The world’s earliest extradition agreement was created in the year 1259 BCE by Ramessess ll of Egypt and Hittites. The agreement obligated both Ramessess and Hittites to send criminals and political figures back that have tried to flee to the other side. Extraditions have since grown to be bilateral agreements between nations in transferring criminals from one nation to another. Extradition is requested when an individual commits a crime within the country that is seeking extradition. The request of the extradition includes: the description of the individual, information on the case and the laws pertaining to the case. Each country must agree to extradite to each other for the process to take place. Canada only has fifty-one Canadian treaties with other countries. This Paper will argue that extradition laws in Canada are too slack due to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the need to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be used.
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states each person has the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” thus it is often used as a deterrent so that individuals do not have to be extradited to another country. In the following case, United States v. Burns, Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay-two Canadian citizens-were wanted in Washington of the United States for the murder of Rafay’s parents and sister in 1994. In the subsequent year they were arrested in British Columbia and The United States started the extradition proceedings. The case made it to the Supreme Court of Canada and Burns and Ratify argued that their mobility rights under Section 6 was being violated. However, the Supreme Court felt that Section 7 was a more appropriate argument. The Supreme Court stated that:
Section 7 (“fundamental justice”) applies because the extradition would, if implemented, deprive the respondents of their rights of liberty and security of the person since their lives are potentially at risk… The “shocks the conscience” language signals the possibility that even though the rights of the fugitive are to be considered in the context of other applicable principles of fundamental justice, which are normally of sufficient importance to uphold the extradition, a particular treatment or punishment may sufficiently violate our sense of fundamental justice as to tilt the balance against extradition (Blair and Annice 447).
This proves that Section 7 of the Charter can be used in extradition cases where an individual does not want to be extradited. Although, Burns and Ratify lost their case and were extradited to the United States of America, the case created a precedent for consequent other cases.
In the same year, another case, United States of America v. Cobb, was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. Two Canadian citizens (Harry Cobb and Allen Grossman) were alleged to have...