'Person sought for different crime' in document 'Georgia - ICC Cooperation Law'

Jump to:

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

Chapter IV
Request of the International Court


Article 11. Review and execution of a request

2.If immediate execution of the request may hinder an on-going investigation or prosecution of a case not related to the request, the Responsible Agency may, in accordance with Article 94 of the Statute suspend execution of the request for a period to be agreed upon with the International Court. This period shall not exceed the time limit prescribed by the Code of Cirminal Procedure of Georgia for the completion of investigation.

Chapter V
Surrender of a person to the International Court


Article 24. Detention with a view to surrender

3. If a person subject to surrender according to the International Court’s request is in a pre-trial detention or is serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution, he may not be released or taken out from Georgia without the prior consent of the Responsible Agency. The Responsible Agency’s consent shall also be necessary for mitigating such person’s conditions, paying visit or censoring his correspondence.

RELEVANT ROME STATUTE PROVISIONS

Article 89
Surrender of persons to the Court
4. If the person sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the requested State for a crime different from that for which surrender to the Court is sought, the requested State, after making its decision to grant the request, shall consult with the Court.

Article 97
Consultations
Where a State Party receives a request under this Part in relation to which it identifies
problems which may impede or prevent the execution of the request, that State shall consult with
the Court without delay in order to resolve the matter. Such problems may include, inter alia:
(a) Insufficient information to execute the request;
(b) In the case of a request for surrender, the fact that despite best efforts, the person
sought cannot be located or that the investigation conducted has determined that the person in the
requested State is clearly not the person named in the warrant; or
(c) The fact that execution of the request in its current form would require the
requested State to breach a pre-existing treaty obligation undertaken with respect to another State.