Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T08:35:21.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States v. Burns. [2001] 1 S.C.R

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

William A. Schabas
William A. Schabas*
Affiliation:
Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 666 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 At <http://canada.justite.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html>.

2 United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, para. 8 [hereinafter Burns judgment]; see id., para. 65. The Court “refrain[s] from trying to anticipate” just what those “exceptional circumstances” might be. Id. The Burns case, as well as the other Canadian Supreme Court cases cited in this report, are available online at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/index.html>.

3 United States v. Burns, 116 Can. Crim. Cases (3d) 524 (Ct. App. B.C. June 30, 1997), at <http://www.courts.gov.be.ca/CA/Ca-main.htm>.

4 Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; Reference re Ng Extradition (Can.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858. Both cases are discussed in a report by the author at 87 AJIL 128 (1993).

5 [Aylor-Davis,] Conseil d’Etat, 1993 Lebon 283, conclusions Vigoureux (Oct. 15), available at <http://iep.univlyon2.fr/pdm/National/France/extraditionEtats-Unis.html#ccDavisAylor> (rejecting a challenge as to the sufficiency of assurances given by Texas that the death penalty would not be imposed).

6 [Venezia v. Ministero di Grazia e Giustizia,] corte cost., June 27,1996, n.223, 1996 Race. uff. corte cost. 61, 121-1 Foro. It. 2586 (1996); see Andrea Bianchi, Case Report: Venezia v. Ministero di Grazia e Giustizia, 91 AJIL 727 (1997).

7 Short/Netherlands, HR 30 maart 1990, 1990 RvdW 343, excerpted and translated in 29 ILM 1388 (1990); see John, E. Parkerson Jr. & Steven, J. Lepper, Case Report: Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, 85 AJIL 698 (1991)Google Scholar.

8 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989); w Richard B. Lillich, The Soering Case, 85 AJIL 128 (1991).

9 Pratt v. Attorney General for Jamaica, [1994] 2 AC 1 (P.C. 1993), reprinted in 33 ILM 364 (1994) (holding the imposition of the death penalty more than five years after pronouncement of the sentence to be a form of inhuman or degrading punishment).

10 Washington offers those sentenced to death a choice between hanging and lethal injection. See Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§10.95.030, 95.040, 95.070, 95.180 (West 1990 & Supp. 1999).

11 Treaty on Extradition, Dec. 3, 1971, U.S.-Can., Art. 6, 27 UST 983, TIAS No. 8237, as amended by exchange of notes, June 28/July 9, 1974, as further amended Jan. 11, 1988, 1853 UNTS 407.

12 See, e.g., The Question of the Death Penalty, Comm’n Human Rights Res. 1999/61 (Apr. 28,1999), UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1999/61. Since 1997, there has been an annual resolution on capital punishment adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, of which the latest is The Question of the Death Penalty, Comm’n Human Rights Res. 2001/68 (Apr. 25, 2001), UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2001/68>. Commission materials are available online at <http://www.unhchr.ch>.

13 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 84.

14 For discussion of the “death row phenomenon,” Soering, and Kindler, see infra text accompanying notes 28-36.

15 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 95.

16 Id., para. 96.

17 Id., para. 98 (emphasis added).

18 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The Federal Death Penalty System : A Statistical Survey (1988-2000) (2000), available at <http://www.usdoj.gov/dag/pubdoc/dpsurvey.html>.

19 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 108.

20 Id., para. 111.

21 Id., para. 138.

22 Id., para. 142.

23 Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779.

24 Reference re Ng Extradition (Can.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 858.

25 Michael L. Radelet, Hugo Adam Bedau, & Constance E. Putnam, in Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases (1992) James S. Liebman, Jeffrey Fagan, Valerie West, & Lloyd, Jonathan, Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1839 (2000)Google Scholar; Dwyer, Jim, Neufeld, Peter, & Scheck, Barry, Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted (2000)Google Scholar.

26 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 108.

27 La Forest, G. V., The Use of International and Foreign Material in the Supreme Court of Canada, [1988] Proceedings, XVIIth Annual Conference, Canadian Council on International Law 230 Google Scholar; William, A. Schabas, Twenty-five Years of Public International Law at the Supreme Court of Canada, 79 Can. Bar Rev. 174 (2000)Google Scholar.

28 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989), reprinted in 28 ILM 1063 (1989); w Richard, B. Lillich, The Soering Case , 85 AJIL 128 (1991)Google Scholar.

29 Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779, 856.

30 Id. at 835.

31 Pratt v. Attorney General for Jamaica, [1994] 2 AC 1 (P.C. 1993), para. 52, reprinted in 33 ILM 364 (1994).

32 Venezia v. Italy, App. No. 29966/96, 87-A Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 140 (1996); Cheong Meng v. Portugal, App. No. 25862/94, 83-AEur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 88 (1995); Lei Ch’anWav. Portugal, App. No. 25410/94 (Eur. Comm’n H.R. Nov. 27,1995) (unpublished admissibility decision) ;Yeung Yuk Leung v. Portugal, App. No. 24464/94 (Eur. Comm’n H.R. Nov. 27,1995) (unpublished admissibility decision); Aylor-Davis v. France, App. No. 22742/93, 76-B Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 164 (1994).

33 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1, Art. 19(2) (Dec. 18, 2000), available at <http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm>.

34 Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Oct. 11, 2000, Art. 19, explanation, Charte 4473/00 Convent 49, at <http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/convent49_en.htm>.

35 At <http://www.concourt.gov.za/date2001.html> (in the absence of assurance, unconstitutional to deport to the United States a person charged with a capital crime).

36 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995).

37 UN Doc. No. E/CN.4/1999/52 (1999).

38 Capital Punishment and Implementation of the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/2000/3 (2000), available at <http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/docs/2000/e2000-3.pdf>.

39 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 89.

40 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, reprinted in 21 ILM 58 (1982), available at <http://wwwl.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/>.

41 Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, opened for signature Apr. 28, 1983, ETS No. 114, at <http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/148e.htm> (entered into force Mar. 30, 1985).

42 Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at Abolition of the Death Penalty, GA Res. 44/128 (Dec. 15, 1989) (entered into force July 11, 1991).

43 Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, OASTS No. 73, 29 ILM 1447 (1990), available at <http://www.cidh.org/basic.htm> (entered into force Oct. 6, 1993).

44 Burns judgment, supra note 2, para. 85.

45 Id.

46 See Bantekas, Bias & Hodgkinson, Peter, Capital Punishment at the United Nations: Recent Developments, 11 Crim. L. Forum 23, 31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Leblanc, Daniel, Canada Wants UN to Soften Extradition Proposal, Globe & Mail, Apr. 19, 1999, at A3.Google Scholar