“... it is apparent from an examination of the factors listed above that although a fugitive may not have personally performed any act in the foreign jurisdiction in furtherance of the crime with which he is charged, that jurisdiction, for a variety of reasons, may still be the most effective place for him to be prosecuted” )ibid [123], at p. 134; Emphasis added - E.E.L.).
This approach was examined shortly thereafter in two similar cases in which two Canadian citizens were requested to be extradited to the United States for conspiracy to commit drug offenses in the United States. Their actions to conspire and realize the conspiracy did not go beyond Canada's borders, and the actions in the United States were carried out by emissaries on their behalf. The evidentiary body in the prosecution's possession was mostly found in the United States. The exposure of the affair would not have been possible without the efforts of the law enforcement authorities in the United States. Under the law, the suspects could be prosecuted in both Canada and the United States. The trial courts ordered their extradition. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that the extradition more than necessary violates their constitutional right not to leave the country by force. So the Supreme Court was required to speak. In his decision, which was given by Justice La Forest, by a majority of five justices to two, see United States of America v. Cotroni, supra [122], the Supreme Court of Canada adopted what was said in the Swystun case, stating:
“It is often better that a crime be prosecuted where its harmful impact is felt and where the witnesses and the persons most interested in bringing the criminal to justice reside, and... where the... evidence [is] located...” (ibid [122], at p. 1488).
It was therefore held that in light of all the considerations, extradition to the United States is constitutional (cf. also Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca (1983) [124], at p. 405).