 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the Netherlands provides:
Article 1. The High Contracting Parties agree, under the conditions set forth in this Treaty, to the mutual surrender of individuals prosecuted, or convicted of any of the crimes listed in Article 2 and who have taken refuge in the other State.
Article 3. Extradition shall not take place: 1. When the person sought is a citizen by birth or naturalization.
Article 7. In cases where, according to the provisions of this Treaty, extradition should not be agreed, the person sought shall be tried, if appropriate, by the courts of the requested country in accordance with its laws and this country shall communicate the final decision to the requesting Government. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the Netherlands, Buenos Aires, 7 September 1893, Articles 1, 3 and 7.
Extradition Treaty between Peru and the United Kingdom
Articles I and III of the 1904 Extradition Treaty between Peru and the United Kingdom provides:
Article I. The high contracting parties mutually agree to surrender, in accordance with the provisions of this treaty, all those persons who are accused or convicted in one of the two countries, of one or more offences specified in the following article, found in the territory of the other.
Article III. Each of the High Contracting Parties reserves the right to grant or deny the delivery of their own subjects or citizens. 
Extradition Treaty between Peru and the United Kingdom, Lima, 26 January 1904, Articles I and III.
Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru
Article 1 of the 1919 Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru provides: “The High Contracting Parties are obliged to reciprocally hand over criminals of whatever nationality, including their own nationals.” 
Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru, Rio de Janeiro, 13 February 1919, Article 1.
Treaty of Versailles
Article 228 of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles provides:
The German Government shall hand over to the Allied and Associated Powers, or to such one of them as shall so request, all persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war, who are specified either by name or by the rank, office or employment which they held under the German authorities. 
Treaty of Versailles, Versailles, 28 June 1919, Article 228.
In the end, however, the German Government refused to extradite its nationals. Instead, prosecutions were instituted before the court of Leipzig. 
M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992, pp. 200 and 201.
Bustamante Code
Article 345 of the 1928 Bustamante Code – a convention on private international law concluded between 21 States of South, Central and North America – provides: “The States parties are not obliged to extradite their own nationals.” However, the same provision states that a State which refuses to extradite is obliged to try the individual. 
Convention on International Private Law, adopted at the 4th Pan-American Conference, Havana, 20 February 1928, Article 345.
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Chile
Articles 1 and 4 of the 1932 Extradition Treaty between Peru and Chile provides:
Article 1. The High Contracting Parties mutually agree to surrender criminals of any nationality, who have taken refuge in their territories or in transit through them, provided that the requesting country has jurisdiction to hear and decide the offence for which the request is made.
Article 4. The High Contracting Parties agree that it is not required to extradite its own nationals. In this case, the petitioned government must provide the criminal prosecution requested, under its own criminal law, as if the offence had been perpetrated in its own territory. The decision or final resolution of the case to rule, shall be communicated to the Government who required the extradition. 
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Chile, Lima, 5 November 1932, Articles 1 and 4.
Inter-American Convention on Extradition
Article 7(1) of the 1933 Inter-American Convention on Extradition provides: “The nationality of the person sought may not be invoked as a ground for denying extradition, except when the law of the requested State otherwise provides.” 
Inter-American Convention on Extradition, Montevideo, 26 December 1933, Article 7(1).
European Convention on Extradition
Article 6(1)(a) of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides: “A Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals.” However, Article 6(2) provides: “If the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate.” 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 6(1)(a) and (2).
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America
Articles 1 and 3 of the 1972 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America provides:
Article 1. The parties agree to extradite on a reciprocal basis, under the provisions of this Treaty, persons whom the authorities of the Requesting State have charged or convicted of an extraditable offence.
Article 3. The extradition and surrender of the person sought shall not be refused on the ground that he or she is a national of the Requested Party. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America, Washington, D.C., 21 January 1972, superseded by the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America, Articles 1 and 3.
Extradition Treaty between Uruguay and the United States
Article 4 of the 1973 Extradition Treaty between Uruguay and the United States provides: “The Requested Party will not refuse the request for extradition on the ground that the person is a national of the Requested Party.” 
Treaty on Extradition and Co-operation in Penal Matters between Uruguay and the United States of America, Washington, D.C., 6 April 1973, Article 4.
OAU Convention against Mercenarism
Article 7 of the 1977 OAU Convention against Mercenarism provides:
2. When a national is the subject of the request for extradition, the State from which it is sought must, if it refuses, undertake prosecution of the offence committed.
3. If, in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of this Article, prosecution is undertaken, the State from which extradition is sought will notify the outcome of such prosecution to the state seeking extradition and to any other interested Member State of the Organization of African Unity. 
Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa, adopted by the OAU Council of Ministers at its 29th Session, Res. 817 (XXIX), Libreville, 3 July 1977, OAU Doc. CM/817 (XXIX) Annex II Rev.3, 1977, Article 7.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Italy
Articles 1 and 4 of the 1987 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Italy provides:
ARTICLE 1. Each Party undertakes to deliver to the other party, according to the rules and in conformity with the conditions provided for in this Treaty, persons that are in its territory and which are subject to criminal proceedings or are wanted for the execution of a sentence or of a security measure by the judicial authority of the other Party.…
ARTICLE 4. Each Party may refuse extradition of its own national. It shall be taken into account the nationality of the person sought at the time of the decision on the extradition request. In the case of refusal of extradition, the requested Party is obliged, at the demand of the Requesting Party, to submit the case to the competent authorities to open a possible criminal trial. To this end, the requesting Party shall provide procedural documentation and any other useful information in its possession.
The requested Party shall promptly communicate the outcome of the procedure. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Italy, Rome, 9 December 1987, Articles 1 and 4. See already 1886 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Italy.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Australia
Articles 1 and 3(2) of the 1988 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Australia provides:
Article 1. Each Contracting Party undertakes to deliver to the other, according to the provisions of this Treaty, any person sought to be processed or for the imposition or execution of a sentence in the requesting State for a crime that warrants extradition.
Article 3 (2). Extradition may be refused under any of the following circumstances:
a) If the person whose extradition is requested is a national of the requested State. If the requested State refuses to extradite a national, if its laws permit so and, if so requested by the other State, it shall submit the case to the competent authorities to enable them to prosecute that person, for any or all the crimes that motivated the extradition request. 
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and Australia, Buenos Aires, 6 October 1988, Articles 1 and 3(2).
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Italy
Articles 2, 5 and 7 of the 1994 Extradition Treaty between Peru and Italy provides:
Article 2. Jurisdiction.
1. In order for an extradition to proceed, it is required that the offence that motivates the request was committed in the territory of the requesting State.
2. When the offence for which the extradition is requested was committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, extradition shall be granted if the requesting State has jurisdiction over the offence for which the extradition is requested and to pronounce a verdict accordingly.
Article 5. Optional rejection of the extradition.
Extradition may be refused:
a. If on the date on which the request is received, the person sought is a citizen of the requested Party;
Article 7. Prosecution established in the required State.
1. In case of refusal of extradition on the grounds mentioned in … paragraph a) of Article 5 …, the requested Party, if the other party so requests, shall submit the case to the competent authorities for the possible initiation of a criminal procedure. For this purpose, the requesting party must provide procedural documentation and any other useful element in their possession.
2. The requested Party shall immediately notify the other Party, on the measures taken in relation with the application and the outcome of any procedure in place. 
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Italy, Rome, 24 November 1994, Articles 2, 5 and 7.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States
Article 3 of the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States provides: “The extradition and surrender of the person sought shall not be refused on the ground that such person is a national of the Requested Party.” 
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Argentina and the United States of America, Buenos Aires, 10 June 1997, Article 3.
No data.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that nationals would be tried in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the request of a foreign country if reliable evidence of serious violations of IHL were provided. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, Point 35.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1997) provides that if the person for whom extradition is sought has been an Argentine national since the time the crime was committed (and is still an Argentine national at the time of the option), such person may opt to be tried by Argentine courts, unless a treaty obliging the extradition of its nationals applies. If the Argentine national chooses to exercise this right, extradition is denied and the case is tried in Argentina under Argentine penal law, so long as the requesting State gives its consent and renounces its jurisdiction, and hands over the relevant records and evidence. 
Argentina, Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1997, Article 12.
Armenia
Armenia’s Penal Code (2003) provides: “The citizens of the Republic of Armenia who have committed a crime in another State are not extradited to that State.” 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 16(1).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Procedure Code (2003) states that a requirement for extradition includes “that a person whose extradition has been requested is not a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, Article 415(1)(a).
Brazil
Brazil’s Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners (1980), as amended in 1981, states: “Extradition shall not be granted when: I- the person sought is Brazilian, except in case the nationality was acquired after the [commission of the] act which motivates the [extradition] request.” 
Brazil, Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, 1980, as amended in 1981, Article 77(I).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Criminal Procedure Code (2005) provides: “Except where otherwise provided by law, no Cameroonian citizen may be extradited.” 
Cameroon, Criminal Procedure Code, 2005, Section 644.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Penal Procedure Code (2010) states: “Extradition is not granted: … [i]f the requested individual is a Central African national at the time when the offence, for which the request was made, was committed”. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Article 382(1).
Chile
According to the Report on the Practice of Chile (1997), Chilean law does not, in general, prohibit the extradition of Chilean nationals. 
Report on the Practice of Chile, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
Colombia
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states:
Extradition may be requested, conceded or offered in accordance with the public treaties and, failing this, with the law.
Moreover, the extradition of Colombians who are nationals by birth must be conceded for crimes committed abroad and considered as crimes under Colombian criminal legislation.
The extradition of Colombians who are nationals by birth must not proceed for acts committed before 17 December 1997. 
Colombia, Criminal Procedure Code, 2004, Article 490.
The Code also states:
Conditions for offering or conceding [extradition]. The government may make the offer of or grant extradition subject to conditions which it considers opportune. In any case it must require that the person requested to be extradited will not be tried for a crime different from the one for which extradition was sought and will not be submitted to sanctions that differ from those imposed on him or her by the sentence.
If under the legislation of the state requesting the extradition, the crime which prompts the extradition is punished with the death penalty, the person sought may only be handed over under the condition that the death sentence be commuted and under the condition that the person to be extradited will not be subjected to enforced disappearance, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor to forced exile, indefinite imprisonment or confiscation. 
Colombia, Criminal Procedure Code, 2004, Article 494.
[emphasis in original]
Croatia
Croatia’s Constitution (1990) and Code of Criminal Procedure (1993) prohibit the extradition of a Croatian national. 
Croatia, Constitution, 1990, Article 9(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993, Article 13.
Georgia
Georgia’s Constitution (1995) provides: “The extradition of a citizen of Georgia to another State is prohibited, except in cases provided for by international agreements. A decision on extradition may be appealed in court.” 
Georgia, Constitution, 1995, Article 13(4).
Germany
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982) states:
§ 2 Principle
(1) A foreign person who, in a foreign State, is prosecuted or has been convicted for an offence punishable in that State, can, on the request of a competent authority, be extradited to that State …
(3) Foreign persons in the terms of this law are persons who are not German nationals in the meaning of Article 116 paragraph 3 of the Basic Law [of the Federal Republic of Germany]. 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, § 2(1) and (3).
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982), as amended in 2006, states:
Part One – Scope of Application
§ 1 Scope of application
(1) Legal assistance in criminal matters with foreign countries is based on this law.
(3) Provisions of international agreements, insofar as they have become directly applicable domestic law, have priority over the provisions of this law.
(4) Assistance for proceedings in criminal law matters with a Member State of the European Union is based on this law. Paragraph 3 is applied with the proviso that Part Eight of this law has priority over the international agreements mentioned there. The international agreements mentioned in paragraph 3 and the provisions on legal assistance without treaty of this law remain applicable in a subsidiary manner, insofar as Part Eight does not contain final provisions.
Part Eight – Assistance to Member States of the European Union
§ 80 Extradition of German nationals
(1) Extradition of a German national for the purpose of prosecution is permissible only, if
1. it is ensured that, after pronouncement of a final custodial sentence or another sanction, the Member State seeking extradition will, at the request of the wanted person, offer to transfer that person back into the area of application of this law for the enforcement of the sentence, and
2. the offence has a significant link to the Member State seeking extradition.
(2) If the conditions of paragraph 1, sentence 1, No. 2 are not fulfilled, extradition of a German national for the purpose of prosecution is permissible only if
1. the conditions of paragraph 1, sentence 1, No. 1 are fulfilled, and the offence
2. has no significant link to [Germany], and
3. the offence is unlawful also according to German law …, and if, in a concrete weighting of the conflicting interests, the legitimate expectation of the wanted person not to be extradited does not prevail.
(3) Extradition of a German national for the purpose of enforcement of a sentence is permissible only if the wanted person, after information and recorded by a judge, consents to it. 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, as amended in 2006, Sections 1(1) and (3)–(4 ) and 80(1)–(3).
Iraq
Iraq’s Constitution (2006) states: “No Iraqi shall be surrendered to foreign entities and authorities.” 
Iraq, Constitution, 2006, Article 21(1).
Ireland
Ireland’s Extradition Act (1965), as amended in 1994, provides: “Extradition shall not be granted where a person claimed is a citizen of Ireland, unless the relevant extradition provisions otherwise provide.” 
Ireland, Extradition Act, 1965, as amended in 1994, Section 14.
Japan
Japan’s Law on Extradition (1953), as amended in 2004, states:
A fugitive shall not be surrendered in any of the following circumstances … [unless] the treaty of extradition provides otherwise:
(9) When the fugitive is a Japanese national. 
Japan, Law on Extradition, 1953, as amended in 2004, Article 2.1(9).
Lithuania
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, provides: “Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be extradited to foreign states for committing offences.” 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 7.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Extradition Law (1967) states:
6. Requests for surrender, and powers of Attorney-General thereon
(3) Except in so far as an extradition agreement in force between Nigeria and the requesting country otherwise provides, the Attorney-General may refuse to make an order under this section in respect of any fugitive criminal who is a citizen of Nigeria. 
Nigeria, Extradition Act, 1967, Article 6(3).
Portugal
Portugal’s Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1999), as amended in 2001, provides:
1. Extradition shall be excluded … in the following cases:
a) where the offence was committed on Portuguese territory;
b) where the person claimed is a Portuguese national, without prejudice to the provisions of the following paragraph.
2. The extradition of Portuguese nationals shall however not be excluded where:
a) extradition of nationals is provided for in a treaty, convention or agreement to which Portugal is a Party, and
b) extradition is sought for offences of terrorism or international organized crime, and the legal system of the requesting State embodies guarantees of a fair trial. 
Portugal, Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1999, as amended in 2001, Article 32.
Russian Federation
Under the Russian Federation’s Constitution (1993), the extradition of Russian citizens is prohibited. 
Russian Federation, Constitution, 1993, Article 61.
The Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996) also provides that Russian citizens who have committed crimes in the territory of a foreign State shall not be extradited to that State. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 13.
Rwanda
Under Rwanda’s Penal Code (1977), Rwandan nationals cannot be extradited. 
Rwanda, Penal Code, 1977, Article 16.
Senegal
Senegal’s Law on Extradition (1971) states:
The extradition is not accorded:
(1) if the individual who is subject to the request is a Senegalese national and their nationality is recognized at the time of the offence for which extradition is sought. 
Senegal, Law on Extradition, 1971, Article 5(1).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Extradition Act (1974) states:
PART II—SPECIAL PROVISIONS TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
20. Discretion as to return of citizens, etc.
(1) No extradition shall be granted without the consent of the Attorney-General if the fugitive criminal whose return is requested is a citizen or permanent resident of Sierra Leone, unless the fugitive criminal is also a national of that part of the Commonwealth to which his return is requested. 
Sierra Leone, Extradition Act, 1974, Section 20(1).
Spain
Spain’s Law on Passive Extradition (1985) provides: “Extradition of Spanish nationals will not be granted.” 
Spain, Law on Passive Extradition, 1985, Article 3(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance (1981), as amended to 2010, states:
1. No Swiss national may, without his written consent, be extradited or surrendered to a foreign State for prosecution or for the execution of a sentence. Consent may be withdrawn up to the time when the surrender is ordered.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply to transit or return of a Swiss national who is temporarily surrendered by a third State to the Swiss authorities. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 7.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Constitution (1994), as amended to 2003, states: “No citizen of the Republic shall be extradited to a foreign state.” 
Tajikistan, Constitution, 1994, as amended to 2003, Article 16.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Code on the Execution of Criminal Penalties (2001) states:
Article 6. Application of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Penalties of the Republic of Tajikistan with regard to persons sentenced by courts of a foreign State
Citizens of the Republic of Tajikistan … sentenced by courts of a foreign State may be extradited to the Republic of Tajikistan for execution and further serving of a sentence in accordance with the international legal acts recognized by the Republic of Tajikistan.
Article 7. Extradition of persons sentenced by courts of the Republic of Tajikistan
1. Citizens of the Republic of Tajikistan sentenced by courts of the Republic of Tajikistan shall not be subject to extradition under any conditions. 
Tajikistan, Code on the Execution of Criminal Penalties, 2001, Articles 6–7(1).
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act (2010) states: “The extradition of a person from the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan to a foreign State is not allowed if … the person in respect of whom the request is made is a citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan”. 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2010, Article 603.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
A Venezuelan national may not be extradited for any reason whatsoever, but he or she shall be tried in Venezuela upon request by the victim or the Office of the Prosecutor if the act of which the person is accused is punishable under Venezuelan law. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 6.
Yemen
Under Yemen’s Constitution (1994), as amended, the extradition of nationals is prohibited. 
Yemen, Constitution as amended, 1994, Article 44.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Constitution (1992), as amended in 2000, provides that a Yugoslav citizen “may not be … deported from the country, or extradited to another state”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Constitution, 1992, as amended in 2000, Article 17(3).
Ukraine
In the Rome Statute case in 2001, the President of Ukraine made a submission to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine claiming that certain provisions of the 1998 ICC Statute were not in conformity with the Ukrainian Constitution. With regard to the legality of surrendering Ukrainian nationals to the ICC, the Constitutional Court stated:
2.3. Pursuant to part two of Article 25 of Ukraine’s Constitution, a citizen of Ukraine may not be extradited to another state.
Item 1 of Article 89 of the [1998 ICC] Statute stipulates that the International Criminal Court may submit a request for arrest and transfer of a person together with corresponding materials to any state on which territory the person stays, and address this state with a request for cooperation in arrest and transfer. Participating states, according to procedure stipulated by their national legislation, execute such a request.
[The President of Ukraine] considers that this provision of the Statute contradicts the aforementioned provision of Article 25 of Ukraine’s Constitution.
In his opinion, item 3 of Article 107 of the Statute does not comply with either, as the state enforcing a sentence may, pursuant to its legislation, extradite or otherwise surrender the person into the jurisdiction of a state which addressed it with a request to extradite or to surrender this person with the purpose of judicial prosecution or execution of sentence.
Analysis of provisions of Ukraine’s Constitution, the Statute and other materials of the case, as well as familiarization with special literature and international legal practice, provide grounds for Ukraine’s Constitutional Court to ascertain:
2.3.1. Terms “extradite” and “surrender” in general understanding of their application are considered often as synonyms, but in international legal documents and special literature they are understood with different sense of meaning, thus making their legal nature not identical.
Therefore, the international legal documents and special literature consider that delivery of a person to another equally sovereign state differs in principle from delivery of a person to the Court, established pursuant to international law with participation and agreement of interested states.
The first one is referred to in international legal terminology by the term “extradition” (from latin, ex: from, beyond; tradition: to transfer), and the letter by the term “surrender”.
The Statute also complies with this international legal practice, pursuant to its Article 102, “surrender” signifies the delivery of a person by a state to the Court, while “extradition” means the delivery of a person of one state to another state pursuant to provisions of international agreement, convention or national legislation.
2.3.2. According to part two of Article 25 of Ukraine’s Constitution, the extradition of Ukraine’s citizens to another state is prohibited. Therefore this prohibition concerns only national and not international jurisdiction. It aims to guarantee unbiased judicial review and justice and lawfulness of punishment for its citizens.
The International Criminal Court cannot be equated to a foreign court, as it is established, as stated before, with the participation and by agreement of participating states on the basis of international, not national law.
The purpose behind the prohibition to extradite citizens of one state to another is fulfilled in the International Criminal Court by applying the relevant provisions of the Statute that have been developed (or agreed) by the participating states. These provisions are based on international human rights treaties, by which Ukraine has already agreed to be bound.
2.3.3. Therefore the constitutional provisions related to the prohibition on extradition of citizens of Ukraine (even in case of a wide interpretation of the term “extradition”) should not be considered separately from the international and legal obligations of Ukraine.
Thus, it is necessary to consider the complementarity principle, stated in the Statute (Article 17), which stipulates that if national jurisdiction is being exercised with regard to persons who are guilty of committing the most serious international crimes, then the International Criminal Court should not exercise to them its own jurisdiction, therefore, the issue will not arise of their transfer to the International Criminal Court. 
Ukraine, Constitutional Court, Opinion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case of the constitutional submission by the President of Ukraine on issuing opinion related to compliance of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Constitution of Ukraine, Case No 1-35/2001, 11 July 2001, §§ 2.3–3.3.
Austria
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Austria stated that “it was a principle recognized in international law that States were not bound to consent to the extradition of their own nationals”. 
Austria, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1570, 14 October 1968, § 22.
Belgium
In 1973, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, Belgium noted that Belgian law prohibited the extradition of Belgian nationals. 
Belgium, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2022, 9 November 1973, § 40.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Revocation of Citizenship
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada], DOJ [Department of Justice] and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] work closely together in citizenship revocation cases and have several legal remedies at their disposal including criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and civil proceedings under the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] or the Citizenship Act. CIC has 18 active modern-day war crimes cases to review for possible revocation of citizenship and one of the cases, Mr. Branko Rogan, is presently before the Federal Court.
The DOJ continues to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War. During the fiscal year 2007– 2008, 17 Second World War files were under active investigation, 145 initial allegations related to the Second World War were being examined and 74 files have been concluded because the individuals never entered Canada, have left Canada, have since passed away or because there was lack of evidence to justify pursuing legal action.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001. The hearing concluded on September 15, 2006, with the judge reserving his decision. On November 13, 2007, the Federal Court concluded that Mr. Seifert obtained entry to Canada and Canadian citizenship through misrepresentation and by knowingly concealing his place of birth, his association with the security police and his activities as a camp guard. On May 24, 2007, the Government of Canada announced that the Governor in Council had revoked Mr. Helmut Oberlander’s citizenship. Mr. Oberlander has commenced a judicial review application of this decision before the Federal Court. The Government of Canada also announced the revocation of citizenship of Mr. Jacob Fast on the same day. Due to the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses and the challenges of gathering evidence, criminal prosecution is no longer a viable remedy for Second World War cases.
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
Italy requested the extradition of Michael Seifert, who was convicted in absentia by an Italian Military Tribunal in November 2000 for war crimes related to the Second World War. Mr. Seifert was surrendered to Italy in February 2008. Citizenship revocation proceedings against Mr. Seifert are ongoing. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp 2–6.
[footnote in original omitted]
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated: “Under article 447 of the Criminal Code, no extradition is permitted … [w]hen the person who is the subject of the request is of Chadian nationality”.  
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, § 188.
Chile
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Chile stated: “The principle whereby the requested State was not bound to accede to the extradition of its own nationals was recognized by only a minority of States in international law.” 
Chile, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1570, 14 October 1968, § 27.
Djibouti
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Djibouti stated: “Extradition treaties … provide for exceptional cases in which, for obvious reasons, States parties, following Djibouti’s example, do not extradite their respective nationals.” 
Djibouti, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 18 January 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/DJI/1, submitted 21 July 2010, § 86.
