Extradition’s “Rule of non-inquiry”

United states vs. Kin-Hong, 1997

“Another principle that guides courts in matters concerning extradition is the rule of non-inquiry. More than just a principle of treaty construction, the rule of non-inquiry tightly limits the appropriate scope of judicial analysis in an extradition proceeding. Under the rule of non-inquiry, courts refrain from “investigating the fairness of a requesting nation’s justice system,” id. at 1329, and from inquiring “into the procedures or treatment which await a surrendered fugitive in the requesting country.” Arnbjornsdottir-Mendler v. United States, 721 F.2d 679, 683 (9th Cir. 1983). The rule of non-inquiry, like extradition procedures generally, is shaped by concerns about institutional competence and by notions of separation of powers. See United States v. Smyth, [*111] 61 F.3d 711, 714 (9th Cir. 1995). n11 It is not that questions about what awaits the relator in the requesting country are irrelevant to extradition; it is that there is another branch of government, which has both final say and greater discretion in these proceedings, to whom these questions are more properly addressed. n12 “

Advertisements

One thought on “Extradition’s “Rule of non-inquiry”

  1. Pingback: Amanda Knox’s play to the US State department? | The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s