"The Parties to the Agreement undertake to extradite to each other, under the circumstances stated in this Agreement, persons who are in the territory of one Party and who have been charged or convicted of any of the offences listed in Article 3 that was committed in the territory of the other Party or that was transited at sea in a vessel registered in the territory of that other Party."
It seems that this provision is a remnant of the "narrow" territorial concept that until recently was the basic concept in English law. For many years, the prevailing approach in Britain has stated that
Only an offense whose essence ("gist of the offence") occurred on British soil establishes the application of domestic criminal law. This is even if these are offenses that by their nature are cross-borders. The basis of this concept, known in Britain as the "Last Act rule", and by its other name - "Terminatory theory", is in the case of The Queen v. Ellis [1899] [113], and was reinforced in the judgment in Regina v. Harden [1963] [114]. It greatly reduced the willingness to apply English law to acts committed outside Great Britain, and assumed as a fundamental determination that the affairs of a state end where its physical borders stand.
In view of the gap between its outcome and the changing reality of life, this approach has been criticized in case law and in the legal literature (see: the words of Justice Rose in the judgment in the case of R. v. Smith [1996] [115] and L. Hall “Territorial Jurisdiction and the Criminal Law” [147];
L. Collins Fraudulent Conduct [142], at p. 258). Prof. Feller also criticized this approach:
"According to this approach, the dimension of the 'location of the offense' has such a limited role that it creates an ad hoc concept of 'criminality for the purposes of extradition' - as opposed to the usual and real criminality - that arises from the harm of the offense to the state, even when it is extraterritorial. Admittedly, this approach was once used to instill criminality in general, since the loneliness and distinction of the life of each state was also reflected in the fact that only what took place within the territory of its sovereignty was worthy of attention and response... [But it is] A remnant of the days when the application of the criminal law was purely territorial; therefore it has become obsolete" (Feller Extradition Laws [125], at p. 187; My emphasis is A, A, 30).