Editing Extradition (section)

=== Fair trial standards ===
Consideration of the [[right to a fair trial]] is particularly complex in extradition cases. Its complexity arises from the fact that while the court deciding whether to surrender the individual must uphold these rights this same court must also be satisfied that any trial undertaken by the requesting state after extradition is granted also respects these rights. Article 14 of the [[ICCPR]] provides a number of criteria for fair trial standards.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf |title=International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights}} Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966.</ref> These standards have been reflected in courts who have shown that subjective considerations should be made in determining whether such trials would be ‘unjust’ or ‘oppressive’ by taking into account factors such as the duration of time since the alleged offences occurred, health of the individual, prison conditions in the requesting state and likelihood of conviction among other considerations.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|14|2013|litigants=O'Connor v Adamas |parallelcite=(2013) 210 [[Federal Court Reports|FCR]] 364 |pinpoint=[323]-[331] |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Yet exactly how the standards provided for in ICCPR are incorporated or recognised by domestic courts and decision makers is still unclear although it seems that these standards can at a minimum be used to inform the notions of such decision makers.<ref name="Johnston" />{{rp|35}} If it is found that fair trial standards will not be satisfied in the requesting country this may be a sufficient bar to extradition.

Article 6 of the ECHR also provides for fair trial standards, which must be observed by European countries when making an extradition request.<ref name ="Johnston" /> This court in the ''Othman'' case, whom if extradited would face trial where evidence against him had been obtained by way of torture.<ref>Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1.</ref> This was held to be a violation of Article 6 ECHR as it presented a real risk of a ‘flagrant denial of justice’.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> The court in Othman stressed that for a breach of Article 6 to occur the trial in the requesting country must constitute a flagrant denial of justice, going beyond merely an unfair trial.<ref>Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1 para 258–262.</ref> Evidence obtained by way of torture has been sufficient to satisfy the threshold of a flagrant denial of justice in a number of case. This is in part because torture evidence threatens the "integrity of the trial process and the rule of law itself."<ref>Rwanda v Brown [2009] EWHC 770 para 264</ref>