ALTHOUGH COURTS HAVE HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING PURELY POLITICAL OFFENSES, THE NATURE OF A RELATIVE POLITICAL OFFENSE IS STILL NOT FREE FROM CONTROVERSY AND DOUBT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO SINGLE CRITERION TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPLEX CRIMES. A RELATIVE POLITICAL OFFENSE IN THE COURTS OF ONE COUNTRY MAY BE A COMMON CRIME IN THOSE OF OTHERS. SUCH PERPLEXING DIVERSITIES ARE UNDESIRABLE. ALTHOUGH THE DIFFERENT TESTS USED TO DETERMINE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A COMMON CRIME AND POLITICAL ACT HELP ALLEVIATE THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NONEXTRADITION OF POLITICAL CRIMINALS (ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT THOSE ACUSED OF PURELY POLITICAL OFFENSES), FURTHER PROGRESS REQUIRES THAT THESE CASES BE DECIDED ON THEIR MERITS WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO PREDETERMINED CONCEPTIONS. THE COURTS SHOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE THE REMOTE NATURE OF THE POLITICAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE IN A NUMBER OF CASES. TO GRANT ASYLUM UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO SHELTERING ORDINARY CRIMINALS. HOWEVER, A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE SURRENDERED WHEN THE POLITICAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE IS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NONEXTRADITION OF POLITICAL OFFENDERS IS VITALLY NEEDED. FOOTNOTES ARE GIVEN. (MJW)