F Szh 6search]%D1%C7%D6%DE%CE%DE%C2%EB%D4%AD%B4%B4%20BT ah searchuoHearts.and.Minds.2.Modern.Warfare.XXX.720p.BluRaye Wrightreports n Store Csearchnsearchet Themes osearch Www f Quick osearchdsearch Quickwpthemes i Szh n Store f Quickwpthemes c%B3%C9%C8%CB%CE%DE%C2%EB%D4%AD%B4%B4%C7%F8%20SexIn%21Sex%21%20Boardn searchrsearchtc Szh isearchn Store Szh osearch searche Themes ssearchn Store u Themes jsearchc searcho Www ex Quickwpthemes r Quickwpthemes d Wrightreports tin Themes Www osearch a dsearchtsearchisearchesearch searchics Wrightreports i Quickwpthemes n Store o Store Quickwpthemes hsearchs r Themes l Quick ofsearchtheC1nsearche Quickwpthemes t Wrightreports o%D7%EE%D0%C2X-Art%2020110815%20Maryjane%20-%20Young%20Love, Themes see Quickwpthemes G Szh l Store e Quickwpthemes tsearch Szh up Szh a Store no Themes e Store 4search,www.3kav.coma Store 79search9 Szh .

[FN61]. The 1951 Refugee Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, provides protection to any person “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ….” Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees art. 1(A)(2), July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150. This convention naturally has implications for extradition law. Sambei & Jones, supra note 58, at 97-98.

[FN62]. Along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two United Nations covenants–the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC)–are sometimes referred to as the “International Bill of Rights.” Sambei & Jones, supra note 58, at 97. “The ICCPR guarantees a large number of rights and freedoms including the right to life, the right to be free from torture, the right to liberty and security of the person, freedom of expression, etc.” Id. China has signed the ICCPR. It has not ratified the treaty yet, but that does not detract from the fact that it is under an international legal obligation. See Sun Shiyan, The Understanding and Interpretation of the ICCPR in the Context of China’s Possible Ratification, 6 Chinese J. Int’l L. 17 (2007).

[FN63]. G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (Dec. 10, 1984), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.

[FN64]. Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).

[FN65]. Roda Mushkat, “Fair Trial” As a Precondition to Rendition: An International Legal Perspective 1 (Univ. of H.K. Ctr. for Comparative & Pub. Law, Occasional Paper No. 5, 2002), available at ccpl/pub/occasionalpapers/paper5/paper5.doc.]

[FN66]. Richard B. Lillich, The Soering Case, 85 Am. J. Int’l L. 128, 128-29 (1991).

[FN67]. Id. at 130-31.

[FN68]. Id. at 130-45.

[FN69]. Mushkat, supra note 65, at 1.

[FN70]. See Elizabeth Burleson, Juvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International Death Penalty Jurisprudence, 68 Alb. L. Rev. 909, 910 (2005).

[FN71]. See Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law 489-710 (Albin Eser & Otto Lagodny eds., 1992); Lillich, supra note 66; John Quigley, The Rule of Non-Inquiry and the Impact of Human Rights on Extradition Law, 15 N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 401 (1990); Michael P. Shea, Expanding Judicial Scrutiny of Human Rights in Extradition Cases After Soering, 17 Yale J. Int’l L. 85 (1992); Christine Van den Wyngaert, Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora’s Box?, 39 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 757 (1990).

[FN72]. Valerie Epps, The Development of the Conceptual Framework Supporting International Extradition, 25 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 369, 380 (2003).

[FN73]. Ng v. Canada, U.N. Human Rights Comm., No. 469/1991, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991, reprinted in 98 I.L.R. 479 (1993).

[FN74]. Mushkat, supra note 65, at 2. [65 Roda Mushkat, “Fair Trial” As a Precondition to Rendition: An International Legal Perspective 1 (Univ. of H.K. Ctr. for Comparative & Pub. Law, Occasional Paper No. 5, 2002), available at ccpl/pub/occasionalpapers/paper5/paper5.doc.]

