114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTSTHE
SEMINARREPORTSOF
OF THESEMINAR

TOPIC 1
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS THAT ARISE IN
CASES INVOLVING INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL LEGALASSISTANCE OR EXTRADITION
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Advisors

Mr. Sh. Ahmad Farooq
Mr. Chandra Jayathilake
Mr. Makoto Tamura
Mr. Jumpol Pinyosinwat
Mr. Jese Marovia Vukinagauna
Mr. Masafumi Nishiguchi
Deputy Dire-ctor Masahiro Tauchi
Professor Akihiro Nosaka
Professor Shinya Watanabe

I. INTRODUCTION
The topic assigned to our group for
discussion and preparation of a report was;
“specific problems and solutions that arise
in cases involving international mutual
legal assistance or extradition with respectt o : a s s u r a n c e o f r e c i p r o c i t y, d u a lcriminality, and the scope of offences which
can be the basis for mutual legal assistance,or the scope of extraditable offences”.
In general, both “mutual legal
assistance” and “extradition” areessentially a process of intergovernmental
legal cooperation in the investigation,prosecution and punishment of criminal
offenders. Accordingly, the basic conceptsof mutual legal assistance and extradition
are somewhat similar. Nevertheless, themain purpose of mutual legal assistance isdifferent from extradition. Briefly, mutual
legal assistance is the cooperation or
assistance regarding investigation,prosecution and judicial proceedings inrelation to crimes; for example, taking
evidence or statements from persons,executing searches and seizures, providing
information, evidentiary items, while
extradition is a formal process by which a(Pakistan)(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Thailand)(Fiji)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

person is surrendered by one state toanother. As Mr. Hans G. Nilsson (UNAFEI
Visiting Expert) observed, the primarydifference between mutual legal assistanceand extradition is extradition involves the“body” of an offender and, consequently,
extradition needs more serious
consideration and urgent action since thefundamental human rights should be takencare of. As a result, there are somedifferences at the practical level between
these two processes.
Nonetheless, in general, we could saythat the objective of assurance ofreciprocity, dual criminality and the scopeof offences are not fundamentally different
in these two forms of cooperation, and mostcountries use the same concepts in theirdomestic legislation for both purposes, forexample, the rule of dual criminality inJapan (Law for International Assistance inInvestigation, Article 2(2) and Law ofExtradition, Article 2(5)), in Thailand (The
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Act, Section 9(2) and The Extradition Act,
Section 12(2)), and in the Republic of Korea(Act on International Judicial Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters, Article 6(4)and The Extradition Act, Article 6)

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
In addition, the group conducted acomparative survey on extradition andmutual legal assistance in criminal
matters, based on national legal systems
represented among the participants of theseminar. The results are included in the
Appendix attached to this report.
II. ASSURANCE OF RECIPROCITY
A. General Concept
Reciprocity is one of the bases for mutual
legal assistance and extradition treaties,
whether it is a multilateral or bilateralagreement. Generally, “assurance ofreciprocity” means the assurance that arequesting state will comply with the same
type of cooperation or request from arequested state in the future.
Moreover, in practical terms, theessential question is whether this concept
requires that the process of both therequesting and the requested states bealike or whether the respective states will
reciprocally recognize their respective
processes. This problem has implicationsin the area of the dual criminality
requirement, extraditable offenses,
criminal processes and others. To a large
extent, reciprocity in this sense means
parallelism or symmetry between the twoprocesses in the requested and requestingstates.
For example, some states rely on thenationality doctrine, while others do not.
If the requested state can surrender its
nationals, it implies in most cases that thatstate cannot prosecute its national for
offences committed abroad. If such a state
requires an extradition request fromanother state which prohibits surrender of
its nationals, that state may, relying on
reciprocity, deny the request. The
requested state that can surrender its
nationals may rely on reciprocity to deny178

the request on the understanding thatsince it could not prosecute on such ajurisdictional theory (nationality principle),
it cannot grant extradition for prosecution
in the requesting state which will be basedon the said theory.1
B. Issues Arising from the General
Discussion and Individual
Presentation Papers.
Admittedly, the principle of reciprocity
creates some degree of uncertainty,
especially in practice. Owing to thisuncertainty, a better solution would be to
ground the cooperation in a multilateralagreement, such as the United Nations
Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances of 1988 or Draft United Nations
Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime.
Reciprocity is explicit in a treaty where
each party has agreed either to surrenderfugitives to the other or to render requested
assistance on the understanding that its
requests will also be honored in the future.
In ad hoc arrangements, designed to meetthe situation where the fugitive is foundin a country with which the requestingstate does not have relationships based ona general extradition treaty, a special
agreement may be reached whereby therequested state will extract anunderstanding that in similar
circumstances its request for extradition,or legal assistance, for that matter, will beconsidered.
Although there are doubts as to whether
the rule of reciprocity should constitute alegal requirement for extradition,
reciprocity continues to play a significant
1

