Facts of the Case

In this case, State X accuses a person named A of committing a serious offence. After being charged, A fled to State Y. Authorities in State X formally requested extradition of A from State Y.

However, the twist in the case is crucial—what A is accused of in X is not considered an offence under the legal system of Y. There is no parallel or equivalent crime in State Y’s statute books.

Despite the urgency and severity of X’s allegations, Y questioned whether they could lawfully hand over A when the alleged act is not punishable within their territory.

Issues in the Case

The central legal questions are:

• Can State Y extradite A to State X when the alleged act is not a crime in Y?
• Does the principle of dual criminality apply in this scenario?
• Can public interest or diplomatic relations override the lack of offence in Y?
• What rights does the accused hold in the escapee state?

Principles Related to the Case

The principle of dual criminality is key in extradition law. It means that for extradition to be granted, the conduct in question must be a criminal offence in both the requesting and requested states. Most modern extradition treaties, including those under bilateral and multilateral agreements, include this clause to ensure fairness and legal compatibility.

In this case, the phrase “X sought extradition” plays a crucial role. It places the burden on X to prove that A’s alleged offence meets the standards required under both jurisdictions. But since Y does not classify the act as criminal, the request lacks legal foundation.

Judicial precedents from international law, such as those set by the European Court of Human Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court, stress the importance of dual criminality. These bodies consistently uphold the idea that no state can extradite a person for an act that it does not consider illegal.

Additionally, principles of sovereignty, human rights, and non-refoulement come into play. State Y may decline to extradite if doing so would violate domestic laws or the rights of the individual.

Judgement

In this situation, State Y would be legally justified in denying the extradition request. The courts in Y would likely uphold the principle of dual criminality, affirming that they cannot surrender a person for conduct not recognized as a criminal offence within their own jurisdiction.

Unless both states agree to waive the requirement, or if there is a political arrangement or special treaty allowing extradition on broader terms, A cannot be handed over to State X.

Therefore, extradition is not allowed under standard international legal norms when the act in question does not constitute an offence in the requested state.