Although subject to some of the most important international documents is the fundamental rights and freedoms of man, however, in today's society the man has lost sense of the value and of the dignity of the person and of the sacred human life. Throughout time, man has had a varying attitude toward his own life, just as society’s attitude towards its members lives had been variable. When we speak of euthanasia we are talking about human life. This way we come to ask ourselves on the value of life, its foundation and its principle. Although all European States, as well as numerous other countries worldwide have dropped the death penalty and, although it advocated for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world, human euthanasia or medical assisted suicide is tolerated or legalized. Moreover, in the states where human euthanasia has been decriminalized "for humanitarian reasons", major protests are held against the euthanasia of animals. We live in an age of paradoxes… We live in a time when it is trying to inoculate that everything is done in order that mankind lead a life as easy ... If life has its roughness, then we cannot not ask ourselves why and for what we endure? There is a moment in which to terminate life support aimed to make it to become an act morally? How could it be described such a moment?

In order to prevent and discourage the commission of sexual offences, it is necessary to have certain special mechanisms able to combat the recidivism of those who have committed such acts, but even in such conditions it cannot be justified to limit the right of a person to physical integrity. In any system of law based on democratic principles, any party to a legal relationship, including when this is a state authority, has an obligation to adopt conduct that does not harm human dignity or the rights and freedoms of the citizens. Therefore, no democratic state can be recognized the right to draft laws contrary to or affecting the right of human beings to life and to physical and mental integrity. On the contrary, it is forbidden to apply, in any form, torture, cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, even in the case of those persons who pose a danger and threat to society. Any attack on the dignity of the human being is impossible to accept in a democratic society. In this context, the question may arise as to whether or not this measure may be mandatory ordered by the court by a final judgment of conviction, irrespective of the main penalty applied and in the conditions in which it would be perform by specially authorized medical institutions.

Constitutions of new countries are expected to facilitate extradition relations as well as other modalities of international judicial cooperation with other countries. This is specifically important for countries, such as Somaliland, which seek recognition of their independence. However, in some cases, their Constitutional provisions do not succeed in materializing the right balance between national interests and the interest in fighting crime at the international level. As a result, the Constitution of such countries may even hurdle efficient extradition relation and eventually, isolate the country from the joint struggle against crime. This seems to be the case of Article 35 (3) of the Somaliland Constitution, in particular. This research paper is designed to explain the weaknesses of the aforementioned Paragraph 3 and provide some ideas for its improvement.