5.  On 2 July 2010 the applicant applied for a renewal of his American passport at the United States Embassy in Tirana. In the afternoon of the same day he was arrested by the Albanian police at the request of the United States Embassy. 6.  On the same day, the United States Embassy sent diplomatic note no. 55 by which it requested the provisional arrest of the applicant for the purpose of extradition in accordance with Article XI of the Extradition Treaty. According to the diplomatic note, a warrant for the applicant’s arrest had been issued on 28 May 2010 by a United States judge.
The prosecutor requested the validation of the applicant’s provisional detention with a view to his extradition to the United States. 7.  On 4 July 2010 the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s detention for a period of forty days, relying on a wanted notice issued by the United States authorities, through Interpol, against the applicant. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the decision. 8.  On 22 July 2010 the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was upheld by the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), which extended the period of the applicant’s detention to sixty days, that is from 2 July until 2 September 2010. In support of its decision, the Court of Appeal relied, inter alia, on Article XI of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Albania. 9.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, which rejected the appeal on 12 November 2010. 10.  Between August and November 2010, the applicant challenged his continued detention three times, namely in August, September and November 2010. Each time the domestic courts rejected the applicant’s actions and they respectively extended his detention in accordance with Article 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”), namely until 2 November 2010. 11.  On 30 August 2010 the United States Embassy addressed diplomatic note no. 071 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting the applicant’s extradition. According to the diplomatic note, the applicant had been charged, along with other co-defendants, with the following eight counts: 1) membership of an organised racketeering enterprise engaged in murder, kidnapping, drug distribution, arson, robbery, extortion and the interstate transportation of stolen goods; 2) conspiracy to engage in a racketeering enterprise; 3) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms and more of marijuana; 4) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances; 5) conspiracy to commit robbery; 6) the possession, use, carrying and brandishing of firearms, including a firearm equipped with a silencer, during, in relation to, and in furtherance of the narcotics offence; 7) kidnapping in aid of racketeering; 8) the possession, use, carrying and brandishing of firearms during, in relation to, and in furtherance of the kidnapping charged in count six; and 9) the murder of E.S in aid of racketeering.
The diplomatic note further stated that five charges carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment (nos. 1-2 and 6-8); two charges carried a maximum penalty of forty years’ imprisonment (nos. 3 and 4); one charge carried a maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment (no. 5); and another charge carried a penalty of either death or life imprisonment (no. 9). The diplomatic note further stated that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant on 19 August 2010 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 12.  On 31 August 2010 the prosecutor’s office requested the District Court to authorise the applicant’s extradition to the United States. 13.  On 30 September 2010 the District Court granted the prosecutor’s request. The District Court rejected the applicant’s objection that the United States authorities had not furnished any assurances against the imposition of the death penalty on the grounds that such assurances were not required by law. 14.  On 13 October 2010 the State Advocate’s Office informed the Court of Appeal of this Court’s interim measure of 12 October 2010 (see paragraph 31 below). 15.  On 27 October 2010 the United States Embassy sent diplomatic note no. 88 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows (extracted from the original in English):
“The United States understands that Rrapo has been ruled extraditable and that decision has been appealed to an Albanian appellate court and a complaint has been lodged before the European Court of Human Rights. The United States requests that, as these proceedings continue, should the Government of Albania require additional information regarding possible future proceedings in the United States, such information should be requested via diplomatic note and should provide a reasonable timeframe for response, as well as instructions on the presentation of such information. The United States will respond to any such request within a reasonable time.
