international jurisdiction

pickarooney

Theoretical situation: A citizen of country A is wanted for questioning in the disappearance of someone from country B who was last seen in country C.
If the police from country B link the suspect to the crime, is it they, the local police or an international authority who would do the questioning?

Orchard Rebel

pickarooney wrote:

Theoretical situation: A citizen of country A is wanted for questioning in the disappearance of someone from country B who was last seen in country C.
If the police from country B link the suspect to the crime, is it they, the local police or an international authority who would do the questioning?

Normally, the persons having jurisdiction in any crime would be the law enforcement agencies in the country where the crime has been committed (presumably country C in the above example).

If the suspect has fled back to country A or another nation, the law enforcement officers in C could seek his extradition back to country C, assuming an extradition treaty exists.

Some (but not all) countries have laws which allow their courts to try persons for crimes committed against the citizens of their county in another jurisdiction (think of Spanish attempts to have Pinochet extradited from the UK for the disappearance of Spanish citizens in Chile). So therefore country B might be able seek the extradition of the suspect from country C, country A or another country.

Similarly, certain countries allow for their citizens to be tried for certain crimes they committed in other countries (think of former concentration camp guards being put on trial in the UK), so the suspect might be tried in his own country (A), even if the crime was not committed there.

Also, certain countries allow for the trials of non-citizens for certain very serious crimes committed elsewhere (e.g. war crimes, genocide)., although this is a relatively new phenomenen and it is unclear if it will work in the long term.

Finally, in extremely serious cases (again war crimes or genocide), the International Criminal Court (ICC) could intervene and prosecute a suspect for such crimes. However, in this example, country A would have to be a signatory to the ICC, which is why, for example, US troops cannot be prosecuted by the ICC for any crimes they commit in Iraq.

All of the above is dependent on treaty obligations and the effectiveness of law enforcement in the countries concerned, to say nothing of politicial will.

Can anyone expand on this?

Orchard Rebel

pickarooney wrote:

Theoretical situation: A citizen of country A is wanted for questioning in the disappearance of someone from country B who was last seen in country C.
If the police from country B link the suspect to the crime, is it they, the local police or an international authority who would do the questioning?

Normally, the persons having jurisdiction in any crime would be the law enforcement agencies in the country where the crime has been committed (presumably country C in the above example).

If the suspect has fled back to country A or another nation, the law enforcement officers in C could seek his extradition back to country C, assuming an extradition treaty exists.

Some (but not all) countries have laws which allow their courts to try persons for crimes committed against the citizens of their county in another jurisdiction (think of Spanish attempts to have Pinochet extradited from the UK for the disappearance of Spanish citizens in Chile). So therefore country B might be able seek the extradition of the suspect from country C, country A or another country.

Similarly, certain countries allow for their citizens to be tried for certain crimes they committed in other countries (think of former concentration camp guards being put on trial in the UK), so the suspect might be tried in his own country (A), even if the crime was not committed there.

Also, certain countries allow for the trials of non-citizens for certain very serious crimes committed elsewhere (e.g. war crimes, genocide)., although this is a relatively new phenomenen and it is unclear if it will work in the long term.

Finally, in extremely serious cases (again war crimes or genocide), the International Criminal Court (ICC) could intervene and prosecute a suspect for such crimes. However, in this example, country A would have to be a signatory to the ICC, which is why, for example, US troops cannot be prosecuted by the ICC for any crimes they commit in Iraq.

All of the above is dependent on treaty obligations and the effectiveness of law enforcement in the countries concerned, to say nothing of politicial will.

Can anyone expand on this?

pickarooney

That's a decent start
My theoretical situation is made a little more convoluted by the fact that the person wanted for questioning has never been to country C and cannot be directly implicated with the (alleged) disappearance of the person, but certain evidence suggests that he may know something or be an accessory after the fact.

In case anyone's wondering, this is for a story I'm writing. Countries A,B and C are the US, Canada and Panama respectively.

Orchard Rebel

Well the USA and Panama do have a bilateral extradition treaty and the offences listed include abduction/kidnapping. For a copy of the text see http://www.oas.org/JURIDICO/MLA/en/traites/en_traites-ext-usa-pan.pdf

Theoretically, therefore, a US citizen could be extradited to Panama to face charges of kidnapping. The nationality of the kidnapped person would be irrelevant, provided evidence suggested that the abduction took place in the country seeking extradition.

The problems is that the US is traditionally reluctant to extradite its citizens abroad, so the Panamanian authorities would have to produce good evidence that the suspect has a case to answer. Beyond that, political and procedural issues could also put paid to a successful extradition.

To take this further, I'd strongly suggest that you should consult an expert in international law - particularly one versed in the laws of the Americas.

UrbanFox

pickarooney wrote:

In case anyone's wondering, this is for a story I'm writing. Countries A,B and C are the US, Canada and Panama respectively.

That's good news as certain jurisdictions use their external security services to access the suspect directly. It saves so much time and there are no forms to fill out!!

Incidentally, on the reverse, I think that many European jurisdictions will not extradite to the USA if there is any possibility that the suspect will be subjected to a capital trial i.e. death penalty on conviction.

dermot_sheehan

RCMP would request assistance pursuant to a mutural legal assistance treaty and if a prima facie case exists seek extradition. As can be seen here there's an extradition treaty between canada and panama but not a mutual legal assistance treaty.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/intpolicing/centralauth_e.htm