Immunity ratione materiae in extradition proceedings?
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 9:04 am
It also cannot be ruled out that the House of Lords’ findings on immunity, as a merits defence similar to Khurts Bat, took into account the position of the defendant before the courts of the State requesting extradition (Lord Millet even said: “The plea of immunity ratione materiae is not available in respect of an offence committed in the forum state, whether this be England or Spain.” [2000] 1 AC 147, 277): on the one hand, the exception to immunity in respect of torture-related charges extended to Spain; on the other, the immunity in relation to crimes committed in Spain to which Pinochet was entitled was thought to be applicable before Spanish courts – in the minds of their Lordships, there was no exception to immunity in relation to crimes committed in the territory of the forum.
Now, if there is no international rule of immunity ratione materiae phone number library that forecloses extradition proceedings, is there any rule that would prevent extradition of officials who may claim such immunity in the requesting State? Here, I believe Dr. O’Keefe’s attempt to make sense of why immunity ratione materiae was argued the way it was in Khurts Bat to be impeccable. The argument is that, unless international law had not granted Mr. Khurts Bat immunity before German courts, to order his extradition to Germany, where his prosecution was to take place, would be a breach of the UK’s duty of non-assistance within the meaning of Article 16 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA); the UK would be aiding or facilitating the commission of an internationally wrongful act, namely prosecution contrary to immunity.
Now, if there is no international rule of immunity ratione materiae phone number library that forecloses extradition proceedings, is there any rule that would prevent extradition of officials who may claim such immunity in the requesting State? Here, I believe Dr. O’Keefe’s attempt to make sense of why immunity ratione materiae was argued the way it was in Khurts Bat to be impeccable. The argument is that, unless international law had not granted Mr. Khurts Bat immunity before German courts, to order his extradition to Germany, where his prosecution was to take place, would be a breach of the UK’s duty of non-assistance within the meaning of Article 16 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA); the UK would be aiding or facilitating the commission of an internationally wrongful act, namely prosecution contrary to immunity.