Mexico

The requested person challenged an extradition decision on two principal grounds: the continuing enforceability of the arrest warrants underlying the request and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in detention. The Supreme Court held that the extradition court must verify that the judicial measures forming the basis of the request are duly authenticated and remain enforceable at the time of its decision. It further held that, where the defence produces specific material concerning detention conditions, general information about the requesting State’s prison system is insufficient and the court must obtain current and individualized information concerning the facility and detention regime that would actually apply to the requested person. The judgment was therefore quashed and the case remanded for a fresh assessment.

Among the circumstances that the Court of Appeal may rely on to establish flight risk are also those relating to the number and seriousness of the new offences for which the extradition of the requested person has been sought, as well as their ability to move across continents.

Where the requesting State withdraws the extradition request and the competent authority declares the extradition procedure moot, setting aside the extradition decision, the effects of the challenged act cease. As a result, the amparo proceedings must be dismissed, including any constitutional challenge to the treaty provision whose application depended on that extradition decision.

In assessing the existence of flight risk, the mere availability of accommodation suitable for house arrest, the absence of stable ties to the national territory, and a demonstrated propensity for international travel—allegedly supported by financial means and logistical networks—do not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to deny the application of less severe custodial measures. Such elements, if relied upon in abstract or generalized terms, amount to mere suspicion rather than a concrete and individualized assessment of the case. Accordingly, where house arrest is requested, the judicial authority is required to provide specific reasoning as to the inadequacy of that measure, which cannot be inferred solely from factors that are, in principle, neutral, such as financial capacity or habitual mobility across different countries.