Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона. Сборник материалов Четвертой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции
.pdf
Анжело В. Матуссе
Upon Mr. Mukulu’s arrest in Tanzania, in April 2015, the Ugandan
authorities requested the Tanzanian authorities to extradite him so
that he could be tried in Uganda. The extradition request was granted
by a magistrate. Mr. Mukulu was extradited in July 2015, before he
could file an appeal against the extradition decision.
The July 2010 bombing extradition requests filed by Uganda in Kenya
were met with several challenges. Although Kenya did extradite the suspects to Uganda, the decisions to extradite were challenged in Court,
on the basis that they were contrary to the Constitution, Kenya’s
extradition laws and international human rights.
In Zuhura Suleiman case
1
, the extradition was challenged in the High
Court of Kenya, which ruled that:
Whether one is a terror suspect or an ordinary suspect, he is not
exempted from the ordinary protection of the law… Police must have
the capacity to battle terrorism and enforce human rights at the same
time as the two are not, and should not, be incompatible”
Similarly, Mohammed Aktar Kana2 was another suspect of the July
2010 bombing, who was able to bring his case to the High Court of Kenya
prior to his extradition. The Court was equally critical of the attempts
to extradite him. Dismissing the extradition request, it ruled that:
The significant issue which we must not lose sight of is that the new
Constitution has enshrined the bill of rights of all citizens and to say one
group cannot enjoy the right enshrined under bill of rights is to perpetuate
a fundamental breach of the constitution and to legalize impunity [.......].
At the commencement of trial in Uganda, most of the accused persons
who had been extradited from Kenya challenged the jurisdiction of
the Ugandan Court to try them, alleging that their extradition from
Kenya had been illegal as there was no formal extradition request filed.
The High Court of Uganda noted that in its decision to extradite,
the Government of Kenya considered state security as a determining
factor, and exhibited a commitment to the fight against terrorism.
The High Court of Uganda held that the extraditions were legal in
view of Article 124 of the East African Community Treaty.
1
Zuhura Suleiman v. Commissioner of Police and three others, Miscellaneous
Application 441 of 2010, 30 September 2010.
2
Mohamed Aktar Kana v. Attorney General, High Court at Nairobi, Constitutional
Application 544 of 2010, September 28, 2010.
261
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Lesson drawn fro the cases
The cases between Botswana and South Africa as discussed above
indicate a somewhat inconsistent approach in as far as concerns
handing over of persons to a country where they may face death
penalty. While in some instances South Africa has sought assurances,
in Mohamed’s case it did not and «hid» behind a distinction between
an extradition and a deportation.
The Tsebe and Samotse cases also indicates that while the extradition
treaties impose certain obligations on states, states do not always seem
to take such obligations seriously. This view is informed by Botswana’s
refusal to provide an undertaking in the two cases.
It would also seem that the extradition practice creates a «battle
of strengths» between the judiciary and the executive. While in Tsebe
the judiciary gave an order to extradite in spite of the absence of the undertaking not to execute, the executive granted an order not to extradite.
The Kenya-Uganda extraditions of the July 2010 bombing suspects,
on the other hand, show how the courts can be creative in construing
legal provisions in favor of extradition. The High Court of Uganda, for
instance, has construed Article 124 of the East African Community
Treaty as a legal ground for extradition by Kenyan authorities.
Tanzania adopted an Extradition Act in 1965, aimed «to provide for
the law relating to the extradition of criminals and for related matters».
A reading of the title and short interpretation of the Act suggests that
this Act was general in nature, and meant to enable extradition to any
other country that had, or would subsequently enter into an extradition
treaty with Tanzania. The 1965 Act did not provide for terrorism related
offences. In face of this, Tanzania seems to have resorted to the Prevention
of Terrorism Act of 2002 as the basis to execute extradition requests
from Uganda.
4. Extradition in Mozambique
4.1. Legal basis
Mozambique had no specific legal framework for dealing with extradition until 1990. The 1990 Constitution broke new ground when it
expressly provided for extradition in the following terms:
«Article 103
1. Extradition may only take place by court decision.
2. Extradition for political motives shall not be authorized.
262
Анжело В. Матуссе
3. Mozambican citizens shall not be expelled or extradited from
the national territory».
