Video (01:32) : Zimbabwean authorities confirmed on Friday that they will seek the extradition of an American dentist who killed a lion that was lured out of a national park and shot with a bow and a gun. 
 
 Zimbabwe's wildlife minister says extradition is being sought for Walter J. Palmer, the Twin Cities big-game hunter and dentist implicated in the killing of Cecil, a prized research lion in Zimbabwe. 
 
 Oppah Muchinguri, environment, water and climate minister, told a news conference Friday: "We want him tried in Zimbabwe because he violated our laws. ... Police should take the first step to approach the prosecutor general who will approach the Americans. The processes have already started." 
 
 
 
 "Unfortunately it was too late to apprehend the foreign poacher as he had already absconded to his country of origin," Muchinguri said. "We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe so that he be made accountable." 
 
 Muchinguri noted the worldwide attention the case has received. 
 
 "There has been an outcry," she said. "Almost 500,000 people are calling for his extradition and we need this support." 
 
 
 
 Meanwhile, U.S. wildlife authorities have opened an investigation into the killing of Cecil, and said Thursday, and again on Friday morning, that they have been unable to contact Palmer, the Twin Cities big-game hunter and dentist implicated in the fatal hunt. 
 
 Officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that, even though the African lion is not protected under U.S. law, they share Zimbabwe’s interest in protecting threatened animals. “The investigation will take us wherever the facts lead,” said Edward Grace, the agency’s deputy chief of law enforcement. 
 
 Separately on Thursday, the head of Zimbabwe’s safari industry association told the Star Tribune that he believes bribery was involved in the hunt because Palmer’s guide did not have proper hunting licenses and permits. 
 
 Video (01:27): White House to answer petition on Twin Cities man who killed lion Video (01:27): White House to answer petition on Twin Cities man who killed lion 
 
 “There had to be [bribes],” said Emmanuel Fundira, president of Zimbabwe’s Safari Operators Association. “The documents which they used for carrying out the hunt were all illegal and fraudulently obtained.” 
 
 Fundira, who has assisted government officials in investigating the incident, also said he believes it is “highly, highly likely” that Palmer will be charged by Zimbabwe authorities, though he added that Palmer “probably committed the offense unknowingly.” 
 
 Palmer’s guide, Theo Bronkhorst, already has been charged in the killing, and the owner of the farm where the hunt took place, Honest Trymore Ndlovu, is expected to be charged next week. “I would recommend [that Palmer] get in touch to put his side of the story in before assumptions and or conclusions are arrived at,” Fundira said. 
 
 Authorities seeking Palmer's extradition have described him as an accomplice to the illegal hunt. But they have not specified what charges might be laid against him, meaning it is unclear what penalty he could face if he is tried and convicted. 
 
 ‘Deep regret’ 
 
 The killing unleashed a firestorm of outrage that has spanned the globe. Palmer suspended his dental practice this week as critics tied up his phone lines, filled his social media account with harsh postings and staged a passionate protest Wednesday outside his Bloomington office. 
 
 Eden Prairie police said Thursday that they are keeping watch on Palmer’s neighborhood but not providing him personal protection. 
 
 Palmer’s whereabouts on Thursday were unclear. Protests subsided at his dental practice, but reporters and curious onlookers did gather outside his Florida vacation home, a $1 million property on Marco Island. 
 
 Palmer declined to comment when reached by the Star Tribune on Wednesday and did not answer his phone when called Thursday morning. Earlier in the week, he issued a statement saying that he felt deep regret over the incident. He said that he had no idea at the time that he was shooting a prized lion and that he believed his guides were acting legally. 
 
 The exact nature of the U.S. investigation remains unclear. African lions are not listed under the core U.S. wildlife protection statute, the Endangered Species Act. A second law, which bans the import of wildlife killed under illegal circumstances, would not come into play because Palmer did not try to bring the lion’s carcass home, lawyers say. A third U.S. statute forbids bribery of foreign officials by Americans traveling overseas, but attorneys said this week it’s not clear if that law would come into play. 
 
