Re Bressano

JurisdicciónArgentina
Fecha26 Marzo 1965
EmisorFederal Court of Appeals (Argentina)
Argentina, Cmara Federal de la Capital.
Re Bressano.

Extradition Political crimes Common crime connected with political offence Determinants of political offence Montevideo Convention on International Penal Law, 1889 (Article 23) Acts of international concern Whether political offences The law of Argentina.

The Facts.Peru requested the extradition of Hugo M. Bressano on charges of bank robbery and assault committed in the Miraflores branch of the Credit Bank of Peru. Uncertainty as to the exact date of commission of the alleged offences and the fact that the accused was an Argentine national were advanced unsuccessfully as arguments against extradition. The Court of first instance refused extradition on the ground that the offences constituted common crimes connected with a political offence and hence were not extraditable under Article 23 of the Montevideo Convention on International Penal Law, 1889,1 which governed this action as Peru had not ratified the Montevideo Convention on Extradition of 1933.2 On appeal to the Federal Court of the Capital (Buenos Aires),

Held: that extradition must be granted where the common crime element dominated over the political character of the offence charged. In the present case the offence was not political in the strict sense, and extradition should be granted.

After stating the facts, the Court said:

We cannot agree with the reasoning of the decision under appeal. In our opinion the extradition of Hugo M. Bressano should be granted because the request conforms to the formal requirements for extradition. The fact that the accused is of Argentine birth is immaterial here, and the nature of the offence charged does not present an obstacle to his surrender.

In the first place, the offence imputed to Bressano and his accomplices is essentially a common crime. In order to characterize this offence as one connected with a political offence (delito conexo), in legal terms, it must be shown that such political character attached to the offence from its inception. Otherwise, it would not be possible to establish the alleged connection in terms of law. The record of the case provides no material proof, nor even tentative proof, of the political connection advanced by the defence and alluded to rather vaguely in the proceedings below. Reference has been made to Article 23 of the Treaty on International Penal Law of 1889, which states the traditional rule that a political offence is not extraditable; however, this provision is...

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR