Review

The article is devoted to the study of the theoretical aspects of issuing a person in a simplified manner. The institute of extradition (extradition) seeks to ensure the principle of inevitability of the punishment of those responsible for committing a socially dangerous act. It plays an important role in strengthening and developing the international cooperation of States in the field of criminal justice. On the basis of the analysis of international treaties, practices of the ECtHR and national legislation, the imperfection of the institution of simplified issuance procedure has been established. Cases that exclude the possibility of issuing a person in a simplified manner are not regulated sufficiently, which may be a source of violation of the rights of a person subject to a simplified extradition procedure.

The author identifies problems that require additional research. It is a question of the possibility of applying a simplified procedure for the extradition of persons from Ukraine, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person subject to extradition (extradition) is likely to use the death penalty.

Issuance in the presence of the risk of the use of the death penalty requires the establishment of additional circumstances and obtaining sufficient guarantees that the death penalty will not be enforced, which can not be carried out under the simplified procedure of issuing a person. In order to establish additional circumstances and obtain guarantees from the requesting State, it is expedient to conduct an extradition check. In the framework of such an examination it is expedient to evaluate the testimony given by the person subject to extradition in relation to the circumstances of the crime and also to analyze the circumstances of the criminal proceedings and the degree of proof of the fault of the person to be extradited. It is advisable to establish the existence of mitigating circumstances that are perceived as such in a country subject to extradition. In order to verify such circumstances, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of materials not only provided by the requesting party, but also to request the necessary additional materials, which excludes the possibility of applying a simplified procedure for the issue of persons from Ukraine. It is necessary to determine the foreseeable consequences of issuing a person to the requesting party, taking into account the general situation in this country and the circumstances of the particular case. In order to analyze the situation in the country, the ECHR recommends analyzing the information contained in the latest reports of such independent international human rights associations as Amnesty International or obtained from government sources. The compatibility of the extradition procedure with the guarantees of a fair trial must be verified.

Based on the analysis of international treaties, practices of the ECtHR and national legislation on cases that exclude the possibility of issuing a person in a simplified manner, it is proposed to expand the list of circumstances that exclude the possibility of extradition (extradition) in a simplified manner.