Mongolia
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Mongolia declared:
In regard of Article 88, paragraph 2 of the Additional Protocol to the Protection of Victims in the International Armed Conflicts (“Protocol I”) which states [that] “The High Contracting Parties shall co-operate in the matter of extradition”, the Mongolian law which prohibits deprivation and extradition of its citizens from Mongolia shall be respected. 
Mongolia, Reservation made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 6 December 1995.
Senegal
In 2011, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Senegal stated:
I. Information on new measures and new developments relating to the implementation of the [1984] Convention [against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]
Article 7 of the Convention
Paragraph 1
121. As a general rule, extradition is regulated in Senegal by Act No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971. Article 5 of this law lists the cases in which extradition shall not be granted:
(1) When the subject of the request is a Senegalese national and was recognized as such at the time of the commission of the offence for which extradition is requested[.] 
Senegal, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 October 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/SEN/3, submitted 9 February 2011, § 121.
Tajikistan
In 2010, in its second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Tajikistan stated: “Tajik citizens sentenced by Tajik courts may under no circumstances be extradited to another country.” 
Tajikistan, Second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 16 March 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/TJK/2, submitted 16 December 2010, § 137.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for the Home Office stated regarding a new bilateral extradition treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America:
The new treaty also maintains the present position that political motivation cannot be used to block extradition in the case of terrorist or other violent crimes. The treaty stipulates that neither nationality nor statutes of limitations will be a bar to extradition. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Hansard, 31 March 2003, Vol. 402, Written Ministerial Statements, cols. 41WS–42WS.
Uzbekistan
In 2011, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Uzbekistan stated:
Pursuant to article 603 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extradition of a person situated in Uzbekistan to a foreign State is not permitted:
(a) Where the person sought is a national of Uzbekistan. 
Uzbekistan, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 29 February 2012, UN Doc. CAT/C/UZB/4, submitted 29 December 2011, § 225.
In the report, Uzbekistan also stated: “No national of Uzbekistan may be extradited for an offence committed in a foreign State except where international treaties or agreements provide otherwise.” 
Uzbekistan, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 29 February 2012, UN Doc. CAT/C/UZB/4, submitted 29 December 2011, § 255.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru
Article IV of the 1919 Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru provides that “extradition for political offences” shall not take place. Under the same provision, “acts committed during insurrection or civil war” are not extraditable offences, unless they constitute “barbarous acts or acts of vandalism prohibited by the laws of war”. 
Extradition Treaty between Brazil and Peru, Rio de Janeiro, 13 February 1919, Article IV.
Genocide Convention
Article VII of the 1948 Genocide Convention provides:
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force. 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 260 A (III), 9 December 1948, Article VII.
European Convention on Extradition
Article 3(1) of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence.” 
European Convention on Extradition, Paris, 13 December 1957, Article 3(1).
Extradition Treaty between Venezuela and Chile
Article 4(5) of the 1962 Extradition Treaty between Venezuela and Chile provides: “In no case may genocide [and] acts of terrorism … be considered political crimes.” 
Extradition Treaty between Venezuela and Chile, Santiago de Chile, 2 June 1962, Article 4(5).
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
Article XI of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid provides that practices of apartheid “shall not be considered political crimes for the purpose of extradition”. 
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 3068 (XXVIII), 30 November 1973, Article XI.
Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition
Article 1 of the 1975 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition specifies:
For the application of Article 3 of the Convention, political offences shall not be considered to include the following:
a. the crimes against humanity specified in the [1948 Genocide Convention];
b. the violations specified in Article 50 of [the 1949 Geneva Convention I], Article 51 of [the 1949 Geneva Convention II], Article 130 of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] and Article 147 of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV];
c. any comparable violations of the laws of war having effect at the time when this Protocol enters into force and of customs of war existing at that time, which are not already provided for in the above-mentioned provisions of the Geneva Conventions. 
Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, Strasbourg, 15 October 1975, Article 1.
Extradition Treaty between Spain and Argentina
Article 5(1) of the 1987 Extradition Treaty between Spain and Argentina stipulates: “Extradition shall not be granted for political offences or offences related to offences of such a nature.” It provides, however, that “b) acts of terrorism [and] c) war crimes and crimes which are committed against the peace and security of mankind” shall not be considered political crimes. 
Treaty between Spain and the Argentine Republic on Extradition and Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters, Buenos Aires, 3 March 1987, Article 5(1).
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Spain
According to Article 5 of the 1989 Extradition Treaty between Peru and Spain, extradition shall not be granted “with regard to offences considered to be political or connected with offences of such a nature”. It provides, however, that “in no case shall … b) acts of terrorism, c) war crimes and crimes committed against the peace and security of mankind” be deemed political offences. 
Extradition Treaty between Peru and Spain, Madrid, 28 June 1989, Article 5.
Extradition Treaty between Chile and Spain
Article 5(1) of the 1992 Extradition Treaty between Chile and Spain provides: “Extradition shall not be granted for political offences or offences related to offences of such a nature.” It provides, however, that “b) acts of terrorism [and] c) war crimes and crimes which are committed against the peace and security of mankind, in conformity with international law” shall in no case be considered political crimes. 
Treaty on Extradition and Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters between Chile and Spain, Santiago de Chile, 14 April 1992, Article 5(1).
Extradition Treaty between Australia and Chile
Article IV(1) of the 1993 Extradition Treaty between Australia and Chile provides:
Extradition shall not be granted: … if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence … To the effect of this paragraph, reference to political offences does not include: … b) war crimes and crimes committed against the peace and security of mankind, in conformity with international law. 
Extradition Treaty between Australia and Chile, Canberra, 6 October 1993, Article IV(1).
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons
Article V of the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons provides that “the forced disappearance of persons shall not be considered a political offense for purposes of extradition” and “shall be deemed to be included among the extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty entered into between States Parties”. 
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted by the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly, Res. 1256 (XXIV-O/94), Belém do Pará, 9 June 1994, Article V.
Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America
Article 4 of the 1997 Extradition Treaty between Argentina and the United States of America provides:
1. Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.
2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the following offenses shall not be considered to be political offenses:
(b) an offense for which both Parties have the obligation, pursuant to a multilateral international agreement on genocide, acts of terrorism, … or other crimes, to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution;
3. Notwithstanding the terms of paragraph 2 of this Article, extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.
4. The Requested State may refuse extradition for offenses under military law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law. 
Extradition Treaty between the Republic of Argentina and the United States of America, Buenos Aires, 10 June 1997, Article 4.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 20 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, concerning “Grounds for refusal” of extradition and mutual legal assistance, which, according to its Article 22(1), also applies to armed conflicts not of an international character, provides:
1. For the purpose of extradition, offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c), and for the purpose of mutual legal assistance, offences set forth in Article 15 shall not be regarded as political offences nor as offences connected with political offences nor as offences inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or for mutual legal assistance based on such offences may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.
2. Nothing in this Protocol shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite or to afford mutual legal assistance if the requested Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) or for mutual legal assistance with respect to offences set forth in Article 15 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any of these reasons. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 20.
Convention on Enforced Disappearance
The 2006 Convention on Enforced Disappearance provides:
Recalling … relevant international instruments in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law,
Article 13
1. For the purposes of extradition between States Parties, the offence of enforced disappearance shall not be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition based on such an offence may not be refused on these grounds alone. 
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by UN General Assembly Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Preamble and Article 13(1).
No data.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states with respect to the prosecution of alleged war criminals:
If the Party concerned does not institute proceedings against offenders, it may, subject to the provisions of its own law, hand such persons over for trial by any party to the Conventions which has made out a prima facie case. This reference to the local law makes the procedure subject to local extradition legislation and some countries are likely to argue that war criminals acting on governmental instruction are political offenders immune from extradition. This argument was expressly rejected by the Ghana Court of Appeal in Ex p. Schumann (1949) … when put forward to contest an extradition application in respect of a doctor involved in the extermination programme at the Auschwitz concentration camp. [The 1977 Additional Protocol I] Art. 88 requires the parties to assist one another in connection with grave breaches, including cooperation in matters of extradition. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1711.4, footnote 76.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958), in a footnote related to the provision on extradition of war criminals, states:
An accused person is not to be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character or if he proves that the request for surrender has been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political nature. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 639, footnote 5.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1997) provides that extradition shall not take place in case of political offences. 
Argentina, Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1997, Article 8(a).
However, the Law also states that the following crimes are not considered to be political offences: war crimes and crimes against humanity or illegal acts against internationally protected persons; illegal acts against the population or innocent civilians not involved in the violence caused by an armed conflict; and crimes for which Argentina, as a signatory to an international convention, has assumed the obligation to extradite or prosecute. 
Argentina, Law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1997, Article 9.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Procedure Code (2003) states that a requirement for extradition includes “that the offence on the basis of which the extradition has been requested is not a political or military criminal offence”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, Article 415(1)(e).
Brazil
Brazil’s Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners (1980), as amended in 1981, states:
Article 77. Extradition shall not be granted when:
VII - the act [based on which the extradition is requested] constitutes a political offence;
§ 1° The exception provided for in article VII shall not hinder the extradition when the act constitutes mainly an ordinary crime, or when the ordinary crime, although connected to a political offence, constitutes the main fact.
§ 2º The Supreme Federal Court is the only competent body to assess the nature of the crime.
§ 3° The Supreme Federal Court may find that [the following acts] do not constitute political offences: attacks against heads of State or any authorities, acts of anarchism, terrorism, sabotage, kidnapping, or acts which constitute war propaganda or propaganda in favour of the use of violence for subverting the political or social order. 
Brazil, Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, 1980, as amended in 1981, Article 77(VII) and (§1º)–(§3º).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Criminal Procedure Code (2005) provides:
Conditions of Extradition
Section 642
(1) Any act serving as a ground for extradition shall:
(b) by Cameroonian law, constitute an ordinary law offence;
(c) from the circumstances and facts show that extradition is not requested for political, religious or racial reasons, or based on the nationality of the persons concerned.
(2)(a) Felonies and misdemeanours which are not directed against any kind of government shall be considered as common law offences and may justify extradition.
(b) Offences of universal jurisdiction provided by international conventions and ratified by Cameroon shall be considered as ordinary law offences.
Section 643
(1)(a) Felonies and misdemeanours directed against the Constitution, the sovereignty of the State and Public Authorities shall be considered as political offences, for which extradition shall not be granted.
(b) The assessment of the political, religious or racial nature or reasons, or of the grounds for citizenship, for the application shall lie with the government to which the application is made.
(c) Where the offence is in itself political, religious or racial or based on citizenship, it shall be left to the requesting State to prove the contrary.
(2) The following shall also be considered as basis for which extradition may not be granted:
(b) offences that are related to political, religious and racial offences, or based on citizenship. 
Cameroon, Criminal Procedure Code, 2005, Sections 642–643.
Canada
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
46. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
(2) For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(c), conduct that constitutes an offence mentioned in a multilateral extradition agreement for which Canada, as a party, is obliged to extradite the person or submit the matter to its appropriate authority for prosecution does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character. The following conduct also does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character:
(a) murder or manslaughter;
(b) inflicting serious bodily harm;
(c) sexual assault;
(d) kidnapping, abduction, hostage-taking or extortion;
(e) using explosives, incendiaries, devices or substances in circumstances in which human life is likely to be endangered or serious bodily harm or substantial property damage is likely to be caused; and
(f) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in, counselling, aiding or abetting another person to engage in, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, the conduct referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e).
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in section … 46 … do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 46(1)(b)–(c), 46(2) and 47.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Penal Procedure Code (2010) states: “Extradition is not granted: … [w]hen the crime or offence has a political nature or when the extradition request has political motives”. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Article 382(2).
The Code also states: “For the purpose of extradition and judicial cooperation: … offences … against persons benefitting from international protection … are not considered political offences or to have a political motive.” 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Article 386(1).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) provides: “Extradition proceedings will not be taken with regard to political offences.” 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 18.
Colombia
Colombia’s Criminal Procedure Code (2004) states: “Extradition must not proceed for political crimes.” 
Colombia, Criminal Procedure Code, 2004, Article 490.
Croatia
Under Croatia’s Code (1993) of Criminal Procedure, the Minister of Justice will not allow extradition for a political offence. 
Croatia, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993, Article 520(2).
Germany
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982) states:
Part Two – Extradition to a foreign country
§ 6 Political offences, …
(1) Extradition is not permissible for a political offence or an offence connected with such an offence. It is permissible if the person wanted is prosecuted or has been convicted for … genocide, murder or homicide or for the participation therein. 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, Section 6(1).
Germany’s Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1982), as amended in 2006, states:
Part Two – Extradition to a foreign country
§ 6 Political offences, …
(1) Extradition is not permissible for a political offence or an offence connected with such an offence. It is permissible if the person wanted is prosecuted or has been convicted for … genocide, murder or homicide or for the participation therein.
Part Eight – Assistance to Member States of the European Union
§ 82 Non-application of provisions
[§] 6 paragraph 1 … [is] not applied. 
Germany, Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1982, as amended in 2006, Sections 6(1) and 82.
Iraq
Iraq’s Constitution (2006) states: “A law shall regulate the right of political asylum in Iraq. No political refugee shall be surrendered to a foreign entity or returned forcibly to the country from which he fled.” 
Iraq, Constitution, 2006, Article 21(2).
Ireland
Ireland’s Extradition Act (1965), as amended in 1994, states: “Extradition shall not be granted for an offence which is a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.” 
Ireland, Extradition Act, 1965, as amended in 1994, Section 11(1).
(emphasis in original)
Italy
Italy’s Constitution (1947), as amended, provides:
(1) The extradition of a citizen may be permitted only in such cases as are expressly provided for in international conventions.
(2) In no instance shall it be permitted for political offences. 
Italy, Constitution, 1947, as amended, Article 26.
Japan
Japan’s Law on Extradition (1953), as amended in 2004, states:
A fugitive shall not be surrendered in any of the following circumstances …:
(1) When the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence;
(2) When the request for extradition is deemed to have been made with a view to trying or punishing the fugitive for a political offence which he has committed. 
Japan, Law on Extradition, 1953, as amended in 2004, Article 2.1(1) and (2).
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985), in a part dealing with the conditions for a possible extradition of war criminals, states: “The crimes provided for in Article 1 [i.e. grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] are neither considered to be political crimes nor acts connected with similar crimes.” 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 11.
Netherlands
The International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands states:
The crimes defined in this Act [genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture] shall be deemed not to be offences of a political nature for the purposes of the Extradition Act or the [Act on the Surrender of Persons Suspected of War Crimes as amended]. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 12.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Extradition Act (1967) states that a “fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General or a court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence in respect of which his surrender is sought is an offence of a political character”. 
Nigeria, Extradition Act, 1967, Article 3(1).
Peru
Under Peru’s Constitution (1979), political offences are not extraditable offences. Acts of terrorism, murder of high-ranking officials (magnicidio) and acts of genocide are not to be considered as political offences. 
Peru, Constitution, 1979, Article 109; Constitution, 1993, Article 37.
Peru
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states
2. An extradition shall not take place if:
e) The crime is exclusively military in nature, … political or related to politics, the press or [public] opinion. The fact that the victim of the offence exercised a public function does not in itself justify regarding the offence as political. The fact that the person to be extradited used to hold public office does not necessarily politicize the offence either. The following shall not be considered political crimes: terrorism, crimes against humanity, and offences for which Peru is obliged by an international treaty to prosecute or extradite. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article 517(2)(e).
Portugal
Portugal’s Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (1999), as amended in 2001, provides that extradition and other forms of cooperation are excluded “where there are well-founded reasons for believing that cooperation is sought for the purpose of persecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s … political or ideological beliefs”. 
Portugal, Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1999, as amended in 2001, Article 6(1)(b).
The Law further provides:
1. A request for co-operation shall also be refused where the proceedings concern:
a) Any facts that, according to the concepts of Portuguese law, constitute a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence;
b) any facts that constitute a military offence and do not constitute an offence under ordinary criminal law.
2. The following shall not be regarded as political offences:
a) genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and serious offences under the [1949 Geneva Conventions];
b) the offences mentioned in Article 1 of the [1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism];
c) the acts mentioned in the [1984 Convention against Torture];
d) any other offences that ought not to be regarded as political under the terms of an international treaty, convention or agreement to which Portugal is a Party. 
Portugal, Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 1999, as amended in 2001, Article 7.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Penal Code (1977) does not permit extradition for political offences. 
Rwanda, Penal Code, 1977, Article 15.
Senegal
Senegal’s Law on Extradition (1971) states:
The extradition is not accorded:
(2) if the crime or offence is of a political character or if it is clear from the circumstances that the extradition is demanded for political purposes. Regarding acts committed in the course of an insurrection or a civil war by one of the parties … they can only result in extradition if they constitute … [serious violations of the laws of war] and the civil war [or insurrection] is over. 
Senegal, Law on Extradition, 1971, Article 5.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Extradition Act (1974) states:
PART II—SPECIAL PROVISIONS TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
15. Circumstances precluding return.
(1) … [E]xtradition shall not be granted if in the circumstances of the particular case it appears to the Attorney-General that –
a. the offence is an offence of a political character;
PART III—SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLYING TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
22. In the case of the Republic of Guinea and such other countries as may from time to time be listed in the Second Schedule the provisions of Part I shall apply subject to the following conditions, limitations and modifications –
a. in any case where extradition is requested for a non-political crime it shall not be granted unless –
i. the crime was committed in the Republic of Guinea; and
ii. the fugitive criminal has not been, and is not liable to be, punished in Sierra Leone for that crime, and
b. in all cases, extradition shall be granted only in respect of a crime which (due regard being had to differences between the legal systems of the respective countries) corresponds to a crime punishable under the criminal law of Sierra Leone. …
PART IV—SPECIAL CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN THE THIRD SCHEDULE
23. Special conditions applying to countries listed in the Third Schedule.
In the case of the countries listed in the Third Schedule the provisions of Part I shall apply subject to the following conditions, limitations and modifications –
b. extradition shall not be granted for any offence which appears to the Attorney-General to be of a political character. 
Sierra Leone, Extradition Act, 1974, Sections 15(1)(a), 22 and 23(b).
Spain
Spain’s Law on Passive Extradition (1985) provides:
Extradition will not be granted in the following cases:
1. When it concerns offences of a political character, which does not include acts of terrorism [and] crimes against humanity aimed at in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations …
2. When it concerns military offences classified as such by Spanish legislation, without prejudice, however, to what is established by International Conventions signed and ratified by Spain. 
Spain, Law on Passive Extradition, 1985, Article 4(1) and (2).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance (1981), as amended to 2010, states:
1. A request [for criminal cooperation including the extradition of persons who are the subject of criminal prosecution or have been convicted] shall not be granted if the subject of the proceedings is an act which, in the Swiss view, is of a predominantly political nature, constitutes a violation of the obligation to perform military or similar service, or appears to be directed against the national security or military defence of the requesting State.
2. The plea that an act is of a political nature shall not be taken into account under any circumstances:
a. in cases of genocide;
b. in cases of crimes against humanity;
c. in cases of war crimes; or
d. if the act appears particularly reprehensible because the offender, for the purpose of extortion or duress, has endangered or threatened to endanger the life or limb of persons, especially by hijacking aircraft, using means of mass extermination, causing a catastrophe or taking hostages. 
Switzerland, Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance, 1981, as amended to 2010, Article 3(1)–(2).
[footnotes in original omitted]
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states: “A foreign national may not be extradited for political crimes or violations connected to such crimes, nor for any act that is not defined as a crime under Venezuelan laws.” 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 6.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Extradition Act (1982) provides: “No extradition to a designated country shall take place … if the offence for which the extradition is requested is an offence of a political character.” 
Zimbabwe, Extradition Act, 1982, Section 15(b).
Argentina
In the Bohne case in 1966, in which extradition was requested for crimes related to the execution of mentally ill patients during Germany’s Nazi regime, Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice emphasized: “Neither claims for political reasons nor arguments based on supposed military necessity shall be admitted as grounds for the denial of extradition for criminal acts which clearly contravene the common opinion of civilized peoples.” 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Bohne case, 24 August 1966.
Brazil
In 2009, in the Battisti extradition case, the Plenary Court of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court was called upon to decide on the extradition of Cesare Battisti, requested by Italy. The Court held that the crimes based on which the extradition had been requested were not political offences but ordinary crimes, and granted the requested extradition, subject to the discretionary decision of the President of the Republic. Regarding the political offence exception to extradition, Justice Cesar Peluzo, rapporteur of the case, stated:
[T]he crimes for which … [Battisti] had been convicted [in Italy] are characterized by an absolute lack of political motivation, intense premeditation, extreme violence and severe social intimidation. The nature of such crimes does not correspond in any way to the concept of political offence which impedes the extradition of foreign citizens, at least according to the definitions consolidated in the precedents of this Court (Ext. n. 493, Rapporteur: Justice Sepúlveda Pertence, DJ of 03.08.1990; Ext n. 694, Rap. Just. Sydney Sanches, DJ of 22.08.1997; Ext n. 794, Rap. Just. Mauricio Correa, DJ of 24.05.2002 and Ext n. 994, Rap. Just. Marco Aurélio, DJ of 04.08.2006).
I am aware that the extreme violence or exceptional cruelty which characterized the ordinary crimes attributed to the sought person would not alone be sufficient for the extradition to be granted. Particularly if, despite having had other persons as victims, these crimes had resulted from a political action conceived in the context of a fighting against a totalitarian regime, whether within a commotion, political rebellion, civil war or analogous circumstances.
This hypothesis was exhaustively analysed by this Court in the judgment Ext. n. 493 (Rapporteur: Justice Sepúlveda Pertence). Justice [Sepúlveda Pertence] … stated in his vote:
… For a long time, it was understood that ordinary crimes, including violent ones, if committed in the course of a rebellion, were characterized by the political nature which was essential to such rebellion … [This view] was supported by all European countries which, between 1872 and 1876, refused to extradite to France the rebels of the Commune who were wanted for objectively ordinary crimes, such as robbery and murder.
86. Dated from that time is … the statement from Stuart Mill in his famous speech before the House of Commons: … “A political offense is any offense committed in the course [or] furthering [of] civil war, insurrection or political commotions”.
87. But it is also certain that it has been about a century, as Jiménez de Asúa demonstrated, … “that there has been a persistent tendency to exclude the most severe crimes from political offences, even when they have a political objective or connection”, including murder, the most severe injuries and, in general, the cruelest [acts] of personal violence.
88. This exclusion, however, is never absolute. Acts committed in the fighting within the context of a rebellion or civil war have been systematically considered not to be covered by such exclusion, … unless they are prohibited by the customs of war.
89. As documented by Quadri … , in September 18[8]0, the Institute of International Law, in a meeting in Oxford, adopted a resolution according to which, “the acts which have all the characteristics of ordinary crimes (murder, arson, robbery) shall not be excluded from extradition due only to the political intention of the perpetrators”, but … in order to assess the acts committed in the course of a political rebellion, an insurgency or a civil war, “one should consider whether such acts would be accepted or not by the customs of war”.
90. The topic was revised by the Institute … [twelve] years later, in a meeting in Geneva, which led to the adoption of the resolution of 8 September 1892 … [according to which] … there should only be extradition for acts committed in the course of an insurgency or civil war by one of the parties involved and in the interest of its cause – and only once the civil war has ended – , if they constitute heinous barbarous acts or acts prohibited by the laws of war …
91. This formula was later adopted with the same wording in the famous French extradition law of 1927 … , and was subsequently adopted in several conventions.
93. The formula of the Institute of International Law, of 1892, … was criticized for its … overly casuistic and … restrictive approach in the Study on Political Offences, of 1960, by the Inter-American Juridical Committee …
94. Thus, the … Inter-American Juridical Committee made the following proposal to the XI Inter-American Conference, which was adopted by … [this] Court [in the extradition case n. 232 (Cuba)] … :
“1) Political offences are those offences against the organization and functioning of the State.
