Professor Madeline Morris
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 21, 2006
Morris discussed ratifi cation of the proposed Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom (Treaty Doc 108-23), challenging allegations that the Treaty violates rights that are protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”):
It is suggested that the treaty is unlawful under [19 provisions of] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. … Five of the nineteen ICCPR provisions purportedly violated by the treaty concern the freedoms of religion, opinion, expression, assembly, and association — rights also protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in the proposed treaty threatens or impinges upon the peaceful exercise of those civil and political rights. To the contrary, the treaty provides explicit protection of those rights in the context of extradition. Article 4 states that “[e]xtradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.” The treaty thereby prohibits extradition for political crimes such as treason or sedition. Article 5 of the treaty provides further protection of those rights by requiring that “extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the requested state determines that the result was politically motivated.”
The U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty does not accord to alleged perpetrators of serious violent crimes the protections afforded to those accused of political crimes that are a peaceful, if forceful, exercise of civil and political rights.
Even while providing those protections for the peaceful exercise of civil and political rights, the treaty explicitly excludes from the definition of “political crimes” grave violent crimes and weapons offenses. Under the treaty, those crimes are recognized for their violent nature regardless of whether that violence was driven by political beliefs or otherwise. Fully in accordance with the ICCPR and other multilateral conventions, the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty does not accord to alleged perpetrators of serious violent crimes the protections afforded to those accused of political crimes that are a peaceful, if forceful, exercise of civil and political rights. As the ICCPR states: “Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein.…” Similarly, under the multilateral conventions on hijacking and other crimes on aircraft, hostage-taking, and other violent crimes that typically are committed for political purposes, the covered crimes are subject to prosecution “without exception whatsoever” and are not considered political offenses. In the same vein, the U.N. General Assembly in its 1986 resolution asks states to “cooperate in combating terrorism through the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of terrorists, and the conclusion of treaties regarding the extradition or prosecution of terrorists.” The treaty before you thus does not violate protected civil or political rights by excluding crimes of the gravest violence from the political offense classification.