Uzbekistan

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court Warsaw-Praga, declaring the extradition of an Uzbek citizen to the Republic of Uzbekistan legally admissible for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings regarding fraud. The Court also upheld the extension of the requested person's provisional arrest. The requested person appealed the decision, claiming innocence but simultaneously demanding a swift extradition to reunite with his family and complaining about language barriers and detention conditions in Poland. The Court of Appeal found no mandatory or optional grounds for refusal, noting that double criminality is met, the act is an ordinary (not political) offense, and there is no risk of the death penalty. Addressing the defense's complaints regarding the arrest, the Court emphasized that a high flight risk necessitates securing the extradition proceedings with an isolation measure. Furthermore, the Court verified the detention conditions, confirming that the requested person is provided with adequate care, clothing, translation services, and authorized phone contact with his family.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Uzbekistan against N.K., an Uzbek national sought for offences including embezzlement, extortion, and forgery-related crimes allegedly committed between 2015 and 2017.The Istanbul Anatolian 17th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request inadmissible under Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706, reasoning that the offences were punishable alternatively by fines or corrective labour measures rather than mandatory imprisonment.The public prosecutor appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706. The Court emphasized that the relevant Uzbek offences also carried custodial sentences exceeding one year and therefore satisfied the extraditability threshold.The Court further found that additional information should have been requested from Uzbekistan concerning:- whether restitution of the alleged financial damage affected continuation of criminal proceedings;- whether the requesting State still intended to pursue extradition;- and whether Uzbekistan would comply with the specialty principle by limiting prosecution to the offences forming the basis of extradition.The Court concluded that the lower court prematurely rejected the extradition request without obtaining the necessary supplementary information and assurances.The judgment was therefore quashed.

The Court of Appeal in Warsaw upheld the decision of the Regional Court Warsaw-Praga, declaring the extradition of the requested person to the Republic of Uzbekistan legally admissible and extending his isolation measure. The individual was sought for offenses equivalent to fraud under Polish law. The defense counsel appealed the decision, arguing a potential violation of human rights in Uzbekistan and pointing out that one of the alleged victims had ties to the police, which could allegedly deprive the requested person of a fair defense. The defense also contested the extension of the detention, arguing that the requested person had a known address in Poland. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, stating that general reports on human rights violations in a requesting state are insufficient to refuse extradition without proof of a specific, individual risk. The Court also rejected the argument regarding the victim's police connections as a basis for refusal. Regarding the detention, the Court confirmed a high flight risk, noting that the requested person's center of life and family remained in Uzbekistan, and isolation was the only effective way to secure the extradition process.