2) Political offences are [also those] offences which are connected to the above ones. Connection exists when the offence aims at (i) implementing or facilitating the offence mentioned in item (1) above, (ii) achieving impunity for political offences.
3) Barbarous crimes and vandalism, as well as any offences which exceed the lawful limits in attacking and defending, are not political offences.
4) Genocide is not a political offence, pursuant to the United Nations convention.”
Well, the [present] case does not involve … the same elevated political purposes according to which the Court rejected the extradition request in … [the above-mentioned] case. In that case, the crimes of murder attributed to the invaders of the La Tablada barracks were “an inevitable outcome of the violence in combat dictated by the necessities of the rebel action or of the resistance to it”; they did not exceed, in the light of the rules of war, “the lawful limits in attacking and defending”, nor can they be characterized as “barbarous crimes and vandalism”.
The wilful murders committed with premeditation by the person whose extradition was requested [in the present case] are not related … to the altruistic purposes which characterize those political movements directed at implementing a new economic and social order. They reveal rather a simple intention of personal vengeance. 
Brazil, Supreme Federal Court, Battisti extradition case, Judgment, 16 December 2009, pp. 142–145.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, in the Ganić case before the UK City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the Government of the Republic of Serbia sought the extradition of Ejup Ganić in respect of offences said to have been committed during the international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina in May 1992. The Court stated:
4. … Under the terms of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which applied to Serbia at the relevant time, Article 143 (War Crimes against the Wounded and Sick) was punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years or by capital punishment; Article 146 (the Unlawful Killing and Wounding of the Enemy) was punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year and Article 148 (the Use of prohibited means of warfare) was punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than 1 year. Similar conduct which would give rise to allegations of grave crimes would be prosecuted in the United Kingdom under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and all such offences carry more than 12 months imprisonment.
5. If the conduct amounts to a grave crime under the [1949] Geneva Conventions, I am satisfied that such offences would have been punishable by virtue of Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by imprisonment of not less than 12 months imprisonment. I am also satisfied that Section 196 of the Extradition Act 2003 would have applied had there not been any law in force in respect of the time and place where the conduct was alleged to have occurred, which would have rendered the conduct an Extradition offence.
6. Therefore, if the conduct in this case is capable of amounting to one or more of the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions 1949, the conduct would amount to an extraditable offence. 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, §§ 4–6.
The Court summarized the alleged offences as follows:
On 2nd May 1992, in the absence of the President, the defendant, in the capacity of Acting President of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, personally commanded an attack on the military hospital, the JNA Officers’ Club and a column of medical vehicles. On the 3rd May 1992 … [it is] alleged that the defendant personally issued the command to start an attack on JNA [Yugoslav People’s Army] column in Dobroviljacka Street (Volunteers Street). 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, § 7.
The Court further held that it is “entirely clear that the events in Sarajevo on the 2nd and 3rd May 1992 and in the weeks prior to that weekend amounted to an international armed conflict.” 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, § 9.
The Court also stated:
11. If the defendant was responsible for giving the command for an attack upon the military hospital in Sarajevo and the command for the attack on the medical vehicles on the 2nd May these would amount to allegations of grave crimes under the Geneva Convention[s] and are therefore extradition offences.
12. It is alleged that the defendant in his capacity as Acting President of Bosnia and Herzegovina personally commanded the attack upon the JNA Officers’ Club. There is nothing in the request to indicate why in an international armed conflict such an attack would constitute a grave crime contrary to the Geneva Conventions. I therefore find that no war crime is committed by the attack on the JNA Officers’ Club.
13. The following day a group of 30 JNA vehicles left the officers’ club to restore President Izetbegovic to the Bosnian Presidency. It was also seized upon an opportunity to arrange for the evacuation of JNA forces and military equipment from the officers’ club to a destination outside the city. There is nothing within the request which would bring the conduct alleging issuing a command to attack a military convoy within the meaning of a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions 1949. However there is a reference to an Ambulance within the convoy and the request alleges that Dr Ganic expressly ordered an attack upon the Ambulance within the convoy. To that limited extent I am satisfied that the conduct alleges an extradition offence. I am not satisfied that the rest of the convoy had any right to protection or that the soldiers in the 30 vehicles were prisoners of war. 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, §§ 11–13.
The Court further noted:
[An] investigation … [had been] carried out on behalf of the ICTY and acting upon a report from their investigators and prosecutors it was the ICTY that [had] concluded that there was no case against Dr Ganic. … The Bosnian War Crimes Office also established itself on an international basis and it was to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed within the State of Bosnia. That enquiry also concluded that there was no case against Dr Ganic. It is in my view not sufficient for the War Crimes Prosecutor in Serbia merely to say that they take a different view of the evidence where a decision has been made by the ICTY. 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, § 33.
The Court held that “there is no valid justification for commencing proceedings against Dr Ganic. … [T]hese proceedings are brought and are being used for political purposes and as such amount to an abuse of the process of this court.” 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, § 39.
The Court therefore held that “extradition is barred by reason of extraneous considerations by virtue of Section 81(a) and (b) in due course I will be ordering that the defendant be discharged.” 
United Kingdom, City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Ganić case, Judgment, 27 July 2010, § 41.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated:
[A]rticle 391 of the Penal Procedure Code provides: “Extradition is governed by the provisions of this Title, by the treaties, conventions and international agreements of which the Republic is a party”.
… [T]he Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Republics of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru signed the Bolivarian Extradition Agreement on 18 July 1911 in Caracas … [which provides in Article 4]:
The extradition of a fugitive will not be granted if the act of which he or she is accused is considered a political crime or related to it in the requiring State, and no person will be handed over by any Contracting State to another, prosecuted or punished for a political crime or offence or any related acts committed prior to extradition. Extradition will also not be granted if the person being requested [in extradition] proves that the [request] has been made with the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him or her for a political crime or an act connected with it.
If a question arises on whether a case falls within this provision, it will be the final decision of the authorities of the State to which the request has been made or that has granted the extradition. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 4.
[emphasis in original]
In determining whether the facts of the case could be considered as political offences, which exclude extradition, the tribunal held:
Firstly, it must be noted that with regards to the extradition request based on the offences attributed to … [the accused] it has been reiterated by both his defence and by Venezuelan NGOs that these are political crimes. Thus, he is not extraditable and has the right to asylum.
A political crime is one that has a political motive … [R]ebellion … [is] the offence emblematic of political crimes, and one of which … [the accused] is accused for …
… [In order to determine whether an offence is a political crime] it is necessary to distinguish between two categories of political crimes: pure political crimes and relative political crimes.
Pure political crimes are those that are politically motivated, and only violate the rights of the State.
Relative political crimes are those that are politically motivated and violate the rights of the State, as well as private rights or the rights of individual persons.
This distinction between pure and relative political crimes gives rise to another, more profound, distinction between political crimes and social crimes.
Political crimes are those that affect the organization and interests of a State. Social crimes are those that affect social peace, human coexistence, and basic social institutions. … [F]or this reason, they are contrary to humanity and, therefore, contrary to all States.
These distinctions are exceedingly important when addressing the issue of whether all crimes for which a political motive is alleged, whether genuine or fictitious, shall merit … benefits [such as the impossibility of granting extradition].
Thus: if such an attack against innocent [persons] or private rights is carried out with such a violence and malicious intent that it causes unnecessary suffering, havoc and terror, it would [constitute the offence of] indiscriminate terrorism, namely [those acts] that are not selective when choosing their targets and expressly target the innocent.
Terrorism, and particularly indiscriminate terrorism, ignores the requirements of Humanitarian … law; it endangers innocent human lives and many times destroys them … Terrorism is not one of the political crimes meriting a benefit [such as the impossibility of granting extradition]. Such a benefit would go against [the interests of] justice, criminal law and the moral sense of people …
Terrorism is constituted by a series of conducts of grave inhumanity that are not considered political crimes and that must thus always give rise to extradition: it is inadmissible that a political motive would be sufficient to justify any type of crime. Political ends must not justify certain means of fighting. …
However, in the process of [granting] extradition, the Criminal Chamber clarifies that the offence of rebellion is per se political. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 5–11.
[emphasis in original]
In concluding on whether extradition can be granted, the tribunal held:
[T]his Supreme Tribunal of Justice considers it pertinent to grant the extradition of … [the accused], requested by the Government of Colombia … for the offences of extortive kidnapping, seizure and diversion of aircraft, which … are not considered to be political [offences], nor connected with these …
Similarly, Article 271 of the Constitution provides:
Article 271.- In no case can the extradition of foreigners be denied [when they are] responsible for committing the offences of … international organized crimes, acts against the public heritage of other States and against human rights. …
The Chamber, in compliance with the abovementioned constitutional provision, expressly notes the following: the extradition of [the accused] is not granted for the political offence of rebellion. The extradition of [the accused] is granted for the alleged commission of the ordinary offence of extortive kidnapping, which … also constitutes, in general, [the offence of] international organized crimes, and of terrorism in particular. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 12–13.
[emphasis in original]
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2004, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated: “Extradition is … not allowed for political or military criminal offences”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 29 July 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/21/Add. 6, submitted 4 October 2004, § 360.
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated:
170. On the specific subject of refugees, article 46 of the Constitution states that: “The right of asylum is granted to foreign nationals within the conditions determined by law. The extradition of political refugees is prohibited.”
186. There are several instruments governing extradition in Chad, namely the Code of Criminal Procedure, the General Agreement of 12 September 1961 on Cooperation in Judicial Matters and the Franco-Chadian agreement (No. 138/CSM of 6 March 1976) on mutual legal assistance.
187. These instruments govern the conditions and effects of extradition and the procedures to be followed and, more generally speaking, cases in which extradition is not permitted.
188. Under article 447 of the Criminal Code, no extradition is permitted:
- When the crime or offence is of a political nature, or when it is apparent from the circumstances that extradition is being requested for political ends;
189. Similarly, article 44 of the 1961 General Convention does not permit extradition if the requested State considers that the offence in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political nature or related to an offence of that nature.
190. In the Franco-Chadian agreement the grounds given for rejection (fin de non-recevoir) of a request for extradition include the political nature of the offence concerned or a connection with such an offence.
191. By clearly stipulating, both in its legislation and through these two agreements (multilateral and bilateral), that political refugees may not be extradited, Chad protects such persons from trials which would be unfair and expose them to the risk of torture where political repression is particularly severe.
192. This protection even extends to extradited persons whose journey takes them through Chadian territory. Article 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: “Extradition involving transit of a person of any nationality, handed over by another government, through Chadian territory, or by vessels of the Chadian maritime services, shall be authorized on request received through diplomatic channels accompanied by documentation necessary to establish that the crime is not of a political nature.” 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, § 170 and 186–192.
Croatia
The Report on the Practice of Croatia, with regard to the Code of Criminal Procedure’s provision prohibiting extradition for political offences, states:
The European Convention on Extradition and its Protocols are directly applicable in the Croatian legal system, judges as well as the Minister of Justice are bound by their provisions. Consequently war crimes, genocide and violations of the laws of war and customs of war should not be considered as political offences. 
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 6.4.
Djibouti
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Djibouti stated:
118. … [Extradition agreements] … include a formal prohibition on extraditing a person for political or related offences …
119. Thus, article 4 of the extradition agreement between Djibouti and France stipulates that extradition shall not be granted when the offence in respect of which it is requested is considered by the requested State to be a political offence or an act connected with such an offence. 
Djibouti, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 18 January 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/DJI/1, submitted 21 July 2010, §§ 118–119.
France
In 1971, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of France stated that “in France war crimes were not regarded as political crimes and that perpetrators could be extradited in the same way as common offenders”. 
France, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1902, 9 December 1971, § 76.
Iraq
In 2012, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Iraq stated:
Accused persons may be extradited to a requesting State in the event that an extradition treaty between the requesting State and the Government of the Republic of Iraq is in force, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. 23 of 1971) which prohibits extradition for political or military offences. 
Iraq, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 18 October 2013, UN Doc. CAT/C/OPAC/IRQ/1, submitted 9 May 2012, § 41.
Morocco
In 2003, in its third periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, Morocco stated: “Extradition does not apply in the case of political offences, other than in a context of odious barbarity or civil war.” 
Morocco, Third periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, 21 May 2003, UN Doc. CAT/C/66/Add.1, submitted 23 March 2003, § 30.
Morocco
In 2009, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Morocco stated: “Moroccan law does not exclude perpetrators of crimes of torture from extradition when a state with which Morocco has entered into a bilateral agreement … makes such a request. Exclusions only apply to political, military and customs offences.” 
Morocco, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 November 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/MAR/4, submitted 27 April 2009, § 76.
Oman
In 2005, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Oman stated:
Under article 3 of the Extradition Act promulgated by Royal Decree No. 4/2000, it is prohibited to extradite a wanted person from another country in cases such as where the person wanted for extradition was granted the right of political asylum in the Sultanate before the extradition was requested and continues to enjoy that right after the request was made, or where the offence for which the person’s extradition is requested is political or political in nature or where the extradition is for a political purpose. 
Oman, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8 May 2006, UN Doc. CRC/C/OMN/2, submitted 28 April 2005, § 447.
Qatar
In 2005, in its initial report to the UN Committee against Torture, Qatar stated: “The bilateral conventions which Qatar has signed exclude certain offences, such as political and military offences, from the extradition process.” 
Qatar, Initial report to the UN Committee against Torture, 5 October 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/58/Add.1, submitted 9 February 2005, § 70(1).
Senegal
In 2011, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Senegal stated:
I. Information on new measures and new developments relating to the implementation of the [1984] Convention [against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]
Article 7 of the Convention
Paragraph 1
121. As a general rule, extradition is regulated in Senegal by Act No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971. Article 5 of this law lists the cases in which extradition shall not be granted:
(2) When the crime or offence is of a political nature or if the circumstances indicate that the extradition request is politically motivated. Acts committed during a rebellion or civil war by one of the parties involved in order to further its cause are extraditable only if they constitute acts of extreme barbarity or destructiveness prohibited by the laws of war and only after the civil war has ended[.] 
Senegal, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 October 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/SEN/3, submitted 9 February 2011, § 121.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Upon signature of the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the USSR declared that it would not consider a grave breach, as defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I, or a violation of Articles 1–4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, as a “political offence” or “offences connected with a political offence”. 
USSR, Reservations and declarations made upon signature of the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 7 November 1996, Article 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for the Home Office stated regarding a new bilateral extradition treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America:
The new treaty also maintains the present position that political motivation cannot be used to block extradition in the case of terrorist or other violent crimes. The treaty stipulates that neither nationality nor statutes of limitations will be a bar to extradition. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Hansard, 31 March 2003, Vol. 402, Written Ministerial Statements, cols. 41WS–42WS.
Uruguay
In 1996, in a diplomatic communiqué issued in reaction to the events linked with the operation by the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA) at the residence of the Japanese ambassador in Peru, and to the release of two Peruvians whose extradition was requested, the President of Uruguay declared:
The release of the Peruvians Luis Samaniego and Silvia Gora, decided by the Third Criminal Appeals Court, was exclusively the act of the Judicial Power … [The appellate court] upheld the same criterion applied in previous court decisions concerning the application of the 1889 Montevideo Treaty on International Penal Law. 
Uruguay, Communiqué issued by the President of Uruguay, 26 December 1996, § 2.
The President recognized the limitations of the extradition treaties, concluded over a century ago, that had governed Uruguay’s relations with third parties in this respect. He stated that the Executive Power had brought these rules up to date by signing new extradition treaties in 1996 with Argentina, Chile, Spain, France and Mexico, and by pursuing negotiations with other countries. These treaties excluded terrorism from the category of political offences. 
Uruguay, Communiqué issued by the President of Uruguay, 26 December 1996, § 3.
No data.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1984 on enforced disappearances, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called on the governments of member States:
to support the preparation and adoption by the United Nations of a declaration setting forth the following principles: … enforced disappearance is a crime against humanity which … cannot be considered a political offence and is therefore subject to the extradition laws. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 828 on enforced disappearances, 26 September 1984, § 13(a)(i)(1).
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
London Agreement
Article 3 of the 1945 London Agreement provides with regard to the International Military Tribunal for Germany:
Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories.  
Agreement between the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, London, 8 August 1945, Article 3.
ICC Statute
Articles 86–101 of the 1998 ICC Statute deal with “International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance”. Article 86 provides: “States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” Article 88 provides: “States Parties shall ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Articles 86 and 88.
ICC Statute
Article 93 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides:
1.States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Part and under procedures of national law, comply with requests by the Court to provide the following assistance in relation to investigations or prosecutions:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons or the location of items;
(b) The taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
(c) The questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) The service of documents, including judicial documents;
(e) Facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court;
(f) The temporary transfer of persons as provided in paragraph 7;
(g) The examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
(h) The execution of searches and seizures;
(i) The provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
(j) The protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(k) The identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties; and
(l) Any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by the law of the requested State, with a view to facilitating the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. In accordance with article 72, a State Party may deny a request for assistance, in whole or in part, only if the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national security.
5. Before denying a request for assistance under paragraph 1(l), the requested State shall consider whether the assistance can be provided subject to specified conditions, or whether the assistance can be provided at a later date or in an alternative manner, provided that if the Court or the Prosecutor accepts the assistance subject to conditions, the Court or the Prosecutor shall abide by them. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 93.
Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 17 of the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, entitled “Cooperation with the Special Court”, provides:
1. The Government shall cooperate with all organs of the Special Court at all stages of the proceedings. It shall, in particular, facilitate access to the Prosecutor to sites, persons and relevant documents required for the investigation.
2. The Government shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance by the Special Court or an order issued by the Chambers, including, but not limited to:
(a) Identification and location of persons;
(b) Service of documents;
(c) Arrest or detention of persons;
(d) Transfer of an indictee to the Court. 
Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 17, Article 17.
UN-Lebanon Agreement on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Article 15 of the UN-Lebanon Agreement on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon provides:
1. The Government shall cooperate with all organs of the Special Tribunal, in particular with the Prosecutor and defence counsel, at all stages of the proceedings.
It shall facilitate access of the Prosecutor and defence counsel to sites, persons and relevant documents required for the investigation.
2. The Government shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance by the Special Tribunal or an order issued by the Chambers, including, but not limited to:
(a) Identification and location of persons;
(b) Service of documents;
(c) Arrest or detention of persons;
(d) Transfer of an indictee to the Tribunal. 
Agreement between the UN and the Lebanese Republic on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, annexed to UN Security Council Resolution 1757 of 30 May 2007, Article 15.
ICTY Statute
Article 29 of the 1993 ICTY Statute, entitled “Cooperation and judicial assistance”, provides:
1. States shall cooperate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to:
(a) the identification and location of persons;
(b) the taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) the service of documents;
(d) the arrest or detention of persons;
(e) the surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 29.
ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal
Article 54 of the 1994 ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal, entitled “Obligation to extradite or prosecute”, provides:
In a case of a crime referred to in article 20 (e) [“crimes, established under or pursuant to the treaty provisions listed in the Annex, which, having regard to the conduct of the alleged, constitute exceptionally serious crimes of international concern”], a custodial State party to this Statute which is a party to the treaty in question but which has not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime for the purposes of article 21 (1) (b) (i) … shall either take all necessary steps to extradite the suspect to a requesting State for the purpose of prosecution or refer the case to its competent authorities for that purpose. 
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, UN Doc. A/49/10, 1994, Article 54.
ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal
The Annex to the 1994 ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal, entitled “Crimes pursuant to Treaties (see art. 20 (e))”, refers, inter alia, to grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions; grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I; crimes defined by Article 2 of the 1973 Convention on Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons; and the crime of torture made punishable by Article 4 of the 1984 Convention against Torture. 
Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, UN Doc. A/49/10, 1994, Annex.
ICTR Statute
Article 28 of the 1994 ICTR Statute provides:
1. States shall cooperate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including, but not limited to:
(a) The identification and location of persons;
(b) The taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) The service of documents;
(d) The arrest or detention of persons;
(e) The surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 28.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 4 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law states:
Violations of international … humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law carry the duty to … cooperate with and assist … appropriate international judicial organs in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 4.
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire
The 2003 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire provides:
1) At the invitation of the President of the French Republic, a Round Table of the Ivorian political forces met in Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003. It brought together the following parties FPI, MFA, MJP, MPCI, MPIGO, PDCI-RDA, PIT, RDR, UDCY, UDPCI … The delegations have shown high-mindedness to allow the Round Table to bring the positions closer together and to arrive at the following consensus, all elements of which – principles and annexes – have equal value:
Annex
VI-Rights and liberties of the human person
2) The government of national reconciliation shall demand the creation of an international commission which shall initiate enquiries and establish the facts all over the national territory in order to take inventory of the cases of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law since 19 September 2002.
3) Upon the report of the international commission of inquiry, the government of national reconciliation shall determine who must be brought before the courts in order to end impunity. Condemning in particular the actions of death squadrons and their commanders as well as the perpetrators of summary executions on the entirety of the territory, the Round Table considers that the perpetrators and accomplices of these activities will have to be brought before international criminal justice. 
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire, Round table of the Ivorian political forces, meeting at Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003 and bringing together the following parties: FPI (Front Populaire Ivoirien), MFA (Mouvement des Forces d’Avenir), MJP (Mouvement pour la Justice et la Paix), MPCI (Mouvement Patriotique de Côte d’Ivoire), MPIGO (Mouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand Ouest), PDCI-RDA (Parti Démocratique de la Côte d’Ivoire-Rassemblement Démocratique Africain), PIT (Parti Ivoirien des Travailleurs), RDR (Rassemblement des Républicains), UDCY (Union Démocratique et Citoyenne), UDPCI (Union pour la Démocratie et la Paix en Côte d’Ivoire), Linas-Marcoussis, 24 January 2003, Text of the agreement, paragraph 1 and Annex, paragraphs VI(2–3).
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, § 4.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states:
In the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and [1977 Additional] Protocol I, it is provided that the governments shall take such legislative measures as may be necessary to determine adequate penal sanctions to be applied to persons committing or ordering any of the grave breaches; the persons accused of having committed, or of having ordered to commit, those breaches … shall be searched for.
… It is also possible to hand the author of the violations over to an international tribunal, in case such a tribunal has been established. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.02.
The manual also states: “In the event of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I, the contracting parties shall cooperate, jointly or individually, with the United Nations and in accordance with the UN Charter.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.09.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Where there is widespread evidence of war crimes having been committed, the international community may elect to establish a world forum or war crimes tribunal to conduct trials. The Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals conducted after [World War II] are examples of this approach. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1308.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
Lesson 4. Breaches and repression of violations of IHL
The texts on the Law of War distinguish two categories of breaches in the case of violations of the rules of IHL:
- Grave violations or grave breaches, called war crimes;
- Other violations.
I. Grave violations
I.2 Sanctions
The State is under the obligation to search for and to try the perpetrators of these grave violations. To do this, it can act in two ways:
- bring the perpetrator before its own courts,
- bring the perpetrator before an international jurisdiction. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 29–30.
In Book II (Instruction of non-commissioned officers and officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.1. Repression of grave violations
The grave violations of IHL can be repressed on the national level as well as on the international level.
On the national level, these grave breaches of IHL are judged by:
- the military tribunal,
- the civilian jurisdictions.
On the international level, repression is ensured by:
- ad hoc tribunals (1993 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 1994 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, etc.),
- the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted by the 1998 Rome Statute. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 30–31.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), in a part dealing with “Grave breaches of the rules of the law of armed conflict”, states:
On the criminal level, persons charged with [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] may be prosecuted before … international criminal courts having jurisdiction over war crimes: today this means the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the crimes committed solely on the occasion of these two conflicts; tomorrow, this will mean … the International Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over all war crimes and crimes against humanity in case of the failure of national tribunals. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 7.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, “having concurrent jurisdiction with national tribunals of each State, have, however, primary jurisdiction and may request national tribunals to hand over cases to [them]”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 77–78.