M.Cherif Bassiouni, International Extradition:
United States Law and Practice, 3rd. Edition, 384385 (1996).

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
role in the practice of extradition. It renders
extradition possible without excessive
formalities in the absence of a treaty. It may
also be relied upon to complement a treaty
where the offence for which extradition isrequested falls outside the scope of thetreaty, but is nevertheless permitted by thedomestic law of the requested state.

In addition to 31 mutual legal
assistance treaties (MLATs) in force
and 23 MLATs signed in recent
years, 2 the United States hasdeveloped a modern mechanism forinternational law enforcement
cooperation, a type of mutual legal
assistance. Due to the fact that mostinternational cooperation isconducted through direct contact
between police in the countries
involved, the “police to police
assistance”, or “cop to cop”
cooperation has been used on thebasis of good will, mutual respect, andshared interest in combating crime.3
A good example is the investigationof the Kenyan and Tanzanianembassy bombings in 1998 whenhundreds of FBI agents immediately
flew to Africa to begin intensive
investigation, alongside the Kenyan
and Tanzanian counterparts.4

The difference of assurance of reciprocity
between mutual legal assistance andextradition depends on the domestic
legislature of each state. Consequently,
some distinctions have to be drawn. The
primary difference between mutual legal
assistance and extradition is thatextradition involves the “body” andconsequently, extradition relates to theissue of human rights. Generally, theassurance of reciprocity in mutual legal
assistance and extradition procedures
depends on many factors, for example; thedomestic legislature of both countries, dual
criminality, previous practices, policies andpolitics. It seems that this requirement ismore strictly observed in extradition, while
the assurance of reciprocity in mutual legal
assistance seems much more flexible.
However, no commonly accepted standardof this assurance has developed in thisrespect. Sufficiency of assurance is
examined and evaluated by the requested
state according to its own standards on acase-by-case basis. With regard to thepractice, the concept of “trust” or “mutual
trust” may play the most important role
for the cooperation of mutual legal
assistance. There are some examples fromstates’ practice that should be mentioned:
1. The United States may grant mutual
legal assistance and cooperation to arequesting state, even though there
is no treaty with this country. The
requirement of assurance ofreciprocity is also flexible, and can bebased on the expectation of futurecooperation by the requesting state.

2. T h e P h i l i p p i n e s , w i t h o u t a n y
implementing laws for mutual legal
assistance, has enforced MLAT tocooperate with many requestingstates. For example, in 1998, Japan
requested the Philippines forassistance in a criminal case relating
to “Abandonment of Corpse andViolation of the Firearms and Swords
Control Law” by confiscating the
reward money for this criminal act
that was transferred into a bank in
the Philippines. In the end, thePhilippines’ prosecutor contacted thepossessor of that money and turned
2John E. Harris, UNAFEI Visiting Expert,“International Cooperation in Fighting
Transnational Organized Crime: Special Emphasis
on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition,”
Paper presented to the 114th International Senior
Seminar (Jan.17-Feb.18, 2000), 8.
3 Id., at 6.
4 Id., at 5.

