Friday, December 16, 2005

International Extradition Weekly Recap 12-16-05


Click here for video

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 4:44 PM  

Extradition from Kenya to the United States—Karoli Muliro

A Kenyan native who fled from the United States after allegedly driving through an intersection while drunk, which fatally injured a woman, has been arrested in Kenya.[1] Karoli Muliro was allegedly driving too fast when he went through an intersection in the “right turn only lane” when he hit Julie Adams; his blood alcohol level was allegedly 0.14.[2] Ms. Adams was left in a coma with serious brain injury, and after 21 months in which she showed no sign of recovery, she was taken off life support.[3]

Mr. Muliro was free bail when Ms. Adams died, and fled the country, failing to appear for an upgraded motor vehicle homicide charge.[4] He was found in Kitale, an agricultural region of Kenya, and after Suffolk County, Massachusetts prosecutors filed arrest warrants with , Kenyan police arrested Mr. Muliro on December 4.[5]

Suffolk County prosecutors are now working on having Mr. Muliro .

Extradition from Kenya to the United States is conducted under the terms of the 1935 extradition between the United States and the United Kingdom, which was made applicable to the Kenya by an in 1965.[6] Under the terms of the treaty, murder and manslaughter are extraditable offenses.[7] The United States will have to provide sufficient evidence according to Kenya that would “justify the committal of the prisoner for trial,” as though the crime or offense had been committed in Kenya.[8] The United States also has two months from December 4—the date Mr. Muliro was apprehended—to produce the sufficient evidence, or else “the fugitive shall be set at liberty.”[9] Unlike more modern international extradition treaties, there are no exceptions contained in the treaty that prevent extradition of nationals, or in the case that the death penalty is sought.


[1] , Portsmouth Herald, Dec. 16, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Exchange of Notes, May 14-Aug. 19, 1965, U.S.-Kenya, 16 U.S.T. 1866.
[7] Extradition Treaty, Dec. 22, 1931, U.S.-Kenya, art. 3, paras. 1-2, TS 849, 12 Bevans 482.
[8] Id. art. 9.
[9] Id. art. 11.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 10:35 AM  

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Extradition from Britain to Russia—Alexandr Temerko

Fearing that a former executive of the “shattered” Russian oil giant Yukos would not receive a fair trial in Russia, a Council of Europe representative explained to a British court that Alexandr[1] Temerko should not be from Britain to Russia.[2]

Extradition proceedings against Mr. Temerko began at the end of October.[3] He is wanted in Russia on allegations that he used “forged documents to acquire a stake in Eniseyneftegaz, an oil company at the centre of a dispute between Yukos and Rosneft, the state oil group.”[4] He is the fourth Yukos employee to be the subject of an extradition request this year, and the other three employees were granted asylum in Britain “after the Home Secretary decided that they had a ‘well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion.’”[5] Mr. Temerko replaced Mikhail Khodorkovsky as chairman of Yukos after Mr. Khodorkovsky was arrested “at gunpoint on his private jet in Siberia.”[6] Mr. Khodorkovsky’s supporters say that he is being punished for displaying opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin.[7] Mr. Khodorkovsky is now serving an eight-year sentence in a Siberian jail after he was convicted in what human rights groups denounced as a “show trial.”[8]

In yesterday’s hearing, Mr. Temerko’s lawyers explained “that a key defense expert witness[, British professor Bill Bowring,] had been detained and deported on a recent visit to Moscow.”[9] Furthermore, according to Sabine Leuftheusser-Schnarrenberger—who headed an investigation by the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights into the prosecution of Mr. Khodorkovsky—Russia’s prosecution was “underpinned by the state’s attempts to weaken an outspoken political opponent.”[10] Ms. Leuftheusser-Schnarrenberger testified that she was concerned about a number of troubling occurrences in Mr. Khodorkovksy’s trial: access to lawyers was denied, judges were weak against prosecution demands, and pre-trial detention conditions may have been less than adequate.[11]

The controversial contains two sets of extradition regulations, one for “Category 1” countries, and one for “Category 2” countries. Category 1 countries are basically the countries in the EU, and they include: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,[12] Austria, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia.[13] All other countries with which the UK has an extradition treaty, such as the US and Russia, are considered category 2 countries.