Regarding the International Criminal Court, the manual also states:
The Court has jurisdiction as soon as the national State of the alleged perpetrator(s), or the State on the territory of which the crime occurred, is party to the [1998 ICC Statute] or gives its express consent. This Court is additional to national jurisdiction. It intervenes only if national jurisdictions are incapable, or refuse to, try the perpetrators. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 76–77.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) recalls the experiences of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, stating: “The central importance of the Nuremberg Trials … is in creating a precedent for the execution of judgment against war criminals by the whole of humanity, without leaving the work to prejudiced internal courts.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 66–67.
The manual also mentions the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Referring to the International Criminal Court, it states:
One of the biggest difficulties faced by the Hague court for judging Yugoslavia’s war criminals is the extradition of war criminals. The permanent court has been empowered to demand extradition of war criminals into its hands, so that such criminals will not find a haven …
Israel is in a dilemma regarding the Rome Constitution. On the one hand, in light of the Holocaust experience, Israel has a special interest in seeing war criminals brought to justice. On the other hand, there is a fear that the court will serve as a lever for demanding the extradition and trial of IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 68–69.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992), regarding the prosecution of alleged war criminals, states:
By Art. 89 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] they [States parties] are obliged to act jointly or individually in cooperation with the United Nations in regard to serious “violations” of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1711.4, footnote 76.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
Historically … International Tribunals established to judge alleged war criminals have existed (such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals), and this possibility remains nowadays and seems to be a developing trend for the action of the International Community, an example of which is the creation by the Security Council of … [the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]. To cooperate with [this Tribunal], Spain has adopted Organic Law No. 15/94 of 1 June. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 7.6.b.(2).
The manual further states:
The obligation devolving on the States to cooperate in the penal repression of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions is not limited to cooperation with other States but also comprises cooperation with the United Nations, in conformity with the United Nations Charter. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(5).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Spain is party to the Rome Statute and has enacted organic law 18/2003 governing cooperation with the International Criminal Court.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 7.6.b.(2).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958), in a footnote related to the provision on extradition of war criminals, states that the handing over of a person suspected of war crimes “can be made with the consent of the States concerned to an international court if one should be established”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 639, footnote 5.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides: “The perpetrators of such criminal acts [war crimes or serious violations of the laws and customs of war] may also be brought to justice before an international court if such court is established.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 20.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute (2006) states:
Article 40. The competent law enforcement authorities will comply with the requests for cooperation formulated by the [International Criminal] Court as provided for by the [1998 ICC] Statute.
Article 42. The Argentine Republic will deny a request for assistance, in whole or in part, in accordance with article 93(4) of the Statute, only if the request concerns the production of any documents or disclosure of evidence which relates to its national security as defined by law adopted by Congress.
Article 43. The executive power will communicate to the Court or its Prosecutor without delay the reasons for the denial of the request for assistance.
Article 44. The Prosecutor of the Court may execute directly on Argentine territory a request for assistance that does not require compulsory measures in accordance with article 99(4) of the Statute. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Articles 40 and 42–44.
Regarding the referral of situations to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Law provides:
The executive power may decide to refer a situation to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute and if appropriate may request the Pre-Trial Chamber to review a decision of the Prosecutor not to proceed pursuant to article 53(3)(a) of the Rome Statute. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 24.
Concerning complementary jurisdiction and the admissibility of cases before the International Criminal Court, the Law states:
1. Once a notification from the Prosecutor of the Court or from the Court itself concerning facts that may fall within the jurisdiction of Argentina is received pursuant to article 18(1) of the Rome Statute, the executive power will request to be informed by the Office of the National Attorney General, the Federal Chambers with criminal jurisdiction and any other authority considered appropriate in each specific case, within a period no longer than ten days, about the existence of any ongoing or past criminal proceedings related to the facts under investigation [by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court].
2. When the information provided indicates that Argentina has exercised or is exercising jurisdiction [over the above-mentioned facts], or that Argentina has initiated an investigation due to the notification received, the executive power will decide whether to maintain the jurisdiction of Argentine judicial authorities. If appropriate, the executive power, within a period no longer than 30 days after the notification pursuant to article 18(1) of the Statute was received, will request the Prosecutor of the Court to defer to Argentina’s investigation pursuant to article 18(2) of the Statute.
3. The executive power shall reply without delay to any request for information submitted by the Prosecutor of the Court regarding the progress of the ongoing investigations and subsequent prosecutions in Argentina that motivated the [above-mentioned] request [to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court].
4. When the information provided by the National Attorney General, the Federal Chambers with criminal jurisdiction or any other consulted body indicates that Argentina has not exercised, is not exercising and will not exercise its jurisdiction [over the above-mentioned facts], the executive power will communicate this without delay to the Prosecutor of the Court or to the Court itself. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 25.
The Law further provides:
Article 27. If despite a request to the Prosecutor of the Court to defer to Argentina’s investigation under article 25 of this law, or a challenge to the jurisdiction [of the International Criminal Court] or to the admissibility of the case … , the competent chamber of the Court authorizes the Prosecutor to proceed with the investigation or retains its jurisdiction, the Argentine judicial body will decline jurisdiction in favour of the Court and, under the request of the latter, shall refer to it the file of the proceedings.
Article 35. In the situation referred to in article 89(2) of the Statute [concerning a challenge brought before a national court by the person sought for surrender on the basis of the principle of non bis in idem], if the Court declares the case admissible, the competent tribunal will reject the challenge based on the principle of non bis in idem. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Articles 27 and 35.
Concerning the surrender of persons to the International Criminal Court, the Law provides:
Article 31. When complying with a request for arrest and surrender or for provisional arrest, the executive power will refer it to the competent judicial authority pursuant to article 5 of this law [establishing the competence of Federal Tribunals], which will issue the pertinent warrant in case the person sought is not yet detained. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 31.
Australia
Australia’s ICC Act (2002) states:
Principal object of Act
(1) The principal object of this Act is to facilitate compliance with Australia’s obligations under the Statute.
(2) Accordingly, this Act does not affect the primacy of Australia’s right to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
Australia, ICC Act, 2002, Article 3.
Australia
Australia’s International War Crimes Tribunal Act (1995) states:
The objects of this Act are to enable the Commonwealth to co-operate with a Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing Tribunal offences, and, in particular:
(a) to enable the Tribunal to make requests for assistance (see Part 2); and
(b) to provide for persons accused of Tribunal offences to be surrendered to the Tribunal (see Part 3); and
(c) to provide the Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of Tribunal offences (see Part 4); and
(d) to enable the Tribunal to sit in Australia (see Part 5); and
(e) to enable forfeiture orders of the Tribunal to be enforced (see Part 6). 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunal Act, 1995, Article 3.
Australia
Australia’s International War Crimes Tribunals Act (1995), as amended to 2006, which was adopted “to provide for the Commonwealth [of Australia] to help International War Crimes Tribunals [specifically, the ICTY and ICTR] to perform their functions”, 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended to 2006, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 9 of 2006, Full Title, p. 1.
has as its objects:
… to enable the Commonwealth to cooperate with a Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing Tribunal offences, and, in particular:
(a) to enable the Tribunal to make requests for assistance (see Part 2); and
(b) to provide for persons accused of Tribunal offences to be surrendered to the Tribunal (see Part 3); and
(c) to provide the Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of Tribunal offences (see Part 4); and
(d) to enable the Tribunal to sit in Australia (see Part 5); and
(e) to enable forfeiture orders of the Tribunal to be enforced (see Part 6). 
Australia, International War Crimes Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended to 2006, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 9 of 2006, Part 1, § 3, p. 1.
Australia
Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners Act (1997), as amended in 2004, has as its objects:
(a) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners between Australia and certain countries with which Australia has entered agreements for the transfer of prisoners so that the prisoners may serve their sentences of imprisonment in their countries of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties; and
(b) to facilitate the transfer of prisoners to Australia from countries in which prisoners are serving sentences of imprisonment imposed by certain war crimes tribunals. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 3, p. 1.
The Act defines “tribunal” as “(a) the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal; or (b) the Rwanda Tribunal”. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 4, p. 6.
Regarding a transfer request from a tribunal, the Act states:
The Attorney-General may consent to a request from a Tribunal for the transfer of a Tribunal prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Tribunal in a Tribunal country to Australia to complete serving the sentence of imprisonment on terms agreed under this Act if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the transfer can be made in compliance with section 11. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1997, as amended on 25 March 2004, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 19 of 2004, § 33, p. 29.
Austria
Austria’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1996) states:
The Austrian authorities, in particular the courts, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the penal authorities and the security services obliged to cooperate extensively with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of this Federal Law and within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the International Tribunal. In particular, this obligation to cooperate entails providing the International Tribunal with information and documents available in Austria relating to the suspicion of violations which fall within its jurisdiction, affording it judicial assistance, committing accused persons and accepting convicted persons for the execution of a sentence. 
Austria, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1996, § 2(1).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Recognition of and Cooperation (1996) with the International Tribunals states:
According to Article 86 of the Statute, Belgium fully cooperates with the Court’s investigations and proceedings relating to the crimes under its jurisdiction. 
Belgium, Law on Recognition of and Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1996.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1878), as amended, provides:
Seized with a complaint pursuant to the paragraphs above [including for serious violations of international humanitarian law] the Federal Prosecutor requires the investigating magistrate to conduct an enquiry into the complaint unless … on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case it is clear that, in the interest of the proper administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, the matter should be brought … before an international court. 
Belgium, Law Containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1878, as amended, Article 10 § 1bis, indent 3(4).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
Seized with a claim pursuant to paragraph 2, the Federal Prosecutor shall request the investigating judge to conduct an investigation into the claim, except if … it results from the specific circumstances of the case that, in the interest of the good administration of justice and in compliance with Belgium’s international obligations, this case should be brought before … international jurisdictions. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 7, § 1(3, 4 indent).
The Law further states:
In application of Article 14 of the [1998 ICC Statute], the Minister of Justice may inform the International Criminal Court of facts that have been referred to the judicial authorities, by means of a decision of the Council of Ministers. Such information cannot concern acts committed on the Belgian territory, acts committed by a Belgian citizen, nor acts committed against a Belgian citizen, except if these acts are connected or identical to acts which have already been referred to the Court, and for which a decision of admissibility has already been rendered pursuant to Article 18 of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Once the Prosecutor of the Court has made the notification provided under Article 18(1) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, regarding the acts that the Minister of Justice has brought to the attention of the Court, the Court of Cassation shall, at the request of the General Prosecutor, order the removal of the case from the Belgian court to which those same acts were referred.
When the International Criminal Court, at the Minister of Justice’s request, informs the Minister of Justice, following the removal of the case from the Belgian court, that the Prosecutor of the Court has decided not to draw up an indictment, that the Court did not confirm an indictment, that the Court has declared itself to lack jurisdiction, or has declared the case to be inadmissible, the Belgian courts shall once again have jurisdiction. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 7, § 1(2).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunals (2004), as amended, provides:
3. In accordance with Article 86 of the Statute [of the International Criminal Court], Belgium fully cooperates with the Court in investigating and prosecuting the crimes falling within the Court’s jurisdiction.
7. Belgian judicial authorities may seek the Court’s cooperation. …
8.1 Pursuant to Article 14 of the Statute, the Minister of Justice may, upon decision of the Council of Ministers, refer to the Court a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed, requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes. 
Belgium, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals, 2004, as amended in 2006, Articles 3, 7 and 8.1.
The Law further provides:
44. Under the provisions of the present law, Belgium will comply with the duties of cooperation arising from Resolutions 808 (1993), 827 (1993) and 955 (1994) adopted by the [UN] Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
45. The competent authorities will grant the Tribunal their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure relating to the breaches set out in Articles 1–8 of the Statute of the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and in Articles 2–4 of the Statute of the Tribunal for Rwanda, in accordance with the provisions of the resolutions mentioned in Article 44 of the present law, as well as with the provisions set forth in the Statute[s], the Rules [of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and of the Tribunal for Rwanda] and the present law.
59. In accordance with the provisions of the present law, Belgium may follow up on requests for judicial cooperation issued by the [Special] Tribunal [for Sierra Leone].
61. The competent authorities will grant the Tribunal their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure resulting from a request for cooperation from the [Special] Tribunal [for Sierra Leone] which the central authority has decided to follow up on.
65. In accordance with the provisions of the present law, Belgium may follow up on requests for judicial cooperation issued by the Extraordinary Chambers [for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea].
67. The competent authorities will grant the Extraordinary Chambers [for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed during the Period of Democratic Kampuchea] their full judicial cooperation with regard to any procedure resulting from a request for cooperation from the Extraordinary Chambers which the central authority has decided to follow up on. 
Belgium, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals, 2004, as amended in 2006, Articles 44, 45, 59, 61, 65 and 67.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Decree on Deferral upon Request by the ICTY (1995) states:
This Decree regulates the procedure for the extradition of accused persons against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted by or are being conducted before the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia from 1 January 1991 (hereafter: the International Tribunal) for the crimes specified by the Statute of the International Tribunal. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Decree on Deferral upon Request by the ICTY, 1995.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In October 2001, the Republika Srpska adopted the Law on Cooperation with the ICTY which provides that both the ICTY and the national courts are competent for the criminal prosecution of persons responsible for violations of IHL in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, however, being given precedence (Article 1). Article 2 provides:
Cooperation with the Tribunal is related to prosecution of persons only for crimes referred to in Article 2, namely grave violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, article 3, pertaining to the violations of laws and customs of war, article 4, pertaining to genocide, and article 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal, pertaining to the crimes against humanity committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991.
Cooperation shall be conducted in the manner stipulated in this Law, Statute of the Tribunal and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 2001, Articles 1 and 2.
The other provisions of the law namely deal with the “Procedure for gathering evidence upon request of the tribunal” (Part II); the “Transfer of responsibility for leading the criminal proceedings” (Part III); the “Pre-trial detention of the defendant and hand over to the tribunal” (Part IV); the “Legal Assistance to the Tribunal” (Part V); and the “Execution of verdicts of the tribunal” (Part VI). 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 2001, Parts II–VI.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
An official person in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entity institutions and the institution of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina who refuses to act upon the order of the international criminal tribunal to arrest or detain or extradite to the international criminal tribunal a person against whom the proceedings have been initiated before the international criminal tribunal or if he in any other way prevents enforcement of that order or who refuses enforcement of a legally valid and final sentence of the international criminal tribunal or if in any other way he prevents enforcement of such sentence. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 203.
The Criminal Code also states:
Whoever, having knowledge of the whereabouts of a person indicted by the international criminal tribunal, and having knowledge of the fact of such indictment, fails to report such whereabouts, although the timely discovery of the wanted person depends on such report,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 231.
Brazil
Brazil’s Constitutional Amendment No. 45 (2004) states: “Article 5 … of the Federal Constitution shall come into force with the following wording: ‘ … § 4º Brazil is subject to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court to whose creation it has adhered.’” 
Brazil, Constitutional Amendment No. 45, 2004, Article 1.
Canada
In 2000, Canada enacted the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, criminalizing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and making consequential amendments to other Canadian laws to implement the 1998 ICC Statute in domestic law. In particular, the Act contains sections codifying offences against the administration of justice of the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000.
Canada
Canada’s Extradition Act (1999), as amended to 2005, states:
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
44. (1) The Minister [of Justice] shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
(b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the prosecution of a person is barred by prescription or limitation under the law that applies to the extradition partner;
(b) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a military offence that is not also an offence under criminal law; …
(c) the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought is a political offence or an offence of a political character.
47. The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
(a) the person would be entitled, if that person were tried in Canada, to be discharged under the laws of Canada because of a previous acquittal or conviction;
(b) the person was convicted in their absence and could not, on surrender, have the case reviewed;
(c) the person was less than eighteen years old at the time of the offence and the law that applies to them in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction is not consistent with the fundamental principles governing the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
(d) the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is the subject of criminal proceedings in Canada against the person; or
(e) none of the conduct on which the extradition partner bases its request occurred in the territory over which the extradition partner has jurisdiction.
47.1 The grounds for refusal set out in sections 44, 46 and 47 do not apply in the case of a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Extradition Act, 1999, as amended to 2005, Sections 44, 46(1) and 47–47.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Penal Procedure Code (2010) states:
Art. 344: In enforcing the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [ICC] ratified on 3 October 2001, the Central African Republic participates in the repression of offences and cooperates with the [International Criminal] Court according to the conditions of this section [on cooperation with the ICC].
The provisions that follow are applicable to any person prosecuted or sentenced by the International Criminal Court for acts constituting, in the meaning of articles 6 to 8 and 25 of the Rome Statute, genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Art. 345: Cooperation requests issued by the International Criminal Court shall be addressed to the competent authorities in accordance with the present code and with the [ICC] Statute …
Art. 346: Cooperation requests are executed, depending on the case, by the Public Prosecutor or by the investigating judges of the high court of Bangui who perform their duties in the entire national territory …
Art. 347: The carrying-out of [the other forms of cooperation] mentioned in paragraph 1 section k of article 93 of the Rome Statute is ordered … by the Public Prosecutor before the high court of Bangui. The maximum duration of these measures is limited to two years.
Art. 348: Requests for arrest to hand over [an individual] to the International Criminal Court are addressed … to the competent authorities under article 87 of the [ICC] Statute that must, after ensuring the formal validity [of the request], transmit them to the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals and must, at the same time, enforce [the request] in the entire territory of the Republic.
Art. 349: Any person apprehended with the aim of being handed over [to the ICC] must be referred to the Public Prosecutor with jurisdiction [over the matter] within twenty four hours. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Articles 344–349.
The Code also states:
Art. 357: A person subject to a provisional arrest under article 92 of the [ICC] Statute can, if he or she consents to it, be handed over to the International Criminal Court before the competent authorities under article 87 of the Statute have received a formal request for surrender from the international court.
Art. 358: Any person detained on the territory of the Central African Republic can, if he or she consents to it, be transferred to the International Criminal Court for purposes of identification or for a hearing or indictment.
Art. 359: When requested by the International Criminal Court, the enforcement of fines and forfeitures and of decisions concerning reparations are authorized by the criminal court in Bangui, seized by the Public Prosecutor.
Art. 360: The authorization by the criminal court under the preceding article results in the transfer of the property or of the proceeds of the sale of property or confiscated goods to the International Criminal Court, or to funds benefitting victims by decision of the Court.
Art. 361: When, in the application of this code and of the Statute, the Government has accepted to receive persons sentenced by the International Criminal Court to serve the terms of imprisonment on the territory of the Republic, the pronounced sentence is directly and immediately executable once the person has been transferred to the national territory for the remaining amount of the sentence.
Subject to the provisions in the Statute and this section [of the code], the enforcement and the implementation of the death penalty are governed by the provisions of this code. 
Central African Republic, Penal Procedure Code, 2010, Articles 357–361.
Croatia
Croatia’s Cooperation with the ICTY Act (1996) states:
This Constitutional Act regulates the co-operation of the Republic of Croatia which the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, hereinafter, the Tribunal, and the fulfilment of the commitments of the Republic of Croatia pursuant to Security Council resolutions 827 (1993), the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. 
Croatia, Cooperation with the ICTY Act, 1996, Article 1.
Croatia
Croatia’s ICC Statute Adoption Act (2003) states with regard to the jurisdiction of Croatian courts and the ICC:
(1) The perpetrators of the criminal offences referred to in Article 1 of Act committed in the Republic of Croatia, the perpetrators who are the nationals of the Republic of Croatia and the perpetrators whose victims are the nationals of the Republic of Croatia shall be prosecuted in the Republic of Croatia and tried before the Croatian court which has jurisdiction with respect to the committed criminal offences.
(4) To the exclusion of paragraph 1 of this Article, prosecution shall not take place in the Republic of Croatia when the proceedings have already commenced before the International Criminal Court. In such a case, the Republic of Croatia shall defer the prosecution to the International Criminal Court in accordance with the Statute and this Act. 
Croatia, ICC Statute Adoption Act, 2003, Article 10(1) and (4).
The Law further states: “After the International Criminal Court has initiated proceedings against an accused person, no proceedings shall be initiated for the same criminal offence in the Republic of Croatia.” 
Croatia, ICC Statute Adoption Act, 2003, Article 21(3).
Denmark
Denmark’s International Tribunals Act (1994) states:
1. Any offence covered by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for War Crimes Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia, cf. Annex 1 and Annex 2 hereof, may be prosecuted in Denmark in accordance with the provisions laid down in the legislation, and the said Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
3. No person against whom the Tribunal has instituted criminal proceedings may at the same time be subject to prosecution in this country for the same act. 
Denmark, International Tribunals Act, 1994, Articles 1 and 3.
Denmark
Denmark’s ICC Act (2001) states:
1. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, cf. the annex to this law, shall apply in this country.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs may decide that the following provisions shall apply in this country:
1) The Rules of procedure and amendments thereto, cf. article 51 of the Statute.
2) The recommended descriptions of the content of crimes and amendments thereto, cf. article 9 of the Statute.
3) Amendments to the Statute provided they are adopted in accordance with articles 121–123 of the Statute. 
Denmark, ICC Act, 2001, Article 1.
Finland
Finland’s ICTY Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance Act (1994) states:
For the purpose of implementing the obligations based on resolution No 827 (1993) of the United Nations’ Security Council, relating to the creation of an International Tribunal (Tribunal) for the prosecution of persons responsible for crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and on the Statute of the Tribunal adopted by the resolution, this Act shall govern:
1) the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal and by Finnish courts;
2) the recognition and enforcement in Finland of decisions made by the Tribunal;
3) the surrender of offenders in a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal; as well as
4) other international legal assistance to the Tribunal and cooperation between the Tribunal and Finnish courts and other competent authorities. 
Finland, ICTY Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance Act, 1994, Section 1.
Finland
Finland’s ICC Act (2000) states:
The provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17 July 1998, insofar as they are of a legislative nature, shall be in force as applicable law in accordance with the commitments of Finland. 
Finland, ICC Act, 2000, Article 1.
France
France’s Constitution (1958), as amended in 1999, provides: “The Republic may recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as provided for by the Treaty signed on 18 July 1998.” 
France, Constitution, 1958, as amended in 1999, Article 53-2.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995) states:
For the implementation of resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993 establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with this Tribunal under the conditions laid down by this Act.
The following provisions shall apply to any person prosecuted for acts which constitute, within the meaning of Articles 2 to 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide or crimes against humanity. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995, Article 1.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (1996) states:
For the implementation of resolution 955 of the United Nations Security Council of November 8, 1994 instituting an International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with this Tribunal under conditions established by this Act.
The following provisions shall apply to any person prosecuted for acts which constitute, within the meaning of Articles 2 to 4 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocol II Additional to those Conventions, dated June 8, 1977, genocide or crimes against humanity. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1996, Article 1.
France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2002) states:
For the implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court signed on July 18, 1998, France takes part in the repression of crimes and cooperates with the court under the conditions specified under this title.
The following provisions shall apply to any accused person before the International Criminal Court or convicted by it in respect of acts which, under Articles 6 to 8 and 25 of the Statute, constitute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2002, Article 627.
Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2003) states:
Article 31. Basic principle of cooperation.
1. Georgia shall cooperate with the International [Criminal] Court pursuant to Article 32 of this Law if it derives from the Court’s request and materials accompanying it that the act is within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Article 32. Forms of cooperation.
In accordance with this Chapter, cooperation with the International Court may include any procedural measure under the [1998 ICC] Statute and Georgian legislation that facilitates the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Court as well as the seizure of the proceeds of crime. Such measures may include:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons;
(b) The taking of evidence, including witness testimony under oath, and the production and service of evidence necessary to the Court, including expert opinions and reports;
(c) The questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) The service of documents, including judgments;
(e) The temporary transfer of arrested persons;
(f) The identification of location of places or objects;
(g) Searches, seizures, and confiscations;
(h) The provision of records and documents, including judicial (courtroom) records and documents;
(i) The protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(j) The identification or seizure of proceeds, property and assets of material value and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of forfeiture;
(k) The facilitation of voluntary appearances before the Court by persons, witnesses and experts;
(l) The execution of exhumations, the examination of places and objects, including the uncovering and examination of graves;
(m) Any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by the legislation of Georgia and which will facilitate the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Court. 
