→ 🇰🇷 South Korea

In extradition proceedings, the party retains an interest in appealing a decision of no need to proceed issued on account of the absence of supplementary documentation relevant to the determination, where the party had primarily sought a ruling on the merits of the conditions for extraditability on the basis of the extradition request. This is because a decision of a purely procedural nature is not capable of producing the preclusive effect, under Article 707 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, that would otherwise bar a subsequent decision granting extradition following a new request submitted by the same State for the same facts

South Korea requested the extradition of one of its nationals to serve a fifteen-year sentence for fraud after his appeal had been dismissed in absentia while he was residing in China. Before referring the request for judicial examination, the Supreme People’s Court obtained an assurance from South Korea that the requested person would receive a retrial in his presence following extradition. The Court also found that the conduct underlying the request constituted offences under the laws of both States and that more than six months of the sentence remained to be served. It therefore approved the lower court’s finding that the statutory and treaty conditions for extradition were satisfied.