RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO COMBATTRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME - WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND
EXTRADITION
Ahmad Farooq*
I. TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZEDCRIME
Presently there are varioustransnational crimes which are beingcommitted by the people of the world
generally and particularly under the
influence of criminal organizations. Drugtrafficking, money laundering, trafficking
in women and children, illicit
manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, acts of corruption, use of violence andextortion and illegal trafficking andtransportation of migrants are the maintransnational crimes with which thecountries of the world are confronted.
There is a rapid growth and geographicalextension of organized crime in its various
forms which has become a threat to thesecurity of the international society,stability of sovereign states impairing thequality of life in addition to undermining
the human rights and fundamental social
values.
Recognizing the growing threat oforganized crime with its destabilizing andcorrupting influence on fundamental social,economic and political institutions which
demands increased and more effective
international cooperation, the United
Nations General Assembly passed a
Resolution No.49/159 on 23 December,
1994. The said Resolution emphasized theneed for improved international
cooperation at all levels for more effective
mutual assistance between the states in* Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department,
Government of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

166

their fight against organized transnational
crime. The said Resolution urged states toimplement the Political Declaration and
the Global Action Plan against organizedtransnational crime adopted at Naples.
II. EXTRADITION
The modern word extradition is perhaps
derived from the practice which was called“extra-tradition” because it was against thetraditional hospitality offered to an alien
by a state who had allegedly committed an
offence and sought refuge or asylum to savehimself from prosecution or punishment.
The term extradition has its origin in the
Latin word “extradere” which means
forceful return of a person to his sovereign.
Mr. Cherif Bassioune defined extradition
as a system consisting of several processes
whereby one sovereign surrenders toanother sovereign a person sought as anaccused criminal or fugitive offender.
Similarly, Dr. S. Bedi interpreted
extradition as an act of international legal
help and cooperation for the purpose of
suppressing criminal activities consistingof handing over an individual, accused orconvicted of a criminal offence by one state
to another, which being competent, intends
to prosecute or punish him in accordancewith its laws.
III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The origin of international cooperation
for the suppression of crimes go back to thevery beginning of formal diplomacy. The
surrender on demand of an accused orconvict by a state to which he had fled for114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
refuge in order to defeat prosecution orpunishment by the state within whose
jurisdiction the alleged crime wascommitted, is not a new phenomena ininternational relations. The practiceoriginated in early non-western
civilizations such as Egypt, China, theChaldean and Assyro-Babylonian. In theearly days of practice, the delivery of arequested person to the requestingsovereign was undertaken in solemn
formulas and was performed with pomp.
Delivery of individuals to the requestingsovereign was usually based on pacts ortreaties but it also occurred on the basis ofreciprocity and comity (as a matter ofcourtesy and goodwill between sovereigns).
In fact, the whole history of extradition has
been a reflection of the political relations
between the states in question.
The first recorded extradition treaty inthe world dates back to 1280 BC. In thesecond oldest document in diplomatic
history, Ramases-II, Pharaoh of Egypt
signed a peace treaty with the Hittites after
he defeated their attempt to invade Egypt.
This document was written in
Hieroglyphics and carved on the Temple ofAmmon at Karnak and is also preservedon clay tablet, in Akhodroin in the Hittite
archives of Boghazkoi. The peace treaty
provided expressly for the return of persons
sought by each sovereign who had taken
refuge on the others’ territory. Since then,however, only the practice of Greece andRome in extradition arrangements foundits way into European texts of internationallaw.
In fact, from antiquity until the late 18th
century the persons sought by anotherstate were generally political or religious
opponents of the ruling families and they
were not necessarily fugitives from justicecharged with common crimes. Thus thestronger relationship between thesovereigns, the more interest and concern

they had for each others welfare and themore intend they would be of surrendering
those political offenders who had createdthe greatest dangers to their respective
welfare. The common criminals were theleast sought-after species of offenders since
their harmful conduct affected only otherindividuals and not the sovereign or publicorder.
The history of extradition can be divided
into four periods:
Ancient times to the 17th century period revealing an almost
exclusive concern for political andreligious offenders;ii) 18th century and first half of the 19th
century - a period of treaty making
which chiefly concerned military
offenders characterizing thecondition of Europe during that
period;iii) 1833 to 1948 - A period of collective
concern for suppressing common
criminality; andiv) post 1948 development whichushered in a greater concern forprotecting human rights of persons
and revealed an awareness of theneed to have international due
processes of law to regulateinternational relations. The
historical evolution of the practiceof extradition expressly
demonstrates that extradition inearlier times was used forpreservation of political andreligious interest of the states but
gradually it evolved into aninternational cooperation for thepreservation of the world’s social
interests and suppression of crimes.
This common interest of states, inthe suppression and prevention ofcrime, coupled with the increasing
recognition of basic principles
which gradually softened thei)167