Georgia, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2003, Articles 31(1) and 32.
The Law also states:
Article 5. Consultation with the International Court.
The Responsible Agency [Agency for Cooperation with the ICC within the Ministry of Justice] shall have the authority to consult with the International Court on matters related to the request as prescribed by the [1998 ICC] Statute. Consultation with the International Court shall be obligatory if the execution of the request:
a) contradicts fundamental legal principles of the State [of Georgia], as indicated in Article 93(3) of the Statute;
b) affects interests of national security;
c) jeopardizes the on-going investigation or prosecution of another criminal case;
d) violates domestic or diplomatic immunity.
Article 9. Form of a request from the International Court and conditions of its reception.
5. If the Responsible Agency considers that a request of the International Court is not acceptable or refuses to execute the request, it shall immediately inform the International Court that it considers the request unacceptable or that it refuses to execute the request, providing reasoning for either decision. Before a final refusal to execute the request, the Responsible Agency shall consult with the International Court.
Article 12. Protection of national security.
3. The Responsible Agency, on the motion of the National Security Council of Georgia, may refuse to execute the request of the International Court for cooperation if the cooperation sought may threaten national security. 
Georgia, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2003, Articles 5, 9(5) and 12(3).
Georgia
Georgia’s Code of Criminal Procedure (1998), as amended in 2003, states:
Article 247 …
3. The questions of cooperation of Georgia with the ICC are regulated by the [1998 ICC Statute] and the [Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2003)] …
Article 252. Submitting Materials on Offences Committed on the Territory of Georgia by Foreign National or Stateless Persons.
If a foreign national or a stateless person who has committed an offence on the territory of Georgia has left the territory of Georgia, all the investigation material [gathered] in the initiated case shall be delivered to the Prosecutor-General of Georgia and/or to the national State agency responsible for matters concerning cooperation with the ICC in accordance with the legislation, who shall forward them … to the ICC for further criminal prosecution, or shall … [submit] a request for surrender of the accused to Georgian authorities. 
Georgia, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, as amended in 2003, Articles 247(3) and 252.
The Code also states: “For the purpose of international cooperation in legal matters … ‘[s]urrender’ means the handing over of a person by a State to the International Criminal Court, pursuant to its [1998 ICC] Statute.” 
Georgia, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998, as amended in 2003, Article 46(a).
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995) states:
§ 1. Obligation to Cooperate
(1) Pursuant to this Law, the Federal Republic of Germany shall fulfil its obligations to cooperate as stated in Resolutions 808 (1993) and 827 (1993) adopted by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
(2) For the purposes of this Law, the term “Tribunal” shall refer to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 established by Resolution 827 (1993), and shall include its Trial and Appeal Chambers and prosecuting authorities and the members of that Tribunal and the prosecuting authorities. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995.
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (1998) states:
§ 1. Obligation to Cooperate
(1) Pursuant to this Law, the Federal Republic of Germany shall fulfil its obligations to cooperate as stated in Resolution 955 (1994) adopted by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
(2) For the purposes of this Law, the term “Tribunal shall refer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994 and for the Prosecution of Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States during the same period, established by Resolution 955 (1994), and shall include its Chambers, its prosecuting authorities and the members of that Tribunal and the prosecuting authorities. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1998.
Germany
Germany’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2002):
The International Criminal Court supplements German criminal law jurisdiction. Based upon this law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Rome Statute”) of 17. July 1998 (Federal Law Gazette 2000 II p. 1393) the Federal Republic of Germany shall work together with the International Criminal Court. 
Germany, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2002.
Greece
In 1998, Greece adopted Law No. 2665 on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda which regulates cooperation between the Greek State and these international tribunals. 
Greece, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1998.
Hungary
Hungary’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1996) reads:
The Parliament creates the following Act on the fulfilment of obligations deriving from the Statute of the International Tribunal established by Resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the International Tribunal”). 
Hungary, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1996, preamble.
Iceland
In 1994, Iceland adopted Law No. 49 on Legal Aid to the ICTY. 
Iceland, Law on Legal Aid to the ICTY, 1994.
Ireland
In 1998, Ireland adopted the War Crimes Tribunal Act, to enable cooperation with international tribunals in the performance of their functions relating to the prosecution and punishment of international war crimes. 
Ireland, War Crimes Tribunal Act, 1998.
Ireland
Ireland’s International Criminal Court Act (2006), Parts 3, 4 and 5 of which refer to the processing of requests for assistance from the International Criminal Court, states:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the provision to the International Criminal Court of assistance (other than assistance provided for under this Act) which is not prohibited by any other enactment or any rule of law. 
Ireland, International Criminal Court Act, 2006, § 57.
Italy
Italy’s Decree-Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1993) states:
1. Italy shall co-operate with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the resolution, the statute and this decree.
2. The Minister of Justice shall be the authority competent to receive from the International Tribunal the requests for co-operation mentioned in the following articles and to give effect to such requests. 
Italy, Decree-Law on Cooperation with the ICTY , 1993, Article 2.
Italy
Italy’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (2002) states:
1. The Italian state shall cooperate with the International Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the resolution, the statute and this law.
2. The authority which has the power to receive requests for cooperation from the International Tribunal specified by this law and act upon these shall be the Ministry of Justice. 
Italy, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 2002, Article 2.
Kenya
Kenya’s International Crimes Act (2008) was enacted to incorporate the 1998 ICC Statute into domestic law and “to enable Kenya to co-operate with the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute in the performance of its functions”. 
Kenya, International Crimes Act, 2008, preamble.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1999) states:
For the implementation of resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993 establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and a date to be determined by the Security Council after the restoration of peace, and for the implementation of resolution 955 of the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 1994 establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg participates in the repression of crimes and cooperates with these courts under the conditions laid down by this Act. 
Luxembourg, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1999, Article 1.
Netherlands
The Act on the Establishment of the ICTY (1994) of the Netherlands states:
At the request of the Tribunal, persons may be surrendered to the Tribunal for prosecution and trial on account of criminal offences in respect of which the Tribunal has competence pursuant to the Statute. 
Netherlands, Act on the Establishment of the ICTY, 1994, Article 2.
Netherlands
In 2002, the Netherlands adopted the ICC Implementation Act in order to implement the 1998 ICC Statute in relation to cooperation with and the provision of assistance to the International Criminal Court and the enforcement of its decisions. 
Netherlands, ICC Implementation Act, 2002.
New Zealand
In 1995, New Zealand adopted the International War Crimes Act, which enables it to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and any other Tribunal that the Governor-General of New Zealand declares to be a Tribunal for the purposes of the Act. 
New Zealand, International War Crimes Act, 1995.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000) states:
The purpose of this Act is
(b) to enable New Zealand to co-operate with the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute in the performance of its functions. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Article 3b.
Norway
Norway’s Law on the Incorporation of UN Resolutions on International Tribunals (1994) states:
Requests for extradition, other forms of legal aid and the like from the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the Act apply correspondingly to the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international law committed in Rwanda. 
Norway, Law on the Incorporation of UN Resolutions on International Tribunals, 1994, Section 1.
Norway
Norway’s ICC Act (2001) states:
Any request for the surrender of a person sought and other forms of assistance submitted by the International Criminal Court (the Court) in accordance with the Court’s Statute of 17 July 1998 (the Rome Statute) shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Such requests shall be submitted to the Ministry.
Requests from the Court shall be complied with in so far as the Rome Statute so provides. 
Norway, ICC Act, 2001, Article 1.
Peru
Peru’s New Code of Criminal Procedure (2004) states:
1. Acts of international judicial cooperation, without prejudice to what is stipulated in international treaties, are the following:
a) Extradition;
b) Notifications regarding decisions and judgments, as well as notifying witnesses and experts when required to render their testimony;
c) Receiving testimonies and statements;
d) Showing and forwarding of judicial documents or their copies;
e) Forwarding of documents and reports;
f) Conducting inspections or investigations;
g) Examining objects and places;
h) Blocking of accounts, distraints, seizures or freezing of assets, house searches, control of communication, identification or locating of assets or of the instruments used for the commission of a crime, and any other measure limiting the exercise of rights;
i) Forwarding information and any elements of proof;
j) Temporary transfer of detainees during their criminal trial or after their conviction, whenever their appearance as witnesses be required, and of persons who are not detained;
k) Transfer of convicted persons;
l) Judicial proceedings abroad; and,
m) Supervised surrender of criminal goods. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article 511(1).
The Code also states:
1. Acts of cooperation between Peru and the International Criminal Court are:
a) Arrest and surrender of persons
b) Provisional arrest;
c) The forms of cooperation stipulated in Article 93 of the [1998] Statute of the International Criminal Court.
2. Further, if they are not specifically included in the aforementioned international treaty, it will be possible to grant assistance in the circumstances covered by Article 511, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs b) to m) and with regard to the execution of penalties imposed on Peruvian nationals by the International Criminal Court. 
Peru, New Code of Criminal Procedure, 2004, Article 554(1)–(2).
Poland
Poland’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2004) states:
§ 1. A request for co-operation of the International Criminal Court, hereinafter referred to as “the Court”, depending on the stage of the proceedings, is executed by a competent court or prosecutor through the Minister of Justice.
§ 2. The provision of § 1 shall apply, respectively, to a request for judicial assistance addressed to the Court by a court or a prosecutor. 
Poland, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2004, Article 611g.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides:
Article 20 (Applicability of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters)
(1) The provisions of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters shall apply mutatis mutandis to the international cooperation executed pursuant to the request from the ICC or request to the ICC in connection with the investigation, prosecution, or trial conducted by the ICC. Where there is conflict between the applicable provisions of the Act on the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the ICC Statute, the latter shall prevail. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 20(1).
Romania
Romania’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1998) states:
Romania shall cooperate, through its competent authorities and under the present law, with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by UN Security Council resolution 827/1993. 
Romania, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1998, Article 1.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States (2007) provides:
Chapter 1. General provisions
Article: 1 Scope of application
This Organic Law shall regulate the transfer of cases and other related matters, from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from other States to the Republic of Rwanda.
This Organic Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence in Rwanda collected by the ICTR in proceedings before a competent court.
Article: 2 The Court with competent jurisdiction to try the cases
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the High Court of the Republic shall be the competent court to conduct on the first instance the trial of cases transferred to Rwanda as provided by this organic law.
At the first instance, the case shall be tried by a single Judge.
Article: 3 Crimes triable in Rwanda
Notwithstanding the provisions of other laws applicable in Rwanda, a person whose case transferred by the ICTR to Rwanda shall be liable to be prosecuted only for crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICTR.
Article: 4 Indictment
The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic shall adapt the ICTR indictment in order to make them compliant with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda, and it shall be forwarded to the President of the High Court of the Republic.
The High Court of the Republic shall accept the indictments after verifying they fulfill the formal requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda.
Article: 5 Arrest and detention of the accused person
Except as otherwise provided in this Organic Law, the arrest and detention of the accused persons shall be regulated in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of Rwanda.
Article: 6 Right to information
Within a period of ten (10) days, from the time when the High Court of the Republic makes a decision, the Registrar of the High Court shall notify the Prosecutor of the ICTR of the decision made in accordance with this Organic Law.
Chapter 5. Collaboration between the Government of Rwanda and the ICTR subsequent to transfer of cases
Article: 18 Technical Assistance from the ICTR
The Government of Rwanda may benefit from technical assistance from the ICTR to meet the needs arising from the transfer of cases to Rwanda.
Article: 19 Monitoring of Proceedings
The ICTR Prosecutor shall have the right to designate individuals to observe the progress of cases transferred to Rwanda in accordance with article 11bis D) iv) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Observers appointed by the ICTR Prosecutor shall have access to court proceedings, documents and records relating to the case as well as access to all places of detention.
The Vienna Convention of 13th February, 1946 on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations shall apply to the observers so appointed by the ICTR Prosecutor in accordance with Article 29 of the ICTR statute.
Article: 20 Referral of cases to ICTR
In the event that the ICTR revokes an Order of referral of cases it had transferred to Rwanda pursuant to Rule 11bis of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the accused shall be promptly surrendered to the ICTR together with any files, documents, exhibits and all other additional materials as stipulated in the order. 
Rwanda, Organic Law concerning Transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States, 2007, Articles 1–6 and 18–20.
Article One: Definitions of terms
For the purpose of this Law, the following terms shall mean as follows:
This Law shall also determine the procedures of admissibility of evidence collected by the ICTR, the Mechanism and other States in proceedings before competent Rwandan courts.
Article 3: Scope of this Law
This Law applies in matters concerning transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the Mechanism and from other States, relating to crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity.
Article 20: Technical assistance from the Mechanism
The Government of Rwanda may benefit from technical assistance from the Mechanism to meet the needs arising from the transfer of cases to Rwanda. 
Rwanda, Law relating to the transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda, 2013, Articles 1(2)–3, and 20.
Senegal
Senegal’s Criminal Procedure Code (1965), as amended in 2007 by the National Assembly in order to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, states:
The judicial assistance between Senegal and the International Criminal Court aims at:
1- the reception of testimonies or evidence;
2- the identification of a person, their whereabouts or the tracing of items;
3- placing an assistant at the disposal of judicial authorities [if] required by detained persons or other persons for the purpose of giving testimony or conducting an inquiry;
4- the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the judicial authorities;
5- the questioning of any person who is the subject of an investigation or procedure;
6- the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
7- the execution of searches and seizures;
8- the providing and transferring of original documents and files or of identical certified copies;
9- the protection of victims and the presentation of evidence;
10- the identification, tracing, freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties;
11- and any other form of assistance which would not be incompatible with national public order. 
Senegal, Criminal Procedure Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 677-1.
Serbia
Serbia’s Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings (2003) states:
Article 2
This Law shall apply in detecting, prosecuting and trying:
(2) serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991, stipulated in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Article 14a
In cases when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in accordance with its Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence cedes a case to the Republic of Serbia, the Prosecutor shall undertake criminal prosecution based on the facts on which the indictment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was founded.
The Prosecutor may undertake criminal prosecution based on the data and evidence collected by the OTP [the Office of the Prosecutor] of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
In the criminal proceedings conducted in the Republic of Serbia after the case has been ceded domestic law shall be applied.
The evidence collected and presented by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia may upon its transfer be used as evidence in the criminal proceedings before the local court, provided that it was collected and presented in a manner envisaged by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The existence or nonexistence of the facts that this evidence seeks to prove the court shall judge in accordance with Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The measures for the protection of witnesses or injured persons which were ordered when the case was ceded to a local court by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia shall remain in force.
A person residing abroad may not be arrested, detained or criminally prosecuted for a crime committed earlier while in the territory of the Republic of Serbia for the purposes of testifying in the capacity of an injured person, witness or expert witness in cases of the crimes set out in Article 2 hereof. The summons shall explicitly state that the injured person, witness or expert witness has the rights under this paragraph.
Representatives of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia shall have the right to attend all stages of criminal proceedings before a local court and to be informed of the development of the proceedings. 
Serbia, Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings, 2003, Articles 2(2) and 14a.
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) provides:
The relevant competent authorities in the Republic must, subject to the domestic law of the Republic and the Statute, cooperate with, and render assistance to, the [International Criminal] Court in relation to investigations and prosecutions in the following areas:
(a) The identification and whereabouts of persons or the location of items;
(b) the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
(c) the questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
(d) the service of documents, including judicial documents;
(e) facilitating the voluntary appearance of persons as witnesses or experts before the Court;
(f) the temporary transfer of persons in custody for purposes of identification or for obtaining testimony or other assistance;
(g) the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of grave sites;
(h) the execution of searches and seizures;
(i) the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
(j) the protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
(k) the identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture, without prejudice to the rights of bone fide third parties; and
(l) any other type of assistance which is not prohibited by law, with the view to facilitating the investigation. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, § 14.
Spain
Spain’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1994) states:
Spain will provide full cooperation to the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter “International Tribunal”) established by Resolution 827 (1993) of the Security Council of the United Nations. 
Spain, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1994, Article 1.
Sweden
Sweden’s Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act (1995), as amended, states:
This Act applies in relation to
- the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia established by the United Nations Security Council on 25 May 1993, and
- the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 1994.
Should either of the Tribunals request legal assistance of Sweden, the requested measure shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 
Sweden, Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act, 1995, as amended, Section 1.
Sweden
In 2002, Sweden enacted the Cooperation with the International Criminal Court Act (2002), which provides for cooperation with the ICC in “the investigation or prosecution [related] to genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes”, “the investigation or prosecution [related] to an offence against the administration of justice by the International Criminal Court”, and “on enforcement of the rulings of the International Criminal Court and on the transit through Sweden of persons deprived of their liberty”. 
Sweden, Cooperation with the International Criminal Court Act, 2002, § 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act (1995) states:
This Decree governs:
a. cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that Resolution;
b. cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, established by resolution 955 (1994) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that resolution.
The Federal Council may extend the scope of this order in cooperation with other international tribunals established by the Security Council of the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, whether those courts have the status and powers similar to those enjoyed by the courts established by Resolutions 827 and 955. 
Switzerland, Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals Act, 1995, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals (1995), as amended in 2009, states:
1. This … [law] governs:
a. cooperation with the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, established by resolution 827 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that Resolution;
b. cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, established by resolution 955 (1994) of the United Nations Security Council and organized according to its Statute, annexed to that resolution.
2. The Federal Council may extend the scope of this … [law] to the cooperation with other international tribunals established by the Security Council of the United Nations to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law if those courts have the status and competences similar to those enjoyed by the tribunals established by Resolutions 827 and 955. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1995, as amended in 2009, Article 1.
The Law also states:
Scope of the cooperation
The present … [law] governs all modes of cooperation with the international tribunals, in particular:
a. the spontaneous provision of information and evidence … ;
b. the cessation of Swiss jurisdiction … ;
c. the transfer of prosecuted persons … ;
d. procedural acts and other official acts demanded by the international tribunals (other acts of assistance) … ;
e. the execution of punishments of deprivation of liberty pronounced by the international tribunals. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Tribunals, 1995, as amended in 2009, Article 3(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2001) states:
1. This law shall govern cooperation with the International Criminal Court (Court), established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (Statute).
2. It shall regulate in particular:
a. the surrender of persons being prosecuted and of persons convicted by the Court (Chapter 3);
b. other forms of cooperation (Chapter 4);
c. the enforcement of penalties of the Court (Chapter 5). 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2001, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2001), as amended in 2007, states:
1. This law shall govern cooperation with the International Criminal Court (Court) created by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 (Statute).
2. It shall regulate in particular:
a. the surrender of persons being prosecuted and of persons convicted by the Court …;
b. other forms of cooperation … ;
c. the enforcement of penalties of the Court. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2001, as amended in 2007, Article 1.
The Law also states:
Forms of cooperation
Cooperation … may include any procedural act not prohibited by Swiss law that facilitates the investigation and criminal prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court or that serves to produce the proceeds of such crimes, in particular:
a. the identification and determination of the whereabouts of persons not being prosecuted by the Court or the locating of objects;
b. the taking of evidence, including testimony under oath, and the production of evidence, including expert opinions and reports necessary to the Court;
c. the questioning of any person being investigated or prosecuted;
d. the service of documents, including judicial documents;
e. the temporary transfer of persons in detention as provided in article 39;
f. the examination of places or sites, including the exhumation and examination of bodies buried in collective graves;
g. the execution of searches and seizures;
h. the provision of records and documents, including official records and documents;
i. the protection of victims and witnesses and the preservation of evidence;
j. the identification, tracing and freezing or seizure of proceeds, property and assets and instrumentalities of crimes for the purpose of eventual forfeiture. 
Switzerland, Law on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 2001, as amended in 2007, Article 30; see also Articles 39–41.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Ordinance on Cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone (2003) states:
The field of application of the order of 21 December 1995 on the cooperation with international tribunals tasked with prosecuting serious violations of international humanitarian law is extended to the cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone. 
Switzerland, Ordinance on Cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone, 2003, Article 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, which also contains a chapter on war crimes, states in the part on general provisions:
Art. 10
1 If the personal conditions are fulfilled, the present code is applicable both to offences committed in Switzerland and to those committed abroad.
1bis The present code applies to persons mentioned in art. 5 [paragraph 1], number 1, letter d and number 5, who have committed abroad one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors] if they are present in Switzerland, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland.
1ter Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there;
c. the necessary evidence cannot be obtained.
1quater The present code applies to persons who have committed abroad, against a Swiss military person, one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors], if they are present in Switzerland or have been extradited there because of this act, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 10(1)–(1quater). The German language version of Article 10(1ter)(b) notes: “the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there; or”.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in the common provisions under the titles on genocide and crimes against humanity and on war crimes:
Art. 264m
1 A person who carries out an act under Title 12bis and 12ter [on war crimes] or Art. 264k [on the criminal liability of superiors] while abroad is guilty of an offence if he is in Switzerland and is not extradited to another State or delivered to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland.
2 Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 264 m (1)–(2). The German, Italian and Romansh language versions of Article 264m (2)(a) note: “a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court; or”.
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago’s ICC Act (2006) states:
General provisions relating to requests for assistance
24. Requests for assistance
25. Requests to be made through authorized channel
26. Urgent requests
27. Execution of requests
28. Consultation
29. Confidentiality of request
30. Response to be sent to ICC
31. Official capacity of person no bar to request. 
Trinidad and Tobago, ICC Act, 2006, Part III.
Uganda
Uganda’s ICC Act (2010) states:
21. Making of requests.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a request [by the ICC] for assistance shall be made in writing, directly to the Minister.
(2) A request for provisional arrest (article 92) or for other forms of co-operation (article 93) or an urgent request for arrest and surrender (article 89) may be made using any medium capable of delivering a written record including facsimile or electronic mail.
22. Consultation.
The Minister shall consult with the ICC, without delay, if, for any reason there is or may be a problem with the execution of a request for assistance.
24. Response to be sent to ICC.
(1) The Minister shall notify the ICC, without delay, of his or her response to a request for assistance and of the outcome of any action that has been taken in relation to it.
(2) If the Minister decides, in accordance with the Statute and this Act, to refuse or postpone the assistance requested, in whole or in part, the notification to the ICC shall set out the reasons for the decision.
(3) If the request for assistance cannot be executed for any other reason, the notification to the ICC shall set out the reasons for the inability or failure to execute the request.
67. Uganda may act as State of enforcement
(1) The minister may notify the ICC that Uganda is willing to allow persons who are ICC prisoners as a result of being sentenced to imprisonment by the ICC to serve these sentences in Uganda, subject to any conditions consistent with the State and Rules, specified in the notification.
101. Legal personality and privileges and immunities.
(1) The ICC shall have legal personality in Uganda with such legal capacity as may be necessary for the performance of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. 
Uganda, ICC Act, 2010, § 21(1) and (2), 22, 24(1)–(3), 67(1) and 101(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICTY Order (1996) states:
(1) This Order has effect for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing International Tribunal crimes and the punishment of persons convicted of such crimes.
(2) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), this Order has effect –
(a) to provide for the arrest and delivery to the International Tribunal of persons accused or convicted of an International Tribunal crime and for the arrest in cases of urgency of persons suspected of having committed an International Tribunal crime,
(b) to secure the attendance before the International Tribunal of persons as witnesses or to assist in investigations,
(c) to give effect to requests by the International Tribunal for the discontinuance of certain proceedings in courts constituted under United Kingdom law,
(d) to provide the International Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of International Tribunal crimes,
(e) to enforce orders of the International Tribunal for the preservation or restitution of property and to give effect to requests to determine the ownership of property,
(f) to make provision for the immunities and privileges of the International Tribunal and persons connected therewith.
