Examination of Witnesses (Questions 36-39)
MS SALLY
IRELAND
22 NOVEMBER 2005
Q36 Chairman: Let me welcome you. JUSTICE
are obviously very concerned about the provisions; can I start
with a straightforward question about whether there is a real
problem. We have just heard from Judge Workman that there has
not really been a significant increase in the number of USA requests,
so is there a real problem here?
Ms Ireland: Yes, mainly because
the number of requests to an extent is not directly relevant because
it is impossible to speculate on how many requests there would
have been if the old arrangements had continued. I think the right
question to ask is do we have the right conditions in place for
extradition and the right guarantees, and we heard from the judge
about the case of Lotfi Raissi where obviously the new
arrangements would have made a significant difference in his case.
He was released after five months in custody; under the new arrangements
he would probably be in the US now, so that is a sign that there
are causes for concern.
Chairman: Thank you. Gary Streeter.
Q37 Mr Streeter: You have expressed
concern about the USA and the fact that they no longer have to
show a prima facie case for extradition requests. Are you really
worried more about the USA than other countries which have to
pass a similar test or non-test such as Albania? Are you sure
you are not just engaging in classic anti-Americanism? Why are
you so particularly concerned about the USA?
Ms Ireland: We are certainly not
an organisation that is in the habit of engaging in anti-Americanism.
Our position essentially is that for non-EU countries we regard
a prima facie case requirement as essential. It is true to say
that that requirement has been removed in relation to a number
of countries which are members of the Council of Europe; there
we are still concerned but they do at least have an element of
international supervision at the European Court of Human Rights
and, also, all are signatories to the sixth protocol to the European
Convention on Human Rights which prohibits the death penalty.[1]
So there are particular concerns, but our position would be that
the prima facie case requirement should be retained in all part
2 countries. In relation particularly to the USA we know that
there are particular concerns, firstly in relation to the death
penalty. The treaty actually allows the Home Secretary to consent
to the extradition of somebody when they could face the death
penalty, it is an optional barrier to extradition, not a requirement
that he refuses it. As a matter of domestic law, my understanding
would be that he would not be able to consent to that, it would
be unlawful, and it would certainly be contrary to the European
Convention on Human Rights, but the Treaty does not enforce that
directly. Secondly, the USA has shown in the past a disregard
for judgments from international tribunals—for example the
International Court of Justice—and that is not to say there
are not other countries that do similarly. We feel that any breach
of international obligations that might occur once someone is
in the United States would not be effectively reviewable judicially,
and that is a problem.
Q38 Mr Streeter: You are really saying
then that you are more comfortable about someone being sent to
Albania than the US of A.
Ms Ireland: In a way I think it
is a pointless comparison because we think the requirement should
be maintained, but we do recognise that where you have international
obligations and international judicial review there are more safeguards,
but obviously the review of the European Court of Human Rights
is after the fact so it would not provide a sufficient safeguard.
Chairman: Could I just bring James Clappison
in to ask a question?
Q39 Mr Clappison: On this very interesting
point which Gary Streeter has asked about, can you say from your
knowledge about the other countries which can request extradition
without producing a prima facie case and which are not members
of the EU? Is there any policy in the arrangement between them
and this country? Do the same arrangements apply to them?
Ms Ireland: I am sorry, that would
depend on individual, bilateral or multinational arrangements
and it is not something I am expert in, I am afraid.[2]
1 Note by witness: There are a number of reservations,
declarations etc to the Protocol, which has been amended by the
Eleventh Protocol. All Council of Europe states have signed the
protocol; Russia is the only one not to have ratified it. Back
2
Note by witness: A number of the Part 2 states designated
as not having to provide a prima facie case are signatories to
the European Convention on Extradition. Back
| 
