Extradition, Assurances and Human Rights: Guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada in India v. Badesha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in India v Badesha concerning a challenge to the use of diplomatic assurances to alleviate substantial risks of serious mistreatment faced by an individual wanted for trial in a foreign state. The judgment confirms that in extradition matters, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires the Minister of Justice to undertake an assessment of the human rights practices of the foreign state making the extradition request. However, the impact of this human rights assessment in any future legal challenge to a Minister’s decision to surrender is likely to be tempered by administrative law considerations of reasonableness and the high degree of deference accorded to the executive in matters of foreign affairs and international cooperation. The author argues that while the Court helpfully identifies various contextual factors to be used to assess the reliability of a diplomatic assurance, the real test lies in their application, backed by the availability of robust judicial review to ensure a meaningful assessment. The article also identifies the willingness of a state to subject its record of human rights observance to review by an independent international monitoring body as an important factor in assessing the reliability of a diplomatic assurance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".