REALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
The question of the reality of the enforcement of human rights in ICL also raises the question of the Sovereignty of States and conflict of law and the compromise international law would make because of the condition of facing reality of the current landscape of the international and domestic society, and if it compromise international and domestic justice.
International criminal justice is a complex concept, whereas it has to balance and take into account the domestic laws of the nations involved; unintentionally the international world/state have adopted the westphalian system in which defines a sovereign state as a specific area of land with a ruling structure, which has the ability to rule over their territory without being influenced or yield to outside pressure, but it can be argued that this is not the case because of the interdependence of states in political, economic and in some case religious matters, but it is believed by this westphalian system, that sovereignty comes from within,  following this concept nations tend to want to deal with their own issues in order to protect their sovereignty’s, it is assumed ,that every recognized nation or state is a sovereign entity and has the legal authority to prosecute a criminal offence committed within its country this is known as the territorial principle, but this can be in conflict with the nationality principle which gives a state, authority over its citizens, this leads to complexity in a situation when citizens who are suspected of committing criminal acts or who may have committed criminal offence in another state or may have fled to another states, situations like this affect international law and international criminal justice and its enforcement(i.e. extradition, arrest), this conflict of law leads to political tension, international and national instability, and to avoid this state’s and the international community tend to make agreement or treaties to ensure smooth enforcement of laws and justice. The avoidance of state oppression and state breach of the fundamental human right of their citizen is desired by the international community
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHT
Human right can be said to be the natural right individuals are born with, nations recognize these rights as illustrated chapter 4 of the Nigerian 1999 constitution. The European convention on human rights and fundamental freedom (ECHRFF) was one of the first treaties on human right that was comprehensive and had an international complaint procedure, this treaty brought about the establishment of the European court of human rights (ECHR) and the European commission of human rights (ECOHR), and it is binding on all(in which the UK is a party to) also the decision of the ECHR is binding on the signatory states to the ECHRFF. The European court of justice(ECJ) which was established by EU law have been the main advocate of the application of fundamental human rights protection in their jurisdiction and have increased its jurisprudence to recognize human rights as can be seen in the case of x v. commissioner.The ECHRFF is intensely supervised in its application and member states to the convention, take the enforcement of its laid down principles serious as illustrated in R.(on the application of Mousa ) v Secretary for state for defense court of appeal (civil division) in which the judiciary of the UK upheld the policies of the ECHRFF by resisting a policy set out by their executive arm of government, in which the learned judges agreed that when there is a suspected wrong done by agents of the state, and it is still under the discretion of the ministry to make an inquiry into it, but when the suspected wrong doing, is in breach of article 2 or 3 of the ECHRFF this puts into force the obligation to investigate embedded in that provision.
Member states of the EU also have their own domestic laws and legislation that ensures that human rights are protected in their individual states as illustrated in the UK which has laws like the protection of children ACT 1978, and also the UK racism relation acts of 1976 which was to promote racial equality and which was then followed by the Race relation act (amendment ) act 2000, in which the anti-discrimination provision within the amended act was increased making it compulsory for all public authority to comply with the act or be subject to a judicial review by the high court; but in a situation where the domestic law of a member state is in contrast with European law on human right it is the general policy that the ECHRFF takes precedence ,however the misuse drug act 1971 s 5(4) which puts the onus of the burden of proof on the defendant which is a clear diversion from article 6 (2)of the European convention on human rights 1950, however it was established in the case of R.v Lambert(Steven),that article 6(2) of the European human right convention was not in violation and the court deemed that the public interest of the community holds more weight or takes more precedent than that of an individual member in this particular instant, this raises the question of where is the threshold between public interest and individual human rights and also when is the point when protecting the community interest, at the price human rights violation begins and stop, this authority should not be deemed as an excuse for authorities to begin human right violations, this opinion is shared by Lord Hope of Craig who stated that: “ as a matter of general principle therefore a fair balance must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals” it is believed that the convention is not meant to be an instrument of justice strictly , but should be a guideline or directive for member states of the convention and should be distinguished from the Canadian charter of rights (canadienne des droit) , the Canadian charter unlike the European human right charter is explicit as can be seen in the case of R V Keegstra 3 scr 697 where the court showed that the Canadian human right convention set the limit of freedom of expression to include racism. So balance must be struck between the compliance of international, transnational, states laws, and human right.
