1931 extradition treaty between US in Bisram case
US state attorneys are banking on a 1931 extradition treaty it had signed with Great Britain to successfully send back wealthy businessman, Marcus Bisram, to face a murder trial in Guyana. According to court documents filed Wednesday by state attorney on behalf of the Department of Justice, the applicable provisions between the United States and Guyana are found in the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of December 22, 1931. Bisram was refused bail on Wednesday after he appeared before Judge Peggy Kuo in a Brooklyn court, New York. The businessman, despite lawyering up, failed to persuade the court that he should be allowed his freedom pending the extradition hearing. This is because Bridget Rohde, Acting United States Attorney, made it clear that there is no guarantee the businessman would not flee. In custody now, he will return to court next Thursday. Rohde, in her submissions for Bisram to be kept in custody, explained that the Government of Guyana requested formally for the US to extradite Bisram, a fugitive from Guyana, pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the US and Great Britain. It was disclosed that Bisram was arrested on July 4, 2017, based on a complaint and warrant issued by Judge James C. Francis IV, a New York judge since June 16, 2017, seeking his extradition to Guyana.
Rohde, in her arguments for refusal of bail, said that unlike in criminal cases, there is a strong presumption against bail in extradition proceedings. To justify bail, the fugitive must establish the existence of “special circumstances” warranting bail, and that he is not a flight risk nor a danger to the community. “We respectfully submit that Bisram should be detained because he cannot meet the burden of showing that he poses no risk of flight or danger to the community and that special circumstances exist warranting his release.” The US state lawyer said that as a general matter, international extradition is primarily an executive function. “The judiciary’s role is delineated by statute, and extends to determining whether to certify to the Secretary of State that the submitted evidence from the requesting country is “sufficient to sustain the charge.” She made it clear that the Secretary of State, and not the courts, makes the final determination whether the fugitive should ultimately be surrendered to the requesting country.
(Kaietuernews.com)