The Embassy also requests that, with regard to the Almir Rrapo extradition proceedings, the Government of Albania consider the potential flight risk of the defendant, and request that Rrapo continue to be detained pending the resolution of all proceedings relating to the request for extradition of Rrapo, including proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights and national court proceedings.” 16.  On 1 November 2010 the Tirana Court of Appeal, following the applicant’s appeal, found in favour of the applicant’s extradition. The court ruled that there existed no legal obligation to seek assurances from the US authorities against the imposition of the death penalty. 17.  On 1 November 2010 the Minister of Justice ordered that the applicant’s extradition should be effected by 16 November 2010. 18.  On 3 November 2010 the Minister of Justice sent a note verbale to the United States Embassy asking whether the applicant would be subjected to capital punishment for the criminal offences with which he had been charged. 19.  On 8 November 2010 the United States Embassy sent diplomatic note no. 91 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows (extracted from the original in English):
“The United States Department of Justice has authorised and directed the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York not to seek the death penalty against Almir Rrapo. As a result, the Government of the United States hereby assures the Government of Albania that should Mr Rrapo be extradited to stand trial on the charges for which his extradition has been granted, the death penalty will not be sought or imposed against Almir Rrapo upon his extradition to the United States.” 20.  On 9 November 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. He argued, inter alia, that the United States authorities had given no assurances about the non-imposition of the death penalty in breach of Article 21 of the Constitution. 21.  On 9 November 2010 the applicant lodged a further request with the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of his extradition, bringing to its attention this Court’s indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 22.  On 10 November 2010 the State Advocate’s Office informed the Supreme Court of this Court’s interim measure of 2 November 2010 (see paragraph 32 below). 23.  On 15 November 2010 the Minister of Justice extended to 1 December 2010 the time-limit within which the applicant’s extradition to the United States could take place. 24.  On 24 November 2010 the applicant was extradited to the United States. 25.  On 26 November 2010 the Supreme Court quashed both lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case to the District Court for rehearing. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts should not have granted the applicant’s extradition on two principal grounds. In the first place, the lower courts had not obtained any assurances from the United States authorities that the capital punishment would not be imposed on the applicant. This was against a number of Albania’s constitutional and other statutes’ provisions. Secondly, the lower courts had not heard any evidence of the applicant’s alleged guilt as required by the Extradition Treaty. The existence of an affidavit by a United States police officer could not be considered evidence within the meaning of domestic criminal procedure provisions. 26.  In the rehearing proceedings, in response to the District Court’s request of 16 February 2011 about the existence of assurances against the imposition of the death penalty on the applicant, on 17 February 2011 the Minister of Justice requested the United States Embassy to provide assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to capital punishment in respect of the charges for which he was extradited. 27.  On 24 February 2011 the United States Embassy sent diplomatic note no. 22 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows (extracted from the original in English):
“... The United States further refers Albania to diplomatic note 91, dated November 8, 2010 in which the United States provided assurances that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed against Mr. Rrapo on the charges for which his extradition was granted. Such assurances are transmitted by the United States Government in the form of a diplomatic note, which is a formal communication between our governments. As reflected in diplomatic note no. 91, the assurances are provided based upon a decision by the United States Department of Justice not to seek or impose the death penalty against Mr. Rrapo, and these assurances are binding upon the United States Department of Justice.” 28.  In response to another District Court’s request to have explanations on the position of the United States Government concerning the diplomatic notes and assurances already provided, on 18 May 2011 the United States Embassy sent diplomatic note no. 44 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows (extracted from the original in English):
“The United States values its relationship with the Republic of Albania and close cooperation in combating terrorism and other crime. It is in this spirit that the United States provides the following additional response with respect to the matters previously raised with respect to the extradition of Mr Rrapo [...]. With respect to the request for additional evidence of the guilt of Mr Rrapo, the United States notes that Mr Rrapo has already pled guilty to the charges.
...
As regards the nature and status of diplomatic notes, this diplomatic note (no. 44) explained that:
[...] The United States notes that the diplomatic note from the United States Embassy in Tirana is a formal communication by the United States Government to the Government of the Republic of Albania that sets forth the official and authoritative position of the entire United States Government regarding death penalty assurances in this case. Communication of such assurances via diplomatic note is the standard practice of the United States Government, and, indeed, governments throughout the world. Such assurances bind the entire government of the United States, including the Department of Justice and prosecuting authorities. The Embassy speaks authoritatively for the United States on this and any other matter when it provides an official communication on behalf of the United States and is therefore the “competent organ” of the Requesting State to convey such assurances. These assurances as provided in diplomatic note 91, dated November 8, 2010, are entirely dispositive and authoritative.” 29.  The Government have submitted that on 28 September 2011 the District Court ruled in favour of the applicant’s extradition, although no copy of that decision has been provided. 30.  The applicant’s appeal appears to be pending before the Court of Appeal. 31.  On 12 October 2010, while the extradition proceedings were pending before the Court of Appeal, the President of the Fourth Section of the Court to which the case had been allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Albania, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to the United States. This measure was to remain in force “until the lapse of ten days following notification of the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Court.” The parties were informed of the decision on the same day by way of a facsimile and mail. 32.  On 2 November 2010, following the Court of Appeal’s decision in favour of the applicant’s extradition as well as the applicant’s appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court, the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to prolong the interim measure initially indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, “until the lapse of fifteen days following notification of the Supreme Court’s decision to the Court.” The parties were informed of this decision on the same day by way of a facsimile and by mail. 33.  On 4 November 2010 the Registrar of the Fourth Section wrote to the State Advocate’s Office, in their position as the Government’s Agent before the Court, in inter alia the following terms.
