CASE NAME- Savarkar Case

PARTY-France Vs. Great Britain

YEAR-1911

PRINCIPLE-

If any state did not granted any persons asylum or mistakenly send him other state for that reason
after then the state send first other didn’t cleared again or the state lastly gave asylum didn’t back
the person and that claimed has no validity.

FACT OF THE CASE-

Mr. Vinayak Donador Savarkar was being transported in India for trail on a charge of right
reason and abutment of murder. He managed to step out at manse tiles throughout the port hole
of a water closet. But he was captured by a French Police man who handed him over to the
captain of more without extradition proceeding being a political offender. France demanded him
back but the British Government refused to surrender.

ISSUE-

 Whether France was entitled extradition of Saverkar?

 What are the relevant international law and customs in this regard?

DECESION-

International court gave decision in favor of Britain and said that here is no rule extradition of
international law for that reason the Britain was bound to extradition Saverker in France.

REASONING-

There is no rule or Act about extradition in International Law which ground the U.K is bound to
extradite Savarkar.

CASE NAME- Alabama Claims Arbitration

PARTIES- USA vs. UK,

YEAR- 1872
PRINCIPLE-

No state can deny the international responsibilities and for these purpose to deny that not defense
as the domestic or state law. But the state law have to connection in the International Law.

FACT OF THE CASE-

In (1861-1865) the USA civil war was occurred. Then Britain declared neutrality of this war and
that is accepted as the USA. But the confederate navy made many warship used in civil was from
Britain. The USA authority request to Britain that they can take action the company of the ship.
But Britain did not take any action against such company. As the violation of the agreement
USA had claimed compensation from Britain on the ground that it had violated the law of
neutrality.

ISSUE-

· Whether under the Washington agreement the Britain follow the neutrality or not.

· Whether the Britain was liable to pay any compensation to the USA or not.

DECESION-

It was held that the Britain failed to follow the neutrality so that Britain had to pay USA 1, 55,
00,000 dollars so that Britain had to pay in this amount in Gold in the form of compensation for
the violation of the laws of neutrality.

REASONING-

 No state to keep away from international responsibility to shelter the national law.

 Each and every state has accountability to protect their national law, but not avoiding
international responsibility.

CASE NAME- Re Castioni

PARTIES- Switzerland vs. Great Britain

YEAR-1981 Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain

PRINCIPLE-
Which the prisoner had committed was incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances,
and therefore was an offence of a political character within the meaning of the statute, and the
prisoner could not be surrendered, but was entitled to be discharged from custody.

FACT OF THE CASE-

Angello Castioni, a Swiss citizen, had participated in an uprising on September 11, 1890 in the
Canton of Tinoco. The reolt was against the administration. A large group of citizen including
Castioni, seized the Arsenal of the town of Bellinzona, disarmed the police, caught and seized
several persons connected with the Cantonal administration and forced them to march in from of
the armed crowed to the municipal palace. Mr. Castoioni was armed with a receiver. Rossi, a
policeman was shot and die. A witness later identified Castioni as the person who fired the fatal
shot to the policeman. Castioni then fled to Great Britain and te Swiss Government formally
requested to arrest and extradite Castioni on the charge of having committed willful murder.
After his arrest his legal representative asked for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus and for
the freeing of castioni, claiming that he had been guilty of only a political murder.

ISSUE-

 Whether the authority is bound to be extraditing Castioni?

 Whether the offense committed by Castioni, was a crime of political nature?

DECESION-

The court held that the authority is not bound to extradite Castioni.

REASONING-

The court ruled that Castioni had committed act and it was part of an attack on the palace. The
act was connected with an uprising aimed at the Cantonal Government and his was a struggle
between two groups. Castioni in this situation had no personal feeling against Rossi. He shot a t
Rossi in the promotion of a political uprising. His act constituted a political offence, for which he
could not be surrenders to the Swiss authority on the ground of extradition.

CASE NAME- Re Menuier Case

PARTIES- France vs. U.K. Queen’s Bench Division, Great Britain

YEAR-1894

PRINCIPLE-

If any distractedness creating group believe and to destroy the on that state law which was not
treated a political disturbance.

FACT OF THE CASE-

Mr. Meunier was an French citizen. He was an explosion believer. He believe that there was no
state and no any govt. in the state. In this political interface on him. To destroy the of he
explosion many place by bombing in the state. He explosion by two bomb in military shelter and
left in Britain. Menuier shown the cause of political disturbance and Britain could not extradite.

ISSUE-

 Whether it was a political disturbance?

 Whether it was a extraditable matter?

DECESION-

The court rejected Meunie’ s and granted his extradition to French government.

REASONING-

Mr. Meunier was an explosion and terrorist mist so that it was an offence which was under
criminal jurisdiction. Terrorism could not a political disturbance. If political disturbance the two
very party must be related with each other.

CASE NAME- Ex Parte kolzyniski case

PARTIES- Poland vs. U.K

YEAR-1955

PRINCIPLE-

The offender kept away in which state, the state Judiciary or supreme Court will be decided at
very offence was political offence or not.

