Uruguay

The case concerns extradition proceedings between the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Argentine Republic. The Court of Appeals reviewed a decision granting the extradition request issued by Argentine judicial authorities.The Court held that extradition constitutes the highest expression of international legal cooperation and that extradition treaties must be interpreted in a manner that promotes their purpose of ensuring effective cooperation in the administration of justice.The Court determined that, under the applicable extradition framework, Uruguay follows the Belgian-Dutch (continental European) system of extradition review. Under this approach, the requested State’s examination is limited to a formal assessment of the extradition request. The requested court must verify, among other requirements, that the requesting State has jurisdiction, that the submitted documentation complies with the applicable formalities, that the relevant legal provisions and judicial decisions have been provided, that the identity of the requested person has been established, and that the request does not violate fundamental extradition principles.The Court emphasized that the requested State is not entitled to examine the merits of the criminal case, assess the sufficiency or strength of the evidence, or determine the guilt or innocence of the requested person, as those matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the requesting State.In the case at hand, the Court concluded that the extradition request complied with the requirements established in the Extradition Treaty between Uruguay and Argentina, including jurisdiction of the requesting authorities, dual criminality, and the absence of grounds preventing extradition. The Court further found that the alleged risks invoked did not constitute a sufficient basis to deny extradition.Accordingly, the Court confirmed the decision granting extradition.

2017 bilateral extradition treaty identifies “extraditable offences”, i.e. offences capable of giving rise to extradition, and—so far as extradition for prosecution is concerned—defines them as those punishable under the laws of both Parties “by a custodial sentence of at least two years”. This Court, when interpreting the 1983 extradition treaty with the United States—which contains a similar formula for identifying extraditable offences (offences punishable “by deprivation of liberty for a period exceeding one year or by a more severe penalty”)—has already held that the custodial sentence requirement must be understood as referring to the maximum statutory penalty provided for under the laws of both countries. It should be added that, in international practice (see the Model Treaty on Extradition elaborated by the United Nations), two factors are taken into account in order to identify extraditable offences and avoid extradition for trivial conduct: the range of the statutory penalty for extradition for prosecution, and the sentence actually imposed for extradition for enforcement. In the former case, the “minimum” threshold of the statutory penalty considered by treaties corresponds to the maximum penalty abstractly provided for by law (as clarified by the Model Treaty, the “minimum penalty” test is intended to ensure that the treaty applies only to offences of a certain seriousness).

Statute of limitations does not constitute a bar to surrender where crimes against humanity are at issue. Such crimes offend transnational interests and violate jus cogens, namely those norms of positive law universally recognised as binding by all States, which, being placed at the apex of the international legal order, prevail over any other rule of law, whether treaty-based or customary, and are incorporated into the domestic legal system pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution. The principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity is also affirmed by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, ratified by Uruguay. Moreover, Article 4 of Law No. 110 of 14 July 2017 excludes the possibility of recognising any form of immunity for foreign nationals investigated or convicted abroad for acts amounting to torture.