<< Back to The Issues <<

Excerpts from October, 2001
SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO DECISION
RE EXTRADITION

THESIS No. XIX/2001

EXTRADITION.  IT CONSISTS IN THE SURRENDER OF AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE REQUESTED STATE TO THE REQUIRING STATE, BUT BEING AN EXCEPTIONAL ACT RELATED TO ITS SOVEREIGNTY, THE REQUEST MAY BE VALIDLY REJECTED IF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED ARE NOT MET.  Extradition is the act by which a State surrenders an individual located within its territory to another State, who is claimed because he/she is considered either a suspect, prosecuted or convicted because of the commission of a crime, in order for this person to be submitted to trial or serve a sentence.  Therefore, extradition constitutes an exceptional case regarding the sovereignty of the requested State and for this reason the request is subject to agreed, legal or constitutional requirements that shall be accomplished; thus, the mere fact that a (requiring) State make the respective request to another State (required), is not enough for that individual to be surrendered because such request may or may not be conducted by the required State, based on the accomplishment of the legal or constitutional provisions, or following the commitments agreed upon in the relevant international treaties and covenants.  The above is because the extradition is considered a sovereignty act based on the principle of reciprocity, according to which, in both countries the perpetrated conduct shall be regarded as a crime, not to be released as a result of statue of limitations, and likewise shall have assigned a penalty that does not infringe individual rights, and if those requirements are not met, the request may be rejected by the requested State.

 SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO

 JURISPRUDENCE No. 125/2001

EXTRADITION.  THE PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS AN UNUSUAL PENALTY PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 22 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, AND FOR THIS REASON, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CONDUCTED, THE REQUIRING STATE MUST MAKE A COMMITMENT NOT TO ENFORCE IT OR TO IMPOSE A LESS SEVERE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW.  In accordance with Article 10, paragraph V, of the International Extradition Law, if the offense by which the extradition is requested in punishable with death penalty or by one of those prohibited by Article 22 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in accordance with the legislation of the requiring party, the extradition may be refused, unless this party provides enough assurances that death penalty shall not be imposed, or if it is imposed, it shall not be executed.  Under this conditions, being the penalty of life imprisonment an unusual penalty prohibited by Article 22, because it falls apart of the essential end pursued by the penalty, which consists in the offender readjustment in order to incorporate him/her to society, it is out of doubt that the requiring State must make a commitment not to enforce the penalty of life imprisonment, but to impose another less severe sanction.

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO

JURISPRUDENCE No. 127/2001

LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  CONSTITUTES AN UNUSUAL PENALTY OF THOSE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  According to the constitutional definition, if by unusual penalty it is understood that penalty which has been abolished for being inhumane, cruel, defamatory and excessive or because it does not meet the punishing ends pursued by the penalty, it must be concluded that life imprisonment or life sentence penalty is unusual, and thus, prohibited by Article 22 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, because under the Mexican legislation, the imprisonment punishment has always had a determined limit considering life imprisonment as inhumane, cruel, defamatory and excessive and that it falls apart of the essential end pursued by the penalty established in article 18 of the same law, consisting in the social readjustment of the offender.  In fact, the end pursued by the penalty has evolved through time because in the beginning it appears as a private revenge, where the victim imposed the punishment according to the seriousness of the damage caused; afterwards, it was seen as a divine revenge, since the crime was considered as an offense made to divinity; besides under Greek law it was consider as intimidatory; according to Roman law it constituted a public reaction depending on the offense; in Germany during the scientific stage, it was considered that the end pursued by the penalty was a psychological coercion, giving birth to the general prevention theory; for the Classic school, penalty tends to preserve the legal order; for the Positivism the end pursued by the penalty is considered as a social defense mean; for the Absolutist doctrine it responds to the idea of absolute justice, this means, that good deserves good and evil deserves evil; for the Relativist doctrine it is the tool to guarantee life within society; the eclectic doctrine proposes public penalty may have the following goals: to reform the offender, to be an example to be followed, to be intimidatory, corrective, eliminating and fair.  Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in Article 18, second paragraph, after analyzing the drafts, opinions and arguments of the amendments made, the end pursued by the penalty itself and the guarantee to the convicted has always being the social readjustment of the offender based on labor, training and education as means to reach this goal; therefore, if life sentence or life imprisonment under the Mexican legislation is not provided and punished as a penalty, because it is considered as an unusual penalty, it is obvious that it is against the ultimate end pursued by the penalty itself, consisting in the readjustment of the offender in order to be incorporated to the society, and thus, it is unconstitutional.

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO

JURISPRUDENCE No. 126/2001

UNUSUAL PENALTY.  ITS CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING.  In Accordance with Article 22 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, the term unusual related to a penalty does not exactly correspond to the grammatical meaning of that adjective, which means something that has not been used, because it could not be conceived that the Constituent would have pretended to prohibit, besides the penalties provided by the referred Article 22, the enforcement of all those penalties not previously recurred; to grammatically interpret the concept, would be as much as accepting that such provision constitutes an obstacle for the progress of the criminal science, since any innovation in the way of sanctioning crimes would involve the enforcement of an unusual penalty.  Therefore, by “unusual penalty”, in its constitutional meaning, must be understood that penalty which has been abolished because it is inhumane, cruel, defamatory and excessive or because it does not correspond to the ultimate ends pursued by the penalty.

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO

THESIS No. XX/2001

EXTRADITION.  IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE EXTRADITED PERSON TO BE BENEFITED BY THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS RECOGNIZED BY THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES.  When the Constitution, in its Article 1, first paragraph, establishes that every individual shall be benefited by the individual rights recognized in its provisions, it does not make any distinction regarding who shall be the entitled, consignees or beneficiaries by such guarantees, and it does not even distinguish if that individual is a suspect, prosecuted or convicted for the commission of a crime.  Therefore, any individual requested in extradition shall be benefited by such human rights provided by the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF MEXICO

THESIS No. XVIII/2001

EXTRADITION.  THE CONDITION PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH V OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION LAW HAS AN ADJECTIVE NATURE, AND THUS, IT MUST BE DEMANDED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A REQUEST MADE BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BECAUSE ARTICLE 13 OF THE RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION TREATY SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO SUCH LAW.  Article 10, paragraph V, of the International Extradition Law, provides the cases and conditions under which the requiring State must make a commitment with the Mexican State in order to conduct an extradition request; under such circumstances it is clear that the referred condition has an adjective nature because it is part of the ruling of the process provided in such law, to conduct the extradition requests, and for this reason it must be enforced by the empowered authorities, even in the case when the Mexican State has agreed an extradition Treaty with the United States of America.  The above, because Article 13 of the International Treaty agreed upon between the United Mexican States and the United States of America specifically refers to the requested party legislation, particularly to the International Extradition Law.

For more information, see our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
© 2004 - 2010 Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. All Rights Reserved.