From the onset, Mozambique, clearly, adopted a protectionist stance
in relation to its citizens, a situation that still prevails up to the present
day. The language of the constitutional provision on extradition was
subsequently modified slightly in the 2004 Constitution, to cater for
fundamental human rights standards. Since then, the relevant provision
(article 67) has included a new sub-article to the effect that:
«Extradition shall not be permitted for crimes which are punishable
by death or by life imprisonment under the law of the requesting State,
or when there are grounds to believe that the extradited person may be
subjected to torture or inhumane, degrading or cruel treatment».
Notwithstanding these positive developments, Mozambique has continued short of ordinary legislation by which to operationalize the Constitution on this matter up until August 2011, when the National Assembly finally passed the extradition law
1
. Perhaps this was prompted by
the ratification, in the previous year (December 2010), of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Extradition,
of 2002. Article 2 of the Protocol provides that “[E] ach state party agrees
to extradite to the other, in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol
and their respective domestic law, any person within its jurisdiction who
is wanted for prosecution or the imposition or enforcement of a sentence
in the Requesting State for an extraditable offence.” Emphasis added.
Apart from the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
Protocol on Extradition, Mozambique is signatory to the 2005 Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) Extradition Convention,
and has ratified a number of multilateral specialist crime suppression
conventions such as the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs2;
the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances3; the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Trafficking of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances4;
the 2000 UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime5 and
its Protocols to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
1
The Law nº 17/2011 of 10 de August.
2
Ratified by the Resolution No°7/90, of 18 September.
3
Ratified by the Resolution No°8/90, of 12 September.
4
Ratified by the Resolution No°11/96, of 4 May.
5
Ratified by the Resolution No°86/02, of 11 December.
263
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Specially Women and Children1; Against the Smuggling of Migrants by
Land, Sea and Air
2
; Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in
Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition3.
4.2. Grounds for extradition
Under art. 3 of the Extradition Act, Extradition may be requested for
criminal proceedings or for serving a jail sentence, for an offence whose
trial lies in the powers of the Requesting State. The Act, likewise, enshrines
the dual criminality principle (the conduct must be criminalized in
both the requesting state as well as in Mozambique), and adopts the
eliminative or ‘no list’ method, in as far as extraditable offenses are
concerned. This method spells out those offences in terms of their
punishability — not less than one year of imprisonment. The Acts
also enshrines the ‘specialty’ principle (art. 6), i. e., a person being
surrendered can only be tried and punished for the offence for which
extradition was sought.
It’s recalled here that Mozambique is a signatory to a number of multilateral specialist crime suppression conventions. As such, Mozambique
will, in conjunction with its 20111 Extradition Act, consider those
conventions as legal basis for extradition.
4.3. No extradition
The extradition Act sets out a number of grounds upon which there
shall be no extradition (art. 4). These are nationality (if the wanted
person is Mozambican); Ne bis in Idem/double jeopardy, i. e., if the wanted
person has been tried and acquitted for the same conduct that is behind
the request; Offences of a political nature; Death penalty or life imprisonment;
discrimination on grounds such as race, religion, etc.; torture or any
other form of cruel or degrading treatment; and military offences.
4.4. Procedure
As it has been outlined above, the extradition process (the request
and surrender) in Mozambique is governed by international and, since
2011, by domestic law.
1
Ratified by the Resolution No. 87/2002, of December 11.
2
Ratified by the Resolution No. 88/2002, of December 11.
3
Ratified by the Resolution No. 89/2002, of December 11.
264
Анжело В. Матуссе
The 2011 Extradition Act draws a distinction between extradition
requests to (art. Ch. III, arts. 15 onwards) and from (Ch. IV, arts. 38
onwards) the State of Mozambique.