 Federal officials said this week that they are cooperating with their counterparts in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, and that the U.S. has a broad and flexible extradition treaty with Zimbabwe, though it is designed with an eye to combating organized crime, terrorism and drug trafficking. 
 
 The treaty obliges both countries to extradite any individual from either country who is charged with or convicted of an offense punishable by both countries by at least one year in prison. 
 
 Jeff Flocken, the North American regional director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in Washington, D.C., said he would be surprised if Palmer were extradited. 
 
 “Typically, wildlife crimes don’t rise to [that] level of scrutiny and prosecution,” he said, noting that the U.S. allows the legal import of nearly 450 African lion trophies each year. 
 
 Flocken noted that U.S. hunters are responsible for about 60 percent of African lions killed each year for sport. 
 
 The U.S. Department of Justice does not track how many people are extradited from the country for environmental prosecutions such as wildlife trafficking. But the number would appear to be small. In recent years, the U.S. has extradited just 54 to 72 fugitives a year, including U.S. and foreign citizens under all categories, a Justice Department spokesman said. 
 
 Video (01:50): Protest outside lion hunter's office Video (01:50): Protest outside lion hunter's office 
 
 The killing of Cecil and Palmer's involvement reached President Obama's doorstep Thursday, when presidential spokesman Josh Earnest said a petition on the White House's "We the People" website had topped the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a response from the administration. 
 
 Earnest said the White House would, indeed, respond. He added during his daily briefing that "this is an issue that is a particularly important policy issue in Africa. ... This is something that we are obviously aware of." 
 
 Richard Chibuwe, deputy chief of mission at Zimbabwe's embassy in Washington, D.C., applauded the Zimbabwe wildlife minister’s statement. 
 
 “This is pure poaching,” Chibuwe said. “The guys new exactly what they were doing. There is absolutely no excuse for what they did.” 
 
 Calls from ordinary Americans as well as Zimbabwe nationals expressing outrage over the lion’s killing have been pouring into the embassy, Chibuwe said, and staff are trying to answer as many of the calls as they can. 
 
 Palmer should come forward, Chibuwe said. 
 
 “If he is innocent.. why should he be hesistant to appear before the court?” he said. “He should have a sense of responsibility.” 
 
 Chibuwe said he doesn’t think the extradition process has been initiated yet, and that it likely would be handled between the two countries’ justice departments. 
 
 Video (01:29): People voice their outrage at lion hunter's office in Bloomington Video (01:29): People voice their outrage at lion hunter's office in Bloomington 
 
 Wildlife minister Muchinguri accused Palmer of "a well-orchestrated agenda which would tarnish the image of Zimbabwe and further strain the relationship between Zimbabwe and the USA." 
 
 Zimbabwe and the United States have often sparred over the years. The southern African country has blamed its economic woes on U.S. sanctions against President Robert Mugabe and close associates, though many commentators have attributed Zimbabwe's economic decline to mismanagement. 
 
 Washington imposed the penalties on Zimbabwe because of human rights concerns. More broadly, Mugabe has long railed against what he calls Western meddling in Africa, saying it is an extension of the colonial rule of the past. 
 
 Outfitter is a no-show 
 
 In Zimbabwe on Thursday, a magistrate conducted the second of two court hearings on Cecil’s killing, amid signs that prosecutors were still trying to sort out charges against Palmer’s guide and outfitter. 
 
 Ndlovu, owner of the farm where the hunt began, was supposed to appear in a regional court in Hwange, about 435 miles west of Harare, but prosecutors at the last minute said they weren’t prepared to file charges. Ndlovu’s attorney said charges are expected by next Wednesday. 
 
 Zimbabwe’s top wildlife regulator said this week that the kill was illegal because Bronkhorst, the guide, lacked the proper hunting permit for a lion kill for 2015. The charge was repeated by prosecutors at his hearing on Wednesday. 
 
