Wounder no more.
Has nothing to do with her wrist.
Did you know India has a treaty with the USA that prevents extradition of political refugees?
Guess who put this Extradition together? Bill Clinton back in 1997. Called Artical 4(2)
which specifies that
(a) a murder or a willful crime against a head of state. or head of government of one the contracting states or a member of a heads family.
(b) aircraft hijacking offences.
(c) acts of aviation sabotage.
(d) crimes against internationally protected persons. including diplomats.
(e) hostage taking.
(f) offences related to illegal drugs
(g) any other offences for which both parties are obliged pursuant to a multilateral
international agreement to extradite the person sought or submit the case to their competent authorities for decisions to commits or attempts to commits such offences
(h) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offences described above.
[Senate Treaty Document 105-30]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
105th Congress Treaty Doc.
1st Session 105-30
EXTRADITION TREATY WITH INDIA
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA, SIGNED AT
WASHINGTON ON JUNE 25, 1997
September 23, 1997.--Treaty was read the first time and, together with
the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
The White House, September 23, 1997.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition
Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of the Republic of India, signed at
Washington on June 25, 1997.
In addition, I transmit, for the information of the Senate,
a related exchange of letters signed the same date and the
report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty.
As the report states, the Treaty will not require implementing
The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and
content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the
Upon entry into force, this Treaty would enhance
cooperation between the law enforcement authorities of both
countries, and thereby make a significant contribution to
international law enforcement efforts. With respect to the
United States and India, the Treaty would supersede the Treaty
for the Mutual Extradition of Criminals between the United
States of America and Great Britain, signed at London, December
22, 1931, which was made applicable to India on March 9, 1942,
and is currently applied by the United States and India.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to
William J. Clinton.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
Department of State,
Washington, September 8, 1997.
The President: I have the honor to submit to you the
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States
of America and the Government of the Republic of India (the
``Treaty''), signed at Washington on June 25, 1997. I recommend
that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and
consent to ratification. Accompanying the Treaty is a related
exchange of letters signed the same date. I recommend that
these letters be transmitted for the information of the Senate.
The Treaty follows closely the form and content of
extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.
The Treaty represents part of a concerted effort by the
Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop
modern extradition relationships to enhance the ability of the
United States to prosecute serious offenders, including,
especially, narcotics traffickers and terrorists.
The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral
cooperation between the United States and India. Upon entry
into force, it would supersede (with the exception noted below)
the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great
Britain signed at London on December 22, 1931, entered into
force on June 24, 1935, and made applicable to India from March
9, 1942. The United States and India continued to apply that
Treaty following India's independence in 1947. That treaty has
become outmoded, and the new treaty will provide significant
improvements. The Treaty can be implemented without new
Article 1 obligates each Party to extradite to the other,
pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, any person charged
with or found guilty of an extraditable offense in the
Requesting State, whether such offense was committed before or
after entry into force of the Treaty.
Article 2(1) defines an extraditable offense as one
punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by
deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year, or
by a more severe penalty. Use of such a ``dual criminality''
clause rather than a list of offenses covered by the Treaty
obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as
additionaloffenses become punishable under the laws of both
Article 2(2) defines an extraditable offense to include
also an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, aiding or abetting,
counseling or procuring the commission of or being an accessory
before or after the fact to, any extraditable offense as
described in Article 2(1).
Additional flexibility is provided by Article 2(3), which
provides that an offense shall be considered an extraditable
offense: (1) whether or not the laws of the Contracting States
place the offense within the same category of offenses or
describe the offense by the same terminology; (2) whether or
not the offense is one for which United States federal law
requires the showing of such matters as interstate
transportation or use of the mails or of other facilities
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, such matters being
merely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction in a United
States federal court; or (3) whether or not it relates to
taxation or revenue or is one of a purely fiscal character.
With regard to offenses committed outside the territory of
the Requesting State, Article 2(4) provides that an offense
described in Article 2 shall be an extraditable offense
regardless of where the act or acts constituting the offense
were committed. Article 2(5) provides that if extradition has
been granted for an extraditable offense, it shall also be
granted for any other offense specified in the request, even if
the other offenses are punishable by less than one year's
deprivation of liberty, provided that all other requirements
for extradition have been met.
