Соответствующая норма
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
Section B. Extradition
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.