Ranovstayo did not violate international law by refusing to hand over Ms.
Keinblat
Vormund to the Aprepluyan authorities..
1. Under Extradition Law, Ranovstayo cannot extradite Ms Vormund because of her
political offense.
The act committed by Ms. Vormund is categorized as political offense as it was directed
against the Aprepluya. Ms. Vormund spoke against her government by disclosing the infected
NBL agents which Aprepluya hide from all its nationals and the whole world.
`One of the basic principle under international law that political offenses may not give
rise to extradition. The United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, (1990), it numerates the
mandatory grounds for refusal by the requested state. Article 3 (a) of the treaty states that
“Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is regarded by
the requested state as an offense that is political in nature.”
Moreover, Article 90 (7b) of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court provides
that even if a state has an obligation to extradite a person to the requesting state, the requested
state shall determine whether to surrender the person to Court or to extradite the person to the
requesting state. However, in making its decision, the requested State shall consider all the
relevant factors and should give special consideration to the relative nature and gravity of the
act in question.
Thus, in consonance with relative definition of political offense in the realm of international law,
Ranovstayo as a requested state has the discretion to categorize the act of Vormund and
consider the offense she committed is directly against the state and political in character. And
under extradition law, political offenders committing an act that is politically motivated should not
be extradited.
?????? Also, it must also be noted that under extradition law, double criminality is
indispensable. The case Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v Munoz
reiterates that the rule of double criminality explicitly provides that the act which extradition is
sought must be punishable in both the requesting and the requested State. In this case,
Ranovstayo vehemently believe that the information disclosed by Ms Vormund was very
important for because there there are many Ranovsatayan national in Segura province and
should not be treated as criminal as but rather a heroic act to protect public interest not just of
her own country but to the whole international community.
3. Additionally, extraditing Ms. Vormund will violate the non-refoulement principle under
international law which is protected under
a. Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, states: “No Contracting State shall expel or
return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where
his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion” which Ranovstayo and
Aprepluya are signatories to the convention.
b. Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that
“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.”
Thus, Ranovsatyo cannot expel Ms Vormund because doing so, will prejudice and
endanger her life and she will be subject to arbitrary punishment.
??????Moreover, Article 11 of the ICCPR expressly states that” No one shall be imprisoned on
the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.”
The non-disclosure clause signed by Ms. Vormund along with all other workers in the NBL
Project was an employment contract between the Apreluya and the employees. Moreover,
prohibition to divulge “any information concerning their work at the Laboratory” is a condition for
their continued employment or possible prosecution.
Thus, it cannot be claimed that the act of Ms. Vormund violates the non-disclosure clause upon
disclosing that two lab technicians showing symptoms and later on tested positive because her
motive was not to breach the clause and disclose confidential matters that will be prejudicial to
the project. Her act of posting her frustration about the Aprepluyan’s lack of preventive measure
to ensure their safety at work is protected by article Article 19, UDHR which states that
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
????- Not sure
