TNAG-2582-FCO40-3770-Extradition-agreements-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-Netherlands-1992 — Page 6

3

STS 510/92

Article 2(1) (xiii)

English: "... uttering what is forged..."

Dutch: literally "... making use of what is forged

("... de gebruikmaking van vervalsingen...")

Could one

The Dutch seems wider in scope than the English.

perhaps say "... het in omloop brengen van vervalsingen..."?

Article 2(1)(xxi) and (xxii)

English: "... vessel... ships..."

Dutch: " ("... schip... schepen...")

We cannot tell whether there is any special reason for the

use of different words in the English. If so, one might suggest the use of "vaartuig" in item (xxi) of the Dutch, cf. the 1898 UK/Netherlands Treaty, Article II at (25) et

seq.

Article 2 (2)

English: "... carrying out a sentence..."

Dutch: "

•

de tenuitvoerlegging van een vonnis...

Cf. "straf" in Article 1 and Article 2(4). For consistency it would perhaps be preferable to use "straf" here as well.

Article 6(2)(b)

English: "that he might, if returned, be prejudiced..." Dutch: "that he, if returned, is prejudiced..." ("dat hij,

indien hij wordt teruggeleid, wordt benadeeld...")

It is for the departments concerned to decide whether the formal difference in wording could have any substantive effect. We might suggest the following alternative: "dat hij, indien hij wordt teruggeleid, kan worden

benadeeld...").

Article 7(d)

Dutch: spelling of "delinkwent".

Article 9(3)

Dutch: "interpol" should read "Interpol" (upper case).