Particulars of the European Convention for the Repression of Terrorism Compared to Classical Extradition Law

• NCJ Number: 70729
• Journal: Revue de droit penal et de criminologie Volume: 60 Issue: 1 and 2 Dated: special issue (January/February 1980) Pages: 15-42
• Author(s): J DuJardin
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 28 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: French
• Country: Belgium
• Note: Presented at the 16th Franco-Belgo-Luxembourgian Meeting on Criminal Science, May 18-19, 1979.

Annotation

Modifications of classical extradition law contained in the European Convention for the Repression of Terrorism are examined.

Abstract

In the face of growing terrorism, the European states have been compelled to rethink their liberal ideals and to impose repressive techniques as a means of controlling terrorism. Extradition requirements are the means employed in the convention. Choice of this option has made it necessary to eliminate the traditional exception to extradition proceedings for political offenses. Accourding to the convention, certain offenses can never be considered political; i.e., offenses of blind violence presenting a grave danger to innocent victims. Reversal of the traditional exception from extradition for political offenders has been rendered acceptable by certain limitations imposed in the convention. The convention only covers Council of Europe members, among whom a climate of mutual trust exists and who have agreed to a number of other conventions protecting basic human rights and fundamental liberties. At the time of signing, each member state has the right to specify exceptions to the extraditable offenses listed. Furthermore, any state still has the right to refuse extradition if it has reasons to believe that the extradition request is motivated by political, racial, or religious discrimination. However, if a state refuses to extradite an individual for any of the reasons stated, that state is required to institute legal proceedings against the offender. The changes brought about by the convention do not appear to threaten basic human rights. In general, the convention represents an act of international solidarity which in no way interferes with the functioning of states' laws or with the provision of political asylum in justifiable cases. Extensive notes and a transcription of the discussion following the paper are provided.