Abstract
A requested state will be confronted with conflicting obligations stemming from extradition treaties and treaties on human rights, whenever the applicant faces a real risk that his or her fundamental rights will be violated by the requesting state. These conflicts are not easily solved. With the exception of torture, international law does not acknowledge the general primacy of human rights over extradition. States have applied different avoidance techniques — rule of non-inquiry, reliance on assurances, and local remedies — to evade these conflicts. However, the European Court of Human Rights in particular has accentuated the human rights standards and has admonished states parties to take these rights seriously.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
