The impact of human rights principles on extradition from Canada and the United States: The role of national courts

Conclusion Throughout this article, the primary emphasis has been on how the courts in Canada and the United States have decided to apply international human rights standards, many of which have been incorporated into national constitutions, in extradition cases. The emphasis on national courts reflects the particular North American experience, where only limited jurisdiction in these matters exists in the relevant international forum, the UN Human Rights Committee. Accordingly, resort must be made to domestic constitutional rights.In order to give practical effect to international human rights obligations in Canada and the United States, courts can play a useful role, in addition to the role exercised by the executive branch of government. The ambit of this role depends upon the point at which judicial interference is viewed as necessary to protect fundamental rights and override considerations of international cooperation. In Canada the point has been located where there is a risk of treatment that is simply unacceptable178 or that would shock the conscience. In the United States, courts have in the past demonstrated a degree of willingness to probe into potential violations that would be expected if extradition were to be granted and that would offend a federal court's sense of decency.¹⁸⁰ However, there is dispute about the propriety of this encroachment on the rule of noninquiry. Recently, the pendulum has begun to swing toward applying the rule of noninquiry more stringently and, at present, U.S. courts play a very limited role in examining the motives behind an extradition request and the procedures or punishment that likely await an individual upon return to the requesting state.While there are many differences between the constitutional regimes of protection in Canada and the United States as compared with the multilateral treaty protection of the European Convention, there appear to be a number of parallels in interpretation and application. Continued scrutiny of the jurisprudence from both sides of the Atlantic could benefit each jurisdiction.This article was originally prepared for an international workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, organized jointly by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany, May 21–25, 1991. The views expressed herein are those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Canadian Department of Justice.B.A., University of Winnipeg 1975; LL.B., University of Manitoba 1978; LL.M., University of Toronto 1980.LL.B., University of Manitoba 1980; B.A., University of Manitoba 1986; Dip. Soc. Sci., University of Stockholm 1988; M.A., University of Toronto 1989.