Extradition for Criminal Offences

The Government of Sweden

Extradition involves cooperation, mainly between states, to facilitate both legal procedures and the enforcement of sentences.

The question of extradition arises when a state requests that a person who is suspected of an offence, is under prosecution or has been convicted, and who is outside the territory of that state, be extradited to it. Traditionally, Sweden has not made extradition conditional on the existence of an agreement with the other state involved. Some states, , will not allow extradition without the existence of a formal agreement.

Within the EU the procedure for extradition has in general been replaced by surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which allows for faster and simpler surrender procedures and an end to political involvement in extradition procedures. EU countries can no longer refuse to surrender their own citizens to another EU country, if the citizen has committed a serious crime or is suspected of having committed such a crime in another EU country. Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

Conditions for extradition to a state outside the EU

The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act prohibits the extradition of Swedish nationals.

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk − on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs − of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.

Adapted from www.government.se

A alternativa que preenche corretamente a lacuna I é

Vários processos de Independência na América Espanhola ocorreram entre 1810 e 1830. Além dessa proximidade temporal, houve outros elementos comuns a boa parte desses processos, tais como:

Encontram-se no final do romance São Bernardo, de Graciliano Ramos, estas passagens:

Levanto-me, procuro uma vela, que a luz vai apagar-se. Não tenho sono. Deitar-me, rolar no colchão até a madrugada, é uma tortura. Prefiro ficar sentado, concluindo isto.

[...]

Madalena entrou aqui cheia de bons sentimentos e bons propósitos. Os sentimentos e os propósitos esbarraram com a minha brutalidade e o meu egoísmo.

Esses fragmentos articulam-se de modo a assinalar a íntima relação que existe, na consciência de Paulo Honório, entre

Manoel é dono de uma padaria. Nos últimos dias, ele tem reparado que a quantidade de bisnagas doces que são vendidas tem aumentado: a cada dia, ele vende cinco bisnagas a mais do que no dia anterior. Se ele conseguiu vender 10 bisnagas no primeiro dia do mês, e se o aumento nas vendas continuar a seguir este padrão, o número de bisnagas que Manoel irá vender no trigésimo dia do mês será de

Extradition for Criminal Offences

The Government of Sweden

Extradition involves cooperation, mainly between states, to facilitate both legal procedures and the enforcement of sentences.

The question of extradition arises when a state requests that a person who is suspected of an offence, is under prosecution or has been convicted, and who is outside the territory of that state, be extradited to it. Traditionally, Sweden has not made extradition conditional on the existence of an agreement with the other state involved. Some states, , will not allow extradition without the existence of a formal agreement.

Within the EU the procedure for extradition has in general been replaced by surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which allows for faster and simpler surrender procedures and an end to political involvement in extradition procedures. EU countries can no longer refuse to surrender their own citizens to another EU country, if the citizen has committed a serious crime or is suspected of having committed such a crime in another EU country. Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

Conditions for extradition to a state outside the EU

The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act prohibits the extradition of Swedish nationals.

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk − on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs − of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.

Adapted from www.government.se

De acordo com o texto, uma das condições que permite a extradição de um cidadão sueco é que

Considere o seguinte sistema linear, nas incógnitas x e y:

!$ \begin{cases} x + 2y = 1 \\ -2x + ky = 3 \end{cases} !$

O valor de k para que este sistema seja impossível (isto é, não tenha soluções) é

Why the Legal Immigration System Is Broken: A Short List of Problems

By David Bier

JULY 10, 2018

In no particular order, here is a list of a few problems that comprehensive immigration reform should address

1. A far too restrictive system overall. Since 1820, the United States admitted on average 30 percent more legal immigrants per capita (0.45 percent of the population per year) than it did in 2017 (0.35 percent of the population), so the current rate is low historically. More importantly, the U.S. net immigration rate − legal and illegal − ranks in the bottom third of the 50 countries with the highest percapita GDP in the world, and the U.S. share of foreign-born residents is also in the bottom third. This is at a time when population growth is at its lowest levels since the Great Depression, and the U.S. birthrate is the lowest on record. Congress should make it far easier to immigrate legally.

