Hinder mot utlämning för politiska brott – i själva verket främst ett hinder mot utveckling av den internationella brottsbekämpningen?

Sammanfattning: The political offence exception to extradition has been fundamental in extradition law for a long time, but the reasons for maintaining the exception – as well as its precise meaning – are disputed. There is no generally accepted precise definition of the concept political offence, neither internationally nor nationally. Traditionally, three reasons have been given for maintaining a political offence exception to extradition. First, the exception is considered to protect individuals against the risk of political persecution or politicized and arbitrary trials. Second, political crimes have been considered to be a national issue that do not justify international cooperation in criminal matters, since the crime is directed against a particular state and its current government. Third, the political offence exception provides countries with an opportunity to remain neutral towards other countries’ internal political conditions. These traditional arguments behind the political offence exception have often been dismissed as obsolete – or even fundamentally wrong – and the exception is increasingly being seen as an impediment to the further development of international cooperation in criminal matters, in particular in the fight against terrorism. Moreover, the difficulties in defining a political crime have caused the political offence exception to evolve into one of the more controversial issues in international extradition law. A clear trend towards attempting to limit or eliminate the political offence exception to extradition can be noticed. The Swedish extradition law has recently undergone a review (Utlämningsutredningen, SOU 2011:71) and it has been suggested that an exception for political crimes should be maintained in a reformed extradition law. However, the exception should be optional and reserved for the government to consider. The purpose of this thesis has been to examine whether it is possible to go further and completely discard the concept of political crimes from extradition law, and if so, should it be done. The study has shown that there are many indications that the Swedish extradition law could do away with the concept of political offence and that an abolishment of the concept would bring about some benefits from a predictability point of view and for the further development of international cooperation to combat terrorism in particular. Political dissidents are protected from extradition by other – existing or proposed – provisions. However, caution is warranted since the abolition of the political offence exception can place the individual as well as the requested state in a difficult position. The individual may need to adduce detailed evidence about an existing risk of abusive treatment in the requesting state and it may become more difficult for the requested state to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, perhaps the time is still not ripe to discard the concept of political crimes from Swedish extradition law. The trend, however, seems to be towards discarding the political offence exception and towards focusing on the protection of the individual’s human rights in extradition cases.