Argentina

Colombia requested extradition for the enforcement of a 72-month prison sentence imposed for aggravated theft. The appellant argued that his intention to settle permanently in Argentina should prevent surrender. The Prosecutor General’s Office considered the appeal formally deficient and, in any event, found that residence or social ties do not in themselves constitute a bar to extradition, which is a lawful restriction on freedom of movement. It therefore recommended that the Supreme Court confirm the decision granting extradition.

Brazil requested extradition for prosecution in connection with sexual offences involving minors. The appellant challenged the formal sufficiency of the arrest documentation and alleged a risk of torture or inhuman treatment because of prison conditions in Brazil. The Prosecutor General’s Office found that the translated material sufficiently reproduced the foreign arrest warrant and held that general reports on detention conditions did not establish a real, current and individual risk. It further considered Brazil’s express assurance against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment sufficient and recommended confirmation of the extradition decision.

Brazil requested extradition for prosecution for an aggravated homicide committed by asphyxiation. The appellant relied on alleged death threats from the Comando Vermelho criminal organisation, as well as prison conditions and alleged defects in the arrest documentation. The Prosecutor General’s Office held that the foreign warrant was adequately reproduced, that general concerns did not establish a real and current personal risk, and that the alleged threats had not been supported by precise evidence or timely evidentiary requests. In light also of Brazil’s assurance against ill-treatment, it recommended confirmation of the extradition decision.

The Supreme Court of Argentina reversed a lower-court judgment refusing the requested person’s extradition to Peru for prosecution for attempted aggravated robbery. It held that the reasonable length of the foreign proceedings had to be assessed within the applicable Peruvian limitation regime and that, although the ordinary twenty-year limitation period had expired, the extraordinary thirty-year period remained in force and therefore did not bar extradition. The Court further held that the existence of a minor child, family reunification, family circumstances and the requested person’s social integration in Argentina are not grounds for refusing extradition at the judicial stage, although the best interests of the child must be taken into account by the authorities involved and those circumstances may be considered by the Executive when making the final decision on surrender. The Court also directed that Peru be informed of the period of detention served by the requested person during the extradition proceedings so that the foreign authorities could consider crediting that period in the underlying criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Argentina upheld the extradition of the requested person to Ecuador for prosecution for organised crime. The defence had argued that the proceedings were politically motivated, that Ecuador could not guarantee the requested person’s safety, and that concerns existed regarding the independence and impartiality of the Ecuadorian judiciary, but the Court found that those objections had not been sufficiently substantiated to overturn the lower-court decision. It also rejected reliance on subsequent developments in other Ecuadorian proceedings, holding that those matters could, where appropriate, be raised before the courts of the requesting State. Nevertheless, the Court ordered that Ecuador be formally urged through diplomatic channels to adopt measures ensuring dignified detention conditions and to guarantee that the requested person’s surrender and stay in Ecuador would take place under conditions safeguarding his personal integrity. The Court further confirmed that the time spent in detention during the extradition proceedings in Argentina should be communicated to Ecuador so that it could be credited in the foreign criminal proceedings.

The case concerns extradition proceedings between the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Argentine Republic. The Court of Appeals reviewed a decision granting the extradition request issued by Argentine judicial authorities.The Court held that extradition constitutes the highest expression of international legal cooperation and that extradition treaties must be interpreted in a manner that promotes their purpose of ensuring effective cooperation in the administration of justice.The Court determined that, under the applicable extradition framework, Uruguay follows the Belgian-Dutch (continental European) system of extradition review. Under this approach, the requested State’s examination is limited to a formal assessment of the extradition request. The requested court must verify, among other requirements, that the requesting State has jurisdiction, that the submitted documentation complies with the applicable formalities, that the relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions have been provided, that the identity of the requested person has been established, and that the request does not violate fundamental extradition principles.The Court emphasized that the requested State is not entitled to examine the merits of the criminal case, assess the sufficiency or strength of the evidence, or determine the guilt or innocence of the requested person, as those matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the requesting State.In the case at hand, the Court concluded that the extradition request complied with the requirements established in the Extradition Treaty between Uruguay and Argentina, including jurisdiction of the requesting authorities, dual criminality, and the absence of grounds preventing extradition. The Court further found that the alleged risks invoked did not constitute a sufficient basis to deny extradition.Accordingly, the Court confirmed the decision granting extradition.