(3) Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing the provision of assistance to the International Tribunal otherwise than under this Order. 
United Kingdom, ICTY Order, 1996, Article 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICTR Order (1996) states:
(1) This Order has effect for the purpose of enabling the United Kingdom to co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing International Tribunal crimes and the punishment of persons convicted of such crimes.
(2) In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), this Order has effect –
(a) to provide for the arrest and delivery to the International Tribunal of persons accused or convicted of an International Tribunal crime and for the arrest in cases of urgency of persons suspected of having committed an International Tribunal crime,
(b) to secure the attendance before the International Tribunal of persons as witnesses or to assist in investigations,
(c) to give effect to requests by the International Tribunal for the discontinuance of certain proceedings in courts constituted under United Kingdom law,
(d) to provide the International Tribunal with other forms of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of International Tribunal crimes,
(e) to enforce orders of the International Tribunal for the preservation or restitution of property and to give effect to requests to determine the ownership of property,
(f) to make provision for the immunities and privileges of the International Tribunal and persons connected therewith.
(3) Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing the provision of assistance to the International Tribunal otherwise than under this Order. 
United Kingdom, ICTR Order, 1996, Article 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICC Act (2001), as amended in 2009, addresses the cooperation of the UK with the ICC in areas such as “Arrest and Delivery of Persons” (Part 2) and “Other Forms of Assistance” (Part 3) including “Questioning” (Section 28), “Taking or production of evidence” (Section 29), “Service of process” (Section 31), “Transfer of prisoner to give evidence or assist in investigation” (Section 32), “Entry, search and seizure” (Section 33), “Taking of fingerprints or non-intimate sample” (Section 34), “Orders for exhumation” (Section 35), “Provision of records and documents” (Section 36), “Investigation of proceeds of ICC crime” (Section 37), and “Freezing orders in respect of property liable to forfeiture” (Section 38). The Act also addresses “Enforcement of [ICC] Sentences and Orders” (Part 4).
The Act further states:
Production or disclosure prejudicial to national security
(1) Nothing in any of the provisions of this Part, or any corresponding provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, requires or authorises the production of documents, or the disclosure of information, which would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of any such provision a certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that it would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom for specified documents to be produced, or for specified information to be disclosed, is conclusive evidence of that fact. 
UK, ICC Act, 2001, as amended on 1 September 2009, Section 39.
The Act further states:
Offences in relation to the ICC
(1) A person intentionally committing any of the acts mentioned in article 70.1 [of the 1998 ICC Statute] (offences against the administration of justice in relation to the ICC) may be dealt with as for the corresponding domestic offence committed in relation to a superior court in England and Wales.
(2) In interpreting and applying the provisions of article 70.1 the court shall take into account any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC.
Account may also be taken of any other relevant international jurisprudence.
(3) The corresponding domestic offences are—
(a) in relation to article 70.1(a) (giving false testimony when under an obligation to tell the truth), an offence against section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911 (c. 6);
(b) in relation to article 70.1(c) (interference with witness or evidence), an offence against section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) or at common law;
(c) in relation to article 70.1(b) or (d) to (f) (other offences), an offence at common law. 
UK, ICC Act, 2001, as amended on 1 September 2009, Section 54(1)–(2); see also Section 61 (Northern Ireland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to allow for the enforcement of sentences of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in the United Kingdom. 
United Kingdom, International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act, 2007.
United States of America
The US Law on Judicial Assistance to the ICTY and ICTR (1996) states:
(a) Surrender of Persons. –
(1) Application of United States extradition laws. –
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the provisions of chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the extradition of persons to a foreign country pursuant to a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and a foreign government, shall apply in the same manner and extent to the surrender of persons, including United States citizens, to –
(A) the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia, pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia; and
(B) the International Tribunal for Rwanda, pursuant to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. 
United States, Law on Judicial Assistance to the ICTY and ICTR, 1996.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
31.1. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay must fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court and comply with requests for cooperation and assistance that may arise in accordance with the Rome Statute …
31.2. The inexistence of procedures in the internal order may not be invoked to justify non-compliance with cooperation requests from the International Criminal Court.
31.3. The existence of facts which the International Criminal Court imputes to a person or the culpability of the requested person may not be discussed. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 31.
Cameroon
In 1996, in its judgment in the Ruzindana case, Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Rusindena, Jean Baptiste Butera and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the persons concerned on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996 the Rwandan government seized the Cameroonian government for the purpose of the extradition of the aforementioned RUSINDENA Augustin, BUTERA Jean Baptiste, MUGENZI Justin, MUTABAMKLA Sylvain, NTAGERURA André, SEMANZIA Laurent, MPIRANYER Protais, MUBERUKA Félicien, BARIHENDA Augustin, SEKAKO Ephrein, NKUNDIYE Léon, NSENGIYUMBA Anatole, MUSABE Pasteur, NZIRORERA Joseph, NAHIMANA Ferdinand, BIZIMUNGU Télésphore, BAKUZAKUNDI Michel, BARAYAGWIZA Jean Bosco;
Rwandan citizens currently living in Cameroon;
Whereas it follows both from the request and from the aforementioned international arrest warrants, enforced on 29 March 1996, that the aforementioned persons, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July 1994, committed genocide, massacre of civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda;
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is already operational; that the Tribunal’s Prosecutor, on 15 April 1996, asked the Cameroonian judicial authorities for assistance by proceeding to the preliminary arrest of the aforementioned Rwandans on the basis of counts of serious violations of international humanitarian law and of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the said International Tribunal;
Whereas Article 13 of the internal Rules [of Procedure and Evidence] of the aforementioned International Tribunal prohibits national courts from exercising jurisdiction in a matter as soon as the said Tribunal is seized of them;
Whereas, according to Article 8 of [the ICTR Statute, annexed to] UN Security Council Resolution 955 of 9 November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is a supranational court and has primacy over the national courts of the country concerned;
Whereas its decisions are applicable immediately and are not subject to the extradition régime;
Whereas it follows from the above that at the current stage of the proceedings the extradition request by the Rwandan Government can no longer be examined since the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is operational;
Whereas it is necessary to stay adjudication until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region], on the application of the Public Prosecutor, stays adjudication regarding the extradition request presented by Maître Paul Nhanag on behalf of the Rwandan Government until the completion of the proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case, Judgment, 31 May 1996.
Cameroon
In 1997, in its judgment in the Ruzindana case (No. 2), Cameroon’s Court of Appeals of the Centre Region stated:
Having regard to the extradition request entered by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda against the aforementioned Augustin Ruzindana and others, residing in Yaoundé since July 1995;
Having regard to the international arrest warrants issued against the aforementioned persons on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeals of Kigali;
Having regard to Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964 laying down the extradition régime in Cameroon, modified by Law No. 97/010 of 10 January 1997;
Having regard to Judgement No. 615/ADD of 31 May [1996] of this Court ordering a stay of adjudication;
Whereas by a request dated 18 March 1996, the Rwandan Government, acting by and through its counsel in Cameroon, Maître Paul Nhanag, seized the Minister of Justice of Cameroon for the purpose of the extradition of 19 Rwandans said to be residing within the borders of the Republic of Cameroon;
Whereas in support of that request the Rwandan Government annexed 19 international arrest warrants signed on 15 March 1996 by the Prosecutor General of Kigali and containing an identical accusation: genocide and grave violations of international humanitarian law;
Whereas the international arrest warrants issued against 11 of these Rwandans were enforced on 29 March 1996, and thus joined the first, colonel Bagosora, who already was the object of an international arrest warrant by the Kingdom of Belgium, enforced since 9 March 1996;
Whereas it follows both from the request submitted and from the international arrest warrants attached that the aforementioned Rwandans, between 1 October 1990 and 31 July [1994], committed, in Kigali or in other localities in Rwanda, genocide and other crimes against humanity by launching widespread and systematic attacks against civilian populations on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds;
Whereas, by doing this, the Rwanda Government seeks their extradition in order that they answer for their crimes before the Rwandan courts;
Whereas the aforementioned Théoneste Bagasora, André Ntageura, Ferdinand Nahimana and Anatole Nsengiyumva, charged for the same acts by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, have been transferred to the seat of that Tribunal in Arusha, at the request of that court and in application of Decrees No. 97/005, 97/006, 97/007 and 97/008 by the President of the Republic of Cameroon, authorizing that transfer;
Whereas the present request currently only concerns eight Rwandans, for whom the arrest warrant had been enforced, namely:
1. RUZINDANA AUGUSTIN
2. BUTERA JEAN BAPTISTE
3. SEMANZA LAURENT
4. MUBERUKA FELICIEN
5. MUSABE PASTEUR
6. RIZIMUNGU TELESPHORE
7. BAKUZAKUNDI MICHEL
8. BARAYAG[W]IZA JEAN BOSCO.
Whereas it follows from the documents in the file and from the discussions that the request by the Rwandan Government was not made through diplomatic channels, as it is required by Article 15 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified;
Whereas, in fact, that law requires imperatively that every extradition request must pass through diplomatic channels in order to allow the Minister of External Relations to make sure of the authenticity of the documents annexed to the request, before any seizing of the judicial authorities;
Whereas the documents provided by the Rwandan Government were produced in photocopy and not in the original, as the legislation on the matter demands it; that request is irregular;
Whereas, furthermore, the new Article 29 of the Law laying down the extradition regime provides that no person can be extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture;
Whereas, finally, the Office of the Prosecution of the International Criminal Tribunal [for Rwanda], after investigation, has dropped the case against the 8 Rwandans currently detained;
Whereas, according to UN Security Council Resolution 955, which created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and according to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, that tribunal has primacy over the national courts;
Whereas it would be inappropriate to allow the national Rwandan courts to exercise jurisdiction over the same facts regarding the eight Rwandans;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to issue an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of that extradition request;
Whereas Article 25 of Law No. 64-LF-13 of 26 June 1964, as modified, provides that when the Court issues an unfavourable decision, the foreigner must be released immediately; whereas it is necessary to order the immediate release of the eight Rwandans;
Therefore
[The Court of Appeals of the Centre Region] issues an unfavourable decision regarding the legal admissibility of the extradition request by the Rwandan Government;
Orders the immediate release of the eight Rwandans concerned, if they are not detained in relation to another matter. 
Cameroon, Court of Appeals of the Centre Region, Ruzindana case (No. 2), Judgment, 21 February 1997.
Central African Republic
On 16 September 2004, in the Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, the presiding investigating judge at the Bangui Regional Court, inter alia, referred the case of Patassé and others to the Criminal Court of the Central African Republic for the trial of allegations of, inter alia, murder, deadly blows, removal of bodies, arbitrary arrests and detentions, rape, theft, torture, and destruction of third party property. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, Judgment, 11 April 2006, pp. 1–2.
On 16 December 2004, the Bangui Court of Appeals overruled that decision, holding, inter alia, that the crimes in question came under the competence of the International Criminal Court. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case, Judgment, 11 April 2006, p. 2.
On 11 April 2006, the Court of Cassation, the highest criminal court of the Central African Republic, confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in this respect, stating:
searching for perpetrators of crimes and bringing them before penal courts to make them answer for their crimes is a duty of which no State can divest itself;
…this must take place by way of genuine proceedings;
… in the proceedings against Ange Félix PATASSE, Jean Pierre BEMBA and his men, Martin KOUMTAMADJI alias Abdoulaye MISKINE, Victor NDOUBABE, Paul BARRIL and Lionel GANE-BEFIO, the presiding investigating judge has charged the concerned persons for the facts they are accused of and has issued arrest warrants against them, … but these remain the only concrete actions, the latter having neither been heard nor been made the object of serious searches;
… the incapability of the judicial services of the Central African Republic genuinely to carry out an effective investigation or prosecution concerning them is clear;
… furthermore, the fact that the presiding investigating judge referred to the Criminal Court of the Central African Republic persons who are all outside the national territory shows that incapacity and establishes their impunity;
… recourse to international cooperation remains the only means to prevent that impunity in this case;
… the Central African Republic has ratified the Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court which offers the possibility to search and punish the perpetrators of the most serious crimes which affect the international community as a whole, in the place of States which are unable genuinely to carry out an effective investigation or prosecution;
… the presiding investigating judge was wrong not to decide to make use of that possibility. 
Central African Republic, Court of Cassation, Central African Republic v. Ange Félix Patassé and Others case , Judgment, 11 April 2006, pp. 2–3.
France
In 2008, in the Ntawukuriryayo case, the Criminal Chamber of France’s Court of Cassation was called upon to decide about the transfer of the appellant to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The appellant claimed that his transfer to that tribunal would be merely a prelude to his extradition to Rwanda, where he would not receive a fair trial. The Court stated:
[The investigating chamber issued a] decision ordering the transfer of Dominique X … to the authorities of the ICTR, [which is] contested [by the appellant] …
… [W]hen a French … authority … transfers a person to a foreign authority due to an international warrant in order for the person to be tried [abroad], the French authority has the obligation to ensure that, as a result of the transfer, the person’s fundamental rights and judicial guarantees, as established by France’s Constitution and international obligations, will not be violated. This absolute obligation implies necessarily that the judge … must receive guarantees that the requesting authority will not subsequently transfer the … person to a third authority which does not guarantee the respect for such rights. The investigating chamber, … [which found that Dominique X could be transferred because there was] not enough evidence that he would certainly be extradited to Rwanda … , … should … rather have obtained certainty that he would not be extradited … [Thus, t]he investigating chamber reversed the burden of proof, misread the extent of its own powers and violated the abovementioned texts and principles.
… [T]he ICTR is a temporary tribunal whose international mandate expires in 2010 and whose first instance proceedings shall be concluded by December 2008 … [P]ursuant to article 11bis of its rules of procedure [the 2001 ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, as amended to 2008], it has the power to immediately transfer certain indicted persons to domestic courts … , in particular Rwandese [courts] … According to the last ICTR report on its completion strategy, … the tribunal … intends to make use of article 11bis and establish a policy for returning persons to various countries, in particular Rwanda, in order to be tried by domestic courts. Although article 11bis provides … that the [ICTR] can only … [transfer] an accused to a State whose courts ensure a fair trial and do neither impose nor carry out the death penalty, this assurance alone … falls short of the control that a French court must have and of the type of guarantees that France should obtain, whether from the ICTR, from the State involved, or from both. [Accepting article 11bis as sufficient guarantee would mean] transferring to the ICTR the control over ensuring [respect for] fundamental rights when such control must be exercised by the French court itself. By finding that article 11bis was sufficient guarantee and not obtaining further reassurances, the investigating chamber misread the extent of its powers… and violated the abovementioned texts and principles.
… Dominique X … [argued] … that the prosecutor of the ICTR had requested the application of article 11bis, in particular the … [transfer] of several indicted persons to Rwanda’s national courts; that, considering the calendar of the ICTR and its completion strategy, he … would not be tried in time before the Tribunal closes its activities and would surely be transferred to another court, very probably in Rwanda which had already requested his extradition; [and] that numerous independent observers had expressly criticized the conditions of justice and detention in Rwanda. The investigating chamber refrained from addressing these matters and from demonstrating that Dominque X … had no serious guarantees that the transfer to the ICTR in Arusha was merely a prelude to his … [transfer] to Rwanda where he would not have access to a judicial system in accordance with his fundamental rights. [Thus, the investigating chamber] did not sufficiently justify its decision … [therefore it] lacked legal basis.
… [B]y … refraining from investigating whether the judicial system in Rwanda has the necessary qualities in order to guarantee that the detainees and accused persons have their fundamental rights respected, … the investigating chamber’s decision lacked legal grounds and violated the abovementioned texts and principles. 
France, Court of Cassation (Criminal Chamber), Ntawukuriryayo case, Judgement, 7 May 2008, pp. 2–3.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the Joseph case in 2007, the Hague District Court of the Netherlands stated:
51. During the entering into force of the Act of 21 April 1994 containing provisions concerning the institution of the International Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, Official Journal 308, effective 4 May 1994 (hereinafter: Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act) the legislature realised that the existing regulations about co-operation between States then in force, were not adapted to co-operation with international tribunals and that, therefore, this legislation should be amended. In the explanatory memorandum with the bill resulting to this Act, it is noted, among others:
“In addition to this, the Statute of the Tribunal obliges States to co-operate with the Tribunal on judicial and police matters in the area of (…) the gathering of evidence (…) and the handing over of suspects to the Tribunal (Article 29 Statute). (…) Special legislation is required in order to fully meet these obligations. For example, the existing statutory provisions concerning international co-operation in criminal matters are tailored to co-operation between States and not to co-operation with an international tribunal. This concerns both the transfer as well as the so-called limited judicial assistance, and the execution of sentences pronounced by non-Dutch courts. The bill at hand aims at supplementing the existing legislation on these points.”
(Parliamentary Documents II 1993–1994, 23 542, no 3, page 2.)
52. With regard to the handing over to the Rwanda Tribunal, in the explanatory memorandum with the bill which led to the Act containing provisions relating to the establishment of the International Tribunal for Rwanda (hereinafter: Rwanda Tribunal Assistance Act) it was noted that it was necessary, with a view to this variant of international legal assistance, to introduce new regulations:
“In this respect it goes without saying that the option of international legal assistance as provided for in Article 2, subsection 1, of the bill at hand, different from the classic extradition, provides for the surrendering of a person claimed by a international body , instituted on the basis of a Resolution of the Security Council and not, such as usual, a sovereign State. This justifies its own regulation, which is provided for in this bill.”
(Parliamentary Documents II, 1995–1996, 24 818, no 3, page 2)
53. An example of supplementary regulation, as meant above, is the provision of Article 9, subsection 1, Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act which also applies to the Rwanda Tribunal as pursuant to Article 2, subsection 2, Rwanda Tribunal Assistance Act. Article 9, subsection 1, Yugoslavia Tribunal Assistance Act reads as follows:
Requests by the Tribunal concerning any form of legal assistance, addressed to any organ of the judiciary or the police in the Netherlands, whether or not addressed by name, must be complied with as far as possible.
54. From the quotations in paragraphs 51, 52 and 53 follows – as is also brought forward by the Public Prosecution Service – that already in 1993 the legislature in principle did not foresee any problem in providing (compulsory) international legal co-operation to international tribunals instead of providing it to States only. On the contrary, as the Public Prosecutor chose to characterise it during the hearing: the readiness to co-operate in criminal matters with both the Tribunals really splashed from the parliamentary documents.
55. The two Assistance Acts contain provisions concerning the handing over, the so-called limited legal assistance and the execution in the Netherlands of the Tribunal’s sentences. However, these two Acts do not contain any specific regulation on the transfer of criminal prosecution from these international tribunals by the Netherlands. Its absence can be explained by the circumstance that at the outset emphasis was put on the adjudication of the Accused by the Rwanda Tribunal and the Yugoslavia Tribunal themselves. This appears from the primacy of jurisdiction by the Tribunals as laid down in Article 8 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal and Article 9 of the Statute of the Yugoslavia Tribunal respectively.
56. The primary of jurisdiction by the Rwanda Tribunal now carries less weight as a consequence of Resolutions 1503 (2003) and 1534 (2004). In these Resolutions the Rwanda Tribunal (among others) is instructed to complete its activities in 2010 at the utmost and to hand over certain categories of cases to States which have the jurisdiction and are prepared to bring this criminal cases to court. As a result of these Resolutions, the Prosecutor and the President of the Rwanda Tribunal together drafted a so-called “Completion Strategy”, in which they indicated the way in which the tribunal can implement the instruction to complete its activities. The Resolutions and the Completion Strategy did not lead, however, to amend of legislation in the Netherlands.
57. The Court notes that the Council of State [in the Netherlands] in its opinion with the bill of adaptation of the Penal Code, the Code on Criminal Procedure and a number of other Acts to the Implementation Act International Criminal Court (Parliamentary Documents II, 2001–2002, 28 099A), raised the question of whether Article 4a, subsection 1, Penal Code should be supplemented by the concept of “an international court”. This bill provides for an adaptation of Article 5 Penal Code in the view of the obligation for the Netherlands laid down in the Statute of the International Criminal Court to extend the effect of criminal legislation to criminal offences against the International Criminal Court’s administration of justice (Article 70, subsection 4 Statute). In its advice the Council of State proposed the extension of jurisdiction by way of Article 4a Penal Code and, by doing so, establishing indirect jurisdiction for the cases in which the International Criminal Court does not want to adjudicate the crimes itself, but prefers to leave the Dutch authorities with this task. Apparently, the Council of State took in account the fact that Article 4a concerns the take over of criminal proceedings from States and not from international tribunals. The legislature, however, chose for the establishment of direct jurisdiction with respect to the nature of the criminal acts mentioned above, as a consequence of which, in the subject of supplementation of Article 4a Penal Code in the sense as suggested by the Council of State, did not surface in the process of drafting. However, there are no indications suggesting serious opposition against such a supplement.
58. In this connection the Court also notes the view put forward by the Dutch government with regard to the explanation of the concept of a foreign State in the proceedings of the Rwanda Tribunal concerning the transfer of the Accused Michael [B.] to the Netherlands (Case no ICTR-2005-86-11bis). The Dutch government herein put forward its opinion that the interpretation of the concept of a “foreign State” incorporated in Article 4a Penal Code can also be interpreted as Rwanda Tribunal. In paragraph 19 of the ‘Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Referral of the Indictment to the Kingdom of the Netherlands’, dated 13 April 2007 the Rwanda Tribunal’s Trial Chamber quoted the view of the Dutch government herein as follows:
The Netherlands acknowledges that the issue of accepting transfer of criminal cases from international tribunals is a recent phenomenon and is therefore unsettled in its law.
Nonetheless, it emphasises the importance placed on co-operation with the ICTR and ICTY under Dutch law, and argues that “an interpretation which would exclude the ICTR from the definition of foreign state would run contrary to past and current views on the importance of co-operation with the ICTR”. As support for its position, it points to Article 2, paragraph 2 of the ICTR Implementation Law which incorporates by reference Articles 3 to 18 of the ICTY Implementation Law. (…) The Netherlands submits that it “believes it important to help to extend international case law on grave breaches of the most fundamental norms of international humanitarian law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”.
59. The foregoing brings the Court to the following. Granting of jurisdiction to international tribunals is a recent development of law in which – except for the period directly following World War II – the exclusive right to adjudicate these crimes by States has given way to concurrent jurisdiction has given way to concurrent jurisdiction, where the primacy on prosecution, dependent of the characteristics of the international tribunals, lies within either the state or the international tribunal. The Dutch authorities co-operate with these international tribunals and provide for various forms of co-operation in criminal matters. At the beginning the Rwanda Tribunal led emphasis on the adjudication of cases by the Tribunal itself, this is not longer the case however as a consequence of the decision taken by the Security Council to complete the Rwanda Tribunal’s activities within a relative short period of time. The UN Member-States are now called upon to take over the trial of the Accused from the Tribunal. The fact that Article 4a Penal Code only mentions foreign States from which prosecution can be taken over does not prevent, according to the Court, that the Netherlands agrees to such requests from the Tribunal. For several years the Netherlands has been co-operating with the Tribunals as if they were foreign States. A reasonable explanation of the law brings with it that the Rwanda Tribunal for the application of the issue stated in Article 4a Penal Code can be equated with a ‘foreign State’. This follows logically from the legislature’s continuous line and does not require a further political choice of legal schemes.
70. The Public Prosecutor also noted the judgments of this Court of 16 October 2001 (Dutch Case Law 2002, 20) and 14 February 2002. She attached the conclusion to these judgments, that co-operation with the request of the Rwanda Tribunal to the Dutch authorities to take over the prosecution of an Accused is a legal obligation for the Netherlands, which, following the provisions contained in Article 25 and 103 of the Charter, takes precedence over other national and international obligations and regulations.
