Examples of using Requested state has in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Whether the requesting or requested State has ratified the Convention.
Where the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the person for whom extradition is being requested will be subjected, in the requesting State, to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
This is particularly the case if there is a question as to whether the requested State has the jurisdiction to prosecute the case domestically.
This implies that the requested State has the right to refuse extradition of an individual on the basis of the provisions of its domestic legislation.
This is particularly the case if there is a question as to whether the requested State has the jurisdiction to prosecute the case domestically.
When the requested State has serious reason to believe that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, or political opinions or that the situation of that person may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.
First, the status and scope of application of this principle under international law; second, the hierarchy among the options embodied in this rule,provided that the requested state has a choice; third, practical difficulties in exercising judicare.
Following the receipt of such a notice, the requested State has the option to ask the requesting State either to suspend or withdraw the request. .
The requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person concerned on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinions, sex or status, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons;
If extradition of the same person, whether for the same offence or for different offences, is requested by two States Parties, or by a State anda third State with which the requested State has an extradition arrangement, the requested State shall determine to which State the person shall be extradited.
This method is also dependent on whether the requested State has a mandate under its domestic law to pursue the matter in this fashion, as well as whether it is prepared to do so.
The requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person concerned on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinions, sex or status, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons;
For example, Article 9 section 1 paragraph( e) of the Extradition Treaty between Indonesia andAustralia stipulates," Extradition shall not be granted where the requested State has substantial reason for believing that the person whose extradition is requested will be subjected or to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The same rule shall apply if the requested state has reason to believe that the extradition request is, although purports an ordinary crime, to prosecute a person on the basis of his ethnic origin, religion, nationality, political opinion or have his life in danger for any of these considerations.
In addition, article 645(d) extends the scope of the prohibition of extradition"where the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the person for whom extradition is being requested will be subjected, in the requesting State, to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The requested State has grounds for believing that the person whose extradition is requested has been or would be subjected in the Court to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or if that person has not received or would not receive the minimum guarantees in a criminal proceeding, as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.
Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to afford mutual assistance if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for mutual assistance in respect of an offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
The requested State has grounds for believing that the person whose extradition is requested has been or would be subjected in the Court to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or if that person has not received or would not receive the minimum guarantees in a criminal proceeding, as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.
Extradition requests shall not be granted if the requested state has reason to believe that the request for extradition is, although warranted because of the commission of an offence under public law, based on considerations of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or have his life in danger for any of these consideration.
Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for an offence set forth in article 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
The requesting State has jurisdiction to try and punish the offence attributed to the individual whom it desires to extradite;
These conditions are intended to require that the requesting State have more than a vague and unsubstantiated apprehension.
Evidence submitted by the requesting State has equal legal force as evidence obtained in Georgia, provided that it is collected in observance of the procedures and rules of the foreign State. .
The point was made that the principle of complementarity would suggest that the requested State had the discretionary power to make a determination as to which request should have priority in the interest, for example, of effective prosecution.
When extradition is granted, the requesting State has a period of 30 days in which to take the person sought into its charge. This period is calculated from the date on which the person has been placed at its.
This will be the case where the requesting State has the right, under its internal law, to collect the revenue claim and the person owing the amount has no administrative or judicial rights to prevent such collection.
Some Governments reported that a request for mutual assistance would be founded if the offence to which the request related was serious, the requesting State had jurisdiction, and the offence met the double criminality requirements e.g., Malaysia.
The same issue was considered in detail during the preparatory works of the European Convention on Extradition,in the course of which it was pointed out that the requested State had the obligation to submit the case to its competent authorities, but that"legal proceedings need not necessarily be taken, unless the competent authorities consider they are appropriate.
Furthermore, the Assembly called upon States parties to the Convention to give particular and timely consideration to the execution of requests for international mutual legal assistance andto ensure that the competent authorities of the requesting States had adequate resources to execute the requests, taking into account the particular importance of the recovery of the assets for sustainable development and stability.
Some delegations proposed that the article should contain a provision to the effect that the draft convention did not impose an obligation to extradite if the requested State had substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition was for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that persons's race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or that the person's position might be prejudiced for any of those reasons A/AC.252/1997/WP.5.