CCPR/C/126/D/2570/2015
1.1
The author of the communication is A.L., a Ukrainian national born on 20
November 1979. At the time of submitting the present communication, he was subject to
extradition to Ukraine, in order to face criminal charges for a robbery allegedly committed
in 2000. He claimed that by extraditing him to Ukraine, Italy would violate his rights under
articles 7, 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 10 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol
entered into force for the State party on 15 September 1978. The author is represented by
counsel.
1.2
On 16 February 2015, pursuant to rule 94 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the
Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures decided not to issue a
request for interim measures. On 7 December 2017, the Special Rapporteur decided to deny
the author’s requests to issue a request for interim measures.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
At an unknown date, the author came to Vicenza, Italy, “for reasons of work”.1 On 4
June 2010, the district court of Sosnivisky, Cherkasy, Ukraine, issued an arrest warrant
against the author in connection with a robbery that he had allegedly committed on 9 May
2000 in a private house in the village of Falęcice-Wola, Poland. On 30 May 2011, the
warrant was reissued. On 20 July 2011, Italian police officers entered the author’s house
and arrested him. On 2 August 2011, Ukraine issued an extradition request to the Italian
authorities. Both States are parties to the European Convention on Extradition of 13
December 1957.
2.2
On 2 September 2011, the author was released from prison and placed under house
arrest. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities provided supporting documents to the
extradition request: an arrest warrant, a summary of the relevant facts of the case and “legal
characterization of the alleged offence”. On 27 September 2011, the Chief Prosecutor of the
Venice Court of Appeal initiated legal proceedings for the author’s extradition. On 21
November 2011, the author challenged his extradition, claiming that there was a lack of
strong evidence of guilt; that the lapse of time rendered the alleged offence not liable to
prosecution according to the law of both States; that neither a decree of the Minister of
Justice nor a complaint by the victim had been filed in the case, as required under Italian
legislation; and that the author would be put at real risk of cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment and even torture if extradited to Ukraine. On 28 November 2011, the Venice
Court of Appeal rejected the extradition request, as the conditions set forth by international
and domestic law had not been met. In particular, the Court of Appeal held that the alleged
offence was time-barred.
2.3
The Prosecutor challenged the decision before the Court of Cassation, arguing that
the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted internal provisions governing the statute of
limitations. The Prosecutor held that the offence allegedly committed should have been
legally characterized under Italian law as aggravated robbery – and not simply as robbery,
as stated by the Court of Appeal. Consequently, according to Italian legislation, the period
of limitation of the offence would only expire on 9 May 2015. Article 10 of the Convention
on Extradition denies extradition if the offence is time-barred “according to the law of
either the requesting or the requested party.” The Prosecutor maintained that the statute of
limitations for the alleged offence had not expired according to Ukrainian law either,
because the period of limitation had been interrupted by the issuance of an arrest warrant on
3 September 2007. Regarding the issue of gross human rights violations committed against
detainees in Ukraine, the Prosecutor simply recalled prior jurisprudence in which the Court
of Cassation had granted extraditions to Ukraine in the past.
2.4
Before the Court of Cassation, the author argued that: (a) both the Ukrainian
authorities, in the original arrest warrant, and the Italian authorities, in the course of
proceedings before the Venice Court of Appeal, had brought the accusation of robbery and
that aggravating circumstances could not be charged ad libitum; (b) the first arrest warrant
issued on 3 September 2007 had not been served on or communicated to him and that, in
any event, the extradition request had been based on a subsequent warrant that was issued
1
2
No details provided.