[FN75]. Fooner, supra note 44, at 145.

[FN76]. See, e.g., Dugard & Van den Wyngaert, supra note 10, at 195-206; Mushkat, supra note 65, at 2-3.

[FN77]. Dugard & Van den Wyngaert, supra note 10, at 206.

[FN78]. Id. at 198.

[FN79]. Id. at 196-97; Mary K. Martin, A One-Way Ticket Back to the United States: The Collision of International Extradition Law and the Death Penalty, 11 Cap. Def. J. 243, 253-57 (1999); Craig R. Roecks, Extradition, Human Rights, and the Death Penalty: When Nations Must Refuse to Extradite a Person Charged with a Capital Crime, 25 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 189, 191-97 (1994). Diplomatic assurances are often unreliable when they come from countries that routinely abuse human rights. There has been much literature on the dangers associated with diplomatic assurances. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, “Empty Promises”:Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard Against Torture(2004), reports/2004/un0404/; see also infra notes 221-223 and accompanying text (detailing dangers associated with relying on diplomatic assurances).

[FN80]. See, e.g., Mushkat, supra note 65, at 3-6 (arguing that the likelihood that the fugitive would not receive a fair trial in the requesting state should obstruct extradition).

[FN81]. Dugard & Van den Wyngaert, supra note 10, at 205.

[FN82]. U.S. Dep’t of State, supra note 12.

[FN83]. See U.N. Special Rapporteur of the Comm’n on Human Rights, Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Annex 1, delivered to the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/51/542 (Oct. 23, 1996); Philip P. Pan, U.N. Official Criticizes Education in China, Wash. Post, Sept. 19, 2003, at A20.

[FN84]. Each has failed, though. Chronology of Defeats of Anti-China Human Rights Attempts, China.org.cn, Apr. 16, 2004, english/international/93203.htm.

[FN85]. See, e.g., Amnesty Int’l, Report 2005: China (2005), report2005/chn-summary-eng (“There was progress towards reform in some areas, but this failed to have a significant impact on serious and widespread human rights violations perpetrated across the country.”); Human Rights First, Human Rights Defenders in China, defenders/hrd_china/hrd_china.htm (last visited Nov. 7, 2007) (“The human rights situation in China continues to be grave.”).

[FN86]. E.g., Randall Peerenboom, Assessing Human Rights in China: Why the Double Standard?, 38 Cornell Int’l L.J. 71 (2005).

[FN87]. This exodus resulted from a combination of China’s financial growth, which created opportunities for corruption and a subsequent crackdown against corrupt practices. See Zhou, supra note 8.

[FN88]. Ding Zhitao, Fugitive Justice, Beijing Rev., Feb. 9, 2006, available at EN/06-06-e/w-3.htm.

[FN89]. Fu Hualing, supra note 5.

[FN90]. Id.

[FN91]. Chau Pak-kwan & Stephen Lam, Research Study on the Agreement Between Hong Kong and the Mainland Concerning Surrender of Fugitive Offenders P 1.7 (2001), yr00-01/english/library/erp05.pdf.

[FN92]. Id. P 1.14. In China, the most controversial of these principles is the political offense exception. The concept of “political offense” is often not included in the bilateral extradition treaties signed between China and other countries. Qian Hu & Qiang Chen, China’s Extradition Law of 2000, 1 Chinese J. Int’l Law 647, 649-50 (2002).

[FN93]. Ding Zhitao, supra note 88.

[FN94]. Sun Shangwu, supra note 13.

[FN95]. See Ding Zhitao, supra note 88 (“[M]ost Chinese officials flee to Western countries, not vice versa.”).

[FN96]. See supra note 8 and accompanying text.

[FN97]. China Working Towards Sustainable Economic Growth, People’s Daily, May 9, 2002, available at 200205/09/eng20020509_95353.shtml; China’s Wen Pledges Fairer Growth, BBC News, Mar. 5, 2007, 2/hi/asia-pacific/6418225.stm.

