Statement–Argument — Should India enact a law allowing mutual transfer of convicts between India and other countries? Arguments: I. Yes. It helps ensure the convict faces appropriate consequences consistent with the country whose law is invoked and supports sentence management. II. Yes. It deters criminals from sheltering in jurisdictions that cannot transfer them for serving sentences, closing safe-haven loopholes.

Introduction / Context:
Mutual legal assistance and transfer-of-sentenced-persons frameworks promote justice by enabling custody, rehabilitation, and sentence completion where it is most appropriate, while respecting human-rights safeguards.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cross-border crime and mobility can frustrate punishment.
• Transfer regimes operate via treaties/statutes with due-process checks.
• Objectives include justice delivery, reintegration, and preventing safe havens.

Concept / Approach:
We test each argument’s relevance and sufficiency. If both independently advance legitimate policy goals, both can be strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Argument I: Aligns the place of sentence with legal responsibility and logistics (e.g., serving closer to family or supervision systems). Relevant and cogent—strong.2) Argument II: Addresses anti-impunity by closing refuge gaps and facilitating cooperation. Also relevant and persuasive—strong.3) Because each stands on its own merits and they are complementary, the correct outcome is “both I and II are strong.”

Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions employ transfer treaties alongside extradition and MLA to ensure effective sentencing and reduce absconding.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/Only II/Either/Neither” undervalue the complementary strengths.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing transfer (serving sentence) with extradition (standing trial); both can coexist.

Final Answer:
if both I and II are strong.