The federal structure of some countries, such as the United States, may pose particular problems in terms of extradition if police violence and the power of foreign relations are maintained at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For example, in the United States, most prosecutions take place at the state level and most foreign relations take place at the federal level. In fact, under the U.S. Constitution, foreign countries cannot have formal contractual relationships with subnational entities such as individual states; rather, they can only maintain contractual relationships with the federal government. Accordingly, a State wishing to prosecute a person in a foreign territory must submit its extradition request through the federal Government, which will negotiate extradition with the requested State. However, due to the constraints of federalism, all extradition conditions accepted by the Federal Government – such as. B, the non-imposition of the death penalty – is not binding on the Länder. In Söring v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom was not allowed to extradite a person to the United States under its contractual obligations because the United States Federal Government was unable to give binding assurances that the death penalty would not be applied in the courts of Virginia.
In the end, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to give assurances to the federal government, which passed on those assurances to the UK, which extradited the person to the US. The first of these, the privileges and immunity clause, stipulates that the citizens of each State must enjoy the “privileges and immunities of citizens” in the other States. Conversely, when the intergovernmental traveller flees the criminal justice system, the second provision – the extradition clause – requires the forcible transfer of the person to the State where the alleged crime took place. Finally, the fugitive slave clause (now obsolete) extended this forced transfer rule to intergovernmental refugees from slavery, i.e. refugees from injustice. By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they can process or refuse extradition requests. Respect for fundamental human rights is also an important reason for the rejection of certain extradition requests. It is common for exceptions to human rights to be explicitly included in bilateral treaties.  Such suspensions may be invoked in relation to the person`s treatment in the host country, including trial and conviction. These prohibitions may also extend to take into account the impact on the person`s family if extradition continues. Therefore, the human rights recognized in international and regional agreements can serve as a basis for rejecting extradition requests. However, cases where extradition is refused should be treated as independent exceptions and occur only in exceptional circumstances.
 States Parties shall assist each other in the investigation, prosecution and proceeding of crimes for which the requesting State has jurisdiction at the time of the request for assistance. States are generally not allowed to deal with the underlying charge underlying an extradition request when deciding on extradition. ==References=====External links===The Constitution (Sixth Amendment) requires that the accused be “informed of the nature and reason for the indictment.” This means that States inform the fugitive of the following: the decision whether or not to authorize extradition by the requested State constitutes, inter alia, an exercise in balance between the interests of the requesting State with regard to the prosecution of prosecuted persons and the interests of the requested State in maintaining control over persons currently in its territory; and the rights of the persons delivered.  Extradition raises human rights concerns in determining this balance with respect to the extradited person. States provide for the recognition of these rights, both in bilateral agreements and through the State`s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is particularly relevant for extradition.  Although regional, the European Convention on Human Rights has also been invoked as an obstacle to extradition in a number of cases within its jurisdiction, and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have been a useful source of development in this area. If the refugee refuses to waive extradition, the State of origin shall prepare a request for the repatriation of the refugee. Extradition requests are made by the governor`s office from state to state. If the request is approved by both governors, an extradition hearing will be held and a state court with the refugee will make the decision to grant or refuse extradition. If the requested State is unable to comply with a request for assistance, it shall return the request to the requesting State, stating the reason.
Human rights as an obstacle to extradition may be invoked with regard to the treatment of the person in the host country, including his or her trial and conviction, as well as the impact on the person`s family if extradition is authorized. The repressive nature and restrictions on the freedoms imposed on a person are part of the extradition procedure and the reason for these exceptions and the importance of respect for human rights in extradition proceedings. Therefore, human rights protected by international and regional agreements can serve as a basis for rejecting extradition requests, but only as independent exceptions.  While human rights concerns may contribute to the complexity of extradition cases, they are positive as they contribute to the legitimacy and institutionalization of the extradition system.  Extradition is the formal procedure by which a state extradites a person to another state for prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in the territory of the requesting country. This is usually made possible by a bilateral or multilateral treaty. Some States will extradite without a treaty, but these cases are rare. Today, the Uniform Extradition Act has been passed in 48 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (but not Mississippi and South Carolina). The extradition clause covers “treason, crime or other crimes”, and the Supreme Court has interpreted crimes for which a person is extraditable to include any offence punishable under the law of the State where the offence was committed.
It is not necessary that the defendant deliberately fled to avoid prosecution, but only that the person actually fled justice. Article IV, section 2, also provides for the return of persons accused of a criminal offence to one State and who have fled to another State, with only minor changes in the wording of the articles. The extradition clause provided that “the executive authority of the State from which he had fled” was to require the transfer of the fugitive, so that a copy of the indictment or affidavit certified by the governor was required for extradition. However, since the provision was not self-enforced, legislation was needed to bring it into force. This became evident when Virginia refused to “extradite” three refugees to Pennsylvania in court, which had been accused of abducting a free black man, John Davis, just a year after the Constitution was passed. This controversy led Congress to include an extradition clause in the so-called Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The wording of that law corresponded to that of article IV, section 2, but stated that it was the “duty of the executive authority” to respond to a request for extradition […].