1. The principle of double criminality is traditionally bound with institutions of international criminal law. Double criminality is a requirement not only with extradition, but also with the transfer of criminal proceedings and with execution of foreign sentences. International criminal law employs a range of “double conditions”, the common denominator of which is the requirement that two legal systems share a certain set of values or legal prescriptions. In addition to double criminality, international law uses such terms as “double punishability”, the “double possibility of criminal proceedings” and the “double possibility of the execution of penal judgment”. Among these concepts, double criminality is the most important and universal condition applied in the basic institutions of international criminal law, such as extradition, the transfer of proceedings, and the execution of foreign penal judgments.

Extradition law and process is the complex vehicle for the return by one state of accused or convicted fugitives from the criminal justice of another state. From an international law perspective, it is for the most part, a treaty matter bearing on the rights and duties of states and the emphasis is on inter-state cooperation, reciprocity and mutuality of obligations. However, it is also part of the domestic criminal law process and as the result will be the potential or actual deprivation of the liberty or even the life of the fugitive, if the requesting state retains the death penalty, today extradition is seen as necessarily protecting the human rights of the fugitive.

The focus of this article is on the protection given to the fugitive by the double or dual criminahty rule under the extradition law of Canada. Two major issues will be analyzed. Firstly, whether the crime for which the extradition request is made by the foreign state is an extraditable crime meeting the requirement of double criminality and secondly, whether the extradition judge in Canada is mandated to inquire into and seek evidence of the foreign criminal law.

One of the most significant recent developments in the law of extradition is the serious consideration that courts are willing to display to the punitive consequences of an extradition order, if capital punishment is the specific penalty that the requested person is liable to have imposed on him if convicted. At the same time, this development serves also as one of the most dramatic examples of the manner in which the subject of human rights has become a factor in international relations, which nation-states can disregard only by exposing themselves to negative assessments linked to reluctance to respond to formal requests. For the most part the “linkage” has been focused mainly on economic aid, where donor countries would approve requested aid contingent on positive accounting in human rights, but now, as a result of a number of novel judicial decisions, it seems that similar factors will be examined, when requests for extradition are submitted. At the moment, the focus is on the use of the death penalty, but the very reasoning process used may well open up further possibilities.

Professor S. Z. Feller, to whom this article respectfully is dedicated, wrote a critical attack on the problem of concurrent criminal jurisdiction. The adverse consequence of more than one state claiming jurisdiction over a given criminal behaviour may be the abduction of the alleged offender by officials of one of these states. This issue was recently raised in the United States Supreme Court in the Alvarez-Machain case. Chief Justice Rehnquist's holding allowing a U.S. court to try Dr. Alvarez-Machain, who was abducted by U.S. authorities, caused vehement national and international criticism. Subsequently, the United States District Court of Los Angeles acquitted Dr. Alvarez-Machain on 14 December 1992.

The long list of abduction cases of recent history, together with the absence of a satisfying solution are alarming. I shall not attempt to cut this “Gordan's knot”, but rather shall focus on an issue that has as yet not been clearly addressed in the current debate.