Extradition and Delivery Deadlines: What Changes After Ruling No. 8929/2025?

The Supreme Court has once again ruled on jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities, analyzing the consequences of the delay with which the requesting State transmits the extradition request. The case, involving the Peruvian citizen J. J. M., offered the Sixth Criminal Section the opportunity to summarize principles that are now consolidated but often contested in courtrooms. Let's see why the appeal was rejected and what practical implications it has for legal professionals.

The Core of the Decision

In matters of extradition to a foreign country, the late transmission of the surrender request by the Republic of Peru, after the arrest has been executed, does not lead to the nullity of the extradition procedure, nor does it, in itself, denote the subsequent lack of interest of the requesting State, given that the Extradition Treaty between Italy and Peru, ratified by Law of May 3, 2004, no. 135, contains no provision to this effect, without prejudice to the cessation of the precautionary measure upon the expiry of the ninety-day term.

The maxim emphasizes two aspects: on the one hand, the absence in the Italy-Peru Treaty of a clause that sanctions late requests with nullity; on the other hand, the balance with the protection of personal liberty, guaranteed by the 90-day period provided for by art. 715, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the duration of the coercive measure. The Court, referring to the previous ruling no. 477/2024, therefore reiterates the non-existence of an automatic annulment in case of delay, provided that the person does not remain in custody beyond the maximum limit.

The Regulatory Framework: Italy-Peru Treaty and Code of Criminal Procedure

To fully understand the scope of the ruling, it is necessary to cross-reference international and domestic sources:

• Law of May 3, 2004, no. 135: ratification and execution of the Extradition Treaty between Italy and Peru. The text does not provide for deadlines for the formal request after provisional arrest.
• Art. 697 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: governs provisional arrest for extradition purposes.
• Art. 715 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: sets the maximum period for pre-trial detention at 90 days; after this period, the measure must cease, regardless of the status of the request.

The lack of a conventional deadline therefore leaves room for domestic legislation, which, however, only intervenes on personal liberty and not on the entire procedure. Hence the Court of Cassation's statement: the delay does not invalidate the extradition process but only affects the foreigner's continued detention.

Practical Implications for the Defense

The lawyer assisting a person subject to provisional arrest must, in light of this ruling, focus their strategy on two lines of action:

• scrupulously monitor the expiry of the 90 days to obtain the client's immediate release;
• verify whether, in addition to the delay, there are substantial violations of the Treaty (e.g., lack of punishability or non-correspondence of offenses) that could form the basis for an opposition to extradition.

The mere argument of the foreign state's inertia, in the absence of a treaty deadline, will no longer be sufficient to paralyze the procedure.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 8929/2025 reinforces an approach aimed at preventing conventional loopholes from automatically translating into international impunity. At the same time, the Court protects personal liberty by requiring strict adherence to the domestic 90-day deadline. For professionals in international criminal law, the message is clear: the game is played by analyzing treaties and the code of procedure in combination, not by mere chronological complaints.