USA vs Rauscher

Principle: when an accused is extradited the the receiving state must try him for that specific offence for which his extradition was sought for. This is called the Rule of Speciality.

Facts: Respondent, a citizen and resident of Mexico, was forcibly kidnaped from his home and flown by private plane to Texas, where he was arrested for his participation in the kidnaping and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent and the agent's pilot. After concluding that DEA agents were responsible for the abduction, the District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that it violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico (Extradition Treaty or Treaty), and ordered respondent's repatriation. The Court of  Appeals affirmed. Based on one of its prior decisions, the court found that, since the United States had authorized the abduction, and since the Mexican Government had  protested the Treaty violation, jurisdiction was improper.

Issues: 1. Whether a offender could be tried for an offence which is other the the specific offence for which the offenders extradition is sought for?

Judgment: Supreme court of United States quashed the conviction and ordered the release of the prisoner.

Reasoning: the supreme court of USA observed the weight of authority and of sound principle are in favor of the proposition that a person who has been brought within the jurisdiction of the court, by virtue of proceedings under an extradition treaty can only be tried for one of the offences described in that treaty and for the offence with which he is charged in the proceedings for his extradition, until a reasonable time and opportunity have given to him, after his release on trial upon such charge, to return the country from whose asylum he had been forcibly taken under those proceedings.

Factor vs Lubenheimer

Principle: specific offence for which the extradition is sought for must be an offence in the state requesting for extradition and the state extradited accused.

Fact: proceedings were taken by the British authorities for the extradition of j.Factor on a charge of receiving in London money which he knew to have been fraudulently obtained. At the time when extradition was sought for, Factor was residing in the state of Illinois by the laws of which the offence charged was not an offence in Illinois.

Issues:
1. Whether Factor can be extradited on the following case?
2. Whether rule of double criminality applies on this case?

Judgment: supreme court of United States held that, the offence with which the plaintiff was charged was an extraditable crime even though it was not punishable by the law of state of Illinois where the plaintiff was taken in custody.

Consequences of Non-Recognition of a State

International Law:

1. A non-recognised state cannot sue in the courts of the state which has not recognised.

Example: "Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic vs Cibraria"

2. The unrecognized state neither establish diplomatic relations nor enter into a treaty with the states which have not recognised it.

3. Diplomatic representatives of an unrecognized state do not possess privileges and immunities which are generally accorded to the recognised states.

4. An unrecognized state is also not entitled to claim its property situated in a foreign country.

Example: "Bank of China vs Wells Fargo Bank and Union Trust Co"

Doctrine of "Pacta Sunt Servanda"

International Law:

It is a doctrine borrowed from the Roman and its Latin meaning is "agreement must be kept"

It has been adopted as a basic principle for governing treaties in international law. Article-26 of the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties says,

"every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith"
this is known as 'Pacta Sunt Servanda'

The theory is one sided for many usages and customary rules of international law on states apart from any agreement.
Anzilotti regard,

 "the doctrine Pacta Sunt Servanda is the basis of the binding force of international law".

 Many writers classify the maxim "Pacta Sunt Servanda" as a general principle of law, but it is in any event not to be doubted that the rule has all characteristics of a customary rule.

Documents which are re-registerable? Or when the question of re-registration arises?

Section-23A of the Registration Act(1908) says about those documents which are re-registerable. Under this section, when a document requiring registration has been presented or submitted by a person not duly empowered to do same (here empowerment means authorization or power of attorney) and registered there to.

when such re-registration has to be challenged?

From the date of being awarded or informed and within four months.
 

By whom it can be challenged?

Any person claiming under such document:
1. Duly empowered person,
2. Persons having power of attorney,
3. Receipiant of the document and
4. His legal heirs.

In the case of "Abdul Hakim" [PLD 1965 Azad J & K], it was stated that,
"document registered at wrong place, may be registered at the right place at any time-no limitation for re-registration"

it was also established,
"document validly presented for registration within 4 months of execution must be registered"

What are the provisions regarding the documents executed out of Bangladesh?

Registration Act(1908)

Section-26 says about the documents executed out of Bangladesh and have not been presented for registration within due time.
 

Meaning of "Executed out of Bangladesh":

all or any of the parties are residing out of Bangladesh.
 

Prescribed time:

time mentioned in Section-23 of the Registration Act(1908) for respective documents (3 months)
 

Pre-condition:

a. Instrument was so executed.
b. It has been presented for registration within 4 months after its arrival in Bangladesh.
 

Decision:

the registering officer may on payment of proper registration fee, accept such documents for registration.

What provisions are avialable in Registration Act, for unavoidable circumstances regarding presenting a document?

Section-25 of the Registration Act(1908) says about the delay due to unavoidable circumstances in presenting a document in registry or sub-registry.

Reason of delay:

owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable circumstances.

Which documents?

Any document executed or copy of a decree or order made in Bangladesh. If any document has not been presented for registration within the prescribed time. (it is the time as mentioned in Section-23 of the Registration Act for respective documents)

Pre-condition:

where the delay in presentation does not exceeds four months.

Decisions:

The registrar may direct for registration upon payment of a fine not exceeding 10 times.

As for example, "X" is a sale deed(document compulsorily registerable). Presume, its registration fee is 500 taka, in such case fine would be 500*10=5000.
So, fine may be fixed upto 5000 taka not more than this.

In this regard court stated that,
"right of the registrar to condone delay is exclusive and civil court cant question it" [7 DLR 235]

in another case it was established,
"the district registrar is the sole and final authority, and the question of district registrar accepting the document out of time cant be agiated in a civil court"