Information Note on the Court’s case-law 61

February 2004

Sardinas Albo v. Italy (dec.) - 56271/00

Decision 8.1.2004 [Section I]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of detention on remand (three years, two months and one day): admissible

Article 3

Extradition

Extradition of a Cuban citizen to the United States, where he allegedly risks being placed in indefinite detention: inadmissible

Fact s : In August 1996, the applicant was arrested on charges of drug trafficking and placed by the investigating judge in detention on remand. The applicant challenged this order, but his detention on remand was confirmed by the District Court on the basis of strong evidence of guilt found against him and the serious risk of his re-offending. The applicant’s detention awaiting trial lasted until October 1999, when the District Court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against the judgme nt but later withdrew it after concluding a plea bargain with the public prosecutor which reduced his sentence. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice had requested that the applicant be placed in detention with a view to his extradition to the United States, where he was sought for crimes related to drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition. The applicant appealed on points of law, challenging the assumption that he had acquired United States citizenship and invoking the risk of inde finite detention in the United States for Cuban nationals. The appeal was rejected and extradition was granted under suspension until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Subsequently, the United States authorities made a new r equest for his extradition, this time in relation to a charge of falsification of documents. In the second set of extradition proceedings, in which the applicant appeared as a Cuban citizen who had obtained a permanent residence permit in the United States , extradition was again granted. The applicant maintains that this second extradition order was never served on him. His appeal on points of law against the order was rejected.

Admissible under Article 5 § 3: The Government maintained that the applicant h ad not exhausted domestic remedies. Although the applicant had not lodged an appeal concerning the length of his pre-trial detention with the Court of Cassation, which is a remedy that in principle should be exhausted, that court had in previous cases refu sed to apply Article 5 § 3 of the Convention directly. Moreover, it had not been shown that, had the applicant brought an appeal before the Court of Cassation, that court would have taken into consideration the question of whether the national authorities had displayed diligence in the proceedings.

Inadmissible under Articles 3 and 5 (concerning the complaint relating to the decision to extradite): The Government maintained that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The applicant could have challenged the decision to extradite him before the Regional Administ rative Court after learning – in the course of the Strasbourg proceedings – that a second extradition order had been issued against him. That court had power to review the lawfulness of an extradition order and the applicant could have argued before it tha t the authorities had been inaccurate in determining his citizenship and immigration status in the United States and superficial in assessing the risk of him being placed in indefinite detention if extradited: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

© Counci l of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes