Extradition, Assurances and Human Rights: Guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada in India v. Badesha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in a surprising number of extradition cases concerning individuals in Canada who are wanted for trial elsewhere. Leave has been granted in 18 cases since the 2001 unanimous decision of “The Court” in United States v. Burns, which made extradition from Canada conditional on the receipt of assurances from a foreign state that a death penalty will not be imposed and thus, in substance, overturned the position taken by a divided Court 10 years earlier. Many intuitively connect extradition with criminal law, with extradition being a process of request and surrender that is available only in relation to a serious criminal charge. However, the judicial proceedings in an extradition case are not criminal trials, and in Canada, these cases typically involve challenges on either constitutional or administrative law grounds, or a combination of both, to the decisions of committal and/or surrender that pave the way for an individual’s forced departure from Canada. Indeed, many an extradition case is in fact a judicial review application, put forward to challenge the exercise of state power in circumstances where an individual’s liberty is at stake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".