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
exaggerated feeling of nationalsovereignty unfettered by law andthe emergence of humanitarian
international law giving full
protection to individual rights andinterests, has paved the way for atrue international law on
extradition.

satisfied and a secondary obligation toprosecute under national laws, if
extradition cannot be granted. If the duty
to extradite or prosecute is co-existentrather than alternative or disjunctive, thenthe requested state can choose between
extradition and prosecution at its
discretion.

IV. THE DUTY TO EXTRADITE

V. RECIPROCITY

Hugo Grotios asserted that the state ofrefuge was obligated either to return theaccused to the requesting state or punish
him under its own laws. Similarly, De
Vattel argued that international law
imposed a definite legal duty on the state
to extradite persons accused of serious
crimes. Puffendorf represented a contrary
view and argued that the duty to extradite
was only an imperfect obligation which
required an explicit agreement in order tobecome fully binding under internationallaw and thus to secure the reciprocal rights
and duties of the contracting states.
Similarly, Billot took the position that there
was no right to extradition save by contract
or agreement between states. The duty to
extradite only by virtue of a treaty, whether
it be bilateral or multilateral has become
the prevalent practice amongst states,
though reciprocity and comity still exists
as a legal basis relied upon by a number ofstates, usually through the support ofnational legislation.

Reciprocity is one of the legal basis for
extradition in the absence of a treaty which
is a part of international principles offriendly cooperation amongst nations.
Reciprocity, as a substantive requirementof extradition (whether based on a treaty
or not) arises with respect to various
specific aspects of the process. The
essential question is whether it requiresthat the process of both the requesting andthe requested state be alike or whether
respective states will reciprocally recognize
their respective processes. Reciprocity toa large extent means parallelism or
symmetry between the two processes of therequested and the requesting state.
However, the requested state may consider
that the certain aspect of the requestingstates criminal process is so alien to its
system as to lack any basis of reciprocity.

Most of the conventions on international
criminal law reflect the existence of thegeneral principle either to extradite orpunish. The signatory states to theseconventions have incorporated thisobligation into their domestic laws.
However, it is unclear whether the duty toprosecute or extradite is disjunctive or coexistent. If the duty to extradite orprosecute is disjunctive or an alternative
one, then there is a primary obligation to
extradite, if relevant conditions are

168

VI. DOUBLE CRIMINALITY
Double criminality refers to thecharacterization of the relator’s criminal
conduct in so far as it constitutes an offence
under the laws of the two respective states.
Hence, the general rule is that the offence
in respect of which extradition is requested
must be an extraditable offence not only
under the law of the requesting state but
also under the law of the requested state.
Hence, no state is under any legal
obligation to deliver up a fugitive offender
to a foreign state on its demand if theperson so demanded is charged with an
offence, which is a crime under the law ofthe demanding state only but not

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
punishable under the legal system of thestate of refuge. The principle of double
criminality can also be termed as theidentity rule. The role of double criminality
gives rise to sometimes difficult promises
mainly for the reason, firstly, because ofvariation of laws and institutions in the twocountries and secondly because the act
charged does not amount to acorresponding crime.
There are three approaches to determine
whether the offence charged even thoughcriminal in both states falls within themeaning of double criminality:i)

The substantive requirements to
extradition are that a person accused of or
found guilty of an offence in the requestingstate be surrendered to that state, provided
the following criteria are met:i)

If a treaty exists, the offence mustbe listed or designated.
ii) If no treaty exists, the respective
states will reciprocate for the same
type of offence.
iii) If no treaty or reciprocity exists, but
the request is based on comity, therequested state will rely on its
customary practice.
iv) Furthermore, in all three instances,
the offence charged must also
constitute the offence in therequested state i.e. double
criminality.

