🇮🇹 Italy →

The case concerned an Albanian request for execution extradition based on a final one-year prison sentence for escape and possession and manufacture of false identification documents. The requested person challenged the decision granting extradition, arguing that he had already fully served the sentence in Italy through extradition custody and that the Albanian authorities had themselves indicated that they no longer had an interest in surrender. The Italian Supreme Court upheld the appeal. It held that, where the sentence for which extradition is sought has already been entirely served in Italy through precautionary custody in the extradition proceedings, surrender for execution is barred, since crediting pre-surrender detention against the sentence is a fundamental principle of the Italian legal order and a fundamental right of the person. The Court therefore annulled the surrender decision without remand, declared the existing precautionary measure terminated, and ordered the requested person’s release unless detained on other grounds.

The request by the Minister of Justice for the revocation of the custodial measure leaves no room for discretion, as the law provides that “revocation shall always be ordered if the Minister of Justice so requests.” In such cases, where the proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation, that Court has jurisdiction to decide on the revocation of the measure, and the immediate release of the person sought for extradition must be ordered.

In the absence of an extradition treaty between Italy and Pakistan, the rules of the Italian legal system apply, in particular Article 698(2) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not allow “prosecutorial” extradition to a foreign State (nor the application of a coercive measure) where the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable by death in the requesting State. Indeed, in the absence of a final foreign judicial decision excluding the application of the death penalty in the specific case, the Italian judicial authority has no margin of discretion. Consequently, under the current legal framework, no decisive weight may be attached to the assurances contained in the “certificate of moratorium on capital punishment” attached by the Pakistani authorities to the extradition request, stating that the Government of that State has suspended executions and that, should the death penalty be imposed, it would not be carried out without the prior consent of the Italian Government.

The requested person must be informed of the subject-matter of the extradition proceedings. Accordingly, where such information did not cover additional episodes of fraud described in the custodial order subsequently transmitted in support of the extradition request, this gives rise to a ground of nullity. Indeed, in order to safeguard defence rights, once the subject-matter of the extradition proceedings has changed, the judicial authority must order the appearance of the person concerned; failure to do so results in nullity for violation of the right of defence and, consequently, in the invalidity of the acts carried out in the proceedings.