Legal Issues

Extradition is the most widely known practice of a state handing over its own citizen who is a suspected or a convicted criminal in another state. The native state places the fugitive under the jurisdiction of the laws of another country if the fugitive is to appear in court in trial or is proven guilty of a crime. Although extradition has been practised by many countries for quite some time, to undertake it takes a long time and is very laborious. The fact that there are many conditions that both the requesting and the requested parties need to fulfil before the extradition petition moves along seems to hamper the process of law in the state where the fugitive committed his crime.

Recognising this difficulty, the European Union formulated a legislation which allows them to issue an arrest warrant that seems to defy political borders such that the extradition process becomes quicker and more efficient. The framework decision passed on the 13th of June 2002 pushed the creation of the European Arrest Warrant or EAW. This arrest warrant allows the arrest of fugitives who take refuge in other EU member countries when they are due to appear in court trial or serve detention. An EAW can be issued if the fugitive is suspected to or has committed a criminal act that is punishable by a maximum of twelve months or more in prison.

The 911 attacks on the United States had a significant impact on the way countries all over the world view their legislations that concerns borders and crimes done by non-citizens. One of the most relevant policies concerning border security is the creation of the Task Force for the Fight against Terrorism by the Europol. The task force had the primary task is to figure out how terrorist groups financed their activities.

The European Arrest Warrant is considered as an offshoot of this policy because it is one of the responses of the European Union to terrorism. The urgent need for quicker justice proceedings as well as better and quicker arrests were all emphasised in the face of terrorist threats. The European Arrest Warrant or EAW can be viewed as an arrest warrant with added features, but the warrant in itself has social repercussions. Take for example the other purpose outlined by the EU member countries for the passing of this policy. They take the EAW as the beacon that symbolises the EU member countries unity and recognition that other justice systems are capable. Important changes in the state that issues the EAW also happen when it comes to their decision making process and their policies concerning cross border crimes. The power to make decisions is now placed in the hands of the judiciary branch of the government contrary to the past system wherein the executive branch dealt with decisions concerning international arrests and extraditions. However, looking at the wide scope of things, it is also possible that it may point to future direction in the state of the system of laws and order in the world.

This paper seeks to evaluate the policy with regards to how it serves its function to keep peace and order within borders. This is going to be done by discussing the background of the EAW, its general features and some of its provisions. Then the author will highlight its strengths and weaknesses in being at the forefront of criminal justice.

II. Other Motivations and Challenges Faced by EU Countries
Other than the fact that terrorism made EAW imperative, there are other factors and challenges that EU members experience that the existence of the European Arrest Warrant may help alleviate. For one, since EU countries are very close-knit geographically, this makes moving from territory to territory very easy, and improved means of transportation made it easier to make illegal passes and border crosses in the region. One of the problems is the persistence of illegal aliens in certain countries. Many people from neighbouring countries manage to enter and exit borders while escaping the jurisdiction of the law. Many citizens of near countries move inside main cities without due process. Other than illegal entries, these borders serve as selling points of prohibited wares. Drugs, weapons, and even humans are sold in the border even in the major cities of the country. Smugglers and human traffickers frequent the borders, frequently unhindered by spot checks and continue on into the main cities to sell their wares. Smuggled goods are also brought across the border from suppliers that may be citizens of another neighbouring country.  Smuggled goods cost the government a lot since tariffs and other entry-point payments are not paid for by the employer who sent this through text. Also, smuggled goods did not pass through quality control checks at the factory of the good. These smuggled goods may be defective factory products resold for income.

The relatively open borders did not only increase the size of the black market of the region, but it also allowed the easy spread of groups that are potential security threats. Criminal groups live and stay in certain countries and find it easy to move out if the authorities start hunting them down. Their ability to create falsified documents combine with the fact that the borders are very close to each other to make a sure and very safe escape route for these criminals. Groups whose intention is to spread terror also find it easy to penetrate the EU states and threaten internal security of the country.

Since these are common problems for all EU member countries, working together to fight a common enemy can be a possible solution to eliminate these threats. As a result, the Union placed emphasis on increased vigilance and improved policies regarding extradition and border security.

III. General Features of the European Arrest Warrant
The existence of an arrest warrant that hastened extradition was agreed upon by EU member countries when they met in the Laeken Summit of December 2001. This agreement became a full-fledged framework on June 13, 2001 and was set to be implemented by all member countries by the end of 2003. By the 1st of January of the following year, eight member countries had already implemented the framework. By November 1 of the same year, all of the members had adopted the policy. Italy, however, was the last one to implement it as it did so on the 22nd of April 2005.

The warrant contains vital information such as identity of the individual summoned, a description of his offence or the reasons for his summon the competent authorities who issued the warrant, and the decisions and orders of the court.  A translation of the document is also issued depending on the native language of the person concerned. The document can be sent by any means possible just as long as the warrant is safe and is sure to be received. The form through which the warrant is sent should allow the production of a hard copy of the document.

