## Facts

- Switzerland sought the extradition of Kamiar, who was in Israel, to face fraud charges.
- Israel and Switzerland concluded an extradition convention signed on 31 December 1958 by Israel’s ambassador in Switzerland pursuant to written “full powers” issued by Israel’s Minister for Foreign Affairs.
- The convention required ratification and provided that it would enter into force upon exchange of instruments of ratification.
- Israel’s Minister for Foreign Affairs executed Israel’s instrument of ratification; the ratifications were exchanged on 15 December 1959, with a protocol recorded the same day.
- Israel’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs published an official notice stating that the convention entered into force on 15 December 1959.
- The Jerusalem District Court held that Kamiar was extraditable under Israel’s Extradition Law (1954) and the convention.
- Kamiar appealed, challenging the treaty’s validity, its entry into force, and its domestic legal effect.

## Issues

1. Whether Israel’s ambassador was validly authorized to sign the Israel–Switzerland extradition convention.
2. Whether the Government (through the Minister for Foreign Affairs) could constitutionally ratify the convention without Knesset approval.
3. Whether the convention had entered into force as a matter of international law, and what evidentiary weight courts should give to the Foreign Ministry’s official notice of entry into force.
4. Whether, and on what basis, the convention could support extradition within Israel’s domestic legal system alongside the Extradition Law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held Kamiar extraditable.
- The Court upheld the convention as validly concluded and ratified for Israel.
- The Court determined the convention entered into force on 15 December 1959 upon exchange of ratifications.
- The Court treated the Foreign Ministry’s published notice as strong (and practically authoritative) evidence of the treaty’s entry into force and status.
- The Court held the convention, together with the Extradition Law, supplied a sufficient domestic legal basis for extradition.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty-making and ratification authority is determined by domestic constitutional law; under Israel’s system at the time, the executive government held primary competence to conclude and ratify treaties absent a specific legislative requirement.
- Parliamentary involvement is required where domestic law must be enacted or amended to implement treaty obligations; treaty conclusion and ratification are not, by themselves, shown to require legislative approval.
- An authorized diplomatic signature supported by written full powers is effective; in addition, subsequent ratification and consistent state conduct can confirm the state’s intention to be bound and cure arguable internal defects, including through doctrines akin to ostensible authority and estoppel.
- Entry into force is governed by the treaty’s terms and the parties’ actions; exchange of instruments of ratification can establish entry into force.
- Official executive statements published in state records regarding treaty status may be treated as highly persuasive proof for domestic courts assessing whether a treaty is in force.
- Treaties do not automatically have the rank of domestic legislation; their domestic operation depends on the applicable statutory framework and any necessary implementing legislation.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Israel’s extradition convention with Switzerland was validly signed, ratified by the executive without Knesset approval, and in force upon exchange of ratifications, and that the convention—supported by Israel’s Extradition Law and confirmed by official notice—authorized Kamiar’s extradition.


Kamiar v. State of Israel, CrimA 131/67, 22(2) PD 85 (Isr. 1968)