TNAG-2584-FCO40-3772-Extradition-agreements-between-Hong-Kong-and-Malaysia-1992 — Page 52

CURTDENTIAL

Blus Volume XXXX, K(19) '

X6 ((92)12

be unjust or oppressive on valid humanitarian grounds to return the fugitive. But we would only be able to use these provisions in exceptional cases and if we did we might be criticised by the reques: ng Party.

11

follows -

(a)

(b)

Arguments against the provision in paragraph S are as

:

it would make it difficult for us to avoid a similarly weak provision in any future ren iti a arrangement with Chi a. While it is doubtful whether we would in fact be able to obtain in a rendition arrangement a provision on the lines of Article 4 of the model extradition agreementip ragraph 4 above), acceptance of a weaker provision in an extradition agreement would certainly ride out all chance of doing so. It must be unlikely, in the case of such a provision being in a rendition arrangement, that China would in practice pay much attention to Hong Kong's representations. Since any rendition arrangement, difficult though this will be to achieve, is arguably more important to Hong Kong than extradition agreements with third countries, important as those are, we should not lightly compromise our position on the death penalty;

Members have advised in the context of mutual legal assistance that we should seek inclusion in all agreements of provisions allowing refusal of assistance in cases where the death penalty might be imposed but that this should not frustrate the conclusion of MLA agreements with Hong Kong's principal partners in the fight against international crime. Since. as Indicated, the delivery of a person is more significant than providing assistance it is arguable whether similar flexibility should be given to extradition negotiators;

Executive Cou