The requested state should waive the applicability of its law. This is based on the authority granted to the prosecution authorities in Israel to petition the District Court to declare a person eligible for extradition. However, when such a waiver is subject to the examination of judicial review - which commands reflection on the position of the prosecution parties - and all the more so when the requested state insists on the applicability of its own laws, the question arises again and arises in full force.
- We are dealing with an issue that is somewhat reminiscent of the issue of the "conflict of laws" (conflict of law, and see A. Levontin Choice of Law - Proposed Law with Introduction and Short Explanatory Notes [128], On page 1). The legal branch of a litigant is usually associated with internalized law-Leumi, whose name is often associated with civil matters. Within its framework, a decision is required between different laws that seek to apply to the same matter by virtue of numerical connections. This decision is made in light of the rules of choice set forth in the laws of the state of the forum that discusses the issue. Each legal field and its own choice rule. Thus, for example, in Israeli law, it was determined that an act of tort that is connected to more than one legal system will generally apply to the law of the place where it was committed ( Yinon [28], at pp. 358-359); About Inheritance Applies The law of the testator's seat at the time of his death (Sections 137-140 The Inheritance Law, 5725-1965) and so on. The "motive" behind the rules of determination is therefore the preference of one particular connection over another, and accordingly - Preference of one law over his competitor.
This is different when we are dealing with a criminal matter as in the case before us (see also Levontin in his book [128], at p. 3). First, as I noted at the beginning, in criminal law there is no separation between the law and the jurisdiction, and the two are intertwined. The decision between competing systems is therefore not a "choice of law," but rather a "choice of applicability" of both the law and the jurisdiction. And it seems that it is easier for the legal system to "give up" but one of the two components under waiving both. Second, and more importantly, criminal law has unique characteristics: one is that the penal law is inextricably linked to the question of the sovereignty of the state, and therefore it is one of the "nuclear" matters in which the legal system seeks to apply its own principles. The second aspect is that in a criminal proceeding, a defendant, more than a litigant in a civil matter, is exposed to the risks arising from the rejection of his position and the adoption of the opposing party's position. And finally, the extradition laws, which are tangential to criminal law, are only interested in the question of the relationship between the connections. They wish to look at the issue from a broad perspective while considering many different considerations, of which the question of the relationship between the connections of applicability is only one of them.