Japan

The requested person was detained in Greenland pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued by Japan and remained in custody while the Danish Ministry of Justice examined Japan’s request for extradition for prosecution concerning acts allegedly committed during an anti-whaling action in 2010. The Supreme Court held that, when deciding on detention intended to secure extradition, the courts must not only examine the statutory conditions for detention but must also conduct a preliminary review of whether the conditions for extradition appear to be satisfied; a full examination of the extradition request, however, is reserved for the later stage following the Minister of Justice’s decision. The Court found that there was sufficient suspicion, a concrete risk of absconding and no basis at that stage for concluding that the extradition requirements were not met; it further held that continued detention was proportionate because the Ministry’s examination had progressed within a reasonable time and the seriousness of the alleged conduct justified the duration of the measure. The judicial review afforded to the requested person, including the opportunity to challenge the evidence, complied with Article 5 ECHR, and the decisions continuing detention were therefore upheld.

The case concerned appeals by Japan against the discharge of two requested persons whose extradition was sought for prosecution for an alleged robbery in Tokyo. The first-instance judge had found, in one case, that there was no prima facie case and, in both cases, that extradition would be incompatible with Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 ECHR because of risks arising from Japanese detention conditions, interrogation practices, access to lawyers, compulsory prison labour and the absence of bail during the pre-indictment period. The Divisional Court held that there was sufficient admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case against the first requested person and that the detailed assurances provided by Japan in March 2024, supplemented by further assurances in October 2024, were sufficient in practice to remove the risks identified under Articles 3 and 6 ECHR. It also held that compulsory prison work in Japan fell within work required in the ordinary course of detention under Article 4(3)(a) ECHR, and that the alleged Article 5 issue did not amount to a flagrant breach in the extradition context. The appeals were therefore allowed and the discharge orders were set aside.