Roman Polanski case highlights the global politics of extradition

By Katherine Dunn, International News Services

The travails of Roman Polanski in Switzerland this autumn have offered some lessons to the world’s wanted over extradition laws and how to deal with them. The Polish director has of course been living in France, with little fear of extradition, since 1978, when he fled the USA facing statutory rape charges. Only now of course this autumn was he arrested on an American warrant on a visit to Switzerland, while movie stars and directors crowed for his release.

Now, he is out on bail, secured with the help of French president Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, who intervened on Polanski’s behalf. 

As Polanski languishes in Alpine house arrest in a luxury Swiss chalet, it’s clear that extradition is still, at base, a political decision – and to avoid it, one key is not supporting international causes unpopular with powerful governments.

Extradition agreements are generally bilateral agreements. Most, including the European Convention on Extradition, say states are obligated to return those wanted for an offence in their home country, provided the criminality of the act is recognised in both nations. But this Council of Europe treaty does not allow for extradition if the offence is deemed to be “political.”

The question, then, is what is considered to be a political offence?

Of course the answer to this varies. In Canada, for instance, such decisions typically lie with its Immigration and Citizenship ministry. The country’s domestic courts have a relatively narrow mandate, and so do not often delve into routine issues of extradition and deportation.

In Europe, the European Arrest Warrant puts this decision under national judicial authority, not, allegedly, political authority.

But the September 11 attacks and the resulting increase in concern about terrorism has made the situation even more volatile – who is a terrorist, and thus a legitimate danger to public safety, versus a refugee fleeing their home country due to charges of political dissent?

The answers are not so cut and dry. Most countries keep a list of recognised terrorist organisations – and the inclusion of many groups on the list is often contested by portions of the population. As a result, these lists often have differing memberships: the Tamil Tigers are a good example, which Canada – for instance – only labelled as a terror group in 2008. Another hot potato is Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah – regarded as a terror group by some, but not others. Association with these groups could prompt extradition, so the decision to extradite someone for being associated with certain groups is also a political decision.

Sri Lankan boats arriving off the coasts of Canada and Australia in October were turned around, citing that many on board had connections to the Tamil Tigers.

Another issue is the punishment that could be meted out to an extradited individual. Where a government views their potential fate as being cruel or unusual, they may halt extradition. The European Union (EU) has secured a deal with the US to ensure the death penalty is not used on those extradited by its member states.

These moral questions come up again and again. Spain has asked Ireland to extradite Basque ‘terrorists’; Algeria has sought Mustapha Labsi’s extradition from Slovakia as an alleged Al Qaeda member (he has a Slovakian wife); and the US is seeking extradition for a British hacker Gary McKinnon, who wormed his way digitally into the US Army computer system.

The odds are that extraditions may well be the fate of these individuals. Polanski’s lucky – he’s a French director with a crop of wealthy and influential friends to bemoan human rights abuses. Most Sri Lankan refugees, whether part of the Tamils Tigers or not, do not have that luxury. 

Photo credit: Film Servis Festival Karlovy Vary