179

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
over the money to the Japanese
Embassy.5
3. T h e R e p u b l i c o f U z b e k i s t a n ,meanwhile, applies the provisions of
the code of criminal procedure forextradition and mutual legal
assistance, without any specificdomestic laws. The only multilateralagreement is the 1993 Minsk
Convention on the Legal Assistanceand Legal Regulations in Civil,
Family and Criminal Cases, dealing
with the issues of extradition andmutual legal assistance.6
Nonetheless, Uzbekistan has
cooperated with requesting countries
in matters of extradition and mutual
legal assistance, based on theprinciple of reciprocity.
In addition, the Appendix shows thatsome participants’ countries, as the treaty
prerequisite countries, grant extradition
and/or mutual legal assistance on the basisof reciprocity.
C. Recommendations
1. A clear disadvantage of reciprocity is
the geographical limitation ofinternational cooperation. Moreover,reciprocity presumes a certain degreeof similarity between the cooperatingstates. Therefore, a better solution
seems to be a multilateral agreement.
5

Severino H. Gana, Jr., UNAFEI Visiting Expert,“Extradition and Legal Assistance: The Philippine
Experience,” Paper presented to the 114th
International Senior Seminar (Jan.17-Feb.18,
2000), 15-16.
6 Afzal A. Nurmatov, “Main Theme: International
Cooperation to Combat Transnational Organized
Crime — with Special Emphasis on Mutual Legal
Assistance and Extradition,” Paper presented to the114th International Senior Seminar (Jan.17Feb.18, 2000), 16-17.

180

2. Besides a multilateral agreement,
bilateral treaties among states also
should be promoted. In order toachieve smooth, efficient and effective
cooperation, the United Nations
Model Treaty on Mutual Assistancein Criminal Matters and United
Nations Model Treaty on Extradition
should be considered.
Simultaneously, the United Nations
may help the member states tomodernize and harmonize theirdomestic laws by providing necessary
information through sending writtenmaterials and organizing seminars
and conferences.
3. In view of facilitating international
cooperation, the treaty prerequisite
countries may consider amending
their domestic legislation in order toenable mutual legal assistance andextradition with treaty nonprerequisite countries. Moreover, inthe fight against serious crime andtransnational organized crime, it isessential to relax the interpretationof reciprocity to secure efficient andeffective cooperation among states.
III. DUAL CRIMINALITY
A. General Concept“Dual criminality” refers to thecharacterization of the offence, andrequires that the set of facts on which thelegal assistance or extradition request isbased, constitute an offence under the lawsof both states involved. In other words, dual
criminality embodies a reciprocal
characterization of those offenses deemed
extraditable. Dual criminality is intended
to ensure each state that it can rely on
corresponding treatment, and that no stateshall use its processes to surrender aperson for conduct which the requested
country does not characterize as criminal.

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
There are two different concepts of dual
criminality; one is in concreto approach inthe context of application to extradition andthe other is in abstracto approach in thecontext of application to mutual legal
assistance, respectively.
B. Issues Arising from the General
Discussion and Individual
Presentation Paper.
Both the “list of offense system” or“listing system” and “minimum
imprisonment system” require dual
criminality. As mentioned in Mr. Mikinao
Kitada’s paper, the dual criminality
requirement comes from the view that it is
not appropriate to surrender any fugitive
for the offence which is not the crime in
the requested country.7 Also, in the context
of mutual legal assistance, a requested
country may not cooperate with therequesting country if that offence is notpunishable in that country.
In the listing system, a schedule in which
all extraditable offences are listed isusually attached to the treaty. Therefore,
if an extradition request is based upon anyof the listed offences, the request
presumably meets the requirement of dual
criminality. On the other hand, in theminimum imprisonment system, arequested country has to examine whether
the act described in an extradition request
may constitute any crimes under therequested country’s criminal laws.

offence against a law in force in therequested state. Generally, most states
have required in concreto approach.
Particularly, the resolutions adopted by the1969 Tenth International Congress ofPenal Law recommended that therequested state set aside the requirementof dual criminality in concreto, unlessspecial circumstances exist in therequesting state, such as the question of
public order. In those cases, the requested
state would examine in abstracto whether
the conduct of the offender constitutes anoffence under the state’s law, or if it deems
that type of conduct punishable.8
Nonetheless, in a case relating to aconspiracy offence in 1989, Tokyo High
Court adopted a broad interpretation of therequirement of dual criminality. In thiscase, the United States requested Japan
to extradite a person prosecuted forconspiracy to traffic drugs. The issue ofdual criminality arose because Japan’s
criminal law had no offence of conspiracy.
The Tokyo High Court ruled on theadmissibility of extradition of the requested
person on the ground of actual action, while
holding that, “when we apply the Japaneselaws to these facts, it is obvious that Person
A is at least an accessory to the crime ofheroin importation.”9 In other words, thedecision mainly focused on the actual
action behind the crime, and pointed outthat the principle of dual criminality should

