New Journal of European Criminal Law

The article takes the European Union (EU)-Japan Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Agreement as a case study to analyse the EU success in pursuing its art 3(5) TEU mandate of upholding and promoting its values and interests; and to what extent the EU effectively relied on norm diffusion to this aim. The EU has arguably been, at least partially, successful in exporting its legal standards on ‘improved judicial cooperation’ in the text of the Agreement, especially a legal basis for acquiring testimony via videoconference, whereby to uphold its interest into security; and in including clauses allowing it to uphold its values of respect of fundamental rights. In particular, in having clause allowing the EU to refuse assistance if death penalty is involved, the EU arguably not only acted as a norm exporter, but it also set a new international legal standard, through which it also hoped to promote its values by triggering a change in Japan’s retentionist policy. An analysis of 10 years of implementation of the Agreement shows, however, a more nuanced picture, highlighting the importance to look at both the norm emergence and the norm socialisation phase when assessing the success of the EU as a norm exporter. The institutionalisation of EU-Japan MLA cooperation through the conclusion of the agreement has triggered a stark increase in volume and speed of cases, contributing to higher security. However, legal, practical and cultural factors hinder the implementation in practice of EU legal standards on acquisition of evidence and the promotion of the EU abolitionist agenda.

This article looks into the architecture of remedies for breaches of the right of prisoners not to be subjected to inadequate conditions of detention under the revised 2020 European Prison Rules (EPR). It seeks to expound the consistency and rationality of the relevant provisions of the 2020 EPR from the perspective of relevant principles and specific prescriptions of European prison law. For the purpose of the present article, the term ‘European prison law’ encompasses rules and standards set out in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, practice of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the provisions of the EPR. The article finds that, in this context, there is sufficient coherence in the relevant principles of European prison law – faithfully codified in the 2020 EPR – providing clear guidance to European States on how to put in place a system of remedies for breaches of prisoners’ rights and how to ensure its effective operation in practice.

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued an inadmissibility decision regarding the application concerning the Roboski massacre (Selahattin Encü and Others v Turkey App no 49976/16, 17 May 2018) on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. As observed in a number of earlier decisions, the ECtHR was resolutely confident about the decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey on the matter. This unwavering trust has resulted in the once-and-for-all burial of the truth about one of the gravest massacres in the history of Turkey without a proper examination of the allegations of the applicants. Two differing views were put forward after the ECtHR’s decision. The first of these argued that the dismissal of a massacre of such magnitude for procedural reasons was unacceptable. Proponents of this view asserted that even if there were procedural grounds to find the application inadmissible, this could not be sufficient justification to prevent the truth from being revealed. Proponents of the second view argued that every court had its own procedures and that those who did not comply had to face the consequences. This article attempts to examine the second view on its own terms. In so doing, I will present the legal evidence and rationale showing that it is in fact the Constitutional Court of Turkey that has violated its own procedural rules. I will also argue that despite an acceptance of the second view, perhaps more markedly because of such acceptance, it is not possible to bury the truth about the Roboski massacre. This discussion will be guided by a more significant question: How is it that the Constitutional Court of Turkey made such a major procedural error in a case of such gravity and how is it that the ECtHR was so eager to uphold the error?

This article provides an analysis of the bill proposed in 2019 to amend Hong Kong Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO), Hong Kong domestic legislation on extradition. The FOO Amendment Bill introduced the possibility of, and detailed the conditions for, surrendering fugitives from Hong Kong to other regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), among which, controversially, mainland China. After multiple protests, the proposal was withdrawn. It nonetheless represents the first attempt of introducing a legal basis for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China, and it is thus deserving of close scrutiny. The article describes the unique constitutional setting in which this amendment was proposed, Hong Kong and mainland China being two regions of the same sovereign country which have two radically different legal systems under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. It compares the proposed system for extradition between these two regions with the rules regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third states, and with international systems for surrender, including the European Arrest Warrant and the UN Model Extradition Treaty. It shows that the FOO Amendment Bill would have put in place a surrender system in some respects less advanced and subject to more obstacles than standard international extradition Treaties and than the system regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third countries. This is the case, for instance, for the rules on penalty thresholds and on double criminality. Conversely, in other respects, it would have been even more advanced (and with fewer obstacles) than the European Arrest Warrant, one of the most advanced systems of international surrender. This is notably the case for the rules regulating extradition of Hong Kong residents to other parts of the PRC. These latter were, however, among the more controversial aspects of the proposal. The article also discusses the challenges that reintroducing a similar proposal would face in the future, including in light of current political and legal developments – notably the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’s July 2020 adoption of the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’. It suggests that one avenue to smoothen surrender proceedings between Hong Kong and mainland China would be taking a procedural rather than a substantive approach, namely by increasing the role of courts and decreasing the role of executive bodies in the extradition procedures.