 Many conservationists had predicted that Ndlovu and Bronkhorst would be charged with poaching, which can be punished by a fine of up to $20,000 or a 10-year prison sentence. 
 
 Gallery: Gallery: Cecil the lion remembered at Walter Palmer's dental office Gallery: Gallery: Cecil the lion remembered at Walter Palmer's dental office 
 
 Bronkhorst was charged instead with failing to prevent the killing of Cecil, and lawyers said Thursday that a poaching charge was inappropriate for the guide and outfitter, but possibly appropriate for Palmer. 
 
 Fishing without a license 
 
 Palmer, 55, an avid trophy hunter and bow-and-arrow marksman, shot and wounded the lion with a compound bow about July 1 during a guided nighttime hunt outside of Hwange National Park. After tracking led them to the wounded lion about 40 hours later, the hunting party finished it off with a gunshot. 
 
 The lion lived in the national park, where it had protected status. It had been collared as part of a long-term study and had became a favorite among tourists from all over the world. 
 
 Palmer had been listed in a record book compiled by Safari Club International, an organization for big-game hunters. The club’s record book listed 43 kills by Palmer, all by bow and arrow, including moose, buffalo, a polar bear and a mountain lion. The club said this week that it was suspending the memberships of Palmer and his Zimbabwe-based guide. 
 
 Palmer has run afoul of the law at least twice over the years, with a guilty plea and fine in 2008 for misleading federal authorities about a bear he killed illegally in Wisconsin and a misdemeanor for fishing without a license in Minnesota’s Otter Tail County. 
 
 -- The Associated Press contributed to this report. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ||||| Walter Palmer, the Minnesota dentist who shot dead Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe , asked to kill a massive elephant after shooting the protected animal – but was unable to find one sufficiently large enough, his guide has exclusively told The Telegraph. 
 
 Speaking for the first time since this newspaper revealed that Dr Palmer had fired the arrow that felled the much-loved lion, Theo Bronkhorst has given a detailed account of the July 1 hunt which, he said, went wrong from the start. 
 
 On Wednesday, Mr Bronkhorst appeared before magistrates in Hwange, north-western Zimbabwe, and was remanded on bail. He is forbidden from continuing with his hunting business, which he has run since 1992, and has been left devastated by the international fury directed at him since Cecil’s death . 
 
 His account of how Cecil came to be killed suggests there was confusion from the outset of Dr Palmer’s trip. 
 
 “This hunt… Oh no, it went wrong from the beginning,” Mr Bronkhorst said, speaking from his home in Zimbabwe’s second city of Bulawayo. 
 
 “When Dr Palmer arrived in Bulawayo, his luggage was missing and I was dashing around looking for it. So we were late getting ready to go,” he said. 
 
 “And we were never meant to hunt on the land where this lion was shot. At the last minute I had to divert from a concession [hunting area] about eight miles away.” 
 
 Dr Palmer, an enthusiastic game hunter, paid £35,000 for his permit to shoot a lion. 
 
 The killing of Cecil – which had been tagged with a collar as part of a research project run by Oxford University – has caused an international outcry that has forced the dentist into hiding. 
 
 
 
 Last photograph of Cecil with his pack friend Jericho (standing) a month before he was killed (Brent Stapelkamp) 
 
 The Government expressed its dismay on Thursday, with David Cameron saying that Britain intends to play a “leading role” in fighting the illegal wildlife trade. Grant Shapps, the minister for Africa and former Tory chairman, has written to the Zimbabwean environment minister to call for an Africa-wide ban on “barbaric hunting” in the wake of an act he described as “revolting”. 
 
 The land on which Cecil was shot was a farm called Antoinette, which borders Hwange national park. It is currently occupied by Honest Ndlovu – who appeared in court alongside Mr Bronkhorst on Wednesday, but has not been charged with illegal hunting. His lawyer, Tonderai Mukuku said he may have to become a state witness against Mr Bronkhorst. 
 
 Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Bronkhorst explained that, on the night of July 1, he was accompanied by his son Zane, also a professional hunter; his client, Dr Palmer; and a scout sent by Mr Ndlovu. 
 
 “We set off quite late, with the sun down, and found the carcass of an elephant which we dragged and moved into the long grass and used for bait,” he said. “We then established the ‘tree blind’ [a camouflaged hide made of tree branches and grass]. 
 
 “Once we were established, and it was quiet, we first saw a lioness go past. And then a huge male – Cecil – came into view behind her. He was a magnificent animal. 
 
 “The client then fired using a bow and arrow, and it went away into the long grass. This was about 10 pm.” 
 
 Mr Bronkhorst said he had a sense that the lion was hit, but could not be sure. 
 
 “Bow and arrow wounds are different to gun wounds, and they don’t show much. But we couldn’t do anything that night.” 
 
 The four men went home for the night before returning to search for Cecil at dawn the next day. 
 
 “I was worried about the lion and what had happened,” said Mr Bronkhorst. 
 
 “We got there about 9am, and we found it and it was wounded, and the client then shot it, with his bow and arrow, and killed it.” 
 
 It was then the hunters went over to it, and saw it had a collar. 
 
 “I was devastated,” said Mr Bronkhorst, who immediately saw that he had killed a protected lion. 
 
 “I could not have seen the collar at night. We would never shoot a collared animal. I was devastated, and so was the client, we were both upset, and I panicked and took it off and put it in a tree. 
 
 “I should have taken it to Parks [the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlfe Management Authority], I admit that. So we did what had to be done. We took the head and skin, as the client had paid for the trophy. 
 
 “I went to Parks and reported what had happened. I wish I had taken the collar. 
 
 “We then went back to my place near Hwange. The client asked if we would find him an elephant larger than 63 pounds, [the weight of one tusk] which is a very large elephant, but I told him I would not be able to find one so big, so the client left the next day and went to Bulawayo for the night and then flew out [to Johannesburg] midday the following day. 
 
 “He was only here for a few days. He shot the lion he wanted to shoot, he paid for the trophy, which is the skull and skin. I took it to Bulawayo where we were curing it, prior to it going to a taxidermist for export to the US where it would be assembled and mounted. They do that better there then we do it here.” 
 
 Mr Bronkhorst said his lawyer advised him after the opening of the court case to hand over the head and skin to the parks authority. 
 
 “I never knew anything about Cecil, this famous lion,” he said. “I only found out from the media. I would not have known him anyway. 
 
 “There were four other collared lions shot in the same area this year. If I had been able to take the client where we were due to be, this would not have happened.” 
 
 Mr Bronkhorst started his hunting business after being violently evicted from his 1,269-hectare game farm, Southcum, near Kwekwe, in central Zimbabwe, as part of the Mugabe government’s land grab. 
 
 “I don’t want to shoot any animals. I do it because it is the only way I can earn a living,” said Mr Bronkhorst, who is married with two grown-up sons. 
 
 “I am a farmer. But I lost my farm in 2000 and I am forced to hunt, but have only done so five times in the last year. I like to lead a quiet life. I like breeding game, and am presently trying to increase the number of sable in Zimbabwe, which I am importing from Zambia.” 
 
 In the wake of the furore over Cecil, the United Nations on Thursday passed a resolution committing countries to intensify the fight against wildlife crime. 
 
 
 
 Walter Palmer on a previous hunting trip 
 
 The resolution treats the issue as an aspect of organised crime, urging law enforcement agencies to use anti-money laundering measures to go after perpetrators. 
 
 Steven Broad, Executive Director of Traffic, which monitors the trade in wildlife, said: “This is an historic day – the world has sent an unequivocal and collective signal at the highest level that ending wildlife crime is a top priority.” 
 
 His group estimates that as many as 30,000 elephants are killed each year for their ivory tusks in Africa. 
 
 Rhino poaching in South Africa last year hit a record high, when 1,215 were killed for their horns. 
 
