Peru

The court certified extradition to Peru, emphasizing the limited role of the extradition court under 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The court held that a foreign conviction—particularly one obtained after the defendant participated in trial proceedings—is ordinarily sufficient to establish probable cause. Even assuming the conviction was treated like an in absentia conviction, the detailed findings of the Peruvian courts independently established probable cause. The decision also reaffirmed that U.S. courts do not second-guess foreign criminal proceedings or procedural rulings so long as treaty requirements are satisfied.

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 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.

If specific assurances are requested regarding detention conditions, generic information lacking any degree of individualisation cannot be regarded as sufficient, such individualisation being a necessary precondition also for assessing the concrete adequacy of any compensatory measures, which must be calibrated to the extent of the prejudice otherwise arising from overnight confinement in a cell. Accordingly, where a specific receiving prison has not been identified and, above all, where the size of the cells (to be assessed in relation to the number of detainees expected to remain therein, at least during night-time) has not been provided, further inquiries will be required.

Court of Appeal correctly pointed out that the defence submissions referred to a situation of significant political instability in Peru, but did not in any way substantiate — on the basis of reports issued by reliable organisations — the alleged serious problems of prison overcrowding. In the substantial absence of elements capable of raising doubts as to the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, it must be excluded that the Court of Appeal is under an obligation to nonetheless request further information, as this would amount to a merely exploratory activity, not justified by proven elements capable of undermining the principle of mutual trust between States. This principle is grounded in the treaty-based nature of extradition agreements, which are founded on a relationship of mutual confidence and reliance between States. Accordingly, the domestic judicial authority is required to seek additional information only where that presumption of reliability is called into question on the basis of concrete elements, which may also be derived from open sources, provided they are deemed reliable. Therefore, in the absence of any element capable of giving rise to suspicion that the conditions of detention would not comply with human rights standards, no general duty to request further information or assurances can be invoked, as this would undermine the very principle of mutual trust underpinning extradition treaties. Moreover, in the case law of this Court, there are no recent precedents establishing that detention conditions in Peru are incompatible with the protection of human rights.

The case concerned a request by Peru for the extradition of a Peruvian national accused of drug trafficking for allegedly attempting to export cocaine to the United States. The requested person challenged the extradition decision arguing that the general human rights situation in Peru, including prison overcrowding, poor detention conditions, corruption within institutions, and concerns regarding judicial independence, exposed her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal had failed to adequately address the detailed submissions and international reports produced by the defence, including reports from Amnesty International and the Italian Embassy. The Court reiterated that, even in the presence of a bilateral extradition treaty, Italian courts must conduct a concrete assessment of detention conditions in the requesting State and, where necessary, seek additional information. The extradition decision was therefore annulled and remanded for a new assessment.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, the late transmission of the surrender request by the Republic of Peru, after the arrest has been carried out, does not entail the nullity of the extradition proceedings, nor does it in itself indicate a lack of continued interest on the part of the requesting State, since the Extradition Treaty between Italy and Peru, ratified by Law No. 135 of 3 May 2004, contains no provision to that effect, without prejudice to the termination of the custodial measure upon the expiry of the ninety-day time limit.