7

The differences in legal systems andinterpretations of dual criminality give rise
to many problems. To solve them within
the context of extradition, the United
Nations Model Treaty on Extradition,
Article 2 Paragraph 2 proposes states tolook at the totality of the conduct and to
decide whether any combination of thoseacts and/or omissions would constitute an

Mikinao Kitada, Director of UNAFEI,“International Cooperation to Combat
Transnational Organized Crime, Extradition and
Mutual Legal Assistance,” Paper presented to the114th International Senior Seminar (Jan.17Feb.18, 2000), 5.
8 See supra note 1, 390.
9 Makoto Tamura, “Two precedents regarding
extradition in Japan,” Paper presented to the 114th
International Senior Seminar (Jan.17-Feb.18,
2000), 2-4.

181

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
be based on the behavior of the alleged
offender.
On the other hand, for mutual legal
assistance, the interpretation by related
authorities seems much broader andrelaxed. This may be due to the fact thatthe nature of this assistance is different
from extradition as it may not necessarily
infringe upon a person’s liberty or freedom.
The basic idea is that the essential
constituent elements of the offence should
be comparable under the law of both states.
Nevertheless, when it comes to mutual
legal assistance, the trend and practice ofmany states is to relax this requirement.
Some states are now rendering mutual
legal assistance even without ther e q u i r e m e n t o f d u a l c r i m i n a l i t y. 1 0
Furthermore, this principle has also beenrelaxed in some MLATs, for example;11 theMLAT between the United States andCanada, specifying that assistance shall be
provided without regard to whether the
alleged conduct constitutes an offence inthe requested country or not.12

Group 1. Some of them were of the opinion
that the principle of dual criminality is still
indispensable in the context of mutual legal
assistance and merely a more flexible
interpretation or lower standard test may
be adequate in this area since this lower
standard test could also cover all serious
crimes, while the majority preferred theabolishment of the dual criminality
requirement.
Furthermore, while interpreting thedual criminality principle, a due
consideration should be given to the statuteof limitation and lapse of time. The
principle of dual criminality also relates tothe principle of dual punishability.
Therefore, the issue of lapse of time andstatute of limitation will have to be taken
into account while determining thefulfillment of the condition of dual
criminality for extradition or mutual legal
assistance.

13 “Revised draft United Nations Convention against

The Draft United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime
indicates that the delegations proposedthat the dual criminality requirement beabolished for mutual legal assistance
except for the application of coercive
measures.13 Article 14, Paragraph 6 is an
outcome of the compromise between the
proponents and opponents of thisrequirement.14 This disparity of views was
also reflected among the members of
10 Group 2, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,

Annual Report for 1996 and Resource Material
Series No. 51, 599 (1997).
11 In addition, the Appendix shows that, among theparticipants’ countries, the Philippines, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka have abolished the dual criminality
requirement for mutual legal assistance.
12 Id.

182

Transnational Organized Crime” has been preparedby the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of aConvention against Transnational Organized
Crime,” United Nations, General Assembly, and waspresented to the Fourth Session, Vienna, 6-17
December 1999. See Draft Article 14“...
6. States Parties may not decline to rendermutual legal assistance under this article on the
ground of absence of dual criminality, unless theassistance required involves the application of
coercive measures.
...”
14 Information provided by Professor Michael Plachta,
UNAFEI Visiting Expert at the 114th International
Senior Seminar (Jan. 17 - Feb. 18, 2000). Mr.
Plachta served as the leading expert of the Polish
Government and a member of the official Polishdelegation to the UN Ad Hoc Committee for the
Elaboration of the Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime.

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
Moreover, both the United Nations
Model Treaty on Extradition (Article 3
paragraph (e)) and the European
Convention on Extradition (Article 10)
affirm that extradition shall not be granted
when a person becomes immune fromprosecution for lapse of time. However,domestic law varies in this respect. For
instance, in most common law states, thesystem of lapse of time is not adopted.15 In
Japan, the lapse of time is interrupted assoon as the suspect flees the country. In
Pakistan, once the case is legally
registered, there will be no time limitation
for prosecuting the defendant. The law in
Thailand does not allow for an interruptionof the running statute of limitation.
Another issue emerging from the general
discussion is the following question: thestatute of limitation of which country
should be adopted as controlling the case?
The Model Treaty of Extradition, Article
3(e), requires the law of either Party, 16
while the Convention relating to
extradition between the Member States of
the European Union, Article 8, seems todepend on the law of the requesting state,17
unless the requested state also has
jurisdiction under its own criminal law.
C. Recommendations
1. In order to enhance international
cooperation, in cases of extradition,
it is recommended to interpret the
principle of dual criminality in a
flexible manner. In other words, therelevant authority in the requested
state should be required to look at the

