1935- Part v. Limitations Upon the Requesting State

8/12/2019 1935- Part v. Limitations Upon the Requesting State

1/7

ARTICLE 23ratifies this Convention, it makes itself party to a policy of allowing a choiceto other signatories on this subject, and so should not be heard to insist thatit will not permit a political or military refugee to be transported through itsterritory. It is true that there may be occasions when transportation of anational, or of a political or military refugee through the territory of a Statemight threaten violence because of a strong public opinion. It is believedthat this situation can be taken care of as the result of the requirement fornotice of a desire to transport an extradited person through the territoryof a State, for under the circumstances suggested the notified State would re-quest that another route be arranged and this would naturally be done.

There are found no provisions in the multipartite conventions as to theexpenses involved in the transportation of the extradited person through theterritory of a third State. All treaties providing for transit stipulate thatexpenses connected with the transit shall be borne by the State to whichthe person is extradited. This seems a reasonable provision, as the State oftransit, not taking any active part in extradition, should not be obliged toshare any expense resulting from it.

PART V. LIMITATIONS UPON THE REQUESTING STATEARTICLE 23. TRIAL PUNISHMENT AND SURRENDER

OF EXTRADITED PERSON1) A State to which a person has been extradited shall not without the

consent of the State which extradited such person:(a) Prosecute or punish such person for any act committed prior to

his extradition, other than that for which he was extradited;b) Surrender such person to another State for prosecution orpunishment;

COMMENTParagraph 1) of this article imposes a twofold limitation upon the re-

questing State s freedom of action: First, the requesting State, having ob-tained the extradition of the person sought may not, without the consent ofthe surrendering State, either try or punish such person for any act com-mitted prior to his extradition, other than that on which the request wasbased. This limitation does not apply to acts committed by such a personafter his surrender. Second, such person may not, without the consent ofthe surrendering State, be re-extradited to a third State.

The limitation placed upon the requesting State that it may try and pun-ish an extradited person only for the act for which extradition is obtained, isrecognized in the international law of extradition as the doctrine of spe-cialty.1 Many national extradition statutes condition extradition on a

1 See Moore, Extradition 1891), I,148-177, pp. 194-259, and authorities there cited;Billot, Trait de I Extradilion 1874), pp. 308-317, 341-346. See also the Resolutions of Ox-ford (Iiistitutde DroitIrdernatioral),Art. 22, Appendix IV, No. 2, declaring th t a govern-ment which obtains extradition for a specific act s bound, in the absence of a treaty to thecontrary, not to allow the surrendered person to be tried or punished except for th t act.

HeinOnline -- 29 Am. J. Int'l L. Sup 213 1935


2/7

EXTRADITIONguarantee by treaty or municipal law of the requesting State) that thesurrendered person will not be tried for any other act than that for which hewas extradited.1 The rule on this point, enunciated in the text, is generallyaccepted as implied, when it is not stated,2 and is scrupulously observed inpractice even in the absence of any treaty.3 Existing treaty-law amply sup-ports the provision contained in paragraph 1) (a) of this article, as is shownby the conventions, drafts and bipartite treaties in the appendices. 4 Al-though the phraseology varies widely, the universal practice is to providethat the surrendered person may not be tried or punished for an offensecommitted prior to extradition, other than that for which he is extradited.Moreover, the majority of treaties provide expressly that the person sur-rendered may be tried or punished for another offense if the surrenderingState consents thereto.5

A number of treaties provide that the surrendering State may not refuseits consent if the offense, other than that for which extradition was granted,would be extraditable under the treaty.6 The number of treaties 13) con-taining such a proviso is small, and those treaties affect a comparativelynarrow circle of nations (to eight out of these 13 treaties Czechoslovalda is aparty). The inclusion of such a proviso in this article does not appear ad-visable. It seems preferable to leave it to the discretion of the surrenderingState to grant or withhold its consent, rather than to impose on it an absoluteduty. It may reasonably be assumed that the surrendering State, guidedby a spirit of international cooperation in the repression of crime, will notwithhold its consent if the offense would be extraditable under this Con-vention. The surrendering State would have little interest in impeding the

