capressive or too great a punishment".
kis gives valuable guidance here
Lord Diplock's speech in
" 'Unjust' I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial itself, 'oppressive' as directed to hardship to the accused resulting from changes in the circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consi- deration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair". (at 782-3).
36.
It is suggested for consideration by governments that Clause 9 (3) be amended as follows
9 (3). The return of a fugitive offender, or his return before the expiry of a specified period, will be precluded by law if the competent judicial or executive authority is satisfied that by reason of
(a) the trivial nature of the case, or
(b) the accusation against the fugitive not having been made
in good faith or in the interests of justice, or (c) the passage of time since the commission of the offence,
(d)
or
any other facts of which there is evidence,
it would, having regard to all the circumstances under which the offence was committed, be unjust or oppressive or too severe a punishment to return the fugitive, or, the case may be, to return him before the expiry a period specified by that authority.
as
of
POLITICAL OFFENCES AND TERRORISM
37.
>
Before leaving Clause 9 it is desirable to revert to the question of political offences raised in the Discussion Paper. It was suggested there in a tentative way that, if there were a common mind among member countries tending in the direction of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977, steps could be taken to incorporate similar provisions in the amended Scheme. The observations so far received have been generally non-committal on this question.
38.
In international treaty practice the so-called "attentat clause". removing the assassination of a Head of State from the category of political offences, has made a frequent appearance.
>
89