Posted by: scardenas | November 29, 2011

To Extradite or Not Extradite?

ECHR by ahxcjb

The European Court of Human Rights has at last issued a judgment permitting the extradition of a genocide suspect to Rwanda (Ahorugeze v. Sweden).  The case is important because similar extradition denials are quite common across Europe, although—and here is the key—extradition denials don’t typically lead to trials on the basis of universal jurisdiction.  The drive for justice somehow fizzles out, once the case against extradition is won.

Refusals to extradite are most often based on the presumed likelihood of human rights violations, especially fears of unfair trials or of ill-treatment and persecution.  But what happens when a human rights rationale leads to a denial of extradition, which in turn only reinforces impunity?  And are refusals to extradite always driven by evidence of what awaits a defendant, or do cultural presuppositions filter into the decision?  These double standards now need to be brought to light.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s