totality of the conduct, focusing on thecriminality of the conduct whatever
its label. The requirement should besatisfied even if the offence iscategorized differently in the twostates or if some components of the
conduct forming the extradition
offence or mutual legal assistance are
not entirely the same.
2. Countries should consider granting
legal assistance without requiringthat the alleged conduct constitute an
offence in the requested country,
unless the assistance requested
involves the application of coercive
measures, for instance search andseizure.
3. To solve practical problems createdby the dual criminality requirement,
the harmonization of domestic
criminal law is recommended. This
could be achieved throughelaborating and ratifying aninternational instrument. An
example can be found in the Draft
United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime
whose Article 4 criminalises
laundering offences. By ratifying thisConvention, State Parties will adopt
an identical definition of this offence
and its constituent elements.

15 Group 1, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,

Annual Report for 1996 and Resource Material
Series No. 51, 573 (1997).
16 Article 3(e) “If the person whose extradition isrequested has, under the law of either Party, become
immune from prosecution or punishment for any
reason, including lapse of time or amnesty:”

17 Article 8 Paragraph 1 “1. Extradition may not berefused on the ground that the prosecution orpunishment of the person would be statute-barredaccording to the law of the requested Member
State.”

183

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
IV. THE SCOPE OF OFFENCES
WHICH CAN BE THE BASIS FOR
MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, OR
THE SCOPE OF EXTRADITABLE
OFFENCES
A. General Concept
In general, the offence for which
extradition is requested must be either
enumerated among the list of extraditableoffences or established according to theminimum imprisonment rule. In theabsence of a treaty, the extradition may bebased on the principle of reciprocity andthe offence must be mutually recognized
as extraditable. This requirement is inaddition to that of the dual criminality
requirement.
The listing system or enumerative
system, by which the offences are named
and defined, creates undue limitation to thescope of application of extradition, andmakes this system inflexible. On the other
hand, the minimum imprisonment system
or eliminative system, which is indicative
rather than limitative, specifies
extraditable offences which under the lawsof both states are punishable by an agreed
degree of severity, usually a minimum of
imprisonment. 18 This system, althoughmore preferable, also has somedisadvantages.
B. Issues Arising from the General
Discussion and Individual
Presentation Paper19
The United Nations Model treaty on
Extradition has adopted the minimum
imprisonment approach in Article 2paragraph 1, which reads as follows; “forthe purpose of the present Treaty,
extraditable offences that are punishable
under the laws of both Parties by
18 See supra note 1, 396.

imprisonment or other deprivation ofliberty for a maximum period of at least
one/two year(s), or by a more severe
penalty....” However, many countries use
both approaches in their treaty practice.
The listing approach will offer the list of
specific offences and also excludes theunnecessary offences. Therefore, theParties could focus on the specific scope ofoffences as they agree, for example specificoffences of transnational organized crimeor other kinds of serious crimes. This
listing approach also decreases some
practical problems - for example, in somecountries, the penalty for shoplifting may
be imprisonment less than 6 months, while
the maximum penalty for this offence inThailand is a deprivation of liberty for 3
years. So, in this sense, the minimum
imprisonment approach might also causesome problems. The main problem of thelisting approach arises from the fact thatthe list can omit certain offences, and thesubsequent inclusion by supplementarytreaty may prove too cumbersome. With
regard to some offences their definition
may vary, for example, cheat or fraud. This
may give rise to divergent interpretationin different countries. Another problem isthat the list might not cover newly
emerging and future crimes. To lessen the
difficulties mentioned above, a proposed
technique of defining extraditable offencesin treaties presupposes listing nonextraditable offences and designating
extraditable offences by type and category.
On the other hand, the minimum
imprisonment approach will decrease thepotential for a dispute relating to dual
criminality. Also, this approach eliminates
the problem of listing offences. Moreover,it could also cover any new crimes, forexample computer crimes, white-collar
19 The approach of each participant’s country is shownin Appendix A.

