article: Campaigners say the agreement is biased against the UK and is being used for offences it was not intended to cover. The year-long review will also consider the breadth of the home secretary's discretion to intervene in cases. It follows a series of high-profile cases, including that of computer hacker Gary McKinnon. The Home Office says the current extradition arrangements will continue and the review will not impact on any cases currently under consideration. The review panel, led by a retired Law Lord, is expected to be finished by the end of summer 2011. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett, who signed the treaty, accused the current Home Secretary Theresa May of kicking the controversy "into the long grass". Recently, he admitted he might have "given too much away" to the Americans and said sensible discussions with the UK's partners could resolve "any irritants quite speedily". The review will consider the operation of the Extradition Act 2003, including the European arrest warrant, and the US/UK extradition treaty. Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I am fully aware there are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted controversy in recent years. "This government is committed to reviewing those arrangements to ensure they work both efficiently and in the interests of justice." The European arrest warrant fast-tracks extradition between EU member states. It means countries can ask for extradition of an individual without providing prima-facie evidence to the courts, usually as long as the offence is a crime in both countries and carries a prison sentence of more than one year. Jago Russell, Fair Trials International's chief executive, said more than one thousand people were detained and extradited by the UK in the year 2009-2010 "under Europe's no-questions-asked extradition system". "This review, though welcome, will only produce a fairer system of extradition if it gets to grips with the problems caused by the European arrest warrant and if vital new safeguards are put in place," he said. Critics of the US/UK treaty, agreed between Washington and London in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks of 2001, say it is easier to extradite people from the UK than the US. By Dominic CascianiBBC News home affairs correspondent Extradition treaties are a crucial tool in the state's armoury against criminality: they give prosecutors the means to haul back wrongdoers - thereby enhancing public confidence in the rule of law. But the modern British system has become controversial partly because of the manner of its creation. The current deal with the US and the separate European Arrest Warrant emerged in the post 9/11 world. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic concluded that agencies needed to act more swiftly to transfer suspects - and the former British Labour government promoted reforms with one eye on tackling the threat from international terrorism. But critics say the arrangements were, in effect, rushed into law and, in doing so, failed to include proper judicial safeguards against abuse. They point to cases like Gary Mann, convicted in Portugal of football-related violence after what he says was an unfair
summary: A review of the UK's extradition laws will consider whether the current treaty with the US is "unbalanced", Home Secretary Theresa May has said.