“Under the terms of the interim measure, as decided and prolonged by the President of the Fourth Section, the applicant should not be extradited to the United States of America until fifteen days have elapsed from the date of the notification of the Supreme Court’s decision to this Court. This period is intended to allow the Court time to reflect further on the matter in the light of the domestic court’s findings.
In this connection, I can only repeat what I said at our meeting, namely that the failure of a Contracting State to comply with a Rule 39 measure may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention, which is binding upon your Government as a signatory thereto (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, §§ 172-195, 7 July 2009). You may wish to stress this point in your discussions with the competent authorities.” 34.  On 10 November 2010 the Minister of Justice informed the General Prosecutor’s Office and the National Interpol Office that the applicant should not be extradited to the United States in compliance with the Court’s Rule 39 interim measure. 35.  On 15 November 2010 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided that, even having regard to the diplomatic assurances given by the United States Embassy against the imposition of the death penalty, the Rule 39 indication would remain in force and continue to apply. The parties were informed of the decision on 18 November 2010 by way of a facsimile and mail. 36.  On 24 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had been extradited to the United States that morning, without any prior notice either to the applicant or his representative. By letter of the same day, this Court invited the Government to confirm this information. 37.  On 25 November 2010 the Government confirmed, over the telephone, to the Registrar of the Fourth Section of the Court that the applicant had been extradited from Albania on 24 November 2010. Confirmation was received in writing on 26 November 2011. 38.  On 25 November 2010 the Registrar of the Court sent the following letter to the Government:
“The President of the Court ... has instructed me to express on his behalf his profound regret at the decision taken by your authorities to extradite Mr Almir Rrapo to the United States of America in flagrant disrespect of the Court’s interim measure adopted under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
The President has noted in this connection that on 3 November 2010 your authorities were reminded in clear terms by the Registrar of the Fourth Section that the Rule 39 measure, first applied on 12 October 2010, continued to remain in force. Your Government’s attention was drawn to the fact that the failure of a Contracting State to comply with a Rule 39 measure may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention. Furthermore, in the Court’s most recent letter of 18 November 2010, your Government were informed that the President of the Fourth Section had decided to continue to apply the interim measure. Nevertheless, your Government extradited the applicant to the United States of America on 24 November 2010.
The President has instructed me to request your Government to inform the Court of the circumstances in which the extradition was effected and of the reasons why the Rule 39 measure was not complied with. Your Government should submit copies of any relevant documentation.
The President is deeply disturbed at this development and is particularly concerned about its implications for the authority of the Court and the unfortunate message which it sends both to other Contracting States faced with a Rule 39 measure and to applicants and potential applicants liable to extradition or expulsion to countries where they may be exposed to the risk of violation of their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. As an indication of the seriousness with which he views this turn of events, the President has asked that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe be informed immediately”. 39.  In a reply of 30 November 2010 the Government stated that the applicant’s extradition was prompted by the assurances given by the United States Embassy that the death penalty would neither be sought nor imposed. The letter further indicated that, as the applicant’s detention would have expired on 1 December 2010 and, upon release, his risk of absconding was imminent, the Albanian authorities proceeded with his extradition on 24 November 2010. 40.  On 10 January 2011 the Albanian Permanent Representation to the Council of Europe forwarded to the Court a letter of the Albanian Minister of Justice dated 27 December 2010. In his letter, the Minister assured the Court that it was not the Government’s intention to breach a Rule 39 order. The complex and exceptional circumstances of the applicant’s case had prompted the Government to take a decision, which, in their view, offered a fair solution to the case. The Minister further stated that (extracted from the original in English):
“... I would like to clarify that if the European Court order [were to] be fully implemented, then ... Almir Rrapo, [whose appeal was] pending ... before the Supreme Court, would be released starting from 1 December 2010. This [is so] because, according to the Albanian legislation, a court decision takes judicial executive effects upon [the] termination of trial [before] the Appeal Court and not after the termination of trial [before] the High Court. On the date of trial from the latter, ... Almir Rrapo would be necessarily released pursuant to Article 499 § 1 of the CCP ...