184

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
crimes. The biggest disadvantage of thisapproach is the disparity in penalties
among states and legal systems. The
different cultural attitudes may also cause
problems for minor crimes. For example,
even within the European Community,
there are different approaches to certain
offences: “Simple examples are thepermissive attitude towards cannabis use
in the Netherlands, the greater tolerance
to certain forms of pornography inGermany, the very tough stand taken by
Greek courts against hooliganism”. 20
Nonetheless, the minimum imprisonment
approach is considered a modern concept.
This formula has been adopted in the
U n i t e d N a t i o n s M o d e l Tr e a t y o f
Extradition, the European Convention on
Extradition and many other treaties.
Therefore, a consensus on the minimum
imprisonment approach for extraditableoffences is to be recommended. In addition,
the United Nations Model Treaty on
Extradition, Article 2 Paragraph 2, also has
attempted to minimize the problem byproviding some standards to determine theoffence punishable under the laws of both
Parties.

Contracting Parties undertake to afford
each the widest measure of mutual
assistance.
C. Recommendations
1. For the purpose of extradition, theminimum imprisonment systemshould be adopted by all states tomake the scope of extraditableoffences broader and more dynamic.
2. It is recommended that the scope ofoffences for which mutual legal
assistance can be granted be as widea s p o s s i b l e . H o w e v e r, a m o r e
restrictive approach should be
adopted with regard to coercive
measures.

For mutual legal assistance, it isadvisable and recommended that its scope
be expanded as much as possible. 21 Thisidea has been reflected in Article 1 of theUnited Nations Model on mutual
assistance in criminal matters: “TheParties shall, in accordance with thepresent Treaty, afford to each other thewidest possible measures of mutual
assistance in investigations or court
proceedings.” Similarly, the European
Convention on Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters, Article 1, states that the
20 Geoff Gilbert, Aspects of Extradition 9 (1991), in

Jumpol Pinyosinwat, “The Extradition Act inThailand and the New Draft Extradition Bill” Paper
presented to the 114th International Senior Seminar(Jan.17-Feb.18, 2000), 13.

21 The Appendix shows that there is no limitation forthe scope of offence under the domestic legislatureof Japan and Korea, in the matter of mutual legal
assistance.

185

186

Scope ofoffence

Double Criminality
Requirement

Assurance ofReciprocity*1─Yes─

M.L.A.

Extradition

M.L.A.
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Civil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

M.L.A.
─

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Civil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Civil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Common Mixed

Minimum Listing Listing*2 Minimum*2 Minimum*2 Minimum Minimum

Listing Minimum Minimum*2 Minimum Minimum

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Civil

INDIA INDONESIA JORDAN LITHUANIA MALAYSIA NEPAL

Original Common Common

FIJI

Extradition Minimum Minimum Minimum*2 Minimum Listing

Yes

Extradition

Yes

Extradition──

M.L.A.

M.L.A.

Yes

Extradition

CommonBANGLADESH BRAZIL CHINASURVEY ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND EXTRADITION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Domestic Law

TreatyPrerequiste

Law system

APPENDIXRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

─

Yes

Yes

M.L.A.

Extradition

M.L.A.
Both

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

M.L.A. Minimum Both*2

Extradition Listing─Extradition

Yes

Extradition
No

Yes

M.L.A.

M.L.A.

Yes

Extradition

Both

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

CommonBe provided by the convention or treaty.

─Listing

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Common*1

Minimum

Both

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Civil

*2

All

Minimum Listing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Civil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Mixed

Minimum*2

All

Minimum*2 Minimum

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Civil

REPUBLIC
SRI LANKA THAILAND UGANDA UZBEKISTAN JAPANOF KOREA

Minimum: Minimum imprisonment system
Listing: Listing system
Question is “Does your country grant extradition or mutual legal assistance based on the assurance of reciprocity?”

Listing Minimum*2

Minimum

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

CommonCivil

Common Common(Note) M.L.A: Mutual legal assistance

Scope ofoffence

Double Criminality
Requirement

Assurance ofReciprocity*1

Domestic Law

TreatyPrerequiste

Law system

PHILIPPINESNIGERIA PAKISTAN PERU

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

187