→ 🇮🇱 Israel

The petitioner challenged the certification of his extraditability to Israel, where he was sought for prosecution for attempted murder and related offences arising from an alleged organized-crime plot. He argued that the extradition court lacked jurisdiction because United States authorities had secured his transfer from Malaysia through deception and unlawful conduct, and further claimed that the evidence submitted by Israel did not establish probable cause. The District Court held that, under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine, even an irregular or unlawful rendition does not ordinarily deprive a court of jurisdiction, absent conduct comparable to the extreme torture or brutality contemplated by the narrow Toscanino exception. It also found that the United States–Malaysia extradition treaty did not apply because the petitioner had not been transferred pursuant to that treaty and concluded that the evidentiary record was sufficient to support probable cause. The habeas petition and the request for a stay pending appeal were therefore denied, subject to a one-week administrative stay allowing an application to the Court of Appeals.

Extradition is permissible only if the request is accompanied by the judicial decision constituting the legal basis of the request; therefore, regardless of the procedural stage that gave rise to it, the continuation of a precautionary measure beyond 40 days is never allowed in the absence of the documents required under Article 700 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 12(2) of the European Extradition Convention, in particular the foreign judicial order imposing the custodial measure.