46
sions vary considerably from State to State, thus being conducive to lack of uni-
formity in extradition practice.
In the past, treaties commonly contained a list of offences covered, which created
difficulties every time a new type of crime emerged with the advancement of tech-
nology and other social and economic changes.
10
For this reason, more recent treaties
are based on the principle of dual criminality, which applies when the same conduct
is criminalized in both the requesting and requested States and the penalties provided
for it are above a defined threshold (e.g. one year of deprivation of liberty).
11
In this way, authorities do not have to constantly update their treaties for the cov-
erage of unanticipated and entirely new offences. This generated the need for the
adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a Model Treaty on Extradition
(Assembly resolution 45/116, as amended by resolution 52/88), which offers a set
of concise options to be used by interested States for negotiating their extradition
treaties.
However, just as States are busy amending their sometimes quite old treaties and
signing new ones, some conventions on specific offences contain provisions for
extradition, as well as jurisdiction and mutual assistance. One such example is the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions.
12
In addition, the need for a multilateral approach has led to several regional initia-
tives, such as the European Convention on Extradition (1957)
13
and its two Additional
Protocols (1975 and 1978),
14
the Inter-American Convention on Extradition
Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons
10
Experience with the elaboration and application of exhaustive lists of extraditable offences has revealed a num-
ber of deficiencies. One relates to the choice of offences and their exact definition, which has proved to be very
difficult, in particular between States with different legal systems. The most significant shortcoming, however, is
that such a system requires a permanent need to update the lists of offences in accordance with the emergence
of new criminal conduct. Where this updating is not achieved, the list-of-offences approach excludes from cover-
age even offences that may have subsequently been penalized in both States. For this reason, the “eliminative
method”, which specifies as extraditable those offences which, under the laws of both States, are punishable by
an agreed degree of severity, has gradually become the prevailing one in extradition practice, as it is more con-
venient for avoiding unnecessary detail while negotiating the treaty and obviating potential omission of certain
crimes.
11
Whichever system is being used to determine extraditable offences, the rule of double criminality is always
required. Thus, the offence for which extradition is requested should not only be extraditable, but also constitute
a crime under the criminal laws of both the requested and the requesting State. The double criminality principle
intends to ensure that each of the respective States can rely on corresponding treatment, and that no States shall
use its processes to surrender a person for conduct that it does not characterize as criminal. Moreover, extradi-
tion itself is usually connected with the employment of coercive measures, particularly deprivation of liberty, and
it would be inconsistent to use such measures on a person who would not be punished in the requested State. It
should be noted that the new surrender of fugitives procedure within the European Union, established by the
Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (2002), intends to further streamline and acceler-
ate the relevant proceedings among the Member States, by, inter alia, abolishing the double criminality require-
ment for a list of 32 offences, including trafficking in human beings.
12
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, document DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20.
13
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 359, No. 5146.
14
Council of Europe, European Treaty Series, Nos. 86 and 98, respectively.
06-550066-TRAFFICKING-FINAL.qxp 6/8/06 7:53 pm Page 46