Friday, June 02, 2006

Extradition from Pakistan to the United Kingdom—Mohammed Fazal

One of the general principles of human rights in the post-World War II era is that no person shall be subject to Ex Post Facto laws. For example, Article 15 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that no person “shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.”[1] Though not all countries are signatories, such as Pakistan, the covenant came into force on March 23, 1976. What isn’t clear, however, is what happens when an treaty is negotiated between two countries, and one of those countries wants a person from the other country for a crime committed before the negotiation and ratification of that treaty. That is the situation confronting the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

Mohammed Fazal is a professional cricket player who fled from the UK to his native Pakistan three weeks before he was to go on trial for raping a 21-year-old woman who was asleep in his home.[2] He was convicted in absentia, and now the UK would like to have him back to serve his jail time.[3] Judge Peter Armstrong in the UK said that “[t]here is now an extradition treaty with Pakistan but whether it applies to offences committed before it was signed would need to be investigated.”[4] A Home Office spokesman, however, said that such a treaty has not been signed; in , we mentioned that the treaty was to be finalized, which was supported by a number of news stories.[5] The UK’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office does not list an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but it also does not list the controversial UK-US extradition treaty signed in 2003; it seems the list of extradition treaties was last updated on September 26, 2002.[6] The Home Office spokesman says that the UK is “still working with the Pakistan authorities to agree [to] an extradition treaty between our two countries. This work is in the final stages but we do not have a date as yet for when the treaty will be signed”; in the mean time, requests can be sent to Pakistan on an individual basis.[7]

Assuming arguendo, however, that there is a treaty, the fact that such a treaty was signed after the commission of the offense is not always a bar to extradition. For example, in the US-Austria extradition , extradition can be had for offenses committed before as well as after the date the Treaty enters into force.[8] In the Australia-Poland extradition , extradition requests “submitted after the entry into force of this Treaty shall be governed by this Treaty whatever the date of the commission of the offence for which extradition is requested.”[9] And in the Canada-Sweden extradition , the same policy applies.[10] Therefore it is exceedingly likely that any treaty negotiated between the UK and Pakistan will have similar provisions.


[1] , Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 15.
[2] , Northern Echo (UK), Jun. 2, 2006.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See, e.g., , Daily Times Monitor, Sept. 11, 2005; Sandra Laville et al., , The Guardian, Sept. 10, 2005.
[6] See Foreign & Commonwealth Office, (see page source code).
[7] Northern Echo, supra note 2.
[8] Extradition Treaty, Jan. 18, 1998, U.S.-Aus., art. 24, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-50 (2000).
[9] Extradition Treaty, Jun. 3, 1999, Austl.-Pol., art. 17, para. 3, 1999 A.T.S. 23 (emphasis added).
[10] Extradition Treaty, Feb. 15, 2000, Can.-Swed., art. 22, para. 4, 2001 C.T.S. 28.

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 4:27 PM