The case concerned extradition proceedings initiated following a request by the Republic of Peru in relation to drug trafficking offences. The Supreme Court of Argentina set aside the decision granting extradition after finding that the documentation relied upon by the lower court constituted only a request for provisional arrest for extradition purposes, while the formal extradition request had been filed only after the extradition ruling had been issued. The Court held that the extradition proceedings were invalid because neither the hearing required under Article 27 of Law No. 24.767 nor the trial stage provided for under Article 30 had taken place before the extradition decision. Recalling its settled case law, the Court emphasized that, once the formal extradition request has been received, the judicial authority may rule on extradition only after completion of the mandatory hearing and trial stages, unless the requested person consents to surrender or mistaken identity is established. The Court further stressed that extradition proceedings, although distinct from ordinary criminal trials, cannot become a “game of surprises” undermining the requested persons’ right of defence.

The case concerned a United States request for extradition from Argentina for prosecution on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The first instance court had refused extradition, finding that double criminality was not satisfied because the alleged conduct did not amount to fraud under Argentine law. The Supreme Court of Argentina reversed that decision. It held that the lower court had exceeded the proper scope of extradition proceedings by assessing the effectiveness of the alleged deception, which was a matter for the foreign trial court. The facts described a broader mortgage fraud scheme involving inflated property prices, false loan applications and “cash back” payments channelled to members of the alleged conspiracy. For extradition purposes, those facts could be classified under Argentine law as fraud, criminal association and money laundering. The Court also rejected objections based on the alleged insufficiency of the factual description and on a translation error concerning the requested person’s role in the scheme. It therefore declared extradition admissible for all charges.

Under the surrender regime provided for by the Extradition Convention between the Italian Republic and the Argentine Republic, it is sufficient that the Italian judicial authority ascertain, by way of a summary assessment, that the documentation accompanying the request is, in concreto, capable of substantiating—within the framework of the requesting State’s procedural system—the existence of evidence against the requested person. Accordingly, it is not permissible to raise issues concerning the merits of the investigations carried out by the requesting State (the Convention does not require the production of sources of evidence), nor, a fortiori, to question the evidentiary value of the material collected, which is to be assessed by the deciding State in accordance with its own procedural rules.

Peru sought the extradition of the requested person from Argentina for prosecution for aggravated robbery, and the first-instance court declared the extradition admissible. The Supreme Court found that, after receipt of the formal extradition request, the lower court had failed to hold the hearing required by Article 27 of Law No. 24.767 and had also omitted the extradition trial required by Article 30 before issuing its decision. The Court further held that, in jurisdictions where the former Code of Criminal Procedure has been replaced, the extradition proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the relevant rules of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, adapted to the special nature of extradition. It therefore set aside the decision granting extradition and remitted the case for the omitted procedural stages to be completed with full respect for the requested person’s right of defence.

The Russian Federation sought the extradition of the requested person from Argentina for prosecution in connection with two alleged acts of terrorism financing. The defence challenged the surrender on the basis, inter alia, of alleged risks to judicial guarantees and of persecution on gender or religious grounds, relying on European Court of Human Rights case law concerning Russia. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had failed to rebut the assurances provided by the requesting State regarding non-persecution, defence rights, the principle of speciality, protection from cruel treatment, health and detention conditions, as well as Argentine consular monitoring. It therefore confirmed the decision declaring the extradition admissible and separately held that the representative of the requested person’s minor children lacked standing to appeal the extradition ruling.

The United States sought the extradition of the requested person for prosecution on charges arising from an alleged criminal organization involved in cocaine manufacture and distribution, money laundering and wire fraud. The defence raised numerous objections, including lack of double criminality, judicial impartiality, inequality of arms, ne bis in idem, alleged deficiencies in the U.S. proceedings and risks to the requested person’s health and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the U.S. conspiracy allegations satisfied the double criminality requirement because the underlying conduct was capable of corresponding to Argentine offences, including criminal association, fraud, money laundering, drug offences and customs offences. It therefore confirmed the extradition for charges one, two, three, four and seven of the Fifth Superseding Indictment of 5 May 2021.