References

1. 1. Zagalna deklaratsIya prav lyudini [The Universal Declaration of Human Rights] MIzhnorodniy dokument № 995_015 [the Ministerial Paper] vId 10.12.1948. data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
2. DeklaratsIya pro zahist usIh osIb vId katuvan ta Inshih zhorstokih, nelyudskih abo takih, scho prinizhuyut gIdnIst, vidIv povodzhennya I pokarannya [Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] vId 09.12.1975 r. MIzhnorodniy dokument № 995_084 [the Ministerial Paper] data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
3. KonventsIya OON proti katuvan ta Inshih zhorstokih, nelyudskih abo takih, scho prinizhuyut gIdnIst, vidIv povodzhennya I pokarannya [UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] 1984 r. MIzhnarodniy dokument № 995_085 [the Ministerial Paper] data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
4. KonventsIya pro zahist prav lyudini I osnovopolozhnih svobod [The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] vId 04 listopada 1950 r. MIzhnorodniy document [the Ministerial Paper] # 995_004. Potochna redaktsIya vId 02.10.2013 r. data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
5. Pro ratifIkatsIyu EvropeyskoYi konventsIYi pro vidachu pravoporushnikIv [On Ratification of the European Convention on the Extradition of Offenders], 1957 r., Dodatkovogo Protokolu 1975 r. ta Drugogo dodatkovogo protokolu 1978 r. do KonventsIYi. Zakon UkraYini vId 16 sIchnya 1998 r. № 43/98–VR. Verhovna Rada UkraYini data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
6. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «SorIng proti Spoluchenogo KorolIvstva» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of Sorin v. The United Kingdom] vId 7.07.1989 r. (Zayava № 14038/88) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
7. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «Koktish proti UkraYini» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of Koktysh v. Ukraine] vId 10.03.2010 r. (Zayava № 43707/07) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
8. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «Odzhalan proti Turechchini» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of Ocalan v. Turkey] vId 12.05.2005 r. (Zayava № 46221/99) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
9. 1 Рішення Європейського суду з прав людини у справі «Чагал проти Сполученого Королівства» від 15 листопада 1996 року. Заява № 22414/93 дата звернення 08.10.2018.
10. 2 Рішення Європейського суду з прав людини у справі «Брумареску проти Румунії» від 28.101999 (Заява
11. № 28342/95) дата звернення 08.10.2018.
12. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «SaadI proti ItalIYi» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of Saadi v. Italy] vId 28.02.2008 r. (Zayava № 37201/06) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
13. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «Brumaresku proti RumunIYi» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of Brovarescu v. Romania] vId 28.10.1999 r. (Zayava № 28342/95) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
14. RIshennya Evropeyskogo sudu z prav lyudini u spravI «Chagal proti Spoluchenogo KorolIvstva» [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in сase of «Chagal v. The United Kingdom»] vId 15.11.1996
15. r. (Zayava № 22414/93) accessed 08.11.2018 (in English).
16. Uhvala Malinovskogo rayonnogo sudu m. Odesi [The Court decision of the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa] vId 14.02.2018 r. (Sprava 521/1343/18-k) Provadzhennya: 1-m/521/20/18. Ediniy derzhavniy reEstr sudovih rIshen. data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
17. Uhvala TernIvskogo rayonnogo sudu m. Krivogo Rogu [The Court decision of the Terniv district court of Kryvyi Rih] vId 02.02.2018 r. (Sprava № 215/408/18) Provadzhennya # 1-ks/215/37/18. Ediniy derzhavniy reEstr sudovih rIshen. data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
18. Uhvala Zhovtnevogo rayonnogo sudu m. Harkova [The Court decision of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv] vId 12.07.2018 r. (Sprava № 639/3610/18) Provadzhennya # 1-ks/639/1660/18. Ediniy derzhavniy reEstr sudovih rIshen. data zvernennia 08.11.2018 (in Ukrainian).
19. Bandurka O., Operativno-rozshukova dIyalnIst. Chastina I [Operational-search activity. Part I] (HarkIv, Vid-vo Nac. un-tu vnutr. Sprav 2002 (in Ukrainian).
20. Fritskiy O, KonstitutsIyne pravo UkraYini [Constitutional Law of Ukraine] (KiYiv, Yurinkom Inter 2004) (in Ukrainian).
21. Loboyko L M, KrimInalno-protsesualne pravo: kurs lektsIy [Criminal-procedural law: a course of lectures] (KiYiv, Istina 2005) (in Ukrainian)
22. PosIbnik z provedennya kampanIy Amnesty International. Copyright Amnesty International [Amnesty International Campaign Guide. Copyright Amnesty International] Mova origInalu: anglIyska. Pereklad D. Kopilov. (in Ukrainian)
23. Antonyuk A, ’Sproscheniy poryadok vidachI (ekstraditsIYi) osobi zapituyuchIy derzhavI’ [Simplified procedure for extradition (extradition) of the person requesting the state] (2016) 1 (3) MIzhnarodniy yuridichniy vIsnik: zbIrnik naukovih prats NatsIonalnogo unIversitetu derzhavnoYi podatkovoYi sluzhbi UkraYini (in Ukrainian).
24. Tomin S, ’PIdstavi ta umovi rozglyadu obvinuvalnogo akta u sproschenomu provadzhennI’ [The reasons and conditions for considering an indictment in simplified proceedings] (2014) 1 (4) Prikarpatskiy yuridichniy vIsnik 291–302. (in Ukrainian).
25. Frich V, ’VIdmova v ekstraditsIYi osobi InshIy derzhavI’ [Refusal to extradite a person to another state] (2014. Vipusk 6–1. Tom 4) Naukoviy vIsnik Hersonskogo derzhavnogo unIversitetu (in Ukrainian).
26. Tatarov O Yu, ’EkstraditsIya: deyakI problemi teorIYi I praktiki’ [Extradition: some problems of theory and practice] (2011) 4 Naukoviy vIsnik LvIvskogo derzhavnogo unIversitetu vnutrIshnI.h sprav (in Ukrainian).
27. MaksimIv L, ’PerevIrka obstavin, scho mozhut pereshkodzhati vidachI osobi (ekstraditsIyna perevIrka): deyakI problemnI aspekti’ [Examination of the circumstances that may hinder the issuance of a person (extradition check): some problematic aspects] (2013) 4 Naukoviy vIsnik LvIvskogo derzhavnogo unIversitetu vnutrIshnIh sprav (in Ukrainian).
28. KushnIr I, ’EkstraditsIya u svItlI KonventsIYi pro zahist prav I osnovopolozhnih svobod’ [Extradition in the light of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] (2006) 5 Yuridichniy zhurnal (in Ukrainian).
29. Veselov M, Morgun N, Kaptur O, ’Smertna kara yak viklyuchna mIra pokarannya’ [Death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment] (2016) Vipusk 4(13) Prikarpatskiy yuridichniy vIsnik (in Ukranian).