Piliečių ekstradicijos nevykdymo taisykle, galimybės jos atsisakyti ir ją modifikuoti

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama viena iš esminių ekstradiciją reglamentuojančių taisyklių - piliečių ekstradicijos nevykdymo taisyklė. Autoriai kritiškai apžvelgia dažniausiai dėstomus argumentus pagrįsti šią taisyklę, tačiau teikia išvadą, kad pati taisyklė turi būti išlaikyta. Tokia išvada daroma nurodant naujus formuluojamus argumentus, remiančius piliečių ekstradicijos nevykdymo taisyklės išlaikymą, taip pat siūlant tam tikras pačios taisyklės modifikacijas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Ekstradicija; Piliečių ekstradicijos nevykdymas; Extradition; Non-extradition of citizens.

ENThe authors critically analyze arguments that are traditionally provided in order to justify the rule of non-extradition of citizens. The authors come to the conclusion that all the traditional arguments reviewed in the article has already lost their significance due to changes in the attitudes towards separate institutes of national and international law as well as due to an increased needs of effectiveness of international collaboration in criminal cases. However the authors acknowledge that the rule of non-extradition of citizens should be retained although modifications of it are necessary. The latter position is grounded by appealing to the principle of proportionality of coercion. The principle precludes extradition in cases when the coercion that the person faces in the requesting or the requested state is apparently disproportional to the gravity of the crime that the person's extradition is requested for as well as to other legal aims that the coercion is used for. First of all, the expedience of extradition of a citizen is often diminished. Extradition can not be used as a mean to guarantee safety of society from risks that are raised by staying in the territory of the state of persons who have been charged or sentenced for serious crimes in case the criminal is a citizen of the latter state. It is also important that the rule of non-extradition of citizens is followed only by states which acknowledge extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes committed by their citizens abroad. Therefore the need to guarantee implementation of the principle of inevitability of criminal liability can not be taken as a justification ground for extradition of citizens, at least in cases when the requested state possess actual possibilities to prosecute and to punish the requested person.It should also be noticed that the extradition of citizens restrict the constitutional right of the latter to stay in the state of their citizenship. Such a restriction is impossible in cases of extradition of other persons. Taking into account the arguments proposed the authors formulate the conclusion that the rule of non-extradition of citizens should be retained. However the authors acknowledge that the rule should be modified and proposes the following formula of the rule: "the requested State shall not extradite its citizens in case it possess substantive jurisdiction over crimes that extradition is requested for and actual possibilities to effectively prosecute the persoas whose extradition is requested and adequately exploit the latter possibilities". [From the publication]