Argentina

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.

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.

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.

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.