Every law has its problem and the conflict of laws between municipal laws and transnational law would always occur as can be seen in the case of Julian assange v Swedish prosecution authority case no: co/1925/2011 High court of justice queen’s bench division divisional court 2 November 2011 where the court UK court complied initially with extradition of the suspect to Sweden but recently the court granted the popular wiki leak founder permission to appeal his Extradition. Section 2(1) of the European arrest warrant article allow an European arrest warrant to be issued for act punishable by law of the issuing state but the systematic and rampant use of the European arrest warrant undermines the EAW the EAW is also being misused and abused for low level crimes, the application of the EAW should be measured with the proportion of the crime and should have in mind the political and social landscape of the globe in its application.
EXTRADICTION IN THE UK AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
The United kingdom extradition laws and policies is governed by the Extradition act of 2003(EA) and its obligation as member state of the EU in which it is obligated to have common action to cooperate in criminal issue this is by virtue of Article 31 section 1 (b) of the European union agreement, also its extradition policies between EU Members states/Signatory states is governed by the European arrest warrant act 2003(EAW) this is an arrest and surrender agreement between member states of the EU for the purpose of judicial issues.
The United Kingdom’s EA 2003 give the police or a constable in the UK the mandate to arrest an individual who has a warrant for his extradition/ arrest this authority this is by virtue of the Extradition Act 2003 chapter 41 Part 1 section 3 and even if the warrant is not in the possession of the arresting officer, the officer may still proceed with the arrest this is authorized by chapter 41 Part 1 section 3 (5) of the EA, and to ensure that there is no breach of the individual rights of the arrested suspect the a copy of the arrest warrant should be shown/given to the suspect as soon as possible this is authorized by section 4(2) Of the EA, then the arrested suspect must be brought before the proper judge within 48 hours of his arrest in which a date for the extradition hearing shall be fixed by the judge, then the court would grant bail to the suspect or remand him in custody this is according to chapter 41 Part 1 section 8 of the extradition act, however the EA makes available the option of the arrested suspect to give his consent to be extradited, this is by virtue of chapter 41 part 1 section 8 of the EA 2003, however the authorities are obligated to explain to him the consequences of his consent, and once consent is given in the present of the judge it is irrevocable by virtue of section 8 3(c)of the extradition act. In the interest of justice there are circumstance where the Judges would not grant extradition of a person to a category 1 territory (states with extradition treaties with the UK) for examples a situation of double jeopardy, and extraneous consideration which is described in section 13(A) of the aforementioned act as the prosecution of an individual because of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or gender 13(b) also protects the human rights of the suspect. The UK court would not grant extradition if it believe the suspect would not have a fair trial and also if there is no prima facie evidence as regards to the crime he allegedly committed, and it also would not grant an extradition if the crime is not recognized, or punishable in its jurisdiction as illustrated cases of death penalty which is banned from being enforced in all EU member states by virtue of the charter of fundamental human rights article section 2 subsection 2 the UK court would respect the convention by not extraditing the suspect if there is a possibility that he would face the death penalty which is agains the UK law as illustrated in R(st john) v governor of Brixton prison, however UK and USA Treaty on extradition provides authority for the state to refuse extradition unless the requesting states gives an assurance that the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out this is by virtue of article 7 of the UK and USA Extradition treaty as can in its jurisdiction its jurisdiction the person might not receive fair trial
The International criminal court(ICC) is at the focal point of Justice and crime prevention in world it was created by the Roman statute of the treaty 1st July 2002 the court wields great power and to ensure justice and the enforcement of its decision signatory states are obligated to arrest suspects wanted by the court this is by virtue of section 23 subsection (1) and (2) of the international criminal court act (ICCA)2001 it goes as far as removing the immunity from prosecution of signatory state diplomatic official including the head of state of the aforementioned states if the suspect in question with diplomatic immunity is a member of a state that is not attached to the ICC waiver of the immunity shall be requested and obtained by the ICC this by virtue of the of section 232(b) of the ICCA.
The disadvantage of the ICC is that its jurisdiction is limited strictly to the following crimes; crime against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression this is by virtue roman statute of the criminal court article 5section 1, however according to the section 2 of the article the court shall not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until the crime of aggression has been specifically defined by the International community, but to a degree the ICC far reaching as can be seen in the case of Laurent Gbagbo the first former head of state who is appearing before the ICC.
The question of justice on the international and domestic level can be said to be a matter of point of view depending if you are looking at it from the point of view of the victim of the crime, or justice for the sovereignty of the states or body to prosecute the alleged, or it can also be viewed from the point of view of the suspected criminal, it is very hard to contemplate and apportion justice fairly, because it is inevitable somebody would still be grieved, by it, be it may the victim or the individual(s) that committed the acts.
In the area of Extradition, It is the jobs of state to make reasonable compromise between each other in their extradition process to ensure that justice would flow, and criminals would be brought to justice, or the alternative would be to let anarchy rule by states going to another borders to kidnap wanted suspect and bring them to just as illustrated in the case of united states v. Alvarez-machain, where a suspect was kidnapped by USA to face charge from Mexico to the USA this was done despite the bilateral treaties between the two nation in this intant the court deemed it fit that the kidnapping was illegal and demanded the suspect to be repatriated, However it can be noted if there is not a treaty between the the USA by virtue of Ker v. Illinois, the court has jurisdiction, even if the suspect was abducted by force ,but this states should bear in mind the human right of this individuals which is protected by the Vienna convention, European human right convention, hence the should follow the rule of law and justice to ensure justice is served but the issu of fairness of the treaties as can be seen in the case of Gary mackinno
emphasis should also be placed on the enforcement , application and implementation of human right in the area of ICL and extradition, although it is advantageous having all these international legislations that have human rights ingrained in them, but emphasis should be made in their enforcement in each state, countries like, Nigeria who have proceeded to ingrain human right in their constitution, but in reality it is not really enforced as can be seen in the constant infringement of individual human right politically motivated killing, summary execution, rape, torture and the unfair treatment of prisoners, the bad and also the degrading prison system and buildings, the corruption of the judiciary, also the press is stifled and it is dangerous to express your opinion to vocal, and the violence against women, sanction should be put into place to ensure the compliance of nations although it can be argued that this sanctions would only affect innocents citizens and not the individuals committing this acts.
 Malcolm.n. shaw international law cambridge 5th ed pg 422
The Origins of Westphalian SovereigntyBy Kelly Gordonsenior Seminar(HST 499W)June 6, 2008 page 3 http://www.wou.edu/las/socsci/history/thesis%2008/KellyGordonWestphalianSovereignty.pdf
 Malcolm.n. shaw international law cambridge 5th ed pg 578
 Malcolm.n. shaw international law cambridge 5th ed pg 584
 Mark gibney, Katarina Tomasevski, Jens vested- Hansen Transnational state Responisbility for violation of Human right
 Lord hailsham of st marley bone Halsbury law of englan fourth ed james bowman llb the solicitor of the supreme courtbutters worth re 8(2) constitutional law and human rights para 122
 Sionaidh Douglas-scot constitutional law of the European union Longman pearson p446: Case c-404/92 x v commissionECR I-4737
R.(on the application of Mousa ) v Secretary for state for defense court of appeal (civil division  EWCA Civ 1334
R.v Lambert(steven) 2 W.L.R. 2112
 which falls under the canadian constitution act of 1882
 Aljazeera< http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/20111255414525915.html> 06/12/2011
111.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/proportionality-fairer-european arrest -warrant
 COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION
of 13 June 2002
on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
 s Extradition Act 2003 chapter 41 Part 1 section 8 3(B
 R(st john) v governor of Brixton prison DCQB 613;  2 WLR 221
 UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
2010 human righ report Bureau of democracy , human right, and labor 2010 country reports on human rights pratice report april 2011 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154363.htm> 01/12/20112