Article 6 is very interesting because it represents a slight linguistic but significant substantive departure from internationally recognized rules of extradition. It states: “When the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the Requesting State and is not punishable by death under the laws of the Requested State, the competent authority of the Requested State may refuse extradition unless: (a) the offense is murder as defined under the laws of the Requested State; or (b) the competent authority of the Requesting State provides assurances that it will recommend to the pardoning authority of the Requesting State that the death penalty be commuted if it is imposed.” The slight difference is contained in the conjunction ‘or’. This conjunction means that the murder offence even followed by death penalty in the requesting state, but which is not punishable in the same way in the requested state, cannot be covered by this discretionary reason for refusal of extradition. In international practice the conjunction “or” would be replaced in relation to all offences by the reason contained in paragraph ‘b’. It appears, that in the US-Thai treaty paragraph ‘b’ does not necessarily apply to the offence of murder. In such well known international agreements as the European Convention on Extradition (Article 11) or UN Model Treaty on Extradition (Article 4), a murder offence is not exempted from the general reason specified in paragraph ‘b’ of the US-Thai Treaty.

Article 14 incorporates into the Treaty the internationally recognized rule of specialty. This article provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be prosecuted or punished for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted. The Treaty is retroactive, in the sense that it applies to offenses committed before as well as after its entry into force.

APPLYING US-THAI TREATY TO ROSSER'S CASE:

There could be a strong reason for Rosser to resist extradition and to try his best to be judged by Thai law rather than American one. In the US he would face up to 20 years of imprisonment, while in Thailand if applying Section 287 of Thai Criminal Code on the charges distributing pornography he would face not more than 3 years(11). For committing an indecent act on a child not over thirteen years of age, with or without her consent, such person shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding ten years or fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both(12).