 The UN resolution encourages countries to “adopt effective measures to prevent and counter the serious problem of crimes that have an impact on the environment, such as illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products…as well as poaching.” 
 
 • Cecil the lion - has the reaction tipped dangerously into overreaction? 
 
 • Jimmy Kimmel breaks down over Cecil the lion death 
 
 • Cecil the lion's final photograph ||||| HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Zimbabwe intends to seek the extradition of an American dentist who killed a lion that was lured out of a national park and shot with a bow and a gun, and the process has already begun, a Cabinet minister said Friday. 
 
 "Unfortunately it was too late to apprehend the foreign poacher as he had already absconded to his country of origin," Oppah Muchinguri, Zimbabwe's environment, water and climate minister, told a news conference. "We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe so that he be made accountable." 
 
 On Tuesday, American hunter Walter James Palmer issued a statement saying he relied on his guides to ensure the hunt was legal. Two Zimbabweans — a professional hunter and a farm owner — have been arrested in the lion killing that garnered worldwide condemnation. 
 
 "There has been an outcry," Muchinguri said. "Almost 500,000 people are calling for his extradition and we need this support. We want him tried in Zimbabwe because he violated our laws. 
 
 "I have already consulted with the authorities within the police force who are responsible for arresting the criminal. We have certain processes we have to follow. Police should take the first step to approach the prosecutor general who will approach the Americans. The processes have already started." 
 
 The Cabinet minister said both Palmer and professional hunter Theo Bronkhorst violated the Parks and Wildlife Act, which controls the use of bow and arrow hunting. He said Palmer, who reportedly paid $50,000 to hunt the lion, also violated the act through financing an illegal hunt. The landowner violated the act because he "allowed a hunt to be conducted without a quota and necessary permit," Muchinguri said. 
 
 Muchinguri accused Palmer of "a well-orchestrated agenda which would tarnish the image of Zimbabwe and further strain the relationship between Zimbabwe and the USA." 
 
 Palmer is believed to have shot the lion with a bow on July 1 outside Hwange National Park, after it was lured onto private land with a carcass of an animal laid out on a car. Some 40 hours later, the wounded cat was tracked down and Palmer allegedly killed it with a gun. 
 
 Palmer, 55, is a dentist in the Minneapolis suburb of Bloomington. In a note to his patients, he wrote: "I understand and respect that not everyone shares the same views on hunting," adding that he would resume his dental practice "as soon as possible." ||||| Cecil the lion Zimbabwe calls for extradition of dentist who killed Cecil the lion Environment minister wants Walter Palmer to face trial for financing illegal hunt, as White House pressured to respond to petition seeking extradition Walter Palmer, 55, should be extradited, says Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri. 
 
 The Zimbabwean environment minister has called for the dentist who killed Cecil the lion to be extradited from the US to face trial for financing an illegal hunt. 
 
 
 
 Oppah Muchinguri told a news conference that Walter Palmer, 55, was a “foreign poacher” and said she understood Zimbabwe’s prosecutor general had started the process to have him extradited. 
 
 “Unfortunately it was too late to apprehend the foreign poacher as he had already absconded to his country of origin,” she told a news conference on Friday. “We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe so that he be made accountable.” 
 
 Muchinguri’s remarks come as the White House faces mounting pressure to address a petition for Palmer’s extradition to Zimbabwe. 
 
 The petition has collected more than 160,000 signatures since it was launched last Tuesday, exceeding its stated goal of reaching 100,000 signatures by 27 August. 
 
 
 
 “We urge the Secretary of State John Kerry and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch to fully cooperate with the Zimbabwe authorities and to extradite Walter Palmer promptly at the Zimbabwe government’s request,” the petition read. 
 
 A White House spokesman said on Thursday that the Obama administration will respond to the petition, which it must to do within 60 days. 
 
 A separate Care2 petition condemning Palmer and demanding justice for Cecil has racked up nearly one million signatures from people across the world. 
 
