Published on 28 June 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 19124/21 Murray MATTHEWS against Romania and 2 other applications (see list appended) c ommunicated on 11 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The present cases concern the applicants ’ extradition from Romania to the United States of America (“US”), where they would risk the imposition of a life sentence without parole. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants were arrested in Romania by the Romanian authorities based on a warrant issued by the Eastern District of Texas for the following allegations of criminal conduct : conspiracy to commit racketeering activities (sentence up to life imprisonment), conspiracy to import and export cocaine and production and distribution of cocaine with intent (sentence up to life imprisonment) and conspiracy to launder money (sentence up to 20 years of imprisonment). The criminal scheme also included an attempt to effectuate the murder of a rival gang member in Romania.

By separate final decisions (see the appended table), the High Court of cassation and justice allowed the applicants extradition to the US for the purpose of criminal proceedings against them, dismissing their argument that their extradition would put them at a real risk of being convicted to life sentence without parole.

Since November 2020, the applicants have been in detention in view of their extradition which should have taken place on 7 May 2021.

On 5 May 2021 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate, as an interim measure to the Romanian Government, that the applicants should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicants are currently in detention in Romani a.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. If the applicants were to be extradited to the United States of America (“US”), would there be a real risk that they would be subjected to inhuman and degrading punishment through the imposition of an “irreducible” life sentence? In this connection, did the domestic courts or the Government consider the sentencing practice in the US for the criminal offences with which the applicants were charged? Do the applicants risk under US criminal law, in respect of the relevant charges, the imposition of a maximum penalty of life imprisonment that precludes early release and/or release on parole de jure and de facto and, if so, would that be consistent with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention ( Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom , nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012 ; Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts) ; Trabelsi v. Belgium , no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts) ; and López Elorza v. Spain , no. 30614/15, 12 December 2017)? What are the concrete legal mechanisms, if any, under which the applicants may be entitled to request a review of their possible final life sentence? Has the Romanian Government requested or received any assurances from the US regarding the possibility for the applicants to have their possible final life sentence reviewed?

The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence of the relevant sentencing practices of the trial courts in the US in similar proceedings.

2. Have the applicants been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has their detention pending extradition been justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? Moreover, is the existing Romanian legal framework sufficiently clear, specific and foreseeable to protect the applicants from arbitrariness as regards their detention pending extradition, especially after the High Court of cassation and justice allowed their extradition ( Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, § 161, 18 April 2013, and K.F. v. Cyprus , no. 41858/10, §§ 130-131 and 134, 21 July 2015)?

3. Did the applicants have access to a procedure allowing for judicial review of their continued detention as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, §§ 149-74, 18 April 2013)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

Final decision of the High Court of cassation and justice

1 .

19124/21

Matthews v. Romania

14/04/2021

Murray MATTHEWS 1989 New Zealand New Zealand

Ben COOPER

26/03/2021

2 .

20085/21

Johnson v. Romania

19/04/2021

Marc Patrick JOHNSON 1966 New Zealand New Zealand and

British

Alexandru ENACHE

25/03/2021

3 .

20183/21

Lazăr v. Romania

19/04/2021

Marius LAZÄ‚R 1973 Bucharest , Romania Romanian

Elena LAZÄ‚R

11/03/2021