The Supreme Court of the Nation overturned the decision to grant delivery from JLARrequested by Peru, be charged with the crime aggravated robbery. The reason the Supreme Court made such a decision had to do with the process it followed Federal Court of San Ramón de la Nueva Oránin the province Jump.
The judges Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti They considered that they did not respect the guarantees of due process or the applicable rules of procedure.
According to the judgment to which he had access InfobaeThe procedure was initiated following a notification from Interpol for the crime of aggravated robbery and a formal extradition request from the Peruvian state. The defendant was arrested in Argentina in 2023, but his The defense complained that he was not allowed to adequately exercise his right to be heard before the new extradition request and that The hearing and trial required by national law were not carried out.
The court assessed the application of the Law 24,767regulates the extradition procedure, and Federal Code of Criminal Procedurecurrently in Jump since 2019. According to the ruling, it is essential that the judge, upon receipt of the formal extradition request, convenes a hearing and then conducts a procedure in order to be able to decide on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the extradition of the requested person.
“Article 30 of Law 24,767 is sufficiently clear as it states this the administrative procedure has been completed and the extradition request has been received by the courtAfter the hearing provided for in Article 27, the judge shall issue an order Summons to court Unless the wanted person has consented to extradition (Article 28) or it is proven that the person detained is not the wanted person (Article 29).
In January 2023, JLAR He refused to be formally handed over to his country for negotiation and the 60-day deadline for handover provided for in the bilateral treaty had expired. Only in December The documents and the formal extradition request were received in the same year. After the defense attorney’s resignation, he had to appoint a new lawyer, which happened in mid-February 2024, but by the end of the month the judge had already decided to grant the extradition.
“The Lord Attorney General of the Nation In the preliminary decision, he proposed to annul the contested judgment, on the basis of the jurisprudence of this court, which, on the basis of the applicable law, requires the taking of evidence (Article 30 of Law 24,767) as a presumption of the validity of the judgment declaring extradition appropriate or inadmissible, an element that is missing in the present case,” he argued.
In this sense, the judges ordered the court of origin to continue the proceedings in strict compliance with the extradition rules, a decision that means that the proceedings must be restarted.
“It corresponds to annul the contested judgment so that, after the conclusion of the trial provided for in Article 27 of Law 24,767, the judge carries out all the specific procedural steps provided for in the law, which are considered a formal requirement for the validity of the promulgation of the final judgment,” they emphasized.
About The Author