Article 3 provides that extradition shall not be refused on
the ground that the person sought is a national of the
Requested State. Neither party, in other words, may invoke
nationality as a basis for denying an extradition.
As is customary in extradition treaties, Article 4
incorporates a political offense exception to the obligation to
extradite. This exception is substantially identical to that
contained in several other modern extradition treaties
including the treaty with Jordan, which recently received
Senate advice and consent. Article 4(1) states generally that
extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which
extradition is requested is a political offense. Article 4(2)
specifies eight categories of offenses that shall not be
considered to be political offenses: (a) a murder or other
willful crime against the person of a Head of State or Head of
Government of one of the Contracting States, or of a member of
the Head ofState's family; (b) aircraft hijacking offenses; (c)
acts of aviation sabotage; (d) crimes against internationally protected
persons, including diplomats; (e) hostage taking; (f) offenses related
to illegal drugs; (g) any other offense for which both Parties are
obliged pursuant to a multilateral international agreement to extradite
the person sought or submit the case to their competent authorities for
decision as to prosecution; and (h) a conspiracy or attempt to commit
any of the offenses described above, or aiding or abetting a person who
commits or attempts to commit such offenses.
Article 5(1) provides that the executive authority of the
Requested State may refuse extradition for offenses under
military law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law
(e.g. desertion). Article 5(2) provides that extradition shall
not be granted if the executive authority of the Requested
State determines that the request was politically motivated.
Letters exchanged by the Parties at the time of the signing of
the Treaty, and included herewith for the information of the
Senate, set forth the understanding of the Parties that if
either Party is considering prosecution or punishment upon
extradition under law laws or rules of criminal procedure other
than the Requesting State's ordinary laws or rules of criminal
procedure, then the Requesting State must request consultations
and make such a request for extradition only upon the agreement
of the Requested State. This exchange of letters creates an
important and useful limitation on the obligation to extradite
fugitives where the prosecution or punishment would be based on
extraordinary laws and procedures.
Article 6 bars extradition when the person sought has been
convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same
offense, but does not bar extradition if the competent
authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute
or have decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the
Article 7 provides that extradition shall not be granted
when the prosecution has become barred by lapse of time
according to the laws of the Requesting State.
Under Article 8, when an offense for which extradition is
requested is punishable by death under the laws in the
Requesting State and is not so punishable under laws in the
Requested State, the Requested State may refuse extradition
unless the offense constitutes murder under the laws in the
Requested State or the Requesting State provides assurances
that the Death penalty, if imposed, will not be carried out.
Article 9 establishes the procedures and describes the
documents that are required to support a request for
extradition. It requires that all requests be submitted through
the diplomatic channel. Article 9(3) provides that a request
for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be
supported by such evidence as would justify committal for trial
if the offense had been committed in the Requested State. This
is a lesser evidentiary standard than that contained in the
current extradition treaty and, therefore, should enhance the
ability of the United States to obtain extradition of fugitives
Article 10 establishes the procedures under which documents
submitted pursuant to the Treaty shall be received and admitted
into evidence. Article 11 provides that all documents submitted
by the Requesting State shall be in English.
Article 12 sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest
of a person sought pending presentation of the formal request
for extradition. Article 12(4) provides that if the Requested
State's executive authority has not received the request for
extradition and supporting documentation within sixty days
after the provisional arrest, the person may be discharged from
custody. Article 12(5) provides explicitly that discharge from
custody pursuant to Article 12(4) does not prejudice subsequent
rearrest and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition
request and supporting documents.
Article 13 specifies the procedures governing the surrender
and return of persons sought. The Requested State is required
to notify the Requesting State promptly through the diplomatic
channel of its decision on extradition and, if the request is
denied in whole or in part, to provide an explanation of the
reasons for the denial of the request. If the request is
granted, the authorities of the Contracting States shall agree
on the time and place for the surrender of the person sought.