Under these conditions, a person of high criminal risk not only for ... Albanian citizens but also for ... European and American citizens would [have] be[en] released.
Consequently, the Minister of Justice was under the objective conditions that made impossible to [fully] comply ... with the European Court order. Under these circumstances he decided to reschedule the date of extradition, until the [expiry of the] time-limit when ... Almir Rrapo could be held under the security measure “arrest in prison”, which was [on] ... 1 December 2010. The full implementation of the European Court’s [order] and, consequently, the extension of the extradition deadline after 1 December 2010, as ordered by the Court, would [have brought] the Albanian state under the situation of [the expiry] of the [30-day] time-limit as specified in the above legal provision. Therefore, the Albanian state would have [had] the legal obligation to release ... Almir Rrapo. Further, I would like to clarify that under Article 500 of the CCP, the Minister of Justice could not suspend the execution of the extradition decision of Almir Rrapo as a result of the European Court order, because that provision does not contain such a clause, and, therefore, it does not provide the regulation of relevant consequences.
Moreover, we would like to make clear that the Albanian legislation does not stipulate what happens to the security measure “arrest in prison”, if the Supreme Court decides to [remit] the case for retrial, which it happened. Consequently, as long as there is no legal provision which expressly stipulates the possibility of keeping in force this measure in such a case, the legal interpretation would have favoured the position of ... Almir Rrapo. Thus, the latter should [have] be[en] released in this case. The scope of the Albanian party was to avoid the release of ... Almir Rrapo due to his high social risk, [the] serious charges brought against him and the evident opportunity to get away to an unknown direction. In this context, we add that on 27 October 2010 the American party had requested the Albanian party to undertake every legal measure to ensure that the citizen Almir Rrapo would not get away. In case of his leaving, the provisions of the Extradition Treaty would be violated. Hence, the Albanian state would not comply with the bilateral international obligations due to failure of good administration of justice.” 41.  On 19 July 2011 the applicant’s lawyers before this Court, while alleging that the information had been extracted under coercion, submitted a record of the hearing of 11 April 2011 before a United States judge. The applicant, having received legal advice from his lawyer in the United States, willingly entered into a plea bargain with the United State Attorney’s Office, according to which he pleaded guilty of his own volition and waived his right to have the case presented to a Grand Jury so that there would be no trial and the remaining steps consisted of the pre-sentence report and sentencing by the trial judge. In the record, he also accepted that he would provide assistance to the United States Government as required. 42.  The judge explained to the applicant that the total maximum sentence on all charges was life imprisonment and that the total mandatory minimum sentence on all charges was life imprisonment. He further informed the applicant that, since parole had been abolished, and, if sentenced, he would be required to serve the entire term. The record further mentioned the possibility of a supervised release in favour of the applicant. The judge also reminded him that, under certain circumstances, he had a right to appeal the sentence imposed. 43.  The judge accepted the applicant’s plea of guilty and directed that a pre-sentence report be prepared in accordance with the federal sentencing guidelines, taking into account a number of factors including the actual conduct in which he had been engaged, any victims of the offence, the role that he had played in the offence, whether he had accepted responsibility for his acts, whether he had any criminal history and whether he had tried to obstruct justice. The trial judge retained discretion as to the actual penalty to be imposed. 44.  On 26 July 2012 the applicant was convicted by the United States court as charged (see paragraph 11 above). He was sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment. Upon release he would be on supervised release for a term of three years in accordance with the conditions and terms of the supervised release.