homologación de delitos

22:10 Apr 17, 2016 

"...impossible for the Spanish courts to determine whether the rule of dual criminality was satisfied..."
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200812588....

10:58 Apr 16, 2016 

Thanks, Charles. I'll try to make sure the code is entered correctly in the future, when I want to use it, before clicking on the "submit" button.

09:49 Apr 16, 2016 

I've had that bold problem more than once myself, as a result of not having entered the HTML cancel bold instruction correctly. It drives me mad. What you have to do is to post a note beginning with the cancel bold code (open angle bracket-slash-b-close angle bracket). Otherwise the note will be in bold as well.

03:02 Apr 16, 2016 

Brilliant, you've nailed it with "dual criminality" or "double criminality". I hadn't heard of the term before, but that's exactly what this is.

Dual Criminality
According to the dual-criminality principle a person may be extradited only when his/her actions constitute an offense in both the requesting and requested states.

The mere absence of a potential defense does not establish the absence of dual criminality. Rather than looking merely to the statutory definition of the crime at issue, a court evaluating a question of dual criminality must look towards the conduct of the accused to see if it falls within the proscription of American criminal law.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dual-criminality-principle/

For both the cases, i.e. "al hacer una homologación de delitos" and "de acuerdo a la homologación a la legislación mexicana", I think I could perfectly well translate them as "after evaluating the question of dual criminality".
Please post your idea, thank you!

02:37 Apr 16, 2016 

The problem is that the ST reads: "...al hacer una homologación de delitos, en términos del artículo 6 de la Ley de Extradición Internacional, se determinó que en nuestra legislación penal mexicana o en alguna especial, dicho ilícito no se encuentra regulado ni tipificado..." so "ratification of crimes" wouldn't make much sense here, whereas "determining equivalency/evaluating comparability of crimes" would, I feel.

02:24 Apr 16, 2016 

Another way of seeing it, is like proving irrefutably that the criminal charges in one country's legal jargon, stands without change in another county's legal jargon. I feel there is no comparability or recognition that fits this bill in the full sense. Ratify (comprobar) or something along this line might be more appropriate legal term.

22:12 Apr 15, 2016 

Can't you just use that? The dual criminality requirement is not met. Or something similar.

20:46 Apr 15, 2016 

Por lo que hace al identificado como "Conspirar con otros a fin de defraudar a los Estados Unidos de América al obstruir e impedir las funciones legales del Servicio de Rentas Internas de los Estados Unidos de América, en contravención a la Sección 371, del Título 18 del Código de los Estados Unidos de América”, del Proceso XXXX, debe decirse que de acuerdo a la homologación a la legislación mexicana, éste se encuentra contemplado en el artículo...

I'm not sure "recognition" works for "homologación" here either, the sense seems to be something like "[study of] comparability" or "[analysis of] equivalence".
What do you think?