Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
The responsible officer of government in the UK is the Home Secretary, who can of course take advice from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. They all have to follow the law, they aren't a law unto themselves. And no, Assange has no reason to be worried about heavier charges being added, it's all made up to rally the fanbois. The US can only apply to add lesser charges, not greater ones, and the charges must arise from the same facts. That is the whole point of the rule of specialty, which is fundamental to extradition law.
from article 18, an extradited person can be tried for:
Quote:
any offense for which the executive authority of the Requested
State waives the rule of specialty and thereby consents to the
person's detention, trial, or punishment. For the purpose of this
subparagraph:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/187784.pdf
Does the waiver of the rule of specialty have to be made before extradition or can it be done after extradition? And why would a country ever want to waive this rule? It just seems strange for there to be a clause that allows for what seems to (admittedly at a first glance by a layman) allow for the unilateral waiver of the rule of specialty by the executive branch. It's obviously a good and important principle of extradition law. But it can be waived by the executive branch of the country from which extradition is sought? Why is this waiver in place and under what circumstances is it used?
Thanks for talking about this btw, it's interesting.