1E.g. references are to Appendix VI): Canada, 33, No. 4; France, Art. 7, No. 6; Ger-many, Art. 6, No. 7; Great Britain, 2), No. 8; Italy, Code of Criminal Procedure Art.661, No. 10; Switzerland, Art. 7, No. 13. United States v. Raucher 1889), 119 U. S. 407.3 Thus the German Supreme Court allowed an appeal from the conviction for the unlawfulexport of horses when the person was surrendered, without a treaty, by Czechoslovakia forlarceny and theft. Reichsgericht decision of April 4, 1921. Entscheidungen des Reichs-gerichts n Strafsachen 55 284; Annual Digest of Public InternationalLaw Cases 1919-1922,p. 259, Case 182. 4Appendices I IV, V.The following treaties do not provide for trial and punishment with the consent of thesurrendering State for offenses other than that for which extradition is granted (referencesare to Appendix I): The treaties of the United States with: Siam, No. 7; Venezuela, No. 13;Latvia, No. 14; Estonia, No. 15; Finland, No. 23; Bulgaria, No. 24; Lithuania, No. 26;Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Poland, No. 57.- It should be noted, however, that consent of thesurrendering State is provided for in the treaties of the United States with Germany, Art.5 No. 70; and with Austria, Art. 4, No. 71); the treaties of Great Britain with: Latvia, No.20; Finland, No. 25; Czechoslovakia, No. 26; Estonia, No. 30; Lithuania, No. 46; Al-

bania, No. 47; Iraq, No. 93; Brazil-Paraguay, No. 8; Latvia-Denmark No. 79. See alsothe South American Convention of 1911 Appendix III, No. 4; Field's ode, Appendix IVNo. 1; International Law Association Draft, Appendix IV, No. 5; International Penal andPrison Commission Draft, Appendix IV, No. 6; the extradition statutes of Canada, Appen-dix VI, No. 4, and of Great Britain, Appendix VI, No. 8.6 (References are to Appendix I): Finland-Latvia, Art. 8 No. 21; Rumania-Czechoslo-vakia, Art. 12 No. 36; sonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia,Art. 13, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakla, Art. 13 ,No. 50; Spain-dzechoslovakia, Art. 14 No 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14 No. 52;Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 6 No. 61; Bulgaria- reece, Art. 13, No. 62; Bulgaria-Spain, Art.14, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 14, No. 74; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12, No. 89 .



3/7

ARTICLE 3course of justice by insisting on another extradition proceeding with all thetime and expense involved.

Another exception to the limitation imposed on the requesting State iscontained in a proviso to a number of the treaties that the person surrenderedmay be tried or punished for an offense other than that for which he wasextradited, if he freely and voluntarily consents thereto, or if he himself re-quests to be brought to trial for such other offense. A few treaties put theproviso in the form that the consent of the surrendering State is not neces-sary if the surrendered person thus agrees to be tried for an offense otherthan that for which he was extradited,2 although, in some cases, a notice tothe surrendering State is required.3