71. In the first place, the Court notes that unlike the International Criminal Court (set up by the Statute of Rome concerning the International Criminal Court dated 17 July 1998, Bulletin of Treaties 2000, 120 and effective for the Netherlands on 1July 2002), both Tribunals are not set up by multilateral treaties but by Resolutions of the Security Council, attached as Appendix the Statute of the Tribunal concerned (see in paragraph 47 above). The Member-States of the United Nations, on the basis of Article 25 Charter, must accept and execute the decisions of the Security Council based on the Charter and, therefore, are bound to these Resolutions adopted by the Security Council. The Security Council in these Resolutions stated that all Member States, as provided for in both Statutes, must co-operate with both Tribunals and their bodies and adapt their national legislation to this effect. The various forms of legal assistance which are in the competence of Member States or to which they are obliged can be read in the Statute.
72. On these grounds the Court concludes that the Charter in connection with the Statute [of the Rwanda Tribunal] can be considered as a treaty under which international legal assistance can be provided.
73. However, the Court continues – as the Public Prosecutor has done – that there is no explicit arrangement in the Statute creating an obligation or a power for the Netherlands to take over – on the request of the Rwanda Tribunal – criminal proceedings of the Tribunal.
74. In support of her arguments, the Public Prosecutor brought forward, such as mentioned above, Article 28 of the Statute. This Article reads as follows:
Co-operation and Judicial Assistance
1. States shall co-operate with the International Tribunal for Rwanda in the investigation and prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
2. States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial Chamber, including but not limited to:
(a) The identification and location of persons;
(b) The taking of testimony and the production of evidence;
(c) The service of documents;
(d) The arrest or detention of persons;
(e) The surrender or the transfer of the accused to the International Tribunal for Rwanda.
75. According to the Court, this article [of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal] provides for a general obligation to co-operate (“shall co-operate”) by the Member States with the Rwanda Tribunal (subsection 1) and a specific obligation to co-operate (“shall comply”) in a number of areas described in further detail (sub section 2) in order to allow investigation and adjudication by the Rwanda Tribunal. The Court as well as the Public Prosecutor concludes that this article does not contain an obligation to transfer criminal proceedings. The Court, contrary to the Public Prosecutor’s view, does not understand from this article that the Member States have the competence to take over criminal proceedings of the Rwanda Tribunal. The article’s object and choice of words are contrary to this interpretation. As considered above, the Rwanda Tribunal has the primacy to adjudicate international criminal offences committed in the period from 1 January 1994 up to and including 31 December 1994 in Rwanda (and neighbouring countries). The Resolution by which the Tribunal was established, obliges the Member States, where possible, to assist the Tribunal in the execution of its charge. Article 28 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal is an elaboration of this. This article concerns the legal assistance rendered by States to the Rwanda Tribunal with a view to adjudication by the Rwanda Tribunal, not with a view to the competence of the Member State to take over trial from the Rwanda Tribunal. The Court dismisses the plea of the Public Prosecutor concerning this article.
77. The Court determines that the handing over to the Tribunals is explicitly arranged as a compulsory form of co-operation between the Tribunals and the Member States. Therefore it is understandable that the legislature determined that Chapter VII of the Charter – as read in conjunction with (these stipulations of) the Statutes, as is understood by the Court – may serve as the authority required. As mentioned above, on the transfer of criminal prosecution, however, there is absolutely no arrangement in the Statute of both Tribunals. The Public Prosecutor’s plea on what the legislature considered with respect to the authority concerning handing over, therefore, cannot support the argument defended by her that the Charter and the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal offer a legal basis for the take over of prosecution, which is not a compulsory form of co-operation.
78. Even more so, from the parliamentary history of the Implementation Act Yugoslavia Tribunal, it can be deduced that the legislature does not consider the Charter and the Statute as a legal basis for non-compulsory co-operation between the Tribunals and the Netherlands in cases where Dutch law requires a treaty. In Article 26 of the Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal and Article 27 of the Statute of the Yugoslavia Tribunal there are regulations regarding the execution by the Member States of the sentences pronounced by the Tribunals, which is a not-compulsory form of co-operation between the Tribunals and the Member States. Execution in the Netherlands of foreign criminal judgments is regulated in the Act on the transfer of enforcement of criminal judgments of 10 September 1986, Official Journal 1986, 464, effective in phases (hereinafter Act on the transfer of enforcement of judgments). Article 2 of this Act reads as follows:
Enforcement in the Netherlands of foreign judgments shall only take place pursuant to a treaty.
Therefore the legislature here stated as a condition that enforcement can only take place pursuant to a treaty as is the case in the transfer of prosecution (Article 4a Penal Code). The legislature realised this in the conclusion of the Implementation Act of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. This act contains an arrangement with respect to the enforcement by the Netherlands of the sentences by this tribunal (Articles 11 up to and including 14). Under the stipulations of the Act of enforcement of judgments, which are declared to be equally applicable, does not belong the provision contained in Article 2 quoted above. In other words, the authority on the basis of a treaty is explicitly declared non-applicable by the legislature. Enforcement of foreign sentences by the Netherlands therefore is only possible pursuant to a treaty or a stipulation in a special Act, such as the Implement Act Yugoslavia Tribunal. The same goes for the take over of prosecution by the Netherlands. Indeed, the transfer of prosecution and the execution of foreign sentences are not compulsory methods of co-operation and concerning both methods of co-operation, Dutch legislation sets as a condition that there must be a treaty governing this co-operation. 
Netherlands, Hague District Court, Joseph case, Judgment, 24 July 2007, §§ 51–59, 70–75 and 77–78.
Switzerland
In the Musema case in 1997, Switzerland agreed to surrender to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda an accused of Rwandan nationality arrested in Switzerland in 1995 for violations of the laws of war in Rwanda, pursuant to Article 109 of the Swiss Military Criminal Code as amended and provisions of the Decree on Cooperation with the International Tribunals. 
Switzerland, Federal Court, Musema case, Judgment, 28 April 1997.
Australia
In 1994, in its comments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, Australia stated with regard to the provision on surrender of an accused person to the international tribunal (draft Article 63, now Article 89, of the 1998 ICC Statute):
[The draft provision] obliges States parties which have accepted the court’s jurisdiction to surrender the accused person to the tribunal. This may be seen as cutting across generally accepted rules of extradition law where States retain the discretion not to extradite the person subject to the request. However, as regards the tribunal it may be argued that, by specifically consenting to jurisdiction, States have already agreed to the tribunal hearing the case and have given up the right not to hand over the accused person. The situation may therefore be distinguished from mere requests for extradition where no prior consent has been given to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of a foreign country and where, accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the requested State retains the discretion not to extradite. 
Australia, Comments of 16 February 1994 on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, UN Doc. A/CN.4/458, 18 February 1994, p. 16.
Argentina
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Argentina declared:
With regard to article 87, paragraph 2, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Argentine Republic hereby declares that requests for cooperation coming from the Court, and any accompanying documentation, shall be in Spanish or shall be accompanied by a translation into Spanish. 
Argentina, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 8 February 2001.
Australia
The Declaration included in Australia’s Instrument of Ratification to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court deposited with the UN Secretary-General in July 2002 states:
The Government of Australia, having considered the Statute, now hereby ratifies the same, for and on behalf of Australia, with the following declaration, the terms of which have full effect in Australian law, and which is not a reservation:
Australia notes that a case will be inadmissible before the International Criminal Court (the Court) where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State. Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. To enable Australia to exercise its jurisdiction effectively, and fully adhering to its obligations under the Statute of the Court, no person will be surrendered to the Court by Australia until it has had the full opportunity to investigate or prosecute any alleged crimes. For this purpose, the procedure under Australian law implementing the Statute of the Court provides that no person can be surrendered to the Court unless the Australian Attorney-General issues a certificate allowing surrender. Australian law also provides that no person can be arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court without a certificate from the Attorney-General.
Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8 [related to Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, respectively] will be interpreted and applied in a way that accords with the way they are implemented in Australian domestic law. 
Australia, Declaration included in Australia’s Instrument of Ratification to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002, available at http://www.help.cicr.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/A255319F58A44982412566E100540E5E?OpenDocument (last accessed on 17 February 2010).
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role.  
Australia, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Austria
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Austria declared:
Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2 of the [1998 ICC] Statute the Republic of Austria declares that requests for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall either be in or be accompanied by a translation into the German language. 
Austria, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 28 December 2000.
Belarus
In 1994, in its comments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, Belarus stated with regard to the provision on surrender of an accused person to the international tribunal (draft Article 63, now Article 89, of the 1998 ICC Statute):
In any case, the rule regarding priority should be applied unconditionally in cases involving the surrender of persons accused of crimes within the sphere of exclusive jurisdiction of the court.
It would be desirable to resolve in article 63 the question of the failure to surrender an accused person to the court, in violation of the provisions of the statute. In such situations, the court should be granted the right to request the United Nations Security Council to obtain the surrender of the accused person. 
Belarus, Comments of 18 February 1994 on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court, UN Doc. A/CN.4/458, 18 February 1994, p. 20, § 10.
Belgium
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Belgium stated:
With reference to article 87, paragraph 1, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Kingdom of Belgium declares that the Ministry of Justice is the authority competent to receive requests for cooperation.
With reference to article 87, paragraph 2 [of the 1998 ICC Statute], the Kingdom of Belgium declares that requests by the Court for cooperation and any documents supporting the request shall be in an official language of the Kingdom. 
Belgium, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 28 June 2000.
Belgium
In 2005, in a statement before the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
In order to [rebuild peace after conflict], it is essential to render justice and fight against impunity. With the establishment of the International Criminal Court, we have today at our disposal an adequate judicial tool in order to adjudicate and punish the most serious crimes. Now let us not allow it to be ignored, or alternative solutions to be favoured which do not offer the same guarantees. 
Belgium, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 14 March 2005.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa, the representative of Belgium stated, with reference to Uganda:
If any form of justice other than the International Criminal Court were to be pursued, it would have to satisfy minimum conditions and respect the principle of complementarity, in accordance with the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Belgium, Statement by the Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on the “Humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa”, 21 May 2007, p. 19.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on peace and security in Africa, the Prime Minister of Belgium stated, with regard to the use of child soldiers:
… [Joseph] Kony, the so-called leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda … alone has been responsible for the abuse of almost 70,000 child soldiers on the African continent. An international arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We know where he is, but nobody arrests him … We know what Kony has done; we know what he is doing and we know where he is, and there is not any possible pretext for him not to be arrested. I therefore ask individually, the members of the Security Council to do just that. … Let us arrest him and put him on trial. 
Belgium, Statement by the Prime Minister of Belgium before the United Nations Security Council on “Peace and security in Africa”, 25 September 2007, p. 12.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Belgium, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Belize
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Belize declared: “Pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Belize declares that all requests made to it in accordance with Chapter 9 be sent through diplomatic channels.” 
Belize, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 5 April 2000.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Bosnia and Herzegovina thanked the Netherlands for its financial and other contributions to the ICTY and stated that it hoped that “others will follow its example and heed the call for material, political, legal and legislative support for the Tribunal”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 8.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2005, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was not successful in the past period and did not [provide the] expected results. … More than one year [after the] General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH [(1995)] and the end of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the indicted war criminals has not been arrested. [Particular] responsibility [for this] was with the authorities of The Republika Srpska, who were willing to cooperate with the ICTY, but without results. Until only recently this entity had arrested and transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague only a few of the indicted war criminals. Because of their unfulfilled obligations and without concrete cooperation with the ICTY, various Republika Srpska authorities were dismissed from their positions during the year 2004.
In order to establish constructive cooperation with the ICTY, the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina are obliged to provide full access to the archives, witness protection and the arrest of indicted war criminals. It should be emphasised that the authorities and people in Bosnia and Herzegovina realised that a persistent and constructive cooperation with the ICTY is one of the conditions for total European integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The activities directed toward the starting of a wider information … campaign, aimed at depolarising the issue of cooperation with the ICTY and other courts that will deal with trials of indicted war criminals, [includes] the demystification of indicted war criminals who are consider[ed] heroes by the local population. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 24 November 2005, UN Doc. CCPR/C/BIH/1, § 150; see also § 177.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Apprehending and dealing appropriately with persons who have allegedly committed or are complicit in crimes against humanity or war crimes requires a great deal of international effort and cooperation. To that end, Canada supports the work of many international bodies including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) and the hybrid Special Court for Sierra Leone. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
On the support provided by Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to international criminal tribunals, the annual report stated:
CIC’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the department a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). CIC is a participant in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations.  
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 6.
With regard to the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the annual report stated:
International criminal investigations are a two-way street; the RCMP War Crimes Section also provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 9.
The annual report further stated:
DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the Tribunals and European governments. DOJ began working with European governments and police officials on a response to the issue of the movement of war criminals across borders and the sharing of best practices. The section is also actively involved in providing support to the RCMP in several on-going investigations in Europe and Africa.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service assists the RCMP and the Department of National Defence in their support to the investigations and prosecutions of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. Additionally, IAG reviews requests for mutual legal assistance under Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act from foreign governments in the investigation and prosecution of modern day war crimes. Such assistance is also available to the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 11.
Canada
In 2003, in a submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case of The Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović and Dragoljub Ojdanić (Case No. IT-99-37-PT), Canada stated:
The Government of Canada has been and remains a strong supporter of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“The Tribunal”). Canada has cooperated consistently with the Tribunal and fully accepts the need for a robust, independent Tribunal with the power necessary to fulfill the mandate accorded to it. In furtherance of this mandate, Canada recognizes and supports the power of the Tribunal to issue orders to States for the production of evidence. 
Canada, Submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, February 2003, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2003, volume XLI, p. 451.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated regarding the work of three government departments involved in the Program:
1. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA):
CBSA’s extensive experience in screening for modern war crimes makes the agency a valuable partner to the International Tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda. CBSA continues to participate in the Government of Canada’s activities to support international tribunal prosecutions and investigations. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 4.
2. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
International criminal investigations are a two-way street. The RCMP War Crimes Section provides assistance to foreign police and international law enforcement authorities such as the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 8.
3. Department of Justice (DOJ)
DOJ’s War Crimes Section continues to strengthen its working relationship with the International Tribunals and European governments by meeting frequently with their representatives.
DOJ’s War Crimes Section is also actively involved in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Working Group which examines the tribunal’s requests for information or access to witnesses located in Canada.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service works with the RCMP and the Department of National Defence to support the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia. IAG also reviews war crimes related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, and from the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 10.
Canada
In 2005, in a statement before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the representative of Canada stated:
Australia, Canada and New Zealand condemn the ongoing grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur, Sudan which are having a huge impact on the civilian population in that part of the country.
The international community is acting upon its responsibility to protect, as witnessed by the recent decisions of the United Nations Security Council. We are particularly pleased that the UN Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court in accordance with the recommendation of the International Commission of Inquiry. As we have said many times, this referral represents the best option for ensuring timely accountability for these serious international crimes and for deterring further atrocities not only in Darfur. The International Criminal Court was established precisely to fulfill these dual roles – to ensure accountability for, as well as to deter, the commission of the most serious international crimes.
These promising initial actions will need support if they are to succeed. We encourage all members of the international community to offer all the necessary support to the peace process, human rights missions, international agencies and humanitarian organizations as well as to the International Criminal Court.
We call on the Government of Sudan, all parties to the conflict and the international community to cooperate fully with the Mission of the African Union, the United Nations Mission in Sudan, the United Nations and all its agencies, humanitarian organizations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and all its special procedures, as well as the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, Statement by the representative of Canada before the UN Commission on Human Rights on the human rights situation in Sudan, made on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 2005, pp. 1–2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Canada’s War Crimes Program partners provide assistance and information to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the ICTY and ICTR, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada.
They work with the International Assistance Group (IAG) of the Department of Justice Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The IAG also reviews war crimes-related requests for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, the international tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The partners have established long-standing reciprocal relationships with the international tribunals, which provide logistical support and enable the sharing of resources and information. During the past year, the ICTY provided much needed assistance to RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigative teams who travelled to the former Yugoslavia and other locations to conduct their work. An RCMP team visited Rwanda to provide training on forensic interviewing to members of the ICTR investigative staff and prosecutors from the Rwandan government. In addition, an RCMP war crimes investigator met with representatives of the ICC in The Hague for an exchange of information on investigations in Africa.
In 2004–2005, DOJ [Department of Justice] officials visited the ICTY, the ICTR, and the ICC to conduct research and to discuss information sharing, access to witnesses and general cooperation. The DOJ also received members of the ICTR, the ICC and the Sierra Leone Special Court to further these discussions.
Within the limits of the law, the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] shares intelligence and research material with the international criminal tribunals and like-minded countries, particularly the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other European countries. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, p. 5.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The chief objective of the program is denial of safe haven in Canada to persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the same time, Canada contributes to the global fight against impunity for war criminals through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals …
CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals …
Canada’s War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential component of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the International Assistance Group of the DOJ’s [Department of Justice’s] Federal Prosecution Service and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
DOJ officials and RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] investigators visited several foreign countries during the period covered by this report, including Honduras, Colombia, Croatia and Serbia, to discuss access for investigators and researchers and to develop Memoranda of Understanding on international cooperation. The RCMP provides assistance to foreign investigative agencies.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and the various international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international conferences and meetings of international organizations discuss issues related to migration and human rights. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2005–2006, pp. 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following: criminal proceedings jointly administered by the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and deportation; citizenship revocation led by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the DOJ [Department of Justice]; and extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act, led by the DOJ.
On the international stage, Canada plays a leadership role in global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals. Because of its coordinated approach and its capacity to apply a range of legislative remedies, the War Crimes Program has become a model for other countries.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals …
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender to international tribunals. Requests for extradition or surrender are not made public unless the Attorney General of Canada gives the authority to proceed.
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Mutual legal assistance and exchanges of information with other countries and international bodies are an essential part of the global battle against impunity. Reciprocal relationships with international tribunals and other countries enable the sharing of resources, expertise, information, research and logistical support.
The partners provide assistance, information and legal and investigative support to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the ICC. All of the partners are represented in the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. They also work with the DOJ’s International Assistance Group and the Department of National Defence to support the international tribunals. The International Assistance Group reviews requests relating to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia. DOJ counsel provided important legal support to the international criminal tribunals in Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Rwanda. Canada is the fourth largest contributor to the SCSL.
CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] visa officers abroad are responsible for reporting and liaison on global migration, country situations and emerging trends, and have developed ongoing relationships with host countries, other diplomatic missions, international organizations and international criminal tribunals. This is particularly true of those in Geneva, Brussels and Washington, where international meetings are held to discuss issues related to migration and human rights.
Program partners recognize the benefits of international cooperation and outreach in the maintenance of its objective to fight impunity and the importance of spreading this message on a global scale. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
Canada’s global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals have made Canada a leader on the international stage …
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
International Cooperation and Outreach
The War Crimes Program plays a leading role in international efforts to bring war criminals to justice. Strong relationships with international tribunals and other countries permit the sharing of research, logistics and investigative support.
The War Crimes Program partners provide assistance and information to the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). All the partners are represented at the Interdepartmental Working Group for the international tribunals, which examines the tribunals’ requests for assistance from Canada. The International Assistance Group of the DOJ [Department of Justice] reviews requests related to war crimes or crimes against humanity for mutual legal assistance from foreign governments, international tribunals and the ICC.
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section has a close reciprocal relationship with the international criminal tribunals, sharing information and resources. During the reporting period, ICTR justice officials visited Canada and the ICTY assisted RCMP investigators working in the former Yugoslavia.
CBSA researchers provide support and intelligence not only internally, but also to national and international partners and international criminal tribunals. During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] researchers at national headquarters responded to 3,239 requests for information (RFIs) on cases of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity, an increase of 134 percent from 1,386 RFIs in 2006–2007 …
International conferences not only promote the exchange of information, but also improve the overall level of cooperation between countries. The RCMP (investigators) and the DOJ (counsel and analysts) attended an ICC conference in December 2007 in the Hague focusing on war crimes investigation tools and methods …
Conclusion
Canada’s War Crimes Program has evolved since its inception. Its collaborative inter-departmental approach, international cooperation and outreach initiatives have earned acclaim in the global community. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp 1–8.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
On February 26, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1970 [2011], on the situation in Libya.
Canada welcomes this landmark decision and strongly supports the key provisions of that resolution.
Canada was among the first to call for the referral of the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to help ensure that those responsible for ordering and carrying out those atrocities are held accountable. We are pleased that the Security Council has taken action on this.
My government demands that the Libyan regime comply with all aspects of this resolution immediately …
We call all states to join us in rendering full cooperation to the Court. 
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Human Rights Council, 28 February 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
[A]ccountability for those who violate international law by targeting civilian populations is fundamental. Accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are punished for their crimes, but it can also serve as an effective deterrent against future crimes. Canada has been a consistent supporter of the international courts and tribunals that strive to hold individuals to account and contribute to the prevention of such crimes. The recent decision by the Security Council to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court has sent a clear message that there will be consequences for committing serious international crimes – including for those who have ordered and incited illegal attacks on civilian populations. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in an address to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
Canada has been vocal in condemning the targeting of civilians by the Qadhafi regime, and the impact of that regime’s actions on the hundreds of thousands of people who have been trapped in Libya or forced to flee its borders … In the face of this blatant disregard for both human rights and international law, Canada has demanded that the regime halt its attacks against its own people and that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice. We have been particularly disgusted by abhorrent reports [of] torture and sexual violence as weapons against the Libyan population. Such actions are international crimes and may be war crimes or crimes against humanity. Canada calls for a full and impartial investigation of these allegations so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice.
Canada was among the first to call for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. 
Canada, House of Commons, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, 14 June 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
It is the primary responsibility of every state to investigate and prosecute those suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The recent conviction of four former military officers for their role in a massacre of civilians during the armed conflict in Guatemala – the first such conviction against military officers in that country – is an example of national accountability mechanisms at work. This underlines the need for states to fulfill their obligations to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of serious international crimes, and where appropriate, cooperate with international institutions to ensure that those responsible face justice. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
Canada
In 2012, during the presentation of Canada’s sixth report to the Committee against Torture, the legal advisor of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada stated:
With respect to the obligation to prosecute crimes of torture and to assist other States in this regard, Canada is committed to the principle that it will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as to making an effective contribution to the global effort to strengthen accountability for such crimes … Canada also believes that wherever possible, people accused of such terrible crimes should face justice in the countries in which the crimes occurred. In cases where this is not possible, international courts and tribunals and other efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for serious international crimes may be used. 
Canada, Statement by the legal advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Presentation of Canada’s Sixth Report to the Committee against Torture”, 21 May 2012, p. 3.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare as indicated by the Secretary-General in his annual report, and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. The Friends encourage Member States to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and judicial capacities, including by developing child protection legislations that criminalize all grave violations against children. In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ambassador of Canada stated:
We believe that those responsible for serious international crimes must be held to account, for which national and, as a last resort, international mechanisms could potentially play a role.
It is disturbing that some arrest warrants are not being executed. Canada encourages all states to abide by their international commitments. 
Canada, Statement by the ambassador of Canada during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 21 November 2013, p. 2.
Central African Republic
In 2004, the Government of the Central African Republic referred the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court committed anywhere on the territory of the Central African Republic since 1 July 2002 to the International Criminal Court. 
