PEREZ LIZASO v. FINLAND
Inadmissible
Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The applicant, Mr Hugo Cristian Perez Lizaso, is a Swedish and Uruguayan national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Solna. He was represented before the Court by Mr Jussi Sarvikivi, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. 2. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant is a Swedish national who has certain family ties to Uruguay and also has Uruguayan citizenship. The applicant was wanted in Uruguay from at least 2010 as he was suspected of aggravated extortion committed in February 2009. Three other persons, including the applicant’s brother, were convicted in Uruguay on 28 September 2010 for having participated in the same crime of which the applicant was suspected. A prison sentence of 5 years and 8 months was imposed on the brother and a sentence of 5 years and 4 months on the two other perpetrators. The Uruguayan authorities tried to locate the applicant through Interpol, issuing a Red Notice alert about him. 5. On 11 December 2010 the applicant was arrested in Finland. 6. On 14 December 2010 the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) ordered the applicant to be detained with a view to his extradition. The applicant complained about this decision to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) which rejected his complaint on 14 January 2011. 7. On 8 February 2011 the Vantaa District Court rejected the applicant’s request for release from detention. The applicant complained about this decision to the Supreme Court which, on 5 April 2011, rejected his complaint. 8. On 11 April 2011 the Vantaa District Court rejected the applicant’s second request for release from detention. The applicant did not lodge a complaint against this decision with the Supreme Court. 9. By letter dated 17 January 2011 the Uruguayan authorities filed a request with the Finnish Ministry of Justice, asking them to extradite the applicant to Uruguay. 10. On 15 April 2011 the applicant was interrogated by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen). The applicant opposed the extradition. 11. On 2 May 2011, in accordance with the Extradition Act, the Ministry of Justice asked the Supreme Court to give a statement on whether the possible extradition would be in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties. 12. By letter dated 19 May 2011 the applicant submitted his comments to the Supreme Court on the possible extradition. He claimed that, as a Swedish citizen, he should be treated as a Finnish citizen because Finnish citizens could not be extradited according to the domestic law. He also claimed that he could not be extradited to Uruguay because the conditions in Uruguayan detention facilities and prisons were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He would not have a fair and public trial there within a reasonable time, he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time. 13. On 3 June 2011 the Supreme Court submitted its statement to the Ministry of Justice. It found that the request for extradition could be granted. The applicant was suspected of aggravated extortion committed together with three other persons. These three persons had been convicted in Uruguay and sentenced to imprisonment on 28 September 2010. The crime of which the applicant was suspected was such that, according to domestic law, the applicant could be extradited. The extradition was based on a detention order issued by a court. The fact that the applicant was a Swedish citizen did not prevent the extradition. No such grounds were thus shown to exist on the basis of which the applicant’s extradition to Uruguay, due to personal circumstances or special humanitarian reasons, could be considered unreasonable. 14. On 7 June 2011 the Ministry of Justice decided that the applicant could be extradited to Uruguay for trial. The decision stated that, after the decision had been served to the Uruguayan authorities, they had 30 days to come and collect the applicant and transfer him to Uruguay. 15. On 13 June 2011 the applicant lodged his application with the Court, requesting also that Rule 39 be applied. 16. On 15 June 2011 the Court refused to apply Rule 39 to prevent the applicant’s extradition from Finland. The applicant was requested to inform the Court whether he wished to maintain his application. 17. On 11 July 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to maintain his application with the Court. 18. On 14 July 2011 the applicant was extradited to Montevideo, Uruguay where he arrived on the following day. He was then taken to Maldonado, brought before a judge and detained on suspicion of attempted extortion. From 16 July 2011 onwards he was detained in isolation in prison for one year. Thereafter he was moved to another prison for half a year, where he shared a cell with five other inmates. In September 2012 the applicant was transferred to an open department and again in February 2013 to a labour facility. In October 2013 the applicant was released by virtue of an amnesty granted by the Uruguayan Supreme Court. 19. After his release, the applicant returned to Sweden. 20. Extradition to and from Finland takes place in accordance with the Extradition Act (laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta, lagen om utlämning för brott, Act no. 456/1970, as in force at the relevant time). According to sections 16 and 17 of the Act, the Ministry of Justice decides on extradition. If the person to be extradited opposes it, the Ministry must ask the Supreme Court to give a statement on whether the possible extradition is in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties which are binding on Finland. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an obstacle to the extradition, it cannot be carried out. 21. The US Department of State’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2010 in Uruguay of 8 April 2011 provided the following: “Principal human rights abuses included severe overcrowding, inhuman conditions, and disrepair in the prison system; violence against women; and trafficking in persons. ... Prison conditions continued to be poor, as the government did not adequately maintain aging facilities and provided insufficient resources for the prison system. Overcrowding was a significant problem despite the government’s efforts to build more prison facilities. According to government figures, the total prisoner population as of August 31 exceeded design capacity by 1,976 prisoners, or 29 percent (the prison ombudsman’s 2009 report defined 20 percent overcrowding as "critical"). Additionally, many necessities were lacking and many prisoners depended on visitors for enough food to reach the daily minimum caloric intake. Prisoner-on-prisoner violence continued to be a daily problem, partially due to the lack of a separate, high-security prison for violent criminals. A high percentage of prisoners reportedly used drugs. Fire hazards and violence continued to plague the prison system. In 2009 there were 39 deaths due to violence, and fires in prisons were reported. In July a cell fire killed 12 prisoners in Rocha Province. In August 5 prisoners perished in a cell fire in Comcar Prison in Montevideo. The fires started due to handcrafted heaters that set makeshift partitions on fire. Initial investigations revealed that fire extinguishers were not adequately maintained in both facilities. In general overcrowding and understaffing in some facilities resulted in problems related to sanitation, ventilation, temperature, lighting, access to potable water, and health. Supervision of medical care moved to the Ministry of Public Health, which implemented a pilot system in July to provide basic and emergency medical care to a prison in rural Montevideo that housed 3,000 inmates. An Anti-Tuberculosis Commission report confirmed 81 cases of tuberculosis in the prison population in 2009.” 22. According to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Uruguay of 21 December 2009 (A/HRC/13/39/Add.2): “Although some efforts have been made to improve overall conditions in prisons and prevent overcrowding, the conditions in some detention facilities, particularly Libertad Penitentiary and the Santiago Vázquez Prison Complex (Complejo Carcelario Santiago Vázquez, known as COMCAR), amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. The overcrowding, the non-separation of pre-trial and convicted detainees as well as the limited access to medical services is of concern in practically all of the places visited. A comprehensive reform of the whole administration of justice system, aimed at the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, should be a high priority.”