The inclusion of such a provision in this article was deemed inadvisablefor several reasons. First, this Convention seeks to regulate the reciprocalrights and duties of States in their relations with each other, and it does notseem appropriate to cause the exercise of such a right or the observance ofsuch a duty to depend upon the will of an individual. Second, the practicalworking of such a provision is open to question. The rule of specialty wasdesigned to safeguard the interests of the individuals concerned, as well asthose of the requested State, by limiting trial and punishment to the par-ticular act or acts for which extradition was granted. While a person isbeing detained by a State by reason of extradition, it is difficult to be surethat he really acts freely and voluntarily in consenting to be tried for a differ-ent crime from that stated in the requisition. It can hardly be assertedthat such a proviso would generally be desired in a multipartite conventionin view of the fact that the great majority of treaties and draft conventionsand a number of the national extradition statutes do not recognize the sur-rendered person s consent as an exception to the rule of specialty.4The limitation provided for in paragraph 1 (b) of this article is also veryI (References are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 6, No. 17; Finland-Denmark, Art.8, No. 18; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 6 No. 19; France-Poland, Art. 5, No. 32; Austria-Norway, Art. 6, No. 34; Finland-Norway, Art. 6, No. 35; Belgium-Paraguay Art. 4, No .40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 5, No. 41; France-San Marino, Art. 3 No. 43; Liberia-Monaco,Art. 4, No. 48; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 53; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 5, No. 56;Belgium-Finland, Art. 5, No. 58; Bulgaria-Turkey Art. 12, No. 65; Turkey-Czechoslovakia,Art. 16, No. 69; Austria-Sweden, Art. 7, No. 72; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 8, No. 77; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 7, No. 80; Belgium-Poland, Art. 13, No. 85; Belgium-Austria, Art. 10, No 90;Iraq-Turkey, Art. 13, No. 91. Similar provisions can be found in some of the nationalextradition statutes, see e.g., Sweden, Art. 11, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 7,Appendix VI, No. 13. The only exception to the rule of specialty provided for in theMontevideo Convention of 1934, is the express consent of the surrendered person, Art. 17(a), Appendix III, No. 6.2 (References are to Appendix I): Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 6, No. 19; Bulgaria-RumaniaArt. 5 No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 4, No. 27; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 4, No. 48; Colom-bia-Panama, Art. 9, No. 54; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 11, No. 63; Bulgaria-Turkey Art. 12,No. 65; Austria-Belgium, Art. 10, No. 90; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 13, No. 91. To the same effectsee the Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 7; the extraditionstatutes of Sweden, Art. 11, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 7, Appendix VI, No. 13.But cf Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 15, Appendix I, No. 69, which requires the consent ofthe surrendering State in spite of the agreement of the extradited person. E.g. Iraq-Turkey, Art. 13, Appendix I, No. 91; also in several of the treaties enumeratedin footnote 1.4No such provision is contained in any of the treaties of the United States or Great Brit-



