The Constitutional Court refuses to initiate a case regarding the potential extradition of a Latvian citizen
On 31 May the Constitutional Court adopted a decision to refuse to initiate a case with regard to the constitutional complaints submitted by Deniss Čalovskis. The applicant had contested the constitutionality of a number of norms that regulate extradition of a person.
Čalovskis had requested to declare anti-constitutional the international agreement “Treaty on Extradition between the Republic of Latvia and the United States of America” and the Law for ratifying this treaty. He also contested the constitutionality of the second part of Section 701 and the second part of Section 707 of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). The Treaty between Latvia and the United States of America envisages that the states shall reciprocally extradite persons, whom the public institutions of the requesting state have charged with or sentenced for committing a crime, for which extradition is admissible. The contested norms of the CPL stipulate that the judge’s decision on provisional arrest, as well as the decision by the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court Senate on allowing the extradition of a person is not subject to appeal.
Deniss Čalovskis is detained in connection with the decision by the investigative judge of Riga City Centra District Court; the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court Senate has adopted a decision regarding his extradition to the USA.
The Constitutional Court established that sufficient legal substantiation had not been provided for the claims included in the complaints. For example, the applicant has not substantiated, why the legislator should envisage that all procedural decisions taken by court should be subject to appeal.
The claim regarding the incompatibility of the Treaty between the USA and Latvia and the Law on its ratifications with the Satversme was based upon the presumptions that these regulatory enactments do not envisage a level of human rights protection that would comply with the Satversme and the Convention. I.e., the applicant expresses doubts that during the process of extraditions, as well as during the possible judicial proceedings in the USA sufficient standard of human rights protection would be ensured.
The Constitutional Court notes that the USA has ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. This Convention, inter alia, envisages that the sate has the obligation to ensure to persons during criminal investigation and judicial proceedings such procedural guarantees of human rights protection that would not be below the ones envisaged by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thus, also in case the applicant is extradited for criminal investigation or trial to the USA, the guarantees for the protection of his fundamental rights cannot differ from those that a member state of the Council of Europe has committed itself to ensure.
The obligation to ensure guarantees for the protection of human rights in the process of extraditions is enshrined in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). ECHR has recognised that not in all cases the fact that a severe punishment could be applied to the person, for example, a long prison sentence, can per se be a sufficient basis for the decision to refuse extraditing a person to the USA. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the submitter of the complaint, providing grounds for inadmissibility of extradition, refers to the first part of Section 3 of Protocol 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, this norm does not prohibit the states to extradite their citizens, but envisages prohibition of extradition.
The Constitutional Court noted that Article 98 of the Satversme does not prohibit extraditing a Latvian citizen, insofar the extraditions is envisaged in an international treaty and the extradition does not violate the fundamental human rights set out in the Satversme.
The duty to ensure that the person’s fundamental rights are respected in the process of extradition falls upon the institution, which takes the decision, i.e., the court of general jurisdiction. The decision in this procedure has been adopted by the Department of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court Senate, but as regards the Constitutional Court, it has not been envisaged the right to review the legality of a decision adopted by a court of general jurisdiction.
The final decision on the possible extradition of the applicant to the USA will be taken by the Cabinet of Ministers, who also has the duty to abide by the guarantees for the protection of human rights.