[FN98]. China Asks Canada to Extradite Former Banker, China.org.cn, Jan. 27, 2007, english/news/197945.htm.

[FN99]. Lague, supra note 9.

[FN100]. Huang Feng, The Establishment and Characteristics of China’s Extradition System, 4 Frontiers L. China 595, 595 (2006). In terms of procedure, China has codified the quasi-judicial, quasi-executive approach. When requesting extradition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs preliminarily examines the documents that China will provide to a foreign country. Then the Supreme People’s Court and authorized High Courts at the provincial level exercise their judicial powers to certify that the requirements set forth by the Extradition Law and extradition treaties are met. But the ultimate power to decide whether the person sought shall be prosecuted in China, and whether conditional extradition shall be granted, is held by the State Council. Extradition Law, supra note 24, art. 29. The law also provides procedures for making requests for extradition to foreign countries. Id. arts. 47-51.

[FN101]. Feng Jianhua, supra note 8.

[FN102]. Id.

[FN103]. Minxin Pei, The Tide of Corruption Threatening China’s Prosperity, Fin. Times, Sept. 27, 2006, at 13.

[FN104]. Zhou, supra note 8.

[FN105]. China Widens Net for Fugitive Fraudsters, China Daily, Apr. 29, 2006, available at china/2006-04/29/content_ 580629.htm.

[FN106]. See supra note 11 and accompanying text.

[FN107]. See Press Release, Amnesty Int’l, China and the World Day 2006: Innocence, actioncenter/actions/action7574.pdf (last visited Nov. 7, 2007).

[FN108]. Lague, supra note 11 (quoting Steve Vickers, president of the private investigation company International Risk).

[FN109]. Delegation of the Eur. Comm’n to the U.S., EU Policy & Action on the Death Penalty, legislat/deathpenalty/deathpenhome.htm (last visited Nov. 7, 2007).

[FN110]. European Commission, The EU’s Human Rights and Democratisation Policy: Abolition of the Death Penalty, comm/external_ relations/human_rights/adp/index.htm (last visited Nov. 7, 2007).

[FN111]. Death Penalty Info. Ctr., Death Penalty Policy by State, firstpage.html (last visited Nov. 7, 2007).

[FN112]. In 1990, the European Parliament called for a resolution on the abolition of the death penalty in the United States. See William A. Schabas, International Law and Abolition of the Death Penalty: Recent Developments, 4 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 535, 558-59 (1998). Later, in December 1997, the European Parliament proposed another resolution, this one aimed at discouraging EU businesses from investing in the United States in an effort to persuade American abolition of the death penalty. Dorean Marguerite Koenig, A Death Penalty Primer: Reviewing International Human Rights Development and the ABA Resolution for a Moratorium on Capital Punishment in Order to Inform Debates in U.S. State Legislatures, 4 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 513, 522 (1998). Europe continues to protest U.S. death penalty practices today. See Harold Hongju Koh & Thomas R. Pickering, American Diplomacy and the Death Penalty, Foreign Service J., Oct. 2003, at 19, 20-21.

[FN113]. Kyle M. Medley, Note, The Widening of the Atlantic: Extradition Practices Between the United States and Europe, 68 Brook. L. Rev. 1213, 1234 (2003).

[FN114]. Dugard & Van den Wyngaert, supra note 10, at 192. For example, see Extradition Treaty, U.S.-Fr., art. 7, Apr. 23, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-13 (1996).

[FN115]. See Lague, supra note 11.

[FN116]. Article 3 of the China-Spain Treaty on Extradition states that an extradition request will be rejected “[w]hen the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State, unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.” Huang Feng, supra note 100, at 599. See also China-Spain Extradition Treaty, supra note 14.

[FN117]. Press Release, Embassy of the P.R.C. in the U.S., China, Spain Establish Strategic Partnership (Nov. 15, 2005), eng/xw/t221563.htm.

