Соответствующая норма
Uruguay
Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
Uruguay’s Code of Criminal Procedure (2014) states:
ARTICLE 329. – (Applicable rules).
329.1 Extradition shall be governed by the rules provided for in the international treaties and conventions ratified by the Republic and currently in force.
329.2 For the crimes and offences defined under Law 18.026 of 25 September 2006 and the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the extradition and surrender of suspects shall be governed, moreover, by what is established by those rules.
329.3 In the absence or insufficiency of the abovementioned instruments, the following provisions shall apply.
ARTICLE 330. (Extradition procedure).
330.1 When required for this purpose, the competent tribunals of the Republic shall, in accordance with the provisions of the present Title, surrender any individual present on the national territory in order to be tried, to conclude a trial already underway, or to serve the detention sentence passed against him in the requesting State.
330.2 In order to proceed with the extradition, the requesting State must have jurisdiction over the offence on which the request is based, whether or not it occurred in its territory.
ARTICLE 331. – (Refusal of extradition). Extradition shall be refused when:
a) the individual has served the penalty corresponding to the offence supporting the request, or when in any way the punitive powers of the requesting State have been extinguished prior to the request;
b) the offence, its prosecution or the penalty imposed are barred by statutes of limitation under the national legislation or that of the requesting State;
c) the individual has been prosecuted or sentenced, or will be prosecuted, in the requesting State by a special or ad hoc court;
e) from the circumstances of the case it is possible to infer that there is a persecutory intent based on discrimination on the basis of grounds of race, religion, nationality, or that the individual’s situation may be aggravated by any similar reason;
f) the conduct on which the extradition request is based does not constitute a crime in both States. This shall take into account the similarity of the respective descriptions of the offence and not their name;
g) the individual has been sentenced to deprivation of liberty for less than two years, or the sentence left to be served is of less than six months;
h) the individual was convicted in absentia and the requesting State has not provided assurances that the case will be reopened to hear the individual, to allow them to exercise their right of defence, and that a new decision will be subsequently rendered;
i) because of their age, the individual could not be charged at the time of the commission of the conduct or conducts for which the extradition is requested.
ARTICLE 332. – (Death penalty and life imprisonment). Under no circumstances surrender shall be authorized when the requesting State will apply the death penalty or life imprisonment. 
Uruguay, Code of Criminal Procedure, 2014, Articles 329–331(c) and 331(e)–332.
In 2012, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Uruguay stated:
Article 4, paragraph 2 [of the 2006 Law on Cooperation with the ICC] also states that, where a person suspected of having committed a crime under Act No. 18026 [2006 Law on Cooperation with the ICC] is present in the territory of Uruguay or in a place subject to its jurisdiction, the State is obliged to take the necessary steps to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the crime or offence if it has not received a request for surrender to the International Criminal Court or an extradition request … The suspicion referred to in the first part of this paragraph must be based on reasonable grounds. 
Uruguay, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 15 November 2012, UN Doc. CAT/C/URY/3, submitted 14 September 2012, § 337; see also § 351.
Uruguay’s Code of Criminal Procedure (2014) states:
ARTICLE 329. – (Applicable rules).
329.1 Extradition shall be governed by the rules provided for in the international treaties and conventions ratified by the Republic and currently in force.
329.2 For the crimes and offences defined under Law 18.026 of 25 September 2006 and the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the extradition and surrender of suspects shall be governed, moreover, by what is established by those rules.
329.3 In the absence or insufficiency of the abovementioned instruments, the following provisions shall apply.
ARTICLE 333. – (Nationality). The nationality of the requested individual shall not prevent the submission of the extradition request and, when applicable, the surrender. 
Uruguay, Code of Criminal Procedure, 2014, Articles 329 and 333.
Uruguay’s Code of Criminal Procedure (2014) states:
ARTICLE 329. – (Applicable rules).
329.1 Extradition shall be governed by the rules provided for in the international treaties and conventions ratified by the Republic and currently in force.
329.2 For the crimes and offences defined under Law 18.026 of 25 September 2006 and the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the extradition and surrender of suspects shall be governed, moreover, by what is established by those rules.
329.3 In the absence or insufficiency of the abovementioned instruments, the following provisions shall apply.
ARTICLE 331. – (Refusal of extradition). Extradition shall be refused when:
d) [the conducts on which the extradition request is based] are political offences, or common offences related to political offences, or common offences whose punishment is politically motivated. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of terrorism shall not be considered political offences[.] 
Uruguay, Code of Criminal Procedure, 2014, Articles 329 and 331(d).
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.
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.
In 2008, in a statement during the general debate of the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay stated:
[T]he creation of the International Criminal Court is an essential contribution to the process of progressive development of International Law and a fact of huge significance, not only from a legal point of view but also from a political one.
Uruguay promulgated in 2006 a national Law that has established total cooperation with that Court. And, we respectfully exhort the international community to do the same, in order to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity from going unpunished. 
Uruguay, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during the general debate of the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly, 27 September 2008, p. 5.
In 2012, in a statement during the general debate of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay stated:
Since 2002, Uruguay is part of the [1998] Rome Statute and passed a law which can be considered as a model of cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), in regards with the fight against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Uruguay, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during the general debate of the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly, 29 September 2012, p. 5.
In 2014, in a statement during the general debate of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay stated:
Uruguay has been party to the [1998] Rome Statute since 2002 and adopted a law that can be considered a model of cooperation with the International Criminal Court in terms of combating genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Uruguay, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs during the general debate of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly, 29 September 2014, p. 7.