 A bilateral extradition treaty between the US and Zimbabwe has been in effect since April 2000 in cases where an individual is charged with what would be a criminal offence in both countries. 
 
 The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) said on Thursday it was investigating the illegal killing of the lion by the Minnesota dentist and whether any US laws were broken. The service was “voluntarily” contacted by a representative of Palmer on Friday after “multiple” attempts to reach him were unsuccessful, spokesperson Vanessa Kauffman said. Kauffman confirmed that the Service’s investigation was ongoing. 
 
 Palmer, a keen big game hunter who posts pictures of his kills on social media, is said to have paid around $50,000 (£32,000) for the chance to kill Cecil, a protected 13-year-old lion famous for his black-fringed mane, in Zimbabwe’s Hwange national park earlier this month. 
 
 The lion was reportedly lured to outside the park’s boundaries and wounded with a bow and arrow, before being shot dead hours later. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Cecil the lion at Zimbabwe’s Hwange national park – archive video footage 
 
 Edward Grace, the USFWS deputy chief of law enforcement, said the service was investigating the circumstances surrounding the killing of Cecil. “That investigation will take us wherever the facts lead,” he said, adding that the service “will assist Zimbabwe officials in whatever manner requested”. 
 
 Grace said: “It is up to all of us – not just the people of Africa – to ensure that healthy, wild populations of animals continue to roam the savanna for generations to come.” 
 
 The USFWS proposed listing African lions as threatened under the Endangered Species Act last October. 
 
 Grace also urged Palmer “or his representative [to] contact us immediately”, noting that “multiple efforts to contact Dr Walter Palmer have been unsuccessful”. 
 
 Palmer on Thursday wrote to to his patients to say he he was sorry for killing the beast, but described hunting as his passion. 
 
 “I don’t often talk about hunting with my patients because it can be a divisive and emotionally charged topic,” he wrote. “I understand and respect that not everyone shares the same views on hunting.” 
 
 Repeating his claim made in an earlier statement, Palmer said he had no idea the lion he killed was “a known local favourite” and said he would assist the Zimbabwean authorities. 
 
 The dentist has a kill list of 43 different animals including a polar bear, a mountain lion, an elephant and an African lion he killed in 2005, according to records obtained by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ||||| Text - Treaty Document: Senate Consideration of Treaty Document 105-33 All Information (Except Treaty Text) 
 
 A Senate treaty document provides the text of the treaty as transmitted to the Senate, as well as the transmittal letter from the President, the submittal letter from the Secretary of State, and accompanying papers. 
 
 TXT 
 
 PDF Text of Treaty Document available as: 
 
 For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF. 
 
