Commentary on Judgment No. 36945 of 2024: Passive Extradition and Unjust Detention

Judgment No. 36945 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on the application of precautionary measures and the right to compensation for unjust detention in contexts of passive extradition. In particular, the Court established that deprivation of personal liberty, pending a decision on extradition, does not necessarily imply unjust detention if a final and unappealable judgment in favor of extradition has not been issued.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The central issue addressed by the Court concerns criminal precautionary measures and, in particular, their application in extradition proceedings. The Court referred to Articles 714 and 715 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the adoption of precautionary measures pending extradition must be justified by specific conditions, including the risk of the defendant absconding.

The Ruling's Maxim

Passive extradition - Provisional application of precautionary measure pursuant to Articles 714 and 715 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Failure to adopt a final and unappealable judgment in favor of extradition - Right to compensation for unjust detention - Configurability - Exclusion - Reasons. In matters of compensation for unjust detention, deprivation of personal liberty, suffered provisionally pursuant to Articles 715 and 716 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within the framework of a passive extradition procedure that concluded without the adoption of a final and unappealable judgment in favor of extradition, does not, "ex se," determine the injustice of the detention, given that the national judge has a reduced basis for judgment and, where the extradition request has not been submitted by the foreign state, the verification of the conditions legitimizing the restriction of liberty pertains solely to the prerequisite of the risk of flight.

This passage highlights the Court's position regarding the need for careful and circumstantial evaluation by the national judge, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the absence of a formal extradition request from the requesting state.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The practical consequences of this judgment are significant for those involved in extradition proceedings. Among the key points, we can list:

• The necessity of a formal extradition request from the foreign state to establish unjust detention.
• The possibility of applying precautionary measures without a final and unappealable judgment in favor of extradition.
• The assessment of the risk of flight as the sole criterion for justifying the restriction of personal liberty.

These considerations emphasize the importance of correct interpretation and application of regulations concerning extradition and precautionary measures, ensuring that defendants' rights are always protected.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 36945 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the rights of defendants in extradition proceedings. The Court has highlighted the limitations and guarantees provided by law, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty is not automatically considered unjust, unless there is a clear violation of the prescribed procedures. It is therefore essential that legal professionals remain constantly updated and aware of the implications of such legal decisions, to ensure fair and balanced justice.