When a decision on the declaration of a person subject to extradition becomes final, "all the normative conditions for the extradition of the requested person are fulfilled and permission is given to the executive authority to deliver him to the requesting state" (Feller Law of Extradition [125], at p. 442). But this is not the end of the story: the declaration is valid for 60 days (section 19 of the law) unless there are special circumstances for its extension by the District Court (section 20). During this period, the Minister of Justice is given the authority to determine, including on the basis of "extra-normative considerations, which the judiciary is not authorized to take into account" (Extradition Laws [125], at p. 445), that despite all of the above, the extradition should not be carried out (section 18 of the Law).
An examination of the relevant provisions therefore reveals that at each stage of the chain of handling the extradition request, the competent authorities - the Attorney General himself and through the State Attorney's Office, the Minister of Justice and the Jerusalem District Court - are required to exercise discretion. Each element in the chain, and each stage in the decision, and its own special judgment.
- As for the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice - Their Decisions are administrative decisions, and the rules apply to them in the matter of any decision of another statutory authority. The decision must be the result of the consideration of all the relevant considerations. It must be accepted in good faith. It must be reasonable and evidence-based (High Court of Justice 852/86 Aloni v. Minister of Justice (hereinafter - Parashat Aloni [16]), p50). It must take into account the purpose of the extradition laws (High Court of Justice 3261/93 Manning v. Minister of Justice [17], p. 285).
- The "administrative" considerations carry considerable weight. The District Court, although it does not sit as an "administrative" instance, is authorized to invoke them if it finds them relevant. This court will also be required, sitting as a court of criminal appeals, to consider these considerations if they arise. But these are not exclusive considerations. The matter is not limited to the question of judicial intervention in the decisions of the executive branch. The administrative aspect is only one of the faces of
The issue of extradition. For this reason, I am not prepared to accept the state's argument that it is sufficient to apply the tests set out in the case law of the High Court of Justice regarding the intervention - limited - at the discretion of the prosecutors (see, inter alia: High Court of Justice 223/88 Sheftel v. Attorney General [18], at p. High Court of Justice 935/89 Ganor v. Attorney General [19]; High Court of Justice 806/90 Hanegbi v. Attorney General [20]). My view is that in view of the independent and active role assigned by the Extradition Law to the judiciary, the extradition courts must submit under their control all the considerations relevant to it.