9
18
This is consistent with settled law in the United States, which holds that lapse of time is
not a defense to extradition unless the treaty specifically provides to the contrary. Freedman
v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 1252 (D. Ga. 1977); United States v. Galanis, 429 F. Supp. 1215
(D. Conn. 1977).
Some United States extradition treaties do permit extradition to be denied if the statute of
limitations has run in the Requesting State. See, e.g., Article 4(1)(ii), U.S.-Canada Extradition
Treaty, signed December 3, 1971, and entered into force March 22, 1976 (3 UST 2826, TIAS
8237). Others require denial of the request if the statute of limitations would have run in the
Requested State had the offense been committed in that state. See, e.g., Article 6, U.S.-Nether-
lands Extradition Treaty, supra note 14; Article 4, U.S.-Japan Extradition Treaty, signed March
3, 1978, and entered into force March 26, 1980 (31 UST 892, TIAS 9625). A few treaties require
denial if the statute of limitations has run or would have run in either State. See, e.g., Article
V(1)(b), U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty, signed June 8, 1972, and entered into force January 21,
1977 (28 UST 227, TIAS 8468); U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty signed May 4, 1978, and entered
into force January 25, 1980 (TIAS 9656, 31 UST 5059).
19
E.g., Article 7, U.S.-Netherlands Extradition Treaty, supra note 17; Article 6, US-Ireland
Extradition Treaty, supra note 17.
20
The Jordanian delegation informed the U.S. delegation that in Jordan, the death penalty
is prescribed in the 1960 Penal Code, the 1952 Military Penal Code, and several individual laws
for murder, for crimes against the security of the state, for illegal possession of weapons, for
the rape of a girl less than fifteen years of age, and for a number of offenses related to drug
trafficking. The death penalty is also permitted for killing, torture, or ‘‘barbaric treatment’’ by
an armed gang (defined as three or more persons roaming public roads or countryside together).
the same facts were involved. Thus, if an offender is accused in one
State of illegally smuggling narcotics into the country, and is
charged in the other State of unlawfully exporting the same ship-
ment of drugs, an acquittal or conviction in one State would not in-
sulate him from extradition, for different crimes are involved.
Paragraph 2 makes it clear that neither State can refuse to ex-
tradite an offender on the ground that the Requested State’s au-
thorities declined to prosecute the offender, or instituted proceed-
ings against the offender and thereafter elected to discontinue the
proceedings. This provision was included because a decision of the
Requested State to forego prosecution, or to drop charges already
filed, may result from failure to obtain sufficient evidence or wit-
nesses for trial, whereas the Requesting State may not suffer from
the same impediments. This provision should enhance the ability
to extradite if the Requesting State has the better chance of a suc-
cessful prosecution.
ARTICLE 6
—
LAPSE OF TIME
Article 6 states that the decision to grant an extradition request
must be granted or denied without regard to provisions of the law
regarding lapse of time in either contracting state. The U.S. and
Jordanian delegations agreed that a claim that the statute of limi-
tations has expired is best resolved by the courts of the Requesting
State after the fugitive has been extradited.
18
ARTICLE 7
—
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The first paragraph of Article 7 permits the Requested State to
refuse extradition in cases where the offense for which extradition
is sought would be punishable by death in the Requesting State,
but not in the Requested State, unless the Requesting State, pro-
vides assurances the Requested State considers sufficient that the
death penalty will not be carried out. Similar provisions are found
in many recent United States extradition treaties.
19
The United
States delegation sought this provision because Jordan imposes the
death penalty for some crimes that are not punishable by death in
the United States.
20