4/7

EXTRADITIONgenerally accepted and is supported by existing treaty and statute law,although a fairly large number of treaties, draft conventions and severalstatutes do not contain provision prohibiting re-extradition without theconsent of the surrendering State. The tendency is however, decidedlytoward the inclusion of such a provision as shown especially by the fact thatsince 1920 the number of treaties failing to provide for this contingencysteadily decreased. With this additional safeguard to the interests of therequested State and of the individual concerned, there should be less reluc-tance to extradite fugitives from justice, and thus this provision shouldfurther the general purpose of this Convention. It may be pointed out that,in most of the treaties, re-extradition and the rule of specialty are dealtwith together, and are usually made subject to the same conditions andaim. See references are to Appendix I) the treaties of the United States with: Siam, No .7; Venezuela No. 13; Latvia, No. 14; Estonia, No. 15; Finland, No. 23; Bulgaria No. 24;Lithuania, No. 26; Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Poland, No. 57; Germany, go. 70; Austria, No .71; Greece, No. 84; the treaties of Great Britain with: Latvia, No. 20; Finfand No. 25;Czechoslovakia, No. 28; Estonia, No. 30; Lithuania, No. 46; Albania, No. 47; Iraq, No. 83;also the following bipartite treaties: Greece-Austria-Hungary, No. 1; Germany-Greece, No .2; Chile-Colombia, No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, No. 5; Latvia-Lithu-ania No. 6; Brazil-Paraguay, No. 8; Italy-Yugoslavia No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, No .12; Finland-Latvia, No. 21; Germany-Czechoslovakia, No. 24; France-Latvia, No. 29;Estonia-Finland, No. 33; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, No .37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Belgium-Latvia, No .42; Austria-Estonia, No. 45; Albania-Greece, No. 49; Greece-Czechoslovalda, No. 50;Spain-Czechoslovakia, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, No. 52; Latvia-Norway, No. 55;Austria-Finland, No. 59; France-Czechoslovakia, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia No 61;Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Latvia-Hungary, No. 64; Finland-Italy, No. 66; Italy-Venezuela,No. 67; Latvia-Netherlands, No. 68; Bulgaria-Spain, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, No. 74; Ger-many-Turkey, No. 75; Estonia-Norway, No. 76; Tatvia-Sweden No. 78; Latvia-Denmark,No. 79; Poland-Sweden, No. 81; Italy-Panama, No. 82; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, No. 83;Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, No. 86; Italy-Brazil, No. 87; Sweden-Czechoslovakia, No. 88,Denmark-Czechoslovakia, No. 89; Austria-Latvia, No. 92; Finland-Netherlands, No. 95.See to the same effect the Caracas Convention, Appendix III, No. 4; the following draftconventions references are to Appendix IV): Field s Code, No. 1; Oxford Resolutions, No .2; International Law Association, No. 5; International Penal andPrison Commission No .6; the following extradition statutes references are to Appendix VI): Canada, No. 4;France, No. 6; Germany No. 7; Great Britain, No. 8; Italy, No. 10. It may be noted thatTraver s Projet Art. 12, Appendix IV, No. 4, expressly excludes consent of the surrenderedperson as an exception to the rule of specialty.E g references are to Appendix I : the treaties of the United States with: Siam No. 7;Venezuela, No. 13; Latvia, No. 14; Estonia, No. 15; Finland, No. 23; Bulgaria ko 24;Lithuania, No. 26; Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Austria, No. 71; Greece, No. 84; (but there isprovision for re-extradition with the consent of the surrendering State in the treaty withGermany, Art. 5, No. 70); the treaties of Great Britain with: Latvia, No. 20; Finland, No .25; Czechoslovakia, No. 28; Estonia, No. 30; Lithuania, No. 46; Albania, No. 47; Iraq, No.93; Greece-Austria-Hungary, No. 1; Brazil-Paraguay, No. 8; Italy-Yugoslavia No. 10;Italy-Czechoslovakia, No. 12; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, No. 16; France-San Marino, No. 43;Albania-Yugoslavia, No. 44; Albania-Greece, No. 49- Italy-Venezuela, No. 67; Italy-Pan-ama, No. 81; See to the same effect the Bustamante Code, Appendix III, No. 5; the Monte-video Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; Field s Code, Appendix IV, No. 1; TheDraft of the International Law Association, Appendix IV, No. 5; also the following statutesreferences are to Appendix VI): Canada No. 4; Great Britain, No. 8; Italy, No. 10.It is interesting that in UnitedStates ex rel.Donnellyv. Mulligan 1934), 74 F. 2d), 220,the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States-French treaty, which expresslyforbade the trying of an extradited person for a different crime from that for which he wasextradited, but which said nothing about re-extradition by implication prohibited re-ex-tradition since the person claimed was extradited only to be tried for the crime specified.Donnelly was therefore discharged. However, permission for his re-extradition was ob -tained from France, and his extradition was then upheld. United States ex rel. Donnellyv. Mulligan U. S. Cir. Ct. of App., April 1 1935.) See Note in ornell Law QuarterlyforApril, 1935.



5/7

ARTICLE 23exceptions. Therefore, what has been said of the exceptions to therule of specialty (consent of the surrendering State, consent of the surren-dered person) is equally applicable to the exception to the rule against re-extradition.

[ 1) A State to which a person has been extradited shall not, without theconsent of the State which extradited such person:](c) Prosecute such person before a court specially constituted for

the trial, or to which special powers are granted for the tri lCOMMENT

The purpose of this paragraph is to prevent the subjection of the ex -tradited person to a trial before a special court called only for that occasion,or before a court granted special powers for that occasion, and whose judge-ment may be affected by political considerations, or by conditions of publichysteria, thus denying to the prosecuted person the ordinary guarantees of ajudicial hearing. However, there may be situations when no ordinary courtwould have jurisdiction over the extradited person, because of special condi-tions in a certain area, and the State which has granted extradition may besatisfied that substantial justice will be done in a special tribunal which hasbeen set up.

This paragraph is drafted so that trial of an extradited person is not ab-solutely prohibited in the situation here contemplated, but to the requestedState is reserved the right to prevent a political or sensational trial of theextradited person, which would undermine the main purpose of extraditionas an international aid to the administration of justice.A similar article is found in the Montevideo Convention: 1

The surrendering State shall not be obliged to grant extradition:(d) when the accused must appear before any extraordinary tribunalor court of the demanding State (tribunal o juggade de excepcion decostado requiriente). Military courts will not be considered as suchtribunals.2

There is a rather large number of bipartite treaties which either prohibitextradition when the extradited person is to be prosecuted before a specialcourt, or which impose a duty on the requesting State not to submit the ex -tradited person to trial by such a court.