[FN118]. China and Spain Boost Trade Ties, supra note 18.

[FN119]. Press Release, Embassy of the P.R.C. in Austl., China, Spain Agree to Build Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (Nov. 16, 2005), eng/xw/t221674.htm.

[FN120]. China Widens Net for Fugitive Fraudsters, supra note 105; Sun Shangwu, supra note 13.

[FN121]. See Huang Feng, supra note 100, at 596; Sun Shangwu, supra note 13.

[FN122]. While China had not previously entered an extradition treaty with a developed Western country, other countries with which China signed treaties between 1993 and 2005 did ask for “non-extradition for death penalty” clauses. Even some countries that continue to use the death penalty domestically prefer to have such a clause in a bilateral extradition agreement. Chau & Lam, supra note 91, P 1.49. Huang Feng, Director of the Research Institute of International Criminal Law at Beijing Normal University, has identified four ways that China previously avoided the direct expression of a “non-extradition for death penalty” provision in extradition treaties:
1) … [t]o persuade the other side not to include such a provision …. 2) to use more general phrases in order to avoid direct expression …. 3) to set the issue aside in the formal provisions of the treaty, but to make explanations in the minutes of the meetings between the parties to the treaty …. and 4) to make a general stipulation in the formal provisions of the treaty, as well as a supplementary explanation in the minutes of meetings.
China used the first option in treaties with Thailand and Kazakhstan, the second option with Russia, the third option with Belarus, and the fourth with Romania and Bulgaria. Chau & Lam, supra note 91, P 1.50.

[FN123]. China and Spain Boost Trade Ties, supra note 18.

[FN124]. China, France Sign Agreement on Extradition, Xinhua News Agency, Mar. 21, 2007, english/2007-03/21/content_ 5874162.htm.

[FN125]. France Backs Extradition to China, BBC News, Mar. 20, 2007, 2/hi/europe/6472679.stm.

[FN126]. According to the article, Chinese diplomatic sources believed that “[t]he treaty provides a legal foundation for China-France cooperation in the fight against crime.” French Justice Minister Pascal Clement said the agreement was of great importance, “particularly for bilateral relations,” and that the agreement would “strengthen and deepen our judicial cooperation further.” China, France Sign Agreement on Extradition, supra note 124.

[FN127]. See Chirac Seeks China Business Ties, BBC News, Oct. 25, 2006, 2/hi/asia-pacific/6083408.stm; France Backs Extradition to China, supra note 125.

[FN128]. France Signs Extradition Treaty with China, supra note 18 (referencing “continuing reports of serious violations in China, including the use of the death penalty and abusive forms of arbitrary detention, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments”).

[FN129]. Id.

[FN130]. Martin Arnold, Royal Criticises French Extradition Treaty with China, Fin. Times, Jan. 9, 2007, at 5.

[FN131]. France Signs Extradition Treaty with China, supra note 18.

[FN132]. Kim Willsher, Don’t Mention Human Rights, French Told, Sunday Telegraph (London), Jan. 7, 2007, at 31.

[FN133]. Press Release, Portal do Governo, PM Wants to Showcase “A Modern Portugal” (Jan. 31, 2007), noticias_noticia_ 44.asp.

[FN134]. See Adams, supra note 18; Press Release, Philip Ruddock, supra note 17.

[FN135]. Lague, supra note 11; Liu Li, supra note 20; Zhang Zhiping, supra note 20.

[FN136]. Zhang Zhiping, supra note 20.

[FN137]. Id.; see also China Hunts Corrupt Officials Who Abscond Overseas, People’s Daily, Mar. 24, 2004, available at 200403/24/eng20040324_138361.shtml (providing Wang’s university affiliation).

[FN138]. Zhang Zhiping, supra note 20.

[FN139]. Id. (describing Chen Zhonglin’s, Xie Wangyuan’s, and Liu Tingji’s stances against abolition).