There are criminal sanctions for producing and distributing pornographic materials in both countries. Thai law does not distinguish between child and adult pornography. Both types of pornography must have a commercial element to fall under criminal sanction. In the facts submitted in the indictment, there is nothing to indicate that the materials produced and distributed by Rosser were actually sold. It appears, more likely, that he shared them among a closed circle of people who were subjected to the same vice. However, Section 287 of Thai Criminal Code can be constructed broadly as punishing non-commercial production and distribution of pornography depending ation of Thai criminal law is given, and providing that the US authorities prove that the materials went beyond a narrow circle of the frieon how public was distribution of pornographic materials. Thus, count 3 could be extraditable under Thai law, providing that a broad interpretnds of the accused. Since nothing in the indictment indicates so, it is unlikely that a criminal act under count 3 can be extraditable under international law.

In any case, even if Thai law allows extradition under counts 2 and possibly 3 it appears that the US is not allowed to press its charges under counts 1 and 4, since those offences are not apparently contained in Thai criminal law, and therefore cannot be extraditable. The only offence which can be brought under dual criminality is a sexual exploitation of a minor providing that there was an act of indecency committed towards the minor by the accused, and providing that both American and Thai laws are interpreted broadly according to their spirit rather than their letter. Such interpretation is warranted by Article 4(4) of the US-Thai Treaty.

Thus, the fact that Rosser was prosecuted under all 4 counts can be considered as a breach of extradition law of both countries. The rule of speciality is devised to prevent prosecution of the extradited person for any other offence than that which was alleged in the process of extradition by the requesting state. In article 14 of the US-Thai treaty, laying down the rule of speciality, there is, however, an exception, that the requesting state can detain, try and punish for an offence other than that for which extradition has been granted if the requested state has consented to detention, trial, or punishment for such an offence. It is important to emphasize that such request is foreseen for the charges pressed on after the extradition process has been completed(14). It is also important to note that in principle this consent must still subject to the rule that the additional offence must be extraditable. It is a surprise that the treaty does not adhere to this principle explicitly. It can give rise to the cases when the extradited person is prosecuted for the offences which are not punishable in the requested state. The UN Model Treaty on Extradition underlines that “Consent shall be given if the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to extradition in accordance with the present treaty(15).”