 [Senate Treaty Document 105-33] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] 105th Congress Treaty Doc. 2d Session SENATE 105-33 _______________________________________________________________________ EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ZIMBABWE __________ MESSAGE from THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES transmitting EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE, SIGNED AT HARARE ON JULY 25, 1997 January 28, 1998.--Treaty was read the first time and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ---------- The White House, January 28, 1998. To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe, signed at Harare on July 25, 1997. In addition, I transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. As the report explains, the Treaty will not require implementing legislation. The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. This Treaty will, upon entry into force, enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of both countries, and thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts. It is the first extradition treaty between the two countries. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification. William J. Clinton. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL ---------- Department of State, Washington, October 25, 1997. The President, The White House. The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe (the ``Treaty''), signed at Harare on July 25, 1997. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The Treaty follows closely the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. The Treaty represents part of a concerted effort by the Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop modern extradition relationships to enhance the ability of the United States to prosecute serious offenders including, especially, narcotics traffickers and terrorists. The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral cooperation between the United States and Zimbabwe, as it is the first extradition treaty between the two countries. The Treaty can be implemented without new legislation. Article 1 obligates the Contracting States to extradite to the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, any person charged with or convicted of an extraditable offense in the Requesting State. Article 2(1) defines an extraditable offense as one punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe penalty. Use of such a ``dual criminality'' clause rather than a list of offenses covered by the Treaty obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as additional offenses become punishable under the laws of both Contracting States. Article 2(2) states that an offense consisting of an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, aiding or abetting, counselling, causing or procuring the commission of or being an accessory before or after the fact to, an extraditable offense as described in Article 2(1) will also be an extraditable offense. Additional flexibility is provided by Article 2(3), which provides that an offense shall be considered an extraditable offense: (1) whether or not the laws in the Contracting States place the offense within the same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same terminology; (2) whether or not the offense is one for which United States federal law requires the showing of such matters as interstate transportation or use of the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate or foreign commerce, such matters being merely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction in a United States federal court; or (3) if it relates to taxes, customs duties, currency control, and import and export of commodities, whether or not the laws of the Contracting States provide for the same kinds of taxes, or customs duties, or the same kinds of controls on currency or on the import or export of the same kinds of commodities. With regard to offenses committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, Article 2(4) provides the States with discretion to grant or deny extradition if the offense for which extradition is sought would not be punishable under the laws of the Requested State in similar circumstances. Article 3 provides that extradition shall not be refused on the ground that the person sought is a national of the Requested State. Neither Party, in other words, may invoke nationality as a basis for denying an extradition. As is customary in extradition treaties, Article 4 incorporates a political offense exceptionto the obligation to extradite. Article 4(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense. Article 4(2) specifies three categories of offenses that shall not be considered to be political offenses. (a) a murder or other willful crime against the person of a Head of State of one of the Contracting States, or of a member of the Head of State's family; (b) an offense for which both Contracting States are obligated pursuant to a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution; and (c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offenses described above, or aiding and abetting a person who commits or attempts to commit such offenses. The Treaty's political offense exception is substantially identical to that contained in several other modern extradition treaties, including the treaty with Jordan, which recently received Senate advice and consent. Offenses covered by Article 4(2)(b) include: --aircraft hijacking covered by The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at the Hague December 16, 1970, and entered into force October 14, 1971 (22 U.S.T. 1641; TIAS No. 7192); and, --aircraft sabotage covered by the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal September 23, 1971, and entered into force January 26, 1973 (24 U.S.T. 564; TIAS No. 7570). Article 4(3) provides that, notwithstanding Article 4, paragraph 2(b) and Article 4, paragraph 2(c) as it relates to paragraph 2(b), extradition shall not be granted if the executive authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. Article 4(4) permits the Requested State to deny extradition for military offenses that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law (for example, desertion). Article 5 bars extradition when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense, but does not bar extradition if the competent authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute or have decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the person sought. Article 6 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support an extradition request. The Article requires that all requests be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Article 6(3)(c) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution be supported by evidence justifying the committal for trial of the person if the offense had been committed in the Requested State or such information as would justify the committal for extradition of the person in accordance with the laws of the Requested State. Article 7 establishes the procedures under which documents submitted pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty shall be received and admitted into evidence. Article 8 provides that all documents submitted by the Requesting State shall be in English. Article 9 sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest and detention of a person sought pending presentation of the formal request for extradition. Article 9(4) provides that if the Requested State's executive authority has not received the request for extradition and supporting documentation required in Article 6 within sixty (60) days after the provisional arrest, the person may bedischarged from custody. Article 9(5) provides explicitly that discharge from custody pursuant to Article 9(4) does not prejudice subsequent rearrest and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition request and supporting documents. Article 10 specifies the procedures governing surrender and return of persons sought. It requires the Requested State to provide prompt notice to the Requesting State through the diplomatic channel regarding its extradition decision. If the request is denied in whole or in part, Article 10(2) requires the Requested State to provide information regarding the reasons therefor. If extradition is granted, the authorities of the Contracting States shall agree on time and place of surrender of the person sought. Article 11 concerns temporary and deferred surrender. If a person whose extradition is sought is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the Requested State, that State may temporarily surrender the person to the Requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. Alternatively, the Requested State may postpone the extradition proceedings until its prosecution has been concluded or the sentence imposed has been served. Article 12 sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the Requested State in determining to which State to surrender a person sought by more than one State. Article 13 provides for the seizure and surrender to the Requesting State of all articles, documents, and evidence connected with the offense for which extradition is granted, to the extent permitted under the law of the Requested State. Such property may be surrendered even when extradition cannot be effected due to the death, disappearance, or escape of the person sought. Surrender of property may be deferred if it is needed as evidence in the Requested State and may be conditioned upon satisfactory assurances that it will be returned. Article 13(3) imposes an obligation to respect the rights of third parties in affected property. Article 14 sets forth the rule of speciality. It provides, subject to specific exemptions, that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted, unless a waiver of the rule is granted by the executive authority of the Requested State. Similarly, the Requesting State may not extradite such person to a third State for an offense committed prior to the original surrender unless the Requested State consents. These restrictions shall not prevent the detention,trial or punishment of an extradited person, or that person's extradition to a third State if the extradited person leaves the Requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to it or fails to leave the Requesting State within fifteen days of being free to do so. Article 15 permits surrender to the Requesting State without further proceedings if the person sought consents to surrender. Article 16 governs the transit through the territory of one Contracting State of a person being surrendered to the other State by a third State. Article 17 contains provisions on representation and expenses that are similar to those found in other modern extradition treaties. Specifically, the Requested State is required to represent the interests of the Requesting State in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. The Requesting State is required to bear the expenses related to the translation of documents and the transportation of the person surrendered. Article 17(3) clarifies that neither State shall make any pecuniary claim against the other State arising out of the arrest, detention, examination, or surrender of persons sought under the Treaty. Article 18 states that the United States Department of Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Zimbabwe may consult with each other directly or through the facilities of Interpol in connection with the processing of individual cases and in furtherance of maintaining and improving Treaty implementation procedures. Article 19, like the parallel provision in almost all recent United States extradition treaties, states that the Treaty shall apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date the Treaty enters into force. Ratification and entry into force are addressed in Article 20. That Article provides that the States shall exchange instruments of ratification to bring the treaty into force. Under Article 21, either Contracting State may terminate the Treaty at any time upon written notice to the other Contracting State, with termination to become effective six months after the date of such notice. A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating delegation and will be submitted separately to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate at an early date. Respectfully submitted. Madeleine Albright.
– Walter Palmer, the Minnesota dentist who has incited the ire of people around the world for killing Cecil the lion, may soon be making a return trip to Africa if Zimbabwe has its say. The Zimbabwean environment minister said today that the country is seeking Palmer's extradition "so that he be made accountable" for what it says was illegal poaching, the AP reports. "We want him tried in Zimbabwe because he violated our laws. Police should take the first step to approach the prosecutor general who will approach the Americans. The processes have already started." A 2000 treaty between the US and Zimbabwe would allow Palmer's extradition to happen, as long as Palmer is charged with what would be considered a criminal offense in both countries, and as long as that crime carries a minimum one-year sentence in both countries, the Guardian and Minneapolis Star Tribune report. But while the US Fish and Wildlife Service says it's investigating just that, the Star Tribune points out extradition could prove tricky: African lions aren't listed as an endangered species here, and Palmer didn't try to bring the lion's carcass back to the US (which would violate a wildlife importing law). One law that could factor into things: the illegal bribing of foreign officials by Americans overseas, which the president of Zimbabwe’s Safari Operators Association suspects may have happened. "There had to be [bribes]," he tells the Star Tribune. "The documents which they used for carrying out the hunt were all illegal and fraudulently obtained." Meanwhile, Theo Bronkhorst, the hunting guide who's facing charges back in Zimbabwe, says right after Cecil was killed, Palmer wanted to take down an elephant next—but he bid adieu to his guide after Bronkhorst said he couldn't find an elephant big enough for Palmer's tastes, per the Telegraph.