Extradition requests to Mozambique
In as far as the extradition requests to Mozambique are concerned,
the Ministry of Justice is the entry point. Art. 15 provides that the
Ministry may receive requests through diplomatic channels. However,
art. 21 also provides for direct requests, i. e., Government to Government,
as an alternative to the diplomatic channels. The requests, including
the documents thereto, may be filed in the language of the Requesting
State, but in such cases, three Portuguese translated copies must be
attached thereto, two of which are to be kept by the Government
and the Court, respectively.
Art. 17 spells out the items that a request must contain: identity
of the person wanted; his/her nationality; evidence that the wanted
person is under prosecution in the requesting State; in the case of
an offence committed in the jurisdiction of a 3
rd
State, evidence to
the effect that that State does not want the person sought for the same
offence; and information, in case there has been a judgment in default,
that the person wanted may appeal the court decision.
Under art. 21, an extradition request shall be accompanied by the
following elements: the arrest warrant or equivalent; the relevant details
of his/her identity and likely whereabouts; a certificate or certified
copy of the decision that ordered the dispatch of the arrest warrant;
the certificate or a certified copy of the judgment; a description of
the facts imputable to him/her; copies of the relevant laws qualifying
and punishing the offence; and copies of the relevant laws relating
to the possibility of appeal in the case of a judgment in default.
Extradition proceedings shall be urgent by nature and follow two
stages (art. 22 and 37): administrative and judicial. The former aims to
enable the Government assess whether it merits granting the request
or otherwise on grounds of opportunity, political order, or convenience,
while the latter is exclusively handled by the courts wherein they decide
on the actual handing in of the wanted person. At this stage, the person
is heard, but barred from challenging the facts against him/her.
When an extradition request has passed the 1st stage, it’s then referred,
by the Ministry of Justice, to the representative of the Prosecuting
265
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Authority at the competent Court, which, in turn, initiates the actual
request (art. 23). This is followed by the decision by a judge (art. 24)
who, if satisfied, issues an arrest warrant, which is, generally, to be
executed within 24 hours (art. 25). The wanted person is notified
and informed of his/her right to a lawyer and, where necessary,
to an interpreter (art. 26). The wanted person may consent to the
extradition or challenge the Court’s decision. Opposition, however, may
only be based on non-compliance with the conditions for extradition
or on error in the identity of the person concerned (art. 27). In case of
opposition, the final decision shall be rendered and it may be appealed
before the Supreme Court within 8 days (art. 29 and 30).
Extradition may be deferred to a latter stance when a criminal
case against the wanted person is in course in the domestic courts,
or when the person wanted is still serving a jail sentence for an offence
other than the one for which he/she is wanted. In these cases,
extradition may only take place upon completion of the case or of
the jail term, as the case may be. Deferred extradition may also occur
upon verification, by authorized medical personnel, that the wanted
person is suffering from a disease that may jeopardize the life of that
person (art. 9).
The actual handing in of the wanted person only takes place upon
the issuance of the final judicial decision ordering the extradition
(art. 32). The wanted person shall be removed from the Requested
State within 20 days, failing which, he/she may be set free (art. 33).
Extradition requests from Mozambique
Mozambique extradition requests to foreign states or entities
generally are initiated by the Prosecuting Authority representative at
the court handling a case in which an accused is believed to be in
a foreign country (art. 38). The request drafted in Portuguese, but duly
translated to the language of the Requested State, is referred to the
Attorney-General, who, in turn, submits it to the Supreme Court.
Once decided upon, the request is sent to the Requested State via the
Ministry of Justice and, subsequently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Obviously, despite the efforts made, the Mozambican Extradition
Act in no way could have provided for extradition proceedings in
foreign countries. Thus, that is left to those countries’ legislation to lay
down the law (s).
266
Анжело В. Матуссе
From theory to practice
It’s noteworthy that there hasn’t been a single case successfully
handled under this law — Law nº 17/2011 of 10 de August — as yet.
It has been in force only as of 2011.
