The judge will determine whether the foreign government`s extradition request complies with the obligations of the U.S. treaty with that government. The judge will also deal with U.S. extradition laws. They will consider whether the evidence presented by the foreign country is sufficient to support the criminal charges. (1) «An extradition treaty is in force between the United States and the receiving country»; Under international law, extradition is defined as the procedure whereby a State, at the request of another State, causes a person to be returned for trial for an offence punishable under the law of the requesting State and committed outside the State of refuge. Persons eligible for extradition are those who are accused of a crime but have not yet been tried, those who have been tried and sentenced, who have escaped detention and those who have been convicted in absentia. The request distinguishes between extradition and other measures such as expulsion, expulsion and removal, which also lead to the forced expulsion of undesirable persons. Extradition requests are made by the prosecutor handling potential prosecutions in the United States and must be reviewed and approved by the BAI before being forwarded to the Department of State.44 Several complex requirements must be met for international extradition. Extradition can be difficult to combat, but no case is a foregone conclusion and there are defences that can be used.
Contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Once the requested State has made a decision on a U.S. extradition request, it will notify the U.S. government. If the request is denied, the OIA can work with prosecutors and the State Department to consider other options for obtaining custody of the person, such as deportation.  Although the United States has an extradition treaty with Japan, most extraditions fail because of Japanese law. For the United States to succeed, it must submit its extradition request to the Japanese authorities. However, certain means of evidence such as confessions, searches or electronic surveillance are excluded from these proceedings. In most cases of international drug trafficking, this type of evidence represents the bulk of the evidence gathered during the investigation of a suspect for a drug offence.
Therefore, it usually prevents the United States from proceeding with the extradition of a suspect.  Notorious serial killer Charles Ng fled to Canada after torturing and raping at least 11 people in California. Ng challenged his extradition to the United States on the grounds that Canadian law had abolished the death penalty. Eventually, he appealed his case to the highest court in the land. Extradition from one country to another is treated in the same way, with the head of state of a country demanding the return of a refugee suspected of having committed a crime in that country. Extradition between nations is usually based on a treaty between the country where the accused is currently located and the country that wants to bring him to justice for an alleged crime. The United States has extradition treaties with most countries in Europe and Latin America, as well as with some countries in Africa and Asia. Extradition to the United States.
A state or federal prosecutor meets with the appropriate law enforcement agency to learn more about the crime and decide if extradition is worth the significant cost. (The federal or requesting state attorney`s office will cover the translation costs.) Prosecutors then prepare a request to the Department of Justice, which verifies that it is sufficiently specific. If approved, the judiciary transmits it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Once approved, the Department of State sends the request to the appropriate U.S. embassy, which forwards it to the host country`s authorities. From there, the process varies from country to country, but tends to follow a similar path to the United States. Suspects can challenge extradition or appeal in many countries. After approval by the host country, the U.S. Marshals Service will most often escort the fugitive to the United States. Extradition is a lengthy and sometimes controversial process. Delays are particularly common in high-profile cases involving allegations of political motivation or other inappropriate considerations.
But even the least controversial cases require a thorough analysis of the respective treaties, facts and laws of the two countries. Practitioners will benefit from a functional understanding of both the general framework of extradition and the specific provisions of the contract in question. Once this foundation is in place, the extended timelines and unpredictability of many extradition cases provide an opportunity for creative lawyers to take advantage of important developments to negotiate injunctions in favor of their clients, leveraging the interest of all parties in avoiding the costs and burdens associated with a lengthy and uncertain legal process. During the preparation of the formal extradition request, the Ministry of Justice may request the provisional arrest of the person.50 Depending on the provisions of the relevant extradition treaty, detention on the basis of a provisional arrest warrant may be limited to a certain period, for example 45 or 90 days. The person may be released if the United States does not submit a formal request for extradition within the specified time limit.51 Although a formal extradition request must be forwarded by the Department of State to the requested State, some modern treaties allow the Office of Internal Audit to transmit a request for provisional arrest directly to the Department of Justice of the requested State.52 Human rights as an obstacle to extradition may be used in the context of the processing of the Debates of the European Parliament in the host country, including its trial and conviction and the impact on the person`s family if extradition is granted. The punitive nature and restrictions on freedoms imposed on an individual are part of the extradition process and the reason for these exceptions and the importance of respect for human rights in the extradition process. Therefore, human rights protected by international and regional agreements can serve as a basis for the rejection of extradition requests, but only as independent exceptions.  While human rights concerns may add to the complexity of extradition cases, they are positive in that they contribute to the legitimacy and institutionalization of the extradition system.  Following his British incarceration, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed a charge against him for violating the Espionage Act. Some news outlets have called these efforts an attack on the First Amendment. The British District Judge ruled against the U.S.
extradition request, but the U.S. appealed. The appeal is still pending and Assange awaits the decision in an English prison. Under U.S. law, extradition is generally only possible «during the existence of an extradition treaty with the appropriate foreign government.» 18 U.S.C. § 3181(A). Section 3181(b) provides a narrow exemption that allows for the surrender of persons who are not U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents who have committed violent crimes against U.S. citizens abroad, provided that the Attorney General provides certain written attestations. In extradition proceedings, a sovereign court usually makes a formal request to another sovereign court («the requested State»).
If the refugee is in the territory of the requested State, the requested State may arrest him and subject him to extradition proceedings.  The extradition procedures to which the refugee is subject depend on the law and practice of the requested State.  The examination of the right to a fair trial is particularly complex in extradition cases. Its complexity lies in the fact that the court deciding on the surrender of the person must respect these rights, but must also be satisfied that any proceedings conducted by the requesting State after the granting of extradition also respect these rights. Article 14 of the ICCPR sets out a number of criteria for fair trial standards.  These standards are reflected in the courts, which have shown that subjective considerations should be taken into account in determining whether such a procedure would be «unjust» or «punitive» taking into account, among other things, factors such as the time elapsed since the alleged offence, the state of health of the person, the conditions of detention in the requesting State and the likelihood of conviction.  However, it remains unclear how ICCPR standards are adopted or recognized by national courts and policymakers, although it appears that these standards can at least serve as a basis for these decision-makers` ideas. :35 If fair trial standards are found not to be met in the requesting country, this may constitute a sufficient obstacle to extradition.