Re Angelini

• Jurisdicción: Argentina
• Fecha: 14 Junio 1960
• Emisor: Federal Court of Appeals (Argentina)

Argentina, National Court of Appeals in Federal and Administrative Cases for the Federal Capital (Criminal and Correctional Chamber).

Re Angelini.

Extradition Procedure of Competence of requesting authorities Burden of proof Presumption of competence Whether plea of innocence can be bar to extradition Extradition Treaty of 1886 between Argentina and Italy The law of Argentina.

The Facts.Italy requested the extradition of Emilio Angelini on charges of swindlin and fraudulent bankruptcy. It was argued on behalf of the accused that, inter alia, the extradition request was irregular in that the order for his detention had not been issued by the proper Italian authority; that swindling was not included among the offences listed in the Extradition Treaty of June 16, 1886, between Argentina and Italy;1 that the charge of fraudulent bankruptcy was incorrectly stated; and that he was innocent of the charges. The Fiscal recommended to the Court of first instance that extradition be granted on the charge of fraudulent bankruptcy. The Court refused extradition, however, on the ground that the period of limitation had expired in relation to the offence charged. The Fiscal appealed from this decision.

Held: that extradition should be granted.

The Court of Appeals, after satisfying itself that the accused had been properly identified and that the offence of fraudulent bankruptcy was included in the Treaty, said: The accused has pleaded that the extradition request is defective in certain respects, in particular that the charge of fraudulent bankruptcy is not well founded, that the magistrate who issued the order for the detention of the accused acted ultra vires, and that the accused is innocent of the offence charged. In our opinion none of these pleas, which are discussed at length in the Fiscal's report to the Court, has any merit.

No evidence has been submitted by the accused in support of his charge of incompetence on the part of the Italian magistrate. On the contrary, the competence of this official may be said to have been endorsed by the very fact that his order was not challenged during its transmission to us via a superior Court in Rome, the Italian Ministry of Justice, and the Italian Embassy in Argentina. In the extradition process the authorities of the requesting State must be assumed to be competent to make the extradition request and to carry out any subsequent judicial proceedings resulting therefrom, unless conclusive evidence to the contrary can be...