There have, however, been requests for extradition before the passing
of this law, the most notorious of which were from South Africa and
Ruanda. The South African case concerned a Mozambican Citizen who
was wanted in South Africa to stand trial for murder charges. In this
case, the said citizen was never located. But even if he had been located,
would have not been extradited due to nationality barrier. The Rwanda,
on the other hand, case concerned a request for extradition of a number
of alleged Rwandese genociders, who are believed to be in Mozambique.
Despite several attempts by the Rwandese authorities, to get them
extradited, no such extradition has ever taken place. Initially, there
was no specific legal framework and so forth, but at present, the issue
is that in Rwanda there is potential risk that the fugitives may face
the sentence of life imprisonment, which constitutes one of the grounds
for no extradition under the Law 17/2011, of 10 August.
5. Concluding remarks
Africa is a huge continent, with 55 sovereign states, each of which
with its own extradition legal framework and practice.
Generally, Africa states base extradition processes upon their own
domestic legislation, and where there is a bilateral extradition treaty,
the latter normally prevails, save for procedural aspects.
The Majority of African states are parties to regional and multilateral treaties, which though not necessarily extradition treaties, may
and do serve as bases for surrender of persons.
A common, though not official, practice of «disguised extradition»,
or simply «police to police» surrender of fugitives may be sporadically
encountered and is tolerated.
Mozambique does not make extradition conditional on the existence
of a treaty relationship with the requesting. In the absence of a treaty
arrangement, it would still extradite based on its domestic law, the 2011
Extradition Act, as analyzed supra. Alternatively, may consider a Convention as the legal basis for extradition with other parties to the same
Convention, provided that such a Convention is in force between Mozambique and the Requesting state.
267
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Рахманова Е. Н.
зав. кафедрой уголовного права
Северо-Западного филиала РГУП,
д-р юрид. наук, доцент
Взаимодействие европейского и национального
уголовного права государств-членов ЕС
До учреждения Европейского союза уголовное право рассматривалось как неотъемлемая часть государственного суверенитета, оно было своего рода «запретной областью», не терпящей
вмешательства извне. Но с принятием Лиссабонского договора
ситуация существенно изменилась. Ст. 3 Договора о ЕС установила,
что совместная компетентность между Союзом и государствамичленами применяется в целях «создания пространства свободы,
безопасности и правосудия»1, а ЕС устанавливает лишь общие цели,
которые необходимо гармонизировать с внутренним законодательством. В Договоре об учреждении ЕС (в дальнейшем — ДФЕС)2
предусмотрены два положения, имеющие непосредственное отношение к уголовному праву: ст. 83 (1), в которой перечисляются так
называемые европреступления, и ст. 83 (2) ДФЕС, предписывающая Европейскому парламенту и Совету, по предложению Комиссии, устанавливать минимальные правила, относящиеся к определению уголовных правонарушений и санкций.
На уголовное право ЕС распространяются основные или конституционные принципы, специфичные только для ЕС. К ним
относятся принципы компетенции, субсидиарности и пропорциональности3. Кроме того, современное европейское уголовное право находится под влиянием национального уголовного права, начиная от принципов, которые ведут свое начало от общих традиций
государств-членов ЕС (принцип законности, принцип вины, принцип обратной силы закона), до определения основных институтов
уголовного права (таких как вина, соучастие и т. д.).
1
Договор о Европейском Союзе (Маастрихт, 7 февраля 1992 г.) (в ред. Лиссабонского договора 2007 г.). Консолидированный текст. URL: http://base.
garant.ru/2566557/#ixzz4Gdlh4R39.
2
Договор о функционировании Европейского Союза. URL: http://eulaw.ru/
treaties/tfeu.
3
Договор о Европейском Союзе (в редакции Лиссабонского договора).
268
Рахманова Е. Н.
Принцип законности (nullum crimen, nulla poena синус lege), является одним из общих правовых принципов, лежащих в основе
конституционных традиций, характерных для европейских государств. Он закреплен во множестве международных соглашений,
и, прежде всего, в ст. 7 (1) Европейской конвенции о защите прав
человека и основных свобод, и ст. 49 (1) Хартии ЕС об основных
правах
1
и других документах.