The member countries are the ones who will assign their own respective competent authorities that serve judicial function who can also be assisted by another committee who will be in charge of helping the authorities with certain aspects of warrant issuance. The judicial authorities appointed by the state shall also be the one who would report to the Council accordingly.
The arrest warrant takes out double criminality, a policy that is followed by states requesting and responding to extradition cases.  Extradition requires that the laws of requested countries regarding the criminal offence of an individual be existent and similar as the requesting country. According to the legislators, instead of comparing the laws of states involved, the EAW moves as a statement of belief and trust to the justice system of the requesting party. Therefore, the EAW is a statement of mutual recognition that exists among members. Acts of terrorism, human trafficking, corruption, racism, fraud, and rape are some the crimes that need no double criminality verification when a party is requesting for the surrender of a fugitive. The double criminality rule, however, still applies to crimes that are not included in this list.

IV. Perception of the EAW
The European Commission of the House of Lords released an evaluation of the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in member countries. In the report dated February 2005, the committee concluded that the policy was effective in curbing crimes and possible terrorist threats in general, but they were aware of the fact that legislative and differences in implementation methods influenced how the EAW was pushed in each state.

Improvements in the time it took to issue an arrest order became shorter and arrests have been made quicker. It needed over nine months to process a warrant before the EAW, but after its implementation, it required only 30 to 43 days to exact a warrant of arrest.

However positive the legislators and administrators may be of the policy, some sectors did not meet the EAW policy in good terms. Certain groups became apprehensive of the policy saying that it would be a leeway for human rights violations to be legitimised. Germany, a member country, had a clash with the EAW in 2005 as it violates the provision in its constitution that stipulates that no German citizen can be extradited.

V. Own Views

A. Strengths of the EAW
Humans have a right to be safe and be kept from harm and I believe that the EAWs strengths as an effective arrest warrant lies in this fact.  The EAW one of the ways through which the government assures the safety of its citizens and assure that the law is swift to act to protect them, and his is where its strength as a policy lies.
The European Arrest Warrant is one of the ways through which the citizens are kept safe by the state against threats to security. Borders are the most crucial areas in law enforcement given the condition of the borders of EU member countries.

In law enforcement especially with cases concerning the movement of highly organized groups that threaten security, time is of the essence. It has been a common practice for suspects to flee the country where they live or commited a crime to see safety and asylum within the borders of another country that is very easy to go to. When the time comes that the authorities figure out what has happened, it is already too late. Suspects take advantage of the fact that extradition is not a quick and easy process to undergo. The process will take so long, and the risk of the appeal getting denied is quite high. By the time the appeal is approved, the suspect is now able to gather more resources to delay justice once again.

These facts say a lot about the EAW and how it is helping keep malevolent entities at bay. The strength that the EAW possess lies in the fact that the European Arrest Warrant gives law enforcers the power to match the suspects speed and fluidity to prevent any violent acts that can shatter internal security. Law enforcers can now jump from border to border without getting pulled back by laws that prevent non-citizens of a country to enter a territory without official government consent. When in pursuit of a suspect or fugitive, the EAW is a policy that greatly hastens the process that police forces follow, so they waste no time in unnecessarily waiting for approvals while allowing those malevolent ones unfold their plan quickly.

According to the framework, the warrant, to be considered valid, must contain all the necessary information needed by the individual concerned to understand what he is involved in. His identity, the purpose of the warrant, the reasons of his summon, the authority who issued the warrant, and a rightful translation of the document in the individuals native language is needed to make the EAW valid and effective. The suspect has the right to have a legal counsel in the event that he surrenders. It is also stipulated in the framework that the warrant can be rejected by either the individual or the individuals home state in certain circumstances if the individual is already tried and given a verdict in his home country or is under an amnesty.

While the EAW allows cross-border arrests, it does not lose its initial identity as a warrant that needs to respect the rights of the one being requested for or arrested. Its respect for the suspects rights is strength, as it clears all of the suspicions of the EAW being an authoritarian warrant. This makes it all the more a more acceptable form of an element designed to propagate law and order in countries.

B. Weaknesses of the EAW
While there are consequences of EAW policy approval that protect human rights, there are certain repercussions that violate it as well. Being an arrest warrant based on haste, the warrant may unwittingly leave out very important considerations regarding a crime and the involved individuals rights.