Italy sought the extradition of the requested person from Argentina for the enforcement of a 27-year prison sentence. The defence challenged the extradition on the basis of the safeguards required under Article 11(d) of Argentine Law No. 24.767 and the statute of limitations under Article 7(b) of the bilateral extradition treaty with Italy. The Supreme Court referred to the reasoning of the Acting Prosecutor General and upheld the lower court’s decision declaring the extradition admissible. The Court expressly clarified that its ruling did not determine the separate dispute concerning the requested person’s loss of refugee status.

In matters of passive extradition, pursuant to Article 20(a) and (b) of the Italy–Argentina Extradition Convention, signed in Rome on 9 December 1987 and ratified and implemented by Law No. 219 of 19 February 1992, the seizure of assets to be surrendered to the requesting State presupposes that such assets are connected to the offence underlying the extradition request, in that they constitute either means of evidence or proceeds thereof. The latter are to be understood, in accordance with Article 714(1) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, as the corpus delicti or items pertaining to the offence.

The case concerned an Argentine request for extradition from Italy for prosecution in relation to the attempted export of approximately 22 kilograms of cocaine. The requested person opposed extradition, relying in particular on the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Argentine prisons. The defence produced a report by the Argentine Prison Ombudsman describing, with reference to 2018, prison overcrowding, poor hygiene and health care, violations of fundamental rights, ill-treatment, violence by prison staff and deaths in custody. The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that those materials did not establish a bar to extradition. It noted that, under Italian case law, refusal on human rights grounds requires an alarming situation attributable to a normative or factual choice of the requesting State, and not merely occasional or remediable violations. The Court considered that the existence of an independent public body entrusted with monitoring, reporting and bringing complaints on behalf of detainees showed an institutional commitment by Argentina to address prison abuses and provide legal protection. It also found that the defence had not shown that the conditions described in the 2018 report remained unchanged at the time of the decision. The Court added that the COVID-19 pandemic did not prevent the judicial finding that extradition conditions were met, since surrender would take place according to applicable health protocols. Extradition to Argentina was therefore granted.

Where the applicable convention does not provide for an assessment by the Italian State of the existence of serious indications of guilt, the Italian judicial authority may not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation submitted, but must carry out a summary evaluation aimed at verifying—on the basis of the materials produced—the existence of incriminating elements against the requested person, as assessed within the procedural framework of the requesting State.

The offences of ideological falsification of public documents and the above-mentioned false statements are punishable both in the requesting and in the requested State by a custodial sentence whose maximum term is not less than one year, and serious indications of guilt arise from the examinations carried out on the fingerprints. Furthermore, the offence is not time expired due to statute of limitations either under Argentine law (Article 62 of the Argentine Criminal Code) or under Italian law, since the limitation period for the offence under Article 497-bis of the Italian Criminal Code was interrupted by the arrest warrant issued by the Argentine judicial authorities on 20 August 2013.

The case concerned a Chilean extradition request from Argentina for prosecution in relation to arson in an inhabited place and unlawful possession of a handmade firearm. The Supreme Court of Argentina upheld the extradition order. It rejected the defence argument that the previous annulment and closure of an earlier extradition proceeding amounted to a prior refusal capable of triggering the non bis in idem bar under the Montevideo Extradition Convention. It also held that double criminality was satisfied: the alleged arson corresponded to the Argentine offence of causing fire with common danger, while the handmade firearm could be treated as a firearm under Argentine law. The Court further rejected the political offence objection. Although the alleged facts were said to arise in the context of indigenous land claims and social conflict, the Court held that the alleged arson of an inhabited property, committed at night and endangering occupants including minors, lacked the necessary direct and proportionate link with a political offence or objective. The Court also dismissed objections based on persecution, nationality, race and cruel or inhuman punishment, while requiring Chile to credit the time already spent in detention during the previous extradition proceedings. Extradition was therefore confirmed for the arson and firearm-possession charges.