Communicated on 19 November 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 51568/19 Shane Kenneth LOOKER against Spain lodged on 31 October 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s extradition to the Kingdom of Thailand .

The Thai authorities transmitted a request to the Spanish authorities for the applicant ’ s provisional arrest with a view to his extradition. The applicant (a British national) had been charged with the crime of murder. Extradition proceedings were subsequently initiated. The Audiencia Nacional forwarded the extradition request to the British authorities with a view to ascertaining whether it was in their interest to prosecute the applicant for such acts; the British authorities later informed that they did not intend to request the applicant ’ s extradition. The Audiencia Nacional then granted the extradition request on condition that the Thai authorities provided a guarantee that any death sentence that was handed down would not be enforced and that any life sentence would not be irreducible. The extradition was confirmed on appeal. The applicant lastly lodged an amparo appeal (no. 3976-2018) with the Constitutional Court, which was declared inadmissible on 26 July 2018.

The Thai authorities submitted guarantees in that connection. The Audiencia Nacional then found that the assurances given by the Thai authorities were sufficient. This decision was upheld on appeal. On 28 December 2018 the Council of Ministers agreed on the applicant ’ s extradition. The applicant lodged an amparo appeal (no. 196-2019) with the Constitutional Court, which was declared inadmissible by a judgment of 16 September 2019 on the ground that the appeal had been submitted outside the time-limit.

The applicant requested the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent the applicant ’ s extradition. On 4 October 2019 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate an interim measure to the Spanish Government that the applicant should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Reportedly, the applicant remains in detention pending extradition.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 16 September 2019, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Would the applicant be exposed to the risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if extradited to Thailand? In this connection:

(a) Does the applicant risk being sentenced to the death penalty (see, among others, Al Nashiri v. Romania , no. 33234/12 , §§ 597 and 726, 31 May 2018; Al- Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom , no. 61498/08, §§ 123-125, 2 March 2010)?

(b) Does the applicant risk being sentenced to life imprisonment (see López Elorza v. Spain , no. 30614/15, 12 December 2017 ) ? If so, would a life sentence be irreducible de jure and de facto (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC] , no. 10511/10 , §§ 99-100, 26 April 2016, and Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, 9 July 2013)?

(c) Are the provisions of Thai legislation governing the possibilities for r oyal pardons and reduction of life sentences, and the assurances given by the Thai authorities in the present case, consistent with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Trabelsi v. Belgium , no. 140/10, 4 September 2014, and Rrapo v. Albania , no. 58555/10 , 25 September 2012) ?

3. Concerning the complaints about the conditions of detention and the fairness on the proceedings in Thailand, has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? If so,

(a) Would the applicant, if extradited, face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of detention in Thailand?

(b) Would the applicant, if extradited, be at real risk of a flagrant denial of justice contrary to Article 6 of the Convention (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ) [GC], no. 71537/14, §§ 62-65, 15 June 2017 , and Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom , no. 8139/09, 17 January 2012)?

The parties are invited to submit information on whether the applicant may be prosecuted in Spain for the acts for which the Thai authorities requested his extradition.