The provision restricting prosecution of the extradited person to thecourts which normally have jurisdiction over the crimes for which the ex -tradition has been granted is not totally strange to the statutory law onIArt 3 Appendix III, No. 6.2 1he United States in ratifying this Convention made reservation to this article.

(References are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 6, No. 17; Denmark-Finland,Art. 8, No. 18; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 7, No. 19; Estonia-Finland, Art. 7. No. 33; Bel-gium-Paraguay, Art. 6, No. 40; Austria-Estonia, Art. 6, No. 45; Latvia-Norway, Art. 1,No. 55; Austria-Finland, Art. 6, No. 59; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 7, No. 64; Estonia-Norway,Art. 1, No. 76; Denmark-Estonia Art. 8, No. 77; Latvia-Spain, Art. 3 (h), No. 74; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 7 (3), No. 78; Poland-Sweden, Art. 10, No. 81;7Brazil-Italy, Art. 6, No. 87, alsoin Appendix V, No. 4; Austria-Latvia, Art. 6, No. 92; Brazil-Switzerland, Art. 3-d, No. 94;Finland-Netherlands, Art. 7, No. 95, also in Appendix V, No. 8.



6/7

EXTRADITIONextradition, being found in the statutes of the following States: Estonia,Finland,2 Latvia, 3 Lithuania,4 Sweden 5 and Switzerland.

2) Paragraph 1), subparagraphs (a) and b), of this article shall notapply, if the person who was extradited voluntarily remains within the terri-tory of the State to which he was extradited for a period of thirty days, orvoluntarily returns thereto.

OMMENTParagraph 2) of this article provides for an exception to the three-fold

limitation imposed by paragraph 1) upon the requesting State. The rule ofspecialty, the prohibition of re-extradition without the surrendering State sconsent and the prohibition of trial before a specially constituted court donot apply if the extradited person, after being set at liberty, voluntarilyremains for more than thirty days within the territory of the State to whichhe was extradited, or if, having left that State, he subsequently returnsthereto of his own free will. At least as to paragraphs (1-a) and 1-b), theexception provided in this paragraph is very generally recognized in extradi-tion, and its inclusion is amply supported by existing treaty and statute law.A provision of similar import is contained in the great majority of treaties,draft-conventions and statutes.7 It seems reasonable to make the exceptionof the present paragraph apply also to the subject matter of paragraph 1-c).The period provided for in paragraph 2)-thirty days-is the same asprovided for in the majority of treaties (they provide either for thirty days orone month), although some treaties provide for different periods, ranging from48 hours to three months,8 and a few treaties do not specify any time limit.0

1Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 859 9). The Law of Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 9 3).3Penal Code, Art. 852 8). 4 Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 854. Art. 11 3), Appendix VI, No. 12. 6 Art. 9, Appendix VI, No. 13.7The exception is not provided for in the following treaties references are to AppendixI): the treaties of the United States with: Siam, No. 7; Venezuela, No. 13; Latvia, No. 14;Estonia, No. 15; Finland, No. 23; Bulgaria, No. 24; Lithuania, No. 26; Czechoslovakia, No .31; (but in the treaties with Poland, Art. 4, No. 57, Germany Art. 5, No. 70, Austria Art.4, No. 71, and Greece, No. 84, there is such a proviso); Greece-Austria-Hungary, No. 1;Germany-Greece, No. 2; Italy-Yugoslavia No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia No. 12; France-Latvia, No. 29; Albania-Greece, No. 49; Finland-Italy, No. 66; Italy-anama, No. 82.See also the Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; Field s Code, AppendixIV, No. 1; the Oxford Resolutions of the Institutde DroitInternationalAppendix IV No. 2;Italy, Code of Criminal Procedure Appendix VI, No. 10.Forty eight hours in the following treaties references are to Appendix I): Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 38; Greece-Czecho-slovakia, Art. 13, No. 50; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 13, No. 62. Travers Draft, Art. 13, Ap-pendix IV, No. 4, provides for five days. The following three treaties provide for one wccl3references are to Appendix I): Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No 51; Portugal-Czecho-slovakia, Art. 14, No. 52; Latvia-Spain, Art. 14, No. 74. The draft of the InternationalPenal and Prison Commission, Art. 15, Appendix IV, No. 6, provides for fourteen days.The treaty between Denmark and Czechoslovakia, Art. 12, Appendix I, No. 89, providesfor four weeks The following treaties provide for threemonths references are to AppendixI): Chile-Colombia, Art. 7, No. 3; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 6, No 19; Liberia-Monaco,Art. 4, No. 48; United States-Poland, Art. 4, No. 57. Three months are also provided in theBustaante ode, Art. 377, Appendix III, No. 5; and in the extradition statutes of Argen-tina, Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 1; Switzerland, Art. 7, Appendix VI, No. 13.1See the treaties of Great Britain with references are to Appendix I): Latvia, No. 20;Finland, No. 25; Czechoslovakia, No. 28; Estonia, No. 30; Lithuania, No. 45; Albania, No.



