European Court of Human Rights

 

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35661/11
Hugo Cristian PEREZ LIZASO
against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 February 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

          Ineta Ziemele, President,
          Päivi Hirvelä,
          George Nicolaou,
          Ledi Bianku,
          Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
          Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
          Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2011,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1.  The applicant, Mr Hugo Cristian Perez Lizaso, is a Swedish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Solna. He was represented before the Court by Mr Jussi Sarvikivi, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

A.  The circumstances of the case

2.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

Background of the case

3.  The applicant is a Swedish national who has certain family ties to Uruguay and probably also has Uruguayan citizenship. The applicant has been wanted in Uruguay at least since 2010 as he is suspected of aggravated extortion committed in February 2009. Three other persons, including the applicant's brother, were convicted in Uruguay on 28 September 2010 for having participated in the same crime of which the applicant is suspected. A prison sentence of 5 years and 8 months was imposed on the brother and a sentence of 5 years and 4 months on the two other perpetrators. The Uruguayan authorities have tried to locate the applicant through Interpol, issuing a Red Notice alert about him.

Applicant's arrest and detention

4.  On 11 December 2010 the applicant was arrested in Finland.

5.  On 14 December 2010 the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) ordered the applicant to be detained with a view to his extradition. The applicant complained about this decision to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) which rejected his complaint on 14 January 2011.

6.  On 8 February 2011 the Vantaa District Court rejected the applicant's request for release from detention. The applicant complained about this decision to the Supreme Court which, on 5 April 2011, rejected his complaint.

7.  On 11 April 2011 the Vantaa District Court rejected the applicant's second request for release from detention. It is not known whether the applicant complained about this decision to the Supreme Court.

Extradition proceedings

8.  By letter dated 17 January 2011 the Uruguayan authorities filed a request with the Finnish Ministry of Justice, asking them to extradite the applicant to Uruguay.

9.  On 15 April 2011 the applicant was interrogated by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen). The applicant opposed the extradition.

10.  On 2 May 2011, in accordance with the Extradition Act, the Ministry of Justice asked the Supreme Court to give a statement on whether the possible extradition would be in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties.

11.  By letter dated 19 May 2011 the applicant gave his comments to the Supreme Court on the possible extradition. He claimed that he as a Swedish citizen should be treated as a Finnish citizen as Finnish citizens could not be extradited according to the domestic law. He also claimed that he could not be extradited to Uruguay because the conditions in Uruguayan detention facilities and prisons were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He would not have a fair and public trial there within a reasonable time, he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time.

12.  On 3 June 2011 the Supreme Court gave its statement to the Ministry of Justice. It found that the request for extradition could be granted. The applicant was suspected of aggravated extortion committed together with three other persons. These three persons had been convicted in Uruguay and sentenced to imprisonment on 28 September 2010. The crime of which the applicant was suspected was such that, according to domestic law, the applicant could be extradited. The extradition was based on a detention order issued by a court. The fact that the applicant was a Swedish citizen did not prevent the extradition. No such grounds were thus shown to exist on the basis of which the applicant's extradition to Uruguay, due to personal circumstances or special humanitarian reasons, could be considered unreasonable.

13.  On 7 June 2011 the Ministry of Justice decided that the applicant could be extradited to Uruguay for trial. The decision stated that, after the decision had been served to the Uruguayan authorities, they had 30 days to come and collect the applicant and transfer him to Uruguay. It is not known whether they have done that.

14.  On 13 June 2011 the applicant lodged his application with the Court, requesting also that Rule 39 be applied.

15.  On 15 June 2011 the Court refused to apply Rule 39 to prevent the applicant's extradition from Finland. The applicant was requested to inform the Court whether he wished to maintain his application.

16.  On 11 July 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to maintain his application with the Court.

17.  It is not known whether the applicant is still in Finland or whether he has been extradited.

B.  Relevant domestic law

18.  Extradition to and from Finland takes place in accordance with the Extradition Act (laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta, lagen om utlämning för brott, Act no. 456/1970, as in force at the relevant time). According to sections 16 and 17 of the Act, the Ministry of Justice decides on extradition. If the person to be extradited opposes it, the Ministry must ask the Supreme Court to give a statement on whether the possible extradition is in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties which are binding on Finland. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an obstacle to the extradition, it cannot be carried out.

COMPLAINTS

19.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he could not be extradited to Uruguay because the conditions in Uruguayan detention facilities and prisons were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He would not have a fair and public trial within a reasonable time, he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time.

20.  Furthermore, he complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not received a reasoned decision as neither the Finnish Ministry of Justice, nor the Supreme Court, had given any reasons whatsoever as to why they considered that the applicant's situation did not amount to a violation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

A.  Complaints relating to extradition and the conditions in Uruguay

1.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he could not be extradited to Uruguay because the conditions in Uruguayan detention facilities and prisons were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He would not have a fair and public trial there within a reasonable time, he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time.

2.  The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

B.  Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention

3.  The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not received a reasoned decision as neither the Finnish Ministry of Justice, nor the Supreme Court, had given any reasons whatsoever as to why they considered that the applicant's situation did not amount to a violation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention.

4.  The Court reiterates that decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of an applicant's civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2000-X; Penafiel Salgado v. Spain (dec.), no. 65964/01, 16 April 2002; and Sardinas Albo v. Italy (dec.), no. 56271/00, ECHR 2004-I). The same principles apply also to extradition (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2005-I).

5.  Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority

Decides to invite the parties to submit additional observations concerning the extradition and the conditions in Uruguay;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

          Fatoş Aracı                                                                    Ineta Ziemele
     Deputy Registrar                                                                   President