Европейское уголовное законодательство основывается также
и на принципе вины (nulla poena синус culpa) и принципе применения более мягкого наказания (lex mitior). В отношении по-
следнего Европейский суд указывает в одном из своих решений,
что «…под принципом lex mitior понимается, что если закон, при-
менимый к совершенному обвиняемым правонарушению, был изменен, то применению подлежит менее строгий закон. Неотъемлемым элементом этого принципа является то, что применимый
закон должен иметь для суда обязательную силу. Обвиняемые
могут получить возможность назначения им более мягкого наказания, только если закон имеет обязательную силу, т. к. они имеют
защищенное правовое положение, только когда к ним должен
быть применен спектр наказаний»2. При этом данное решение было
принято под воздействием Хартии основных прав Европейского
Союза, в результате чего страны, которые не являются членами Европейского союза (например, Россия), также оказались «своего
рода пассивными реципиентами положений Хартии без своего
на то согласия»3.
Европейское уголовное право придерживается также принципа
«вреда» («harm principle»), которой скорее присущ англо-амери-
1
Хартия Европейского Союза об основных правах. URL: http:// http://
eulaw.ru/treaties/charter.
2
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 17 сентября 2009 г. «Дело «Скоппола (Scoppola)
против Италии (№2)» (жалоба №10249/03).
3
Исполинов А. С. Хартия Основных прав ЕС: результаты первых трех лет
применения: Материалы между-народной научно-практич. конф. «Международный правопорядок в современном мире и роль России в его укреплении»,
посвященной 90-летию проф. Д. И. Фельдмана, г. Казань, Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет, 11–12 октября 2012 г. / А. Абай, А. Х. Абашидзе, А. И. Абдуллин и др.; Ред. коллегия И. А. Тарханов, А. И. Абдуллин,
Г. И. Курдюков, Р. Ш. Давлетгильдеев.
269
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
канской теории права. Согласно данному принципу государство
вправе ограничивать автономию личности посредством уголовноправового вмешательства при наличии действительного или неизбежного вреда, причиненного виновным лицам другим гражданам,
обществу или государству
1
. Анализ европейских законодательных
актов в области уголовного права показывает, что данный принцип действует и в европейском уголовном праве2.
Но краеугольным камнем европейского уголовного права является принцип взаимного признания, который влечет за собой
квазиавтоматическое признание и выполнение судебных решений всеми государствами-членами ЕС. Как указывается в ряде
работ, именно принцип взаимного признания является основным
«двигателем объединения Европы в уголовном праве в последние
годы»3. Принцип взаимного признания предполагает, что системы уголовного права государств-членов остаются неизменными,
но границы между национальными системами не могут являться
препятствием для взаимодействия правоохранительных органов.
Благодаря этому жители ЕС могут обращаться в суд в любом
из государств ЕС на тех же условиях, что и в своей стране, а преступники лишены возможности пользоваться различиями национальных уголовно-правовых систем. Взаимное признание судебных решений касается системы уголовного правосудия на всех
уровнях. Принцип взаимного признания невозможен без принци-
па взаимного доверия. Его эффективность достигается при усло-
вии взаимного признания решений национальных судов4.
Большую роль в развитии европейского уголовного права и реализации принципа взаимного признания играет единый европейский ордер на арест, под которым понимается выданное государст-
1
Mill J. S. On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford University Press 1991). P. 14.
2
См., например: Рамочное решение Европейского Совета от 13 июня 2002 г.
о борьбе с терроризмом (2002/475/JAI): URL: // http://eulaw.edu.ru/documents/
legislation/law_defence/borb_s_terrorizmom.htm; Директива от 5 апреля 2011 г.
№2011/36/ЕС «О предупреждении и противодействии торговле людьми,
о защите пострадавших и о замене Рамочного решения Совета ЕС 2002/629/
ПВД» URL:// http://docs.pravo.ru/document/view/29176081/.
3
Mill J. S. On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford University Press 1991). Р. 1277.
4
Commission Communication, Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
COM(1998) 459, 14 July 1998 URL:// http://www.cvce.eu/.
270
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]