Whether the act is chargeable inboth states as a criminal offence
regardless of its prosecutability.
ii) Whether the act is chargeable andalso prosecutable in both states andiii) Whether the act is chargeable,
prosecutable, and could also resultin the conviction in both states.

A corollary to the requirements ofextraditable offence and double criminality
is the doctrine of speciality.

Hence, there is a nexus between double
criminality and extraditable offences.

VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF
SPECIALTY

VII. EXTRADITABLE OFFENCES
Extraditable offences are offences thatare punishable under the laws of bothparties and either enumerated among theextraditable offences or found according to
the formula for ascertaining extraditability
in the applicable treaty. In the absence ofa treaty, if extradition is based onreciprocity, the offence must be mutually
recognized as extraditable. Where
extradition is based on comity, it will
depend exclusively on applicable nationallaw. In addition to designating extraditableoffences, the criminality of the relator’s
alleged conduct must satisfy therequirement of double criminality, i.e. theoffence charged must constitute a crime in
the two legal systems.

The doctrine of specialty embodies thetheory in international law that compels
the requesting state to prosecute theextradited individual upon only those
offences for which the requested country
granted extradition. This doctrine ispremised on the assumption that whenevera state uses its formal processes tosurrender a person to another state for a
specific charge, the requesting state shallcarry out its intended purpose ofprosecuting or punishing the offender only
for the offence for which the requested state
conceded extradition. The doctrine of
specialty developed to protect the requested
country from abuse of its discretionary actof extradition. The violation of specialty
occurs when after extradition, therequesting nation charges and prosecutes
or seeks to prosecute the relator for a crime169

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
not agreed to by the requested nation in
the extradition proceedings. Implicitly, this
doctrine provides the relator withassurances against unexpected
prosecution.

through international cooperation.
However, according to Section 5 (2) of theExtradition Act, 1972 of Pakistan, no
fugitive offender shall be surrendered:a)

IX. U.N.O. RESOLUTIONSThe United Nations adopted the Model
Treaty on Extradition (General Assembly
Resolution No.45/116 of 14 December,1990) and the Model Treaty on Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters (General
Assembly Resolution No.45/117 of 14
December, 1990) which serves as animportant basis for the national legislationof UN principal countries in theirrespective fields. No doubt the
aforementioned Model Treaties are quite
exhaustive but still difficulties are being
faced by the various countries due to lackof international cooperation and refusal of
extradition on various grounds. However,
it is not conducive to the maintenance ofinternational economic, political and social
order that wrong doers escape from justiceas a result of non-cooperation amongst thestates and lack of mutual legal assistanceand extradition. The principle of aut dedere
aut judicare (extradite or punish) has tobe employed wherever necessary andappropriate.

b)

c)

d)

X. OBJECTIVES OF SEMINAR
The main object of this seminar is to
explore the ways and means ofstrengthening and improving international
cooperation to combat transnational crime,
particularly through effective
implementation of the mechanism of
mutual legal assistance and extradition.
XI. EXTRADITION LAW OFPAKISTANIn Pakistan, we have the Extradition
Act, 1972 which is quite helpful forsuppressing transnational organized crime

170

e)

if the offence in respect of which hissurrender is sought is of a politicalcharacter or if it is shown to thesatisfaction of the Federal
Government or of the Magistrate or
Court before whom he may be
produced that the requisition for his
surrender has, in fact, been madewith a view to his being tried or
punished for an offence of a politicalcharacter;if the offence in respect of which hissurrender is sought is notpunishable with death or withimprisonment for life or a term
which is not less than twelve
months;if the prosecution for the offence inrespect of which the surrender issought is, according to the law of
the State asking for the surrenderbarred by time;
if there is no provision in the lawof, or in the extradition treaty with,
the State asking for the surrenderthat the fugitive offender shall not,until he has been restored or has
had an opportunity of returning toPakistan, be detained or tried inthat State for any offence
committed prior to his surrender,other than the extradition offence
proved by the facts on which thesurrender is based;
if it appears to the Federal
Government that he is accused or
alleged to have been convicted ofsuch on offence that if he werecharged with that offence inPakistan he would be entitled to bedischarged under any law relating
to a previous acquittal orconviction.