FACT OF THE CASE-

Mr. Kolzyniski was a Polish citizen. He was an in Polish ship. He and other some sailors protest
against the captain in ship and kept away from Britain and claim asylum there. On sea if made
any offence the Poland has only the trial there to adjudicate their sailor in this ground Poland
claimed there sail. Then kolzyniski said that they need to freedom of common and kept away in
Britain which was a democratic country to freely. If extradition there in Poland they tried by not
to sailors, they trial for protest communistic.

ISSUE-

 Whether it was an political offence

 Whether Britain Extradition to Poland?

DECESION-

The court held that to free from communism Mr. Kolzyniski and his other sailors happened the
offence which was an political offence and decided that Britain was not bound to extradition
them.

REASONING-

The court found no clear evidence that the Polish nationals were criminals. There is a probability
that they might be prosecuted for political offence if they are extradited.

CASE NAME- Government of Greece vs. Governor of Brixton Prison

PARTIES- Greece vs. Governor of Brixton Prison

YEAR-1969

PRINCIPLE-

The decision to extradite an offender is often highly influenced by political ideology of the
requested State.

FACT OF THE CASE-

A Greek fugitive falsely collected a huge sum of money and managed to flee away to United
Kingdom. He was convicted in his absence by a Greek court by the allegation of obtaining
money by pretences. He argued that he was determined opponent of the ten military
Governments in Greece and had been detained without trial for several years. He thus had good
reason to fear further such detention, in addition to the sentence arising out of the criminal
conviction, if he were returned to Greece. The Government of Greece demanded his extradition
to the UK.

ISSUE-

The issue before the UK court was whether the Greek national can be extradited.

DECESION-

The court rejected the arguments on behalf of the Greek National, and ordered for his extradition

REASONING-

It would be a clear breach of faith on the part of the Government of Greece if he were detained in
Greece otherwise than for the purpose of serving his sentence and it appears to me to be
impossible for our court… to assume that any foreign Government with which her Majesty’s
Government has diplomatic relations may act in such a manner” said Lord Reid.

CASE NAME- Abu Daud case

PARTIES- France vs. Germany and Israel

YEAR-1977

PRINCIPLE-

The apex court was decided whether it was political offence or not.

FACT OF THE CASE

In 1976 the Olympic game in Munich 1976 the Olympic game in Munich, and palatine Abu
Daud murdered by bomb blast the athletic in Israel. After that, Abu Daud kept from franc end
leave in there but the in from of France arrest him in there. After arrest Abu Daud German and
Israel both are clamed extradition when the news was published Germany clamed for the reason
the offence was made his country. On the other hand Israel clamed for that reason to murder his
athletic, and Palestine Abu Daud murdered by bomb blast the athletic in Israel. After that, Abu
Daud kept from franc end leave in there but the in from of France arrest him in there. After arrest
Abu Daud German and Israel both are clamed extradition when the news was published
Germany clamed for the reason the offence was made his country. On the other hand Israel
clamed for that reason to murdered his athletic

ISSUE-

Whether there has any right to clamed extradition Germany or Israel.

DECESION

The court held that board that countries are right to clamed extradition

REASONING-

Germany did not claim Abu Daud for extradition in a proper way.

The crime did not occur in Israel so that they have no right to extradite him in Israel.

CASE NAME- Tarnsov/Tarashor Extradition Case

YEAR 1963

PRINCIPLE-

Extradition claimed state not back the kept away person on that state until or unless the slandered
state gave the documents against that very person.

FACT OF THE CASE-

V.S Tarnsov was a sailor on a Russian oil Tanker. He charged for theft of Rs. 700 on November
25.1962. he jumped American Steel surveyor on 25th November. An enquire made judicial
Magistrate as per section 5 of the Indian Extradition in his judgment on March 29,1963, no prima
facie could be against Tarnsov on the basis of the report submitted by M.F the captain of
ship(Tanker).

ISSUE-

 Whether there was any Prima Facie on this case?

 Whether Tarnsov was extradition by India?

DECESION-
There evidence against Tarnsov was not convenience this extradition was not allowed to the
Soviet Union by the India Government.

REASONING-

There is no evidence which was necessary to prove the Prima Facie Case.

CASE NAME- Dey-Et.El Vs T.W.A Case

PARTIES- Dey-Et.El Vs T.W.A

YEAR -1975

PRINCIPLE- After completing the checking process of passenger on that here the

responsibilities of airline management starting and it is completing after Disembarkation

FACT OF THE CASE-

Dey and the others was passenger in TWA. After completing their checking in Athence airport
they were waiting in lounge. That time a terrorist attacked on airport. For that reason 3
passengers were died and 40 injured. Dey one of them. Dey and other passenger claimed
compensation in TWA. TWA said that his is responsibility to high air authority.

ISSUE-

· TWA was bound to pay compensation?

· Whether it was the responsibility in TWA?

DECESION-

The decisional happen in the case that TWA was responsible to pay compensation.

REASONING-

When all necessary precautions have been taken the judgment always goes in favor of the victim.
Since Mr. Dey and other were checking in, they were the passengers though not on board and
form the time of being the passengers all the liability goes on the Airlines. There TWA was
liable.