Extradition from the UK to a category 2 country “is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears” that the request for his extradition “(though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions,” or that if the suspect—if extradited—“might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.”[14]

If the judge overseeing the extradition hearing decides that “extraneous considerations” bar the suspect’s extradition, “he must order the person’s discharge.”[15]

This latest news of Mr. Temerko’s struggle against extradition comes just as business interests in the UK rail against Home Secretary Clarke for signing such a lop-sided extradition treaty with the United States. “Sir Digby Jones, the director of the CBI, is concerned that the treaty, which was signed in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, was being used to target alleged white-collar criminals.”[16] Sir Jones was speaking “on the fringes of the World Trade Organisation summit in Hong Kong,” and noted that his members were growing quite angry with the misuse of the extradition scheme by an “ignorant bully.”[17] We previously discussed how the treaty is unbalanced in favor of the United States one month .


[1] Some news organizations, such as the AP, put Mr. Temerko’s name as “Alexander” while others, like the Times of London, put it as “Alexandr.” We have adopted the Times’ naming convention.
[2] Jane Wardell, British Court Told Former Yukos Executive Won’t Receive Fair Trial if Returned to Russia, Associated Press, Dec. 15, 2001. (not available online).
[3] Liz Chong, , Times (London), Oct. 25, 2005.
[4] Id.
[5] Liz Chong, , Times (London), Oct. 26, 2005.
[6] Id.
[7] Chong, supra note 3.
[8] Id.
[9] Wardell, supra note 2.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] (2003) SI 2003/3333.
[13] (2004) SI 2004/1898.
[14] Extradition Act, 2003, c. 41, § 81.
[15] Id. § 79(3).
[16] Philip Thornton, et al., The Independent, Dec. 14, 2005; see also Larry Elliot, , The Guardian, Dec. 15, 2005.
[17] Thornton, supra note 16.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 9:50 AM  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Extradition from the Czech Republic to the United States—Oussama Kassir

A Swedish man born in Lebanon has been charged in a plot to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon.[1] The charge against Oussama Kassir relates to an earlier indictment charging Mustafa Kamel Mustafa and Haroon Aswat—better know as Abu Hamza al-Masri—in the plot; those two men are being detained in England and are facing extradition to the United States.[2]

According to the complaint, Mr. Kassir and others conspired to establish a training camp in Bly, Oregon “to teach military-style methods so a community of Muslims could move to Afghanistan to fight or receive further training there.”[3] It seems that the camp began in late November of 1999, but never proceeded beyond several men taking target practice.[4]

Mr. Kassir was arrested in Prague on Sunday after a warrant was filed with , and he is facing from the Czech Republic.[5] He had been en route from Stockholm, Sweden, to Beirut, Lebanon.[6]

International extradition from the Czech Republic to the United States is presumptively governed by the and the between the United States and Czechoslovakia. Note, however, that the US Department of State cautions that “[o]n December 31, 1992, at midnight, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and was succeeded by two separate and independent states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. The status of the agreements [between the US and these republics] is under review.”[7] For all intents and purposes we assume that the treaty between the US and Czechoslovakia is valid.

According to the treaty, establishing training camps for the purpose of training future terrorists is not among the listed offenses for which extradition is applicable.[8] Murder is an extraditable offense,[9] as is being a conspirator to commit murder,[10] but the offense for which Mr. Kassir is charged does not fit nicely into the terms of the extradition treaty; this is why you see modern extradition treaties use “dual-criminality” clauses instead of the “laundry list” method seen here.