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSf)

If he has been accused of someoffence in Pakistan, not being theoffence for which his surrender issought, or is undergoing sentence
under any conviction in Pakistan,
until after he has been discharged,
whether by acquittal or on the
expiration of his sentence orotherwise.

Sections 6 & 7 of the Extradition Act,
1972 deals with the procedure throughwhich a foreign state can make arequisition to the Federal Government ofPakistan for the surrender of the fugitive
offender and the conduct of a magisterial
inquiry by the Federal Government ofPakistan. Pakistan has liberal provisions
for receiving the evidence against the
fugitive offender because it admits
authenticated official certificates of facts
and judicial documents stating facts
against the fugitive offender as evidence.
Similarly, in magisterial inquiry inPakistan, the warrants, depositions orstatements on oath which purport to havebeen issued, received or taken by any courtof justice outside Pakistan or copies thereofor certificates of or judicial documents
stating the fact of conviction before any
such court are also admitted.
The magisterial inquiry in Pakistan isconducted only to find out a prima faciecase and the same cannot be regarded as aregular trial by a court of law. The evidence
before a magistrate would be relevant indetermining the extraditability of an
offender. The rule of specialty is also
contained in Section 16 and Section 5(2)(d)of Pakistan’s Extradition Act, 1972.
Furthermore, the extradition law inPakistan also provides for the surrenderof everything found in the possession of afugitive offender at the time of his arrest
subject to the right of any third party.

In Pakistan, the following are
extradition offences:
1. Culpable homicide
2. Maliciously or wilfully wounding
causing grievous bodily harm.
3. Rape
4. Procuring or trafficking in womenor young persons for immoral
purposes.
5. Kidnapping, abduction or false
imprisonment or dealing in slaves,
6. Bribery.
7. Perjury or subordination or
perjury or conspiring to defeat thecourse of justice.
8. Arson
9. An offence concerning counterfeit
currency.
10.An offence against the law
relating to forgery.
11.S t e a l i n g , e m b e z z l e m e n t ,fraudulent conversion, fraudulent
false accounting, obtaining
property or credit by false
presences receiving stolen
property or any other offence inrespect of property involving
fraud.
12.Burglary, house - breaking or any
similar offence.
13.Robbery
14.Blackmail or extortion by meansof threats or by abuse of authority
15.An offence against bankruptcy
law or company law.
16.Malicious or wilful / damage toproperty.
17.Acts done with the intention ofendangering vehicles, vessels or
aircraft.
18.An offence against the law
relating to dangerous drugs or
narcotics.
19.Piracy
20.Revolt against the authority of themaster of a ship or the commanderof an aircraft.

171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
21.Contravention of import or export
prohibitions relating to precious
stones, gold and other precious
metals.
22.A i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g , o r
counselling or procuring thecommission of, or being anaccessory before or after the fact
to, or attempting or conspiring tocommit, any of the aforesaid
offences.
Interestingly, the concept of extradition
law was specifically upheld in Islamic
history in the shape of the Al-Huddebiyah
Treaty.
A new law has been promulgated inPakistan known as the National
Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999
which envisages international cooperation/
requests for mutual legal assistance.
Moreover, Pakistan has very stringent
legal provisions for punishing offenders
accused of drug trafficking. In thisconnection, Pakistan has a law embodied
in the Act of the Parliament generally
known as Control of Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997 which contains a very broad/wide
definition of narcotic drugs and describe
maximum sentences. Even this Act of 1997
contains a full-fledged chapter oninternational cooperation. The Pakistan
Government is legally bound to rendermutual legal assistance to a foreign state
to collect evidence, conduct investigationand even to freeze, confiscate and forfeit
assets of an offender in Pakistan subject
to legal process in Pakistan. Pakistan has
also a law for sharing forfeited property
with a foreign state on reciprocal basis bymutual treaties.