2. Static immigration quotas. Since 1990, Congress has not updated the quotas for the legal immigration system. During that time, the population of the United States has increased 30 percent and the economy has doubled. Quotas − to the extent that they exist at all − should be linked to economic growth (in the case of employment-based immigrants) or population growth (in the case of familysponsored immigrants), so they don’t immediately become antiquated.

3. Quotas on nationalities − the law micromanages immigrant demographics. Congress treats immigrants differently based on where they were born (literally their place of birth − they can’t even escape this system by getting citizenship in another country). No “country” (i.e. nationals or former nationals of that country) can receive more than 7 percent of the total green cards in a category. These per-country limits are why Indian immigrants sponsored by their employers may have to wait decades for a green card, while other immigrants sponsored by their employers don’t have to wait at all. Congress should repeal the per-country limits and ban discrimination based on nationality.

4. Immigrants wait in line for decades. The symptom of the low quotas and differential treatment for individual nationalities is that nationals from certain countries must wait a long time to immigrate. Siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens from Mexico and the Philippines who are receiving their green cards right now waited two decades. Those who are applying for their green cards now will die before they reach the front of the line because so many applicants have piled up in the backlog since 1998. Immigrant workers from India have had decade-long waits, but those applying right now will wait more than a century. Such wait times are not reasonable. Congress should raise the quotas, but at the same time, it should also limit wait times to no more than 5 years.

5. The president can end the refugee program unilaterally. In and of itself, the fact that the president can permit more refugees is no problem. That is important when a crisis breaks out somewhere in the world. But the idea that the president can unilaterally shut down the entire refugee program, as President Trump has almost done, is absurd. Congress should establish a floor for refugee admissions, and it should permit private refugee sponsorship by individuals, as Canada already does. The easiest way to implement private sponsorship would be to expand family sponsorship categories to extended family members and exempt immediate family of citizens and legal permanent residents who are refugees from the green card limits or, alternatively, create a new category for sponsored refugee immigrants. This category would enable U.S. citizens to have a role in the number of refugees and allow them to target refugees for aid with whom they have a personal connection.

(Adapted from www.cato.org)

Um sinônimo para comprehensive, conforme empregado no texto, seria

Contemplando o fogo

Sustento que não foi o clima frio que favoreceu o crescimento das civilizações mais avançadas. É que os habitantes de climas frios passaram mais tempo contemplando o fogo. Os povos de climas quentes têm menos necessidade do fogo para aquecê-los, por isso foram privados das divagações que vêm com a contemplação do fogo e são menos filosóficos e mais superficiais. Nos climas frios, de tanto olhar as chamas qualquer pessoa acabaria desenvolvendo, se não escatologias ou sistemas ontológicos completos, pelo menos teses. Foi contemplando o fogo de uma lareira, no último inverno, que desenvolvi a minha. Ou teria sido o conhaque?

Os povos de clima quente têm a experiência direta do sol na cabeça, os de clima frio experimentavam o sol armazenado na madeira, portanto o sol intermediado, reciclado pelo tempo. O fogo armazenado é o sol de segunda mão, quase uma versão literária. Olhar para o sol transformado em fogo domesticado leva a abstrações e ponderações, olhar para o sol original leva à cegueira. Mas tanto o sol vivo no céu quanto o sol ressuscitado no fogo podem destruir o cérebro, um fritando-o e o outro levando-o para tão longe que ele se eteriza. Não há notícia de Einsteins em regiões tropicais, mas também não há notícia de cientistas loucos. Abstrações e ponderações em overdose também podem ser fatais. Contemplar muito o fogo também enlouquece.

(VERISSIMO, Luis Fernando. O mundo é bárbaro. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2008, p. 99-100)

O período composto Contemplar muito o fogo também enlouquece torna-se um período simples se lhe for dada esta nova redação:

Assinale a alternativa que apresenta importante característica da Nova Ordem Mundial.