There are, however, a couple of international conventions that might allow the extradition of Mr. Kassir. The first is the [hereinafter IPP], and the second is the [hereinafter STB]. Because the IPP really only applies to diplomatic agents, we won’t address it here. Instead, we will look at the STB.

Under the terms of the STB, it is an offense within the meaning of the Convention if a person “unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility.”[11] The bombings must be done with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or to cause extensive destruction which results in major economic loss.[12] Attempts are covered by the convention, as is organizing or directing others to commit such an offense.[13] Of course, this is not a perfect fit for what Mr. Kassir is accused of doing.

In any event, the offenses listed in the STB Convention “shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between any of the States Parties before the entry into force of this Convention.”[14] Furthermore, the country in which the suspect is found is under an obligation, if it is determined that the STB applies to the acts with which the suspect is accused, to either extradite the individual or prosecute him itself.[15]

It will be very interesting to see just how the extradition hearings play out.


[1] Larry Neumeister, , Associated Press, Dec. 14, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] US Dept. of State, 75-76, Jan. 1, 2005. (PDF)
[8] See Extradition Treaty, Jul. 2, 1925, U.S.-Czech., art. II, TS 734, 6 Bevans 1247.
[9] Id. art. II, para. 1.
[10] Id. art. II.
[11] STB, Dec. 15, 1997, art. 2, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-6 (2002).
[12] Id.
[13] Id. art. 2, para. 3(b).
[14] Id. art. 9, para. 1.
[15] Id. art. 8.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 11:00 AM  

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Extradition from the Bahamas to the United States (or the Czech Republic)—Viktor Kozeny

As extradition hearings for Viktor Kozeny, who we mentioned last , are set to begin in the Bahamas. The Czech Republic is also seeking the extradition of Mr. Kozeny, who is suspected “of 11.5 billion crowns [roughly US$475 million][1] worth of embezzlements.”[2] According to Czech authorities, “the Czech Republic has not signed an agreement on legal assistance with the Bahamas, therefore its efforts in this respect have been unsuccessful so far.”[3] It may be true that the Czech Republic and the Bahamas have not signed a bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty [hereinafter ] in Criminal Matters, such as the that exists between the Bahamas and the United States, but, according to the Bahamas Ministry of Foreign Affairs [hereinafter MFA], there is certainly an extradition treaty between the Czech Republic and the Bahamas listed on the MFA website.[4] However, according to some Prague news sources, “the Justice Ministry has tried to invoke a 1925 treaty between Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom that included British colonies to take back Kozeny from his posh home in the Bahamas.”[5] In short, therefore, there is quite a bit of dispute about whether the Czech-Bahamas extradition treaty is valid.[6] The Czech Republic’s extradition request was filed in April, while the request from the United States was filed in October.[7]

We have previously discussed the procedures available to a country dealing with multiple extradition requests when we discussed Yevgeny Adamov at the end of . The procedure for dealing with multiple extradition requests is governed by the bilateral treaty between the two countries. According to the US-Bahamas treaty, when the requested state (the Bahamas) receives extradition requests from the other contracting state (the US) and from any other state or states “for the extradition of the same person, either for the same offense or for different offenses, the executive authority” of the requested state “shall determine to which [s]tate it will surrender the person.”[8] The relevant factors which the requested state will take into consideration include, but are not limited to: the state in which the offense was committed; the gravity of the offenses, if the states are seeking the person for different offenses; the nationality of the offender; the possibility of re-extradition between the requesting states; and the chronological order in which the requests were received from the requesting states.[9] The text of the Czech-UK/Bahamas treaty is exceedingly difficult to find online. A look at treaties from the early 20th century that were negotiated by the United States with countries such as , , , , , and even , suggests that the international norm at that time for multiple requests was simply that the request which was received first was the country to which the suspect would be sent.