172

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
XII. FIGHT AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME THROUGHEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MECHANISM OF MUTUALLEAGAL ASSISTANCE AND EXTRADITION
With the advent of modern technology
in communication the world has grown tobe pretty small. With the world growing
yet smaller, crimes committed within one
country are no longer confined to within
its own borders but it so often happens thatthe looted and plundered money islaundered and filtered through various
channels involving various countries.
There are numerous instances whereleaders of the third world have madewrongful and illegal gains in theirrespective countries and then stashed away
their ill-gotten wealth either in the Swiss
Banks or in the Carribean Islands, whichhave been safe havens for them. However,
the world has not slept over their wrong
doings. There has been a continuous effort
to curb such activities and even countries
which were safe havens till recent past,
have legislated new laws aimed at
mutually co-operating with each other tomake the world a better and safer place.
The hand of mutual assistance was
extended from one country to anotherprimarily based on reciprocal promises.
Laws on mutual assistance developed oflate in the early 80s and various countries
have enacted the same. The safe havensof Switzerland and to some extent the
Carribean Islands are no longer safe withthe advent of these laws. The Swiss Banks
still have numbered accounts, but it has
become mandatory on the operator of theaccount to disclose the name of thebeneficiary in the Account Opening Form.
This has been done in order to eradicate
corruption and crime in one form or another from the entire world. Swiss Banksno longer encourage or launder dirty moneyfor others.

In my paper I try to highlight the role ofPakistan where laws of mutual assistancewere sought and its laws invoked in thetrial of its former Prime Minister. Pakistan
invoked the jurisdiction of the Swiss Police
in Berne under the Swiss Federal Act on
International Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters, This was an Act which
was enacted on 20 March, 1981 andamended on the 4 October, 1996 by the
Swiss Confederation.
It was under this Act that certain
documents along with a complaint were
presented by the Government of Pakistan
to the Berne Police in Switzerland seeking
its assistance in investigating some of thecrimes committed by the Pakistan’s former
Prime Minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto andher husband Asif Ali Zardari.
On the complaint being made, the Burne
Police started investigating into the matterand thereafter referred the matter to an
investigating Magistrate in Geneva. The
Investigating Magistrate in turnsummoned documents not only from the
Swiss Banks but also took into possession
documents from the companies that wereinvolved in the commission of the offence.
He also obtained documents from Zardari’s
agent, Jens Schlegelmilch and from
Cotecna & SGS. Once these documents had
been summoned by the Investigating
Magistrate in Geneva he, on examination,found that not only some crime had beencommitted by Ms. Bhutto and Asif Ali
Zardari in Pakistan on which mutual
assistance had been sought, but these
persons had conspired with Jens
Schlegelmilch and the officials of Cotecna
and SGS, who were Swiss nationals tocommit acts which were offences under
Swiss law as well. Apparently, money

173

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
laundering had taken place in Geneva. He,
therefore, indicted all these persons. It wasat this stage that the Judge in Geneva
invoked the reciprocal promise of Pakistan,under the mutual assistance programme,
to provide assistance in effecting service of
the indictment orders on Mrs. Bhutto andZardari in Paksitan.
Letters Rogatory were received from theInvestigating Magistrate in Geneva
through diplomatic channels in Pakistan
for onward service on Mrs. Bhutto andZardari. These Letters Rogatory also
contained copies of original documents that
had been collected by the Judge in
Switzerland. It was after service had beeneffected in terms of the Letter Rogatorythat these documents were used in the trialof Mrs. Bhutto and Zardari. The State ofPakistan obtained certified copies of these
documents which accompanied the Letters
Rogatory duly attested in the manner asprescribed under the law of evidence inPakistan, and they were proved in court.
During the course of the hearing a
Commission was sent from the Lahore
High Court, for authentication of certain
documents from the Geneva Court. The
Swiss authorities facilitated the task andthe Commission was able to discharge its
functions. These documents primarily
brought home the guilt of the accused
which resulted in their conviction, and thefamous judgment of the Lahore High Court
was delivered on the 14 April, 1999.
This is the first case in the history of theworld where the former Prime Minister ofa country has been convicted through thedue process of law on charges of corruption
and corrupt practices and Pakistan is thefirst country to have invoked the mutual
assistance programme to achieve thedesired results. The system worked.
Similar proceedings have also been
initiated by Pakistan in London where174

