Poland stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty. Portugal stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

If a State party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offences.

4. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which this article applies.

5. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which this article applies.

4. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the necessary legal basis for extradition in respect of the offence of enforced disappearance.

If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this instrument as the necessary legal basis for extradition in respect of the offence of enforced disappearance.

Lesotho stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Spain stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it did not take the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties. Sweden stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Austria stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Brazil stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Canada stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Chile stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Croatia stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Kuwait stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Myanmar stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Turkey stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

When a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, the requested State may, at its option, consider the present Convention as a legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences set forth in article 2.

5. States Parties that make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall

Costa Rica stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

South Africa stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

6. A State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall

Second, an Italian court held an extradition treaty to be terminated by the Second World War.

Romania stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it considered the Convention the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

The Jordanian United States Extradition Treaty, published in the Official Gazette No. 4055 of 16 July 1995.

China stated, for the Mainland Region, that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

An Italian court has also held an extradition treaty to be terminated by the Second World War.

Belgium stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Cyprus stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Egypt stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Latvia stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Ukraine stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Mexico stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it would consider the Convention the legal basis of cooperation in extradition matters in respect of those States parties with which it had not concluded treaties in the matter. Morocco stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty.

Malta stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it would take the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

The Philippines stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Turkey. This case concerned the applicants' extradition in March 1999 to Uzbekistan under a bilateral treaty with Turkey.

Similarly, a bilateral treaty on reciprocal inheritance rights could easily prove more resilient than a multilateral extradition treaty which conflicts with national policy of the armed conflict.

Angola stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it did not take the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Azerbaijan stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it would use the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Bahrain stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty in Bahrain and that it took the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Belarus stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and it would use the Convention as a basis for cooperation on the issues of extradition with other States parties.

Estonia stated that extradition was not conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it would take the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

Jamaica stated that extradition was conditional on the existence of a treaty and that it did not take the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties.

States parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

3. Each of the offences to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

It also stated that the Convention constituted the legal ground for cooperation in the matters of extradition if a request for extradition were received from a State party with which there was no treaty on extradition. Uzbekistan stated that it regarded the Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties to the Convention.