More incorrect arrests are likely to happen when a warrant is issued so quickly. There might be information that is not supplied by the investigators that are very crucial to correctly pinpoint who and where the suspect is. Unbelievable pressure to deliver results to the government can drive police forces to overlook certain aspects of the case that are extremely important. EAW can even lead to the incarceration and unfair treatment of innocent people whose freedom and sanity are compromised because of hasty actions in the part of the police. Another thing is that the fact that the EAW does not look at the double criminality rule may result in serious repercussions that involve violating human rights. Suspected terrorists or criminals who are found to be in another member country can be summoned but not necessarily by the country where the crime was done. There are countries that have looser policies when it comes to the administration of physical affliction and pain for the sake of intelligence gathering. These countries can be the ones who would request for the presence of a suspect, with possible red tape from the police force of the country where the crime was committed of course. If there exists loopholes and doubts that need to be answered right away, the police force can use violent methods such as torture that will make a suspect divulge information. Torture is going to be done whether or not the individual is innocent of the crime accused of him. In this aspect, the EAW serves as an agent that helps perpetuate human rights violations for the sake of intelligence.

Intelligence crimes are also of special consideration for the EAW because these are crimes that have no physical borders to speak of. These cases involve speech and thoughts that can be dangerous ground if combined with EAW. Thought and speech crimes are considered borderless in the sense that many people do not even know that such laws exist in country that is not their own. The repercussions can therefore be horrendous if a party would accuse an individual of such crimes.  It is highly possible that the EAW and such borderless crimes would be used as plain justifications of persecution to cover up a motivation based on racism and discrimination. However, since EAW does not thrive upon the existence of double criminality, anyone can be accused of a thought or speech crime and be held accountable for it, even if that individuals activities are perfectly legal in his country.

The best example for this case is what happened to Frederick Toben in 2008. Toben is a member of a community based in Britain who actively denies the Holocaust. Although most of his activities are based in Britain, the German government issued a European Arrest Warrant as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.  Holocaust denial is not a crime in Britain. In the end, Toben was arrested on British soil. Although Toben is an Australian citizen, his case is a testament to how a state can be crippled by another as it cannot fulfil its responsibility to protect its citizens welfare, work, opinions, and creativity is erased by the EAW.

These points to the fact that maybe, the main weakness of the EAW is also found in its strength. The EAW boasts of its ability to hasten capture of fugitives and justice implementation, but not all EAW holders have in their hands a real malevolent soul.  The speed at which the EAW is issued and exacted can be too short for really complex cases that it can lead to multiple erroneous arrests. Another weakness is the fact it is difficult to manage and prevent under the table agreements that may utilize the EAW for intelligence gathering, most especially for methods that are inhumane. The EAW can also be used as a mechanism for racism and xenophobism. The policy is open and unguarded against prying and corrupt hands that want to use the power of the EAW wrongfully.

VI. Conclusion
The reasons for the implementation of the policy that allows the issuance of a special arrest warrant called the European Arrest Warrant is unquestionably for the protection of the security of the state and the people in it. Driven by the need to have a more dynamic approach to law enforcement in the age of terrorism, the European Arrest Warrant allows the arrest of a fugitive or a suspect without having to think about the usual considerations of extradition has like double criminality. These considerations make extradition a less favourable option to choose when criminals and terrorists waste no time in thinking about borders that divide countries physically, legislatively, or even executively.

European Arrest Warrants do live up to the purpose that it was originally created for as it does protect the rights of an individual against bad elements that may threaten to harm the security of a state and the welfare of its citizens. The strengths of EAW are found in the fact that its provisions allow the elimination of the lags and delays that disallow police and law enforcement bodies to move in the same pace and rhythm as the malevolent ones. The fluidity of these groups when it comes to crossing both physical and legislative borders is now also given by the EAW to the law enforcers. A suspect seeking asylum in another country can now be taken back in no time, thus giving the suspect no chance to further escape and gather resources to further hamper law enforcement. The EAW protects the right of humans to live, be safe, and be protected by his or her mother state.

While there are certain rights that are protected by the EAW, there are also rights that are violated. The European Arrest Warrant is a policy based on haste and quick judgements which makes it very prone to errors, and this is the European Asia Whiskey  It is highly likely that an arrest warrant may be issued on grounds that are not solid enough. This leads to human rights violations such as wrongful arrests and innocent people facing punishments for crimes they did not even do. Another negative effect could be related to the fact that EAW could be used to distort legislative reason. The need for intelligence and EAW is a bad combination because the EAW gives law enforcers the power to transcend legislative borders and bring a suspect to a country whose policies on violent methods for getting information is not harsh. Another possibility is that under the EAW, an individual can be arrested and punished for his legal practices in his home country just because these activities are illegal in another. One can be punished for laws he never knew that existed, and these borderless crimes like thought or speech crimes can be used as simple cover-ups for a racist or even xenophobic motivation. Therefore, the need for the EAW policy to have preventive mechanisms to reduce abuses and red tape happenings is emphasized.

The EAW may usher a new era in law and order in the world. Living in a world that allows different laws to exist yet has this policy that disagrees with this diversity is utterly confusing and damaging. The borders are allowed to exist, and yet they are erased at the same time.