POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY AND MERCY:

The fact that the name of Rosser was put on the most wanted list along with the most high profiled international terrorists can be an indication that extradition was sought for political purposes, or that the trial against him will be prejudiced. Both the US-Thai Treaty and multilateral agreement on Extradition bar extradition which has been requested for such purposes, of if there are substantial grounds for believing that the person’s position may be prejudiced for race, religion, nationality or political reasons(16). It is true, that these provisions can be constructed narrowly as related to the race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinions, sex and status of the person sought to be extradited. At the same time, these international provisions can be interpreted broadly as preventing the requesting states from obtaining extradition when being guided primarily by narrow political considerations. It can be established considering political campaign of President Bush at the time of extradition and before it that his political popularity was boosted trough the appeal to tough measures against child pornography business. Therefore, a mere fact that the name of Rosser was put on the most wanted list can be a clear indication of the political side of the prosecution. According to the international rules, if this is the case, then Thailand should be under obligation not to grant extradition, and since Thailand granted it, it can amount to a breach of international law(17).

There were also optional grounds for refusal to extradite which the accused defence could put forward. It is clear from the report that the act of sexual exploitation of the child took place in Thailand. The report does not indicate the nationality of the victim. Further, the materials which were sent to the US were sent from Thailand. Therefore, Thailand was the place where crime took place, and consequently, Rosser could be tried and punished in Thailand, even though it appears that Thai Extradition Act does not prohibit sending a suspect abroad to face trial for committing crimes in Thailand(18).

There were some other grounds which were not heeded by Thai court. It appears that the accused had family in Thailand, and that can be a strong reason why he should be tried and punished in Thailand, and not in the US. There is another optional ground which is recognised in international law on extradition but which found no expression in the US-Thai Treaty. According to the UN Model Treaty on Extradition the requested state may refuse extradition if it considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the extradition of that person would be incompatible with humanitarian considerations in view of age, health or other personal circumstances of that person. These considerations are based on the moral virtue of mercy. This point raises two important questions: Can mercy considerations override the explicit text of the agreement which does not give room for mercy? Secondly, do people like Rosser deserve mercy?