THIS REPORT REPLACES
THE REPORT OF THE
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, DATED 7 SEPTEMBER 2011, PUBLISHED IN THE
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS DATED TUESDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2011;
P2837
Report of the Portfolio
Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Extradition Treaty
between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic
of Iran, dated 7 September 2011:
The
Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered
the request that Parliament approves the ratification of the Extradition Treaty
between the
The
Committee reports further as follows:
1.
Many
years have passed since this Treaty was signed in 2003 and its introduction to
Parliament for approval in April this year. Although an explanation was given,
the Committee finds the delay most undesirable: Much could have changed in the situation
or circumstances of the parties in the intervening years. The time elapsed has
also meant that those responsible for concluding the agreement were unable to
be present to advise the Committee on the contents. The Committee asks that the
Ministry look into the reasons for the delay to ensure that this is an isolated
occurrence. The Committee also requests that, in future, those who are
responsible for drafting an agreement are present when the Committee considers
it.
2.
Although
the Executive negotiates and signs international agreements, treaties are only binding
once Parliament approves them. Parliament’s involvement takes place after an
agreement is negotiated and signed and is, mostly limited to either approving
or not approving. The Committee believes that consideration needs to be given
to the development of a mechanism that will allow parliamentary committees to
become involved in discussions, even at an informal level, at a much earlier
stage.
3.
The
Committee is concerned that the Islamic Republic of Iran may impose the death
penalty or other corporal punishments on persons convicted of crimes in that
country. The Treaty does allow a Requested State to refuse an extradition request
if it ‘has substantial grounds to believe that the probable sentence of the
offence in the Requesting State is qualitatively different from the probable sentence
given on the same offence in the courts of the Requested State’ and may also
refuse extradition unless the Requesting State undertakes or gives sufficient
assurance that the person sought will not be detained without trial, tortured
or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. Although these
provisions appear adequate, the Committee would have preferred that the Treaty
explicitly exclude the possibility of extradition where the death penalty is a
competent sentence unless the necessary assurances are made.
4.
The
Committee is also of the view that the Department of International Relations
and Co-operation should investigate putting a mechanism in place to monitor the
treatment of those extradited.
Report to be considered