Iran

The Brazilian Supreme Court rejected Iran’s request for the extradition of a national accused of a non-violent offence, giving decisive weight to the best interests of his wholly dependent minor daughter, who was born in Brazil and is a Brazilian citizen. The Court found that Iran had repeatedly failed to provide concrete information on how the child’s safety, welfare, subsistence and family unity would be protected under Iranian law if both parents were extradited. It also held that the requesting State had not formally assumed all mandatory commitments required by Article 96 of the Brazilian Migration Law, including crediting the time spent in pre-extradition detention in Brazil. The ongoing armed conflict further increased the humanitarian risk to the child if she were indirectly compelled to accompany her parents to Iran.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran against T.R. for offences including fraud, forgery, abuse, and unlawful acquisition of property.The Denizli 5th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.The requested person appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request was procedurally defective;- the dispute was essentially civil/legal in nature;- he had applied for retrial before Iranian judicial authorities;- he had lived peacefully in Türkiye during the relevant period.The Turkish Court of Cassation examined the request under:- Law No. 6706;- the 2010 Agreement on Legal and Criminal Judicial Cooperation between Türkiye and Iran.The Court found that:- the offences fell within extraditable offences under Article 10 of Law No. 6706;- none of the refusal grounds under Article 11 existed;- the extradition documents sufficiently established identity and offence details;- the requested person had not consented to simplified extradition.Particular importance was given to diplomatic/judicial assurances transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice, according to which:- the requested person would be retried in Iran;- criminal responsibility would be limited to the offences specified in the extradition request;- the person would not be extradited onward to a third State.The Court held that these guarantees were sufficient and upheld the admissibility of extradition.