Saving regards to the difficulties faced in the Region with extradition and recognising that the current extradition framework among Member States is not only costly but rather complex, the regional leaders at the closing of the 37th Caricom Heads of Government Meeting agreed upon an “Arrest Warrant Treaty”. This agreement will now ensure that persons in the Region who commit crimes in one member country and flee to another, are arrested and handed over to authorities in the regional jurisdiction where the crime was committed.
The objective of this Treaty is to establish within the Caribbean Community a system of arrest and surrender of requested persons for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution for an applicable offence, or executing a custodial sentence where the requested persons have fled from justice after being sentenced for an applicable offence. However, this treaty is not new to the Region as it was ratified in Trinidad and Tobago into the legal framework of Caricom since May 23, 2009.
Like many treaties in international law, in this legal framework there is room for interpretation and limitation. As such, the scope of the accord is pellucid that it does not apply to a political offence, except where it involves death or violence against the person or an offence under military law which is not also an offence under criminal law.
More specifically, Member States may, by protocol to the treaty, extend the application of this treaty to military offences which are not also offences under criminal law. Importantly, however, is that nothing in the treaty can be interpreted as modifying any obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, or preventing a State from applying its constitutional provisions relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press or freedom of expression. Examining the treaty, there is no doubt that each Member State’s judicial and nationhood sovereignty is maintained as it is embedded in the accord that there are grounds for the refusal of the execution of an arrest warrant granted by a sister state.
As part of the framework, a Caricom Member State can refuse to execute an arrest warrant whereby the requested person has served or is serving a sentence for the offence to which the Caricom arrest warrant relates. That State can also refuse where the requested person, by reason of lack of capacity, cannot be criminally responsible for the offence under the law of that State or for an offence that is covered by amnesty in that State, where that State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence.
Such a treaty, as the Chairman of the Caribbean Community Roosevelt Skerrit explained, would enhance the Region’s law enforcement ability. It is agreeable that this legal framework will enhance cooperation and collaboration between and among law enforcement authorities in the Region. Like many other difficulties faced by the Region, finances will surface as a major factor in maintaining obligations under the “Arrest Warrant Treaty”. Entrenched in the framework is the fact that all expenses incurred by the executing State in the execution of a Caricom arrest warrant will be borne by that Member State.
All other expenses, according to the Treaty, including in particular the cost of transporting the requested person from the executing Member State to the issuing State party, will be borne by the issuing State.
It is not debatable that such a Treaty will boost the Region’s security; however, Caricom has gained the reputation of setting impressive goals which bear little fruit. It is hoped that the “Arrest Warrant Treaty” bears real fruits of practicality and as was noted previously is not just part of a renewal communiqué. Actionable goals that emphasise the importance of all nations in Caricom are what this Region is lacking.
