Re Costa
| Jurisdicción | Argentina |
| Número de expediente | Case No. 179 |
| Fecha | 23 Abril 1935 |
| Emisor | Federal Court of First Instance (Argentina) |
Extradition — In General — Position of Persons Sentenced in absentia.
Extradition — In General — Request on behalf of Another State — Request of Mandatory on behalf of Mandated Territory.
Extradition — Conditions of — Statutes of Limitations — Position of Person Convicted in absentia — Request on behalf of Another State — Mandatory's Request on behalf of Mandated Territory — Argentine Law.
The Facts.—France sought, on behalf of Syria, the extradition from Argentina of the appellant who had been sentenced in absentia (par contumace) to twenty years imprisonment with hard labour by the Court of Beirut on September 21, 1920. He appealed on the ground that the prosecution of the crime was now barred by a Statute of Limitation.
Held: that extradition should be refused, and the appellant set free. The Court said: “… The judgment was rendered in absentia, without the accused having been arrested at any time, nor any statement made by him. … Although, in principle, extradition is governed by the law of the requesting state, it is clear that the requested nation can and should see whether the circumstances of the case openly contradict the essential guarantees consecrated in its institutions. In that sense, the Supreme Court has previously declared that ‘in extradition proceedings for the purpose of returning criminals or presumed criminals for trial or punishment by the courts of the country where they have done wrong, the judicial criterion ought to be favourable to the idea of universal welfare, and for that reason should not allow other objections than those derived from the sovereignty of the requested nation and the fundamental conditions written in its laws or treaties’ (156 Fallos, 169).1
“There is no doubt that the judicial decision giving rise to the present request is irreconcilable with our legal system. Our Constitution, in Article 18, and the corresponding provisions of the code of criminal procedure … prohibit conviction without hearing the accused and without his being … in a position to carry on his defence. From this it necessarily follows that, for Argentina, Ibrahim Moussa Costa must be deemed an accused subject to prosecution, but not a person convicted by a judgment capable of execution.
“The question is of particular importance in view of its bearing on statutes of limitations. Since Moussa Costa is merely an accused person, the action for the crime charged … is...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba