He’s denied asylum, taken prisoner and shipped off to the US. Norway is a member of NATO, and Article 5 was invoked as a result of the attacks. Bin Laden was at war with Norway; political asylum isn’t granted to an enemy you are at war with.
This strikes me as the most likely - immediately after the 9/11 attacks, NATO unanimously invoked Article 5, meaning that all NATO countries were at war with al Quaeda and Bin Laden was its commander. It’s just the same as Himmler or Goering being captured by the Allies.
So anyone who is facing a death penalty anywhere in the world will be granted asylum anywhere in Europe? Why hasn’t anyone fled to Europe to avoid the death penalty then?
They will extradite, provided the requesting country gives an assurance that the person will not be executed if convicted. That’s also how Canada handles it.
This is my question - if I’m ever facing the death penalty, all I have to do is get to Canada or the EU and they will absolutely not turn me over without an assurance that I won’t be killed?
Indeed, any country who has signed all the clauses of the ECHR will protect you against being extradited for a death penalty offense. That’s not an EU thing, it’s a Council of Europe one, and it is a bit “aspirational” for a couple of territories.
Mosier, There’s a difference between your first and second posts. Your first post asked if they will get asylum, which normally means that the asylum country would keep them. That’s not the case - they are still subject to extradition under the extradition treaties. Your second question asks if the European country or Canada would only extradite on condition that they not be executed - that is the case, to my understanding.
As to why US individuals accused of murder don’t flee to one of those countries, there are a few possible responses. First, don’t over-estimate the sophistication and knowledge of the average person accused of murder. I’d be surprised if this point is well-known generally. Second, it’s difficult to flee once the person is on wanted lists. THey have to clear customs/immigration; with appropriate I.d. These days, international flights have their passenger lists pre-checked before thy are allowed to take off, so getting to Europe is difficult once you’re under suspicion.
Canada would be easier to reach by land, which I think may reduce the number of checks, but still may no be easy to do for someone who doesn’t have much resources.
Of course, if the individual flees before they come under suspicion, it may be easier, but there’s still the travel costs to consider.
Oops - I thought mosier made both posts - I see Johnny Bravo made the second one I was responding to. Sorry for the confusion.
Canada has no specific law on this matter. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Justice Minister should request assurance that the death penalty not be applied except in “Exceptional circumstances.” It did not define what those circumstances would be, but I’m pretty sure Osama bin Laden would have been considered one.
Canada’s government is generally a bit more insistent on the matter if the accused is a Canadian citizen.
Extradition and refusal of asylum are not the same thing, though. Is Norway obligated to grant asylum to anyone who might face death in their home country? If that is the case why can’t every Alawite in Syria move to Norway and be granted asylum and permanent residence?
They’d have to get an entry visa first. In the OP’s hypothetical, I think we have to assume that ObL is secreted into Norway somehow and the Norwegian government then has do deal with the fact this he is already in the country.
no, the test for asylum is persecution of some sort, not that the individual faces some sort of criminal sanction. In extradition cases, the country where the individual is found can impose conditions on the extradition. In asylum matters, the country can decline to turn over the individual.
Risk of death can play in both instances, but in extradition cases, the country where the individual is found can impose the condition that the individual not be executed if found guilty. However, someone who is alleging that he’s at risk of extra-judicial execution, or execution following a show trial, may be able to make the case that he needs asylum. But there are limitations on that principle as well; there is a clean hands aspect to asylum - if you’ve been persecuting and killing your own people for 20 years, and then flee when they finally topple you, you can’t claim asylum because they want to get you. You might be able to argue for a condition of no death penalty, or request that you be turned over to an international court because the court system in your own country can’t be trusted to give you a fair trial.
Bin Laden was not a Saudi citizen. Don’t forget that Al Qaeda really hates the decadent Saudi government for sins including allowing Western soldiers into the country. He left Saudi Arabia in 1992 and was stripped of his citizenship two years later. So there is no way the Saudi government would have allowed him to be deported into the country. In fact I’m having trouble picturing any country stepping up and telling Norway that they were willing to grant him asylum. I assume his request would either be denied or he’d be held until he could be charged with crimes against humanity.
This. I would assume that Norway wouldn’t agree to deport him to the US, but the Hague ? Now that’s more likely. They don’t hang any more, but life without parole would have been a cinch.
If the Yanks hadn’t have got him, we would.
And without crashing a helicopter doing it.