er has been made by the State. In most cases they should be able to claim the cost from the ICC of transporting the person there.
c) Nationals and non-nationals
States must ensure that they have laws and procedures in place that allow them to surrender both nationals and non-nationals who are on their territory.
d) Prosecutors' discretions
States should note that the Rome Statute does not allow for national Prosecutors to exercise any discretion with respect to granting immunity from surrender to persons in return for their assistance with other investigations or prosecutions. This is understandable because of the serious nature of the crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction. Article 65 (5) provides that the ICC Prosecutor is unable to enter into enforceable "plea bargains" with defence counsel. Only the Court itself can decide whether a person's willingness to co-operate should be taken into account in any way. For example, it may be considered as a mitigating factor during the sentencing process, under article 78 (1) ("the individual circumstances of the convicted person" must be taken into account by the Court when determining the sentence).
e) Sufficiency of evidence
Article 91 (2)(c) allows States to determine their own requirements for the surrender process in their State. One requirement to consider is the sufficiency of evidence that will be required in order to allow the State to order the surrender. This requirement should be as minimal as possible, bearing in mind the need for States to avoid creating burdensome requirements for the Court. Article 58 (3) provides that all warrants for arrest from the ICC will contain the following: "(a) the name of the person and any other relevant identifying information; (b) a specific reference to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court for which the person's arrest is sought; and (c) a concise statement of the facts which are alleged to constitute these crimes." These components should provide sufficient evidence upon which to make an order for surrender, given the procedural safeguards in the Statute. Therefore the best and easiest method of ensuring the sufficiency of evidence for meeting ICC requests is to make the required contents of an ICC arrest warrant the minimum requirement.
f) Use of normal extradition procedures
If the State decides to use its normal extradition procedures in order to surrender persons to the ICC, this may require substantial amendments to existing laws and procedures.
The issue of dual/double criminality may be raised in terms of national requirements. Double criminality is not actually a requirement under the ICC Statute. In other words, the Statute does not require States to criminalise all ICC offences within their territory, in order to be able to surrender persons to the ICC. This is an issue for each State to decide: whether they will make dual criminality a requirement for themselves when surrendering a person to the ICC. However, States may not use a failure to establish dual criminality as grounds for refusing to surrender a person to the ICC. If this issue is likely to be raised at a national level, the easiest way to pre-empt any such claims is to make all the ICC crimes into crimes on the State's territory, by annexing or reproducing the appropriate section of the ICC Statute to the code of crimes or equivalent. All such crimes should also be made into extraditable offences. Both of these approaches would have the further advantage of enabling the State to co-operate more easily with other States in prosecuting the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, because there would be no issue as to double criminality or extraditable offences in State-to-State extraditions.
If the State Party's extradition procedures make extradition conditional upon the existence of a treaty, in case the State receives a request from a State Party with wh
> 1 2 3 ... 248 249 250 ... 303 304 305
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