mutual assistance has been sought on the
charges of drug trafficking which have beenbrought against Mr. Zardari in Pakistan.
The United Kingdom has a mutual
assistance programme but it is restricted
only to drug related offences. The mutual
assistance programmes should be extended
to other offences as well, like Switzerland
which not only extends to drug related
practices but also to money laundering as
well. It would be very helpful for countries
to gather evidence from other countries
proving the commission of offences. In the
English Courts evidence has so far beencollected which definitely goes to show thewealth that had been amassed by Zardari
but in the event of Pakistan not being able
to prove its case against Mr. Zardari on
drug trafficking charges, none of theevidence so collected would either betransmitted to Pakistan nor could be used.
Mutual assistance programmes should be
extended so as to cover all criminal acts
and not be restricted to only one or two
special instances.
Pakistan has also made another great
headway when a Judicial Commission
investigating allegations of fixing cricket
matches proceeded to Australia and set up
a Pakistani court in Melbourne. This could
only be done under mutual assistanceextended to each other by the twocountries. A Victorian Supreme Court
offered its court premises where the
Judicial Commission assembled. The lawsof Pakistan were made applicable. The
process of service was provided by theAustralians and it has been so reported in
the Age of Melbourne of 9 January, 1999:“A Mont Albert tram was rattling
and a seagull circled above as thejudge made his entrance. The High
Court of Lahore was in such session
as it can never have been before.
On one wall was the Victorian coatof arms. On the other hung a

114TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
portrait of Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
the founder of Pakistan, Judge
Abdul Salam Khawar invoked thename of “Almighty Allah” as hebegan. On his desk sat a small
Pakistan flag. Thus a few square
metres of Australia became, for a
moment, Pakistan.”
These proceedings are an eye opener forthe rest of the world. It clearly
demonstrates that in the near future there
is a possibility of courts of one country
travelling to another using theparaphrenalia of the host country,
including the law enforcing agencies in thehost country for effecting service andsummoning witnesses and documents,
proving these documents in accordancewith the law of ones own land by physicallydoing it in the host country and once theevidence is so collected and proven, to use
it in your own country against the person
charged with the offence. This could open
new frontiers in the trial of cases. Videotechnology is already a new frontier but isstill at its infancy stage. Statements of
witnesses are already being recorded via
video link and cross-examination is alsodone in the same manner but has limited
practice at the moment. In the near future,
I am sure this technology will be ineveryday use.
The nations of the world must unite to
make a solid commitment to enact the laws
on mutual assistance. There should be no
immunity to any one in respect of thecrimes committed in any part of the world.
In the recent past, in Rome, 120 states
adopted a statute for a PermanentInternational Criminal Court withjurisdiction over war crimes and crimes
against humanity - including thosecommitted in peace times. The role of theInternational Court of Justice and Interpol(International Criminal Police
Organisation) should be enhanced and thenations of the world should submit to its
jurisdiction through treaties or under theumbrella of the United Nations.
UNO should also strive to prepare acommon list of extraditable offences whichshould be accepted by all the nations of theworld. The mandatory grounds for refusal
to extradite an offender should be reduced
to the minimum. The new investigating
methods and technologies should be madeadmissible in evidence against the fugitive
offenders in the requested states. New
laws should be enacted for sharing theassets of an offender by the requesting andthe requested states.
Before concluding this paper, I would
like to propose that a International
Authority for Extradition must be
established under the control of U.N.O. andall the states should forward their requests
for extradition of their fugitive offenders
along with the necessary evidence to thesaid court which would decide the questionof extradition after hearing the fugitive as
well as representatives of the requested
states. The creation of an independent andimpartial International Authority for
deciding extradition cases is essential
because no state is under any legal
obligation to surrender a fugitive offenderin the absence of a specific treaty. There isno unanimity amongst the states on the
point of extradition or legal assistance on
the criminal 1aws of various countries
which are sharply divided on many crimes
as well as on the question of guilt of the
fugitive. Moreover, there is a historicalbasis for non-extradition of nationals as it
gives a sense of security and preference infavour of their own national jurisdiction.
Hence, in order to achieve international cooperation for the suppression oftransnational organized crime, statesshould accept the authority of aninternational body on extradition. This
body/authority should also be empowered

175

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 57
to grant compensation/import fines on astate in case a request for extradition of afugitive offender proves to be false, illegal
and based on political considerations alone.
In the end, Pakistan for its part would
be willing to cooperate with any
international move which advances thecause of suppressing transnationalorganized crime.

176