7/7

ARTICLE 24

The exception provided for in paragraph 2) seems to balance equitablythe interests of the extraditing State in seeing that the person extradited isnot tried for any act other than that for which he was extradited, and theinterests of the State to which extradition is granted in regaining its freedomof action, after the extradited person has voluntarily remained in or returnedto its territory.

PART VI. PROPERTYARTICLE 24. DELIVERY AND RETURN OF PROPERTY REQUESTED

1) When a person claimed is extradited, a requested State shall deliverto the requesting State the following categories of property, if requested, andif such delivery will not work an injustice to any other person, and will notinterfere with the administration of justice by the requested State:(a) Property which appears to have been acquired by the person

claimed or by an accomplice of such person by means of the act fo rwhich the extradition is made;b) Property which may serve as evidence in the prosecution of theperson extradited.

COMMENTThis paragraph provides only for delivery of property with an extradited

person. There are conventions, treaties and statutes which countenancedelivery when an accused person cannot be extradited because he has diedor escaped. These provisions seem to belong rather in a convention onjudicial assistance than on extradition, and have therefore been omitted here.Treaties and conventions frequently do not condition delivery of propertyupon a request by the requesting State, 2 but such a request seems a reason-able condition of a uty to deliver, and provision is made in this Conventionfor such request to accompany a requisition,3 and for detention of propertyto be requested in connection with a request for provisional arrest. 4 In agood many international agreements and statutes only objects found in thepossession of the person claimed are to be delivered, 5 but this seems too47; Iraq, No. 93; Iraq-Turkey, No. 91. See also the draft of the International Law Associa-tion Appendix IV, No. 5; and the extradition statutes of Canada Appendix VI, No. 4;Great. Britain Appendix VI, No. 8.

1 Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 15, Appendix III, No. 6; Travers Draft of 1928,Art. 10 Appendix IV, No. 4; Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission of 1931,Art 19, Appendix IV, No.6; German-Turkish treaty, Art. 16 Appendix V, No. 3; Brazilian-Italian treaty, Art. 13, Appendix V No. 4; French-Czechoslovakian treaty, Art. 22 Appen-dix V, No.5; Belgian-Polish treaty, Art 11, Appendix V, No. 6; Colombian-Panama treaty,Art. 15, Appendix V, No. 7; French statute of 1927, Art. 29 Appendix VI, No. 6.2 See, for example, the multipartite conventions in Appendix III, the United States-British treaty, Art. 12, Appendix V, No. 1; German-Turkh treaty, Art. 14, Appendix V,No. 3. But French-Ozechoslovakian treaty, Art. 22 Appendix V, No. 5, and Belgian-Polish treaty, Art. 11 Appendix V, No. 6 call for a request.3 Article 12. Article 15.5 PanAmerican Convention of 1902, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 3; South American Con-vention of 1911, Art. 12, Appendix III, No. 4; Bustamante Code of 1928, Art. 370, AppendixIII, No. 5; M ontevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 15, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American


1935- Part v. Limitations Upon the Requesting State

Documents

Transcript of 1935- Part v. Limitations Upon the Requesting State