Article 14 concerns temporary and deferred surrender. If a
person whose extradition is sought is being proceeded against
or is serving a sentence in the Requested State, that State may
temporarily surrender the person to the Requesting State solely
for the purpose of prosecution. The Requested State may also
postpone the extradition proceedings until its prosecution has
been concluded and any sentence imposed has been served.
Article 15 sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be
considered by the Requested State in determining to which State
to surrender a person sought by more than one State.
Article 16 provides for the seizure and surrender to the
Requesting State of all articles documents and evidence
connected with the offense for which extradition is granted, to
the extent permitted under the law of the Requested State. Such
property may be surrendered even when extradition cannot be
effected due to the death, disappearance, or escape of the
person sought. Surrender of property may be deferred if it is
needed as evidence in the Requested State and may be
conditioned upon satisfactory assurances that it will be
returned as soon as practicable. Article 16(3) imposes an
obligation to respect the rights of third parties in affected
Article 17 sets forth the rule of specialty. It provides
that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be detained,
tried, or punished in the Requesting State for an offense other
than that for which extradition has been granted unless the
offense is based on the same facts on which extradition was
granted (provided such offense is extraditable or is a lesser
included offense); the offense was committed after the
extradition of the person; or a waiver of the rule of specialty
is granted by the executive authority of the Requested State.
Similarly, the Requesting State may not extradite the person to
a third state for an offense committed prior to the original
surrender unless the Requested State consents. These
restrictions shall not prevent the detention, trial, or
punishment of an extradited person, or that person's
extradition to a third State, if the extradited person leaves
the Requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns
to it or fails to leave the Requesting State within fifteen
days of being free to do so.
Article 18 permits surrender to the Requesting State
without further proceedings if the person sought consents to
Article 19 governs the transit through the territory of one
Contracting State of a person being surrendered to the other
State by a third State.
Article 20 contains provisions on representation and
expenses that are similar to those found in other modern
extradition treaties. Specifically, the Requested State is
required to represent the interests of the Requesting State in
any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. The
Requesting State is required to bear the expenses related to
the translation of documents and the transportation of the
person surrendered. Article 20(3) clarifies that neither State
shall make any pecuniary claim against the other State related
to the arrest, detention,examination, custody, or surrender of
persons sought under the Treaty.
Article 21 states that the competent authorities of the
United States and India may consult with each other directly or
through the facilities of Interpol in connection with the
processing of individual cases and in furtherance of
maintaining and improving the procedures for the implementation
of the Treaty.
Article 22 provides that the Contracting States shall, to
the extent permitted by their laws, afford each other the
widest measure of mutual assistance in criminal matters in
connection with an offense for which extradition has been
Article 23 and 24 contain final clauses dealing with the
Treaty's ratification, entry into force and termination.
Paragraph 1 of Article 23 states that the Treaty shall be
subject to ratification, and the instruments of ratification
shall be exchanged as soon as possible. Paragraph 2 states that
the treaty shall enter into force upon the exchange of
instruments of ratification. Paragraph 3 provides that, upon
entry into force of this Treaty, the Treaty for the Mutual
Extradition of Criminals between the United States of America
and Great Britain, signed at London, December 22, 1931, shall
cease to have any effect between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of India,
except that the prior Treaty shall apply to any extradition
proceedings in which the extradition documents have already
been submitted to the courts of the Requested States at the
time this Treaty enters in force.
Article 24 provides that either Contract State may
terminate the Treaty at any time by giving written to the other
Contract State, and the termination shall be effective six
months after the date of such notice.
A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating
delegation and will be submitted separately to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate at the earliest
Ex. Rept. 105-23 - EXTRADITION TREATIES WITH ARGENTINA, AUSTRIA, BARBADOS, CYPRUS, FRANCE, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, MEXICO, POLAND, SPAIN, TRINIDAD & TOBAGO, ZIMBABWE, ANTIGUA & BARBUDA, DOMINICA, GRENADA, ST. KITTS & NEVIS, ST. LUCIA, AND ST. VINCENT & THE GRENADINES