Central African Republic, Government, Referral of situation to the International Criminal Court, Letter received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on 21 December 2004, as reported in International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Press release of 7 January 2005, ICC-OTP-20050107-86, and International Criminal Court, Presidency, Situation in the Central African Republic, Decision assigning the situation in the Central African Republic to Pre-Trial Chamber III, No.: ICC-01/05, Decision of 19 January 2005.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Chile, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
China
In 2007, in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a representative of China stated regarding the second report of the Special Rapporteur on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare):
on the scope of application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, draft article one stipulates that the present draft articles shall apply to the establishment, content, operation and effects of the alternative obligation of States to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. The Chinese delegation supports in principle the alternative nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute as contained in the draft article, namely, States have the alternative to extradite or prosecute. As for the so-called third alternative related to the jurisdiction of other international judicial organs, we take a cautious approach, but we believe that it is necessary to set necessary limits to the alternative obligations of States. We suggest that the draft articles stipulate that in opting for extradition or prosecution, States should abide by the relevant rules on jurisdiction priorities. For example, it is necessary to ensure the priority of the State where the crime occurred and the State of nationality of the suspect in exercising jurisdiction. 
China, Statement by the Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, at the Sixth Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, on Item 82 “Report of the International Law Commission” (Reservations to Treaties, Shared Natural Resources, Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute), 1 November 2007.
Colombia
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Colombia stated: “We encourage the international community to cooperate more actively with the [ICTY] so that it can accomplish its task of bringing to justice those who committed atrocities during the war in the former Yugoslavia.” 
Colombia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 10.
Costa Rica
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Costa Rica stated:
The lack of cooperation [with the ICTY] on the part of some Governments and local authorities, in violation of their international obligations, is scandalous. The authorities of the Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must comply with their international obligations. The authorities of these entities must arrest and transfer to the custody of the Tribunal the accused who are in their territories. These authorities must also cooperate in the gathering of evidence and facilitate the participation of witnesses. 
Costa Rica, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, p. 17.
Croatia
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Croatia stated:
Croatia was among the first countries to enact implementing legislation so as to institutionalize its cooperation with the [ICTY]. The Tribunal opened its Liaison Office in Zagreb, and the Croatian Government established its own office for Cooperation with the Tribunal …
Croatia does not condition its cooperation with the Tribunal upon the reciprocal cooperation of any other country. Croatia considers cooperation to be a legal, political and moral duty …
It should be duly noted that the Republic of Croatia recently used its good offices in the transfer of 10 additional Bosnian Croat indictees into the custody of the Tribunal.
… The work of the Tribunal, just like that of the future international criminal court and the international protection of justice in general, depends upon the cooperation of individual countries. It is the duty of the United Nations to encourage such cooperation or to take appropriate steps if needed. 
Croatia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, pp. 11–12.
Croatia
According to the Report on the Practice of Croatia, a suspect of Croatian nationality was surrendered to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on the basis that such surrender was not to be considered an “extradition” since the suspect was surrendered to an international tribunal rather than to another State. 
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
Croatia
In 2001, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Croatia stated: “The Republic of Croatia has, in the last few years, strengthened its cooperation with the Hague Tribunal [International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)] and expressed full cooperation with it”. 
Croatia, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 July 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/54/Add.3, submitted 3 December 2001, § 6.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Croatia, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Czech Republic, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2004, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo referred the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1 July 2002 to the International Criminal Court. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Government, Referral of situation to the International Criminal Court, Letter dated 3 March 2004, as reported in International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Press release of 19 April 2004, ICC-OTP-20040419-50, and International Criminal Court, Presidency, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Decision assigning the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo to Pre-Trial Chamber I, No.: ICC-01/04, Decision of 5 July 2004.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated:
The Government’s commitment to ending conscription of children in armed groups also finds expression in the fact that it has initiated within the country, or in cooperation with the International Criminal Court, judicial proceedings against the perpetrators of those acts, as in the case of Thomas Lubanga, against whom charges were confirmed on January, 2007 in The Hague. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, § 211.
Denmark
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated:
The International Criminal Court is of paramount importance in the quest for compliance with international humanitarian law and to end impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide … It is … vital that contracting states, as well as other states obligated to do so, support and cooperate with the Court so that it can fulfil its tasks in full. 
Denmark, Statement by the representative of Sweden before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 23 October 2008.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Denmark, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Finland
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Finland stated:
Pursuant to article 87 (1) (a) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests for cooperation shall be transmitted either through the diplomatic channel or directly to the Ministry of Justice, which is the authority competent to receive such requests. The Court may also, if need be, enter into direct contact with other competent authorities of Finland. In matters relating to requests for surrender the Ministry of Justice is the only competent authority.
Pursuant to article 87 (2) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the Republic of Finland declares that requests from the Court and any documents supporting such requests shall be submitted either in Finnish or Swedish, which are the official languages of Finland, or in English which is one of the working languages of the Court.  
Finland, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 29 December 2000.
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare … and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights … In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Finland, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
France
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, France stated: “Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2, of the [1998 ICC] Statute, the French Republic declares that requests for cooperation, and any documents supporting the request, addressed to it by the Court must be in the French language.” 
France, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 9 June 2000, § II.
France
In 2002, in reply to the recommendations on the implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute adopted by the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme, France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote:
I am glad to notice that the recommendations contained in that document correspond to the policy followed by France in relation to the International Criminal Court. This is in particular the case as regards the integrity of the statute, to which France, as well as her European partners, is very much attached. The common European position very much corresponds to your recommendation project. As far as the potential conclusion of bilateral agreements by France with third States is concerned, which would have the purpose of withdrawing nationals of these States from the competence of the Court, I confirm to you that France does not plan to conclude such agreements, which would, as you underline, have the result of attacking the integrity of the Rome Statute. 
France, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Letter to the National Human Rights Consultative Commission, 26 December 2002.
France
In 2008, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France, addressing the issue of child soldiers, stated:
International criminal justice – the International Criminal Court or other special tribunals – has made essential progress this year through remarkable actions, especially against Germain Katanga, Charles Taylor and Colonel Mathieu Ngudjolo, among others, charging them with the use and recruitment of children under the age of 15. The [UN Security Council] Working Group [on Children and Armed Conflict] must follow up those actions by calling for the imposition of sanctions against uncooperative parties. 
France, Statement by the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on “Children and Armed Conflict” before the UN Security Council, 12 February 2008, p. 23.
France
In 2008, the Prime Minister of France stated:
The fight against impunity constitutes an indispensable complement to the respect for IHL. Keeping international peace supposes that the core principles of IHL are guaranteed by a dissuasive and respected international justice system. The latter is also an essential component of the work for restabilizing the memory, which allows the affected population to find a way towards reconciliation. France’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the ad hoc international tribunals is therefore very important. France plays also an active role in the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the special Senegalese court that will be in charge of trying former president Hissène Habré.
The French government gives special importance to the draft law that will constitute the second part of the adaptation of our domestic law to the statute of the ICC, after Law No. 2002-268 of 26 February 2002. This law allowed France to comply with its obligation of cooperation with the ICC even before the entry into force of the Rome Statute. The draft law aims at modifying the criminal code, the code of military justice as well as the law dated 29 July 1881 on the freedom of press by incorporating into domestic law certain crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
France, Response by the Prime Minister to the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights’ opinion on the Respect and Protection of Humanitarian Relief Personnel adopted on 17 January 2008, 27 May 2008, p. 2.
France
In a white paper on “Defence and National Security” published in 2008, France’s Ministry of Defence stated: “France will support the efforts undertaken by the International Criminal Court and will seek to strengthen its universality and means of action.” 
France, Ministry of Defence, Defence and National Security: The White Paper, 17 June 2008, p. 123.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
Violations of humanitarian law are ever increasing, as the current crises are unfortunately there to remind us, whether we are looking at Darfur, Somalia, Gaza, Sri Lanka or the Kivus. …
We must react! …
… [T]he more States that join forces, united by a single purpose, the more effective will be their efforts to ensure respect for the law. …
The mechanisms put in place by the [UN] Security Council are indispensable, from the simple call for respect for international humanitarian law, to the creation of international criminal tribunals and referrals to the International Criminal Court. And I am convinced that the growing credibility of these bodies plays an invaluable dissuasive role. We must develop, strengthen, enrich, [and] perpetually renew these means, because the problems we have to tackle are as constant as human nature. 
France, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, “International Humanitarian Law, an Imperative”, La Croix, 12 February 2009, p. 1.
France
In 2009, the President of the French Republic stated:
The respect for international humanitarian law is not negotiable … It implies a resolute fight against the culture of impunity, which nowadays still characterizes most conflicts. The perpetrators and the instigators of crimes committed against the civilian population shall be punished, wherever they are. This is why … we need the International Criminal Court, which France fully supports. 
France, Address by the President of the French Republic on the 9th Anniversary of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 4 May 2009, p. 3.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
The convention signed in Rome on 17 July 1998 adopting the statute of the ICC, ratified by France on 9 June 2000, creates an obligation for all States parties to adapt their domestic legislation in order to “fully cooperate” with the Court. Law No. 2002-268 of 26 February 2002 concerning the cooperation with the Court allowed France to comply with this obligation of cooperation even before the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 59178, Journal officiel de la République française, 27 October 2009, p. 10166.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
Concerning the warrant of arrest for the Sudanese president Omar al Bashir issued by the ICC, France reaffirms its support for international criminal justice and urges Sudan to fully cooperate with the ICC for the implementation of the decisions issued by the judges, in conformity with its obligation pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1593. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to a written question from the Senate, 5 November 2009.
Germany
In 1997, during plenary discussions in the UN General Assembly on a report of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Germany stated that it wished to “underline again the obligation of States to cooperate with the [ICTY] under Security Council resolution 827 (1993)”. It further stated:
[Germany] has made every effort to contribute to the prosecution of violations of humanitarian law in the Balkans and will continue to do so. Germany was one of those actively supporting the establishment of the [ICTY] right from the beginning. We have continued vigorously to support its work in the political and legal fields. We have also assisted with personnel and financial contributions … The cooperation of German authorities with the Tribunal is regulated in a statute passed by the German parliament in April 1995 [i.e. the Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995)]. [The German] Government extradited two men charged with war crimes to the Tribunal. The extradition of Duško Tadić by Germany to The Hague was the very first extradition to the Tribunal by a Member State. Germany has also declared its readiness to execute sentences handed down by the Tribunal. German law enforcement authorities cooperate closely with the Tribunal in order to ensure an effective and transnational prosecution of violations of humanitarian law. The efforts include special protection for those of the many refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina on German territory who are required by the Tribunal as witnesses. 
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.44, 4 November 1997, pp. 17–18.
Germany
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, Germany stated:
The Federal Republic of Germany declares, pursuant to article 87 (1) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, that requests from the Court can also be transmitted directly to the Federal Ministry of Justice or an agency designated by the Federal Ministry of Justice in an individual case. Requests to the Court can be transmitted directly from the Federal Ministry of Justice or, with the Ministry’s agreement, from another competent agency to the Court.
The Federal Republic of Germany further declares, pursuant to article 87 (2) of the [1998 ICC] Statute, that requests for cooperation to Germany and any documents supporting the request must be accompanied by a translation into German. 
Germany, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 11 December 2000.
Germany
In 2003, in a speech at the UN Commission on Human Rights, Germany’s Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
A few days ago the 18 judges of the International Criminal Court were sworn in. The establishment of this Court is a milestone in the history of international law and the international protection of human rights. For the first time ever a permanent tribunal has been created to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. We must now do our utmost to enhance the operability and effectiveness of the Court. We therefore call on all states who have been hesitant or critical of this project, to ratify or accede to the Statute. Only with the universal support of the community of states can the ICC do full justice to its duties. 
Germany, Speech by Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs at the UN Commission on Human Rights, 25 March 2003.
Germany
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Germany supports the position of the European Union as expressed in the statement made by the Greek presidency earlier this morning. We agree, in particular, with the remarks pertaining to article 16 of the Rome Statute. We also share the views of the Secretary-General and the concerns expressed by all the delegations in the open debate. We therefore could not vote in favour of the draft resolution.
Germany was and remains a major driving force in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). As a State party, Germany is deeply committed to the mission of the ICC: to fight impunity by prosecuting those responsible for the most serious crimes that are of concern to the international community in situations where national jurisdictions do not prosecute those crimes. The International Criminal Court project has been consistently and actively supported by the present and earlier Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Parliament has repeatedly expressed its support for the ICC across party lines.
We feel that a treaty already ratified by 90 States and signed or ratified by 12 of the 15 Security Council members should not be amended by a Security Council resolution.
Justice is, and must remain, indivisible. At the beginning of the new millennium, the International Criminal Court will serve as an efficient and indispensable instrument to further international security, peace and justice.
We do not share the view that the ICC is an impediment to peacekeeping. On the contrary, the ICC is a safeguard. As an institution designed to prevent impunity, the ICC can play an important role in protecting peacekeepers in the execution of their missions.
Meanwhile, the Judges and the Prosecutor of the ICC have been elected. Germany is confident that experience will show that the Court is going to work impartially, justly and without politically motivated misuse. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4772, 12 June 2003, pp. 24–25.
Germany
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
We would like first of all to thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this very important meeting. The issues dealt with by the Security Council – peacekeeping, crisis prevention and conflict management – are inseparably linked to the rule of law. The creation or restoration of rule-of-law structures in post-conflict situations may be very difficult, but they are vital. Multilateral engagement in a crisis area can generate a better and more peaceful order in the long term only if this order is based on rule-of-law principles.
The rule of law can be destroyed by conflict very quickly. But it takes great effort, time and resources to rebuild a State based on the rule of law. We Germans know from our own experience that external assistance is essential in building a State based on the rule of law in post-conflict situations. The restoration of peace and justice in El Salvador, Timor-Leste and Kosovo would not have been possible without the commitment of the United Nations. The two ad hoc Tribunals created by the Security Council have played a valuable role in dealing with the serious crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is a successful example of cooperation between national and international justice systems.
In this context I would like to single out the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is an important step towards global civilization. It serves the same principles that are upheld and the same purposes that are pursued by the Security Council. It serves international justice, the rule of law and the fight against impunity. It can take on those very serious crimes which a State believes cannot be handled by its own courts at present. It should thus also be seen as an offer to countries weakened by crisis.
I should like quickly to outline six proposals on the rule of law in post-conflict situations. First, the Council knows that greater efforts to create rule-of-law structures in conflict areas can help ensure the sustainability of a peaceful order. It should go without saying that mission mandates also provide for the protection and restoration of the rule of law. But we do not have to reinvent the wheel in every post-conflict situation. Therefore, the development of standard or model procedures would be desirable. They should apply to the secondment of judicial commissions of inquiry, the integration of rule-of-law components into peacekeeping missions and the establishment of provisional judicial authorities. I suggest that the Secretary-General include proposals on this in his report. He might also consider establishing a task force in the Secretariat to tackle these issues.
Secondly, the complementarity between national and international efforts should be kept under constant review. The main pillar of justice continues to be the national judicial system, for which every country bears its own responsibility. However, in post-conflict situations in particular, the judicial sector is often crippled. I propose that, in his report, the Secretary- General also identify the weaknesses of national judicial systems in such situations and how they can be redressed. The personnel, financial and intellectual resources of States, international organizations, including non-governmental organizations, should be made available and included in these deliberations.
Thirdly, we feel that complementarity also means the institutional division of labour between national and international justice systems. In Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the international community has had good experience with various forms of division of labour. With regard to the prosecution of the most serious crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it appears that the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the International Criminal Court may work together. This cooperation between national and international bodies should be further developed.
Fourthly, some instruments aimed at fostering justice and the rule of law were created by the Security Council – for example, the ad hoc tribunals. Others, such as the International Court of Justice, emerged outside of that framework. However, its Statute contains cross-references to the Security Council. In order to use the various judicial systems efficiently, it could be worthwhile for the Security Council to observe their work more closely. I therefore propose that the Security Council set up a monitoring group for that purpose. It would be especially welcome if those Council members who are critical of or sceptical about some tribunals would participate in this group. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4833, 12 June 2003, pp. 15–16.
Germany
In 2004, in a speech at the UN Commission on Human Rights, Germany’s Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
The establishment of the International Criminal Court is without a doubt one of the positive developments in recent years. We cannot assess highly enough its long-term significance for the international protection of human rights. For Germany, it therefore remains a priority to defend to the best of our ability the enforcement of the Rome Statute. 
Germany, Speech by Joschka Fischer, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs at the UN Commission on Human Rights, 15 March 2004.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Let me take this opportunity to express our hope that the forthcoming report of the Secretary-General on justice and the rule of law will reiterate that achieving the purposes of the United Nations – notably, peace, security and development – requires an increase in the level of guarantees and protection afforded to civilians. That is also the vision of the European Security Strategy, adopted by European Union member States as recently as 12 December 2003: to develop a rules-based international order.
In that context, the International Criminal Court deserves particular mention as an institution that has the potential to address one of the worst root causes of violating the integrity of civilians: impunity.
Combatants violating the principles of humanitarian law – be it by acts directed against civilians or by acts against humanitarian personnel – need to know that they are acting against fundamental principles of humanity and that their acts will eventually come under the judicial scrutiny of the International Criminal Court or of a regional tribunal. What is needed is to move even further towards universal acceptance of its jurisdiction, not to create new pockets of impunity, like those proposed by Security Council resolutions 1422 (2002) and 1487 (2003). 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4990, 14 June 2004, p. 24.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
First, let us put an end to impunity. Impunity is one of the worst root causes of the violation of the integrity of civilians. Parties to armed conflict need to comply with international humanitarian law, in particular the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols. If we do not end impunity for violations of international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights law, there will be no deterrent for the perpetrators of such acts of violence and aggression. Combatants who violate the principles of humanitarian law – be it by committing acts against civilians or acts against humanitarian personnel – need to know that they are acting against fundamental principles of humanity and that their acts will eventually come under the close scrutiny of the International Criminal Court or of a regional tribunal.
In that regard, we fully concur with the High-level Panel in its calls on combatants to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and on all Member States to sign, ratify and act upon all treaties relating to the protection of civilians, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and all refugee conventions. I would like to emphasize the role that the International Criminal Court might have in addressing the issue of impunity. We regret that there is serious disagreement about the role of the Court. We believe that we should consider options and possibilities aimed at bridging those differences, because we need to advance further towards universal acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction.  
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.5100, 14 December 2004, pp. 18–19.
Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Both on the international and the domestic level the Federal Government has taken numerous measures to fight impunity. Apart from supporting international criminal jurisdiction, Germany together with its EU partners also in the reporting period has supported a resolution against impunity sponsored by Canada in the UN Commission on Human Rights and has co-sponsored it annually. The resolution recognizes the fundamental role of the International Criminal Court as well as of the ad hoc tribunals in the fight against impunity and appeals to States to continue supporting the work of the tribunals, as well as to consider acceding to or ratifying the Rome Statute.
Germany remains one of the strongest supporters of the Rome Statute and a supporter – politically, financially and as regards human resources – of a speedy establishment and development of the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering the important contribution this makes to preventing impunity for international crimes and to resolving conflict situations permanently.
Many States party [to the 1998 ICC Statute] still need to adapt their domestic criminal law and criminal procedure law. Germany has done this with the adoption of a specific International Crimes Code (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – VStGB) and a detailed law on cooperation with the ICC; both laws are used as models by the legislators of many other States. With the VStGB it has been avoided to have to split, adapt or amend the existing criminal law norms in many places; it is thereby achieved that, e.g., the behaviour of German soldiers in deployments abroad is measured against a uniform body of law.
It is the task of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR), which are emphatically supported by Germany, to prosecute genocide and other grave crimes against humanity. Tribunals, interpreting and concretizing international criminal norms and developing new procedural provisions, have set standards which will influence also the future work of the International Criminal Court and domestic legal orders.
Finally, Germany gives assistance in the enforcement [of judgments of international tribunals]: in October 2000, for the first time, a person convicted by the ICTY (Dusko Tadic) was transferred to Bavaria for the enforcement of his sentence, a second convicted person (Dragoljub Kunarac) has been serving his sentence in North Rhine-Westphalia since December 2002.
3. Priorities of the German human rights policy 20052006
3.13. Prosecuting grave violations of human rights
The Federal Government commits itself to preventing perpetrators of grave and gravest violations of human rights from going unpunished. It will therefore
- also in the future emphatically support the work of the International Criminal Court and the International ad hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, as regards human resources, financially and politically;
- commit itself to ensuring the independence of the International Criminal Court and its staff;
- defend, together with the EU partners, the unlimited applicability of the Rome Statute and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 91–94 and 204.
Germany
In 2006, in its Report on the Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
From the beginning, Germany was among the strongest supporters of the ICC and with its partners in the EU advocates the strengthening of the integrity of the Court and the accession of further States …
Due to the crimes committed by national socialism, Germany has a special responsibility for the prevention of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Federal Government therefore still regards it as an important task, also in the future, actively to support and further the ICC, as the only world court permanently dedicated to this mission. Also after the completion of the set-up phase, the Courts needs the further support of the State community, the more so as the Court has no executive power and cannot simply resort to the United Nations. Support to States willing to ratify therefore is a special interest of Germany and will continue.
The Federal Government unreservedly supports the work of the two International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) … By interpreting and concretizing international criminal law norms as well as by developing new procedural provisions they have set standards which will also have effects on the future work of the International Criminal Court and on national legal orders …
The Federal Government supports the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in various forms: The German criminal prosecution authorities exchange information with the Tribunal and coordinate own proceedings with it. At the request of the Tribunal, Germany to a considerable extent gives international legal assistance. A great number of persons needed as witnesses by the Criminal Tribunal are present in Germany. They can be exempt from repatriation procedures for the time being and are entitled to social benefits in Germany. For the enforcement of their sentence, Germany has accepted two persons convicted to multi-year prison sentences by the Criminal Tribunal. 
Germany, Federal Government, Report on the Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations in the Years 2004 and 2005, 7 December 2006, pp. 50–51.
Germany
In 2009, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Germany stated:
4. Germany actively supports the International Criminal Court (ICC). Legislative measures concerning the implementation of the Rome Statute were incorporated into German domestic law in June 2002. Amendments to domestic criminal law concerning vertical cooperation between Germany and [the] ICC are contained in a separate code in order to achieve transparent and coherent regulation of the cooperation with [the] ICC (Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof) [Law on the Cooperation with the International Criminal Court], conceding to [the] ICC, to the extent possible, all measures of judicial cooperation available between States.
7. Germany also continues to cooperate with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and supports the Special Court for Sierra Leone as well as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court System of Cambodia.
8. Germany supports the Special Tribunal for Lebanon established in accordance with Resolution 1757 (2007) of the Security Council. As one of the major donors to the budget of the tribunal [it] is an active participant of its Management Committee. 
Germany, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 9 January 2009, §§ 4 and 7–8.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German cooperation with the UN and other international organizations and institutions within the UN system in 2008 and 2009 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Apart from the mandatory contribution to the budgets of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) totalling 26.01 million US Dollars (2008) and 29.20 [million] US Dollars (2009), the Federal Government also provided other support to the tribunals. German criminal prosecution authorities exchanged information and coordinated proceedings with the ICTY. Based on a request of the ICTY, Germany provided considerable legal assistance and in three cases took over the execution of the sentence. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations and Individual, Globally Acting International Organizations and Institutions within the UN-System in the Years 2008 and 2009, 5 August 2010, p. 48.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German human rights policy in the context of foreign relations and other policy areas between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2010, which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The office of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecution of crimes under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] is the Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. Together with the Central Unit for the Fight against War Crimes of the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Federal Prosecutor General keeps an eye on the human rights situations in the hotspots and crises around the world. To this end, the Federal Prosecutor General established various observation procedures which make it possible to initiate targeted investigation proceedings on short notice if information on international crimes that can be used for judicial purposes is received. Moreover, he stays in touch with the office of the prosecutor at the ICC [International Criminal Court] in The Hague … in order to ensure information exchange. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on its Human Rights Policy in the Context of Foreign Relations and in Other Policy Areas, 26 August 2010, p. 46.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” between July 2007 and July 2010 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
On the basis of international treaties and domestic law, Germany is … providing legal assistance to … international courts carrying out criminal proceedings against those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Since May 2007, members of staff of the focal points with jurisdiction over persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes have been meeting annually. … The Federal Government supports the work of t