In other developments concerning Mr. Kozeny, it has also come to light that Mr. Kozeny has Venezuelan, and possibly Brazilian, citizenship to go with his Irish citizenship.[10] He also possessed eight passports, all of which were invalid.[11]


[1] , Yahoo!, Dec. 13, 2005.
[2] , Prague Daily Monitor, Dec. 12, 2005 [hereinafter PDM].
[3] Id.
[4] See Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at 6, May 2004. (PDF) The extradition treaty signed in 1924 between the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia (continued in force for the Bahamas in 1973) purportedly applies to the Bahamas as well as both the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
[5] Scott Domer, , The Prague Post, Nov. 23, 2005 (last visited Dec. 13, 2005). Senior Principle Douglas McNabb is quoted in this article, but he takes issue with the attribution of “until they have their pound of flesh.” This is not an accurate representation of Mr. McNabb’s opinion.
[6] See, e.g., , Prague Daily Monitor (via Bahamas Business News), Oct. 7, 2005; , Prague Daily Monitor (via Bahamas Business News), Jun. 8, 2005; Jan Stojaspal, , Time (Europe), Oct. 12, 2003.
[7] Id.
[8] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 9, 1990, U.S.-Bahamas, art. 13, para. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-17 (1994).
[9] Id. art. 13, para. 1, sects. (a)-(e).
[10] PDM, supra note 1.
[11] Id.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 11:26 AM  

McNabb in the News

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb was mentioned in today’s The Independent. In an article about British executives facing “fast-track” extradition to the United States under the UK’s controversial , it was noted that “[t]he US extradition expert Douglas McNabb, who has testified on behalf of the NatWest three, has opened an office in the City in anticipation of a flood of extraditions.”[1]


[1] Julia Kollewe, , The Independent, Dec. 13, 2005.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 8:57 AM  

Monday, December 12, 2005

Extradition from the Netherlands to the United States—Wesam al Delaema

A Dutch court in Rotterdam has ruled that Wesam al Delaema, who we discussed nearly three months , can be extradited to the United States.[1] Mr. al Delaema is accused of waging a guerrilla campaign against Coalition forces in Iraq, and evidence has been introduced against him that “includes a videotape he filmed of a group called ‘Warriors of Fallujah’ preparing a roadside bomb, which was widely shown on Arabic television stations.”[2]

Mr. al Delaema claims he is innocent and argues that the US does not have the right to try him.[3] His defense consisted mostly of saying that he was coerced by Iraqi insurgents into saying and doing things in order to save his own life. “Al Delaema argued that he was forced to make the video after being kidnapped and beaten. He said he feared being beheaded if he resisted.”[4] His family also claimed that an interview he gave with Canadian journalist Katerine Brisebois, in which he said “I want to offer myself up for my land, for my people,” was intended as a joke.[5] Dutch police also alleged that he set himself on fire during a protest in Amsterdam, but his family claims that he was simply standing too close to people who were burning American flags.[6]

The Dutch court, however, has said that it sees no reason why Mr. al Delaema cannot be extradited.[7] This means that the court does not view the alleged acts as being purely political or military in nature; if it had, it could have used the exceptions found in either the extradition [8] or the International for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.[9] On the other hand, since the defense consisted mainly of denying that he took any willing part of a campaign against Coalition forces, the exceptions likely were not raised.

Mr. al Delaema has vowed to appeal the decision, which will mean that he will not be sent to the United States any time soon.


[1] Dutchman Accused of Attacking U.S. Troops in Iraq May be Extradited, Court Says, Associated Press, Dec. 12, 2005 (Not currently available online) [hereinafter AP]; see also , Xinhua Online, Dec. 12, 2005.
[2] AP, supra note 1.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Extradition Treaty, Jun. 24, 1980, U.S.-Neth., art. 4, S. Treaty Doc. No. 97-7 (1983).
[9] International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Jan. 12, 1998, art. 1, para. 4, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-6 (2002).

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 10:06 AM