III. ÚS 185/24
On Wednesday 22 May 2024, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint of a citizen of the Republic of India, who is subject to criminal prosecution in the United States of America. The complainant is being prosecuted in the USA for the criminal offence of conspiracy to commit hired murder and for aiding and abetting this crime. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed the decisions of the general courts regarding the admissibility of his extradition. This marks the end of the complainant’s proceedings before the Czech courts.
The Municipal Court in Prague decided on the admissibility of the complainant’s extradition for criminal prosecution. It also rejected the complainant’s request for release from temporary custody and did not accept bail or the imposition of a travel ban as a substitute. The High Court in Prague also ruled against the complainant, agreeing that the decision on the admissibility of extradition was logical, factually correct, and in accordance with the law and international treaty.
Before the Constitutional Court, the complainant argued that the courts had not examined all the relevant circumstances that might constitute obstacles to extradition and had not accepted his evidence offered. He claimed that his objections and arguments were not given due attention and were not properly addressed. He also asserted that the inadmissibility of extradition to the USA was based on the political nature of the act he was accused of, which he believed had not been sufficiently considered. According to the complainant, the courts assessed the admissibility of extradition only formally.
The Constitutional Court did not agree with the complainant’s arguments. According to the Constitutional Court, the lower courts had thoroughly examined the extradition supporting documents provided by the American authorities and had additionally requested supplementary information in response to the complainant’s objections. As the High Court particularly noted, the evidence gathered so far was also reviewed by a grand jury of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the indictment was issued.
In the proceedings before the Municipal Court, the complainant did not argue that the crime for which extradition was requested was exclusively political or military in nature within the meaning of the International Cooperation Act. He presented this argument (for the first time) in his constitutional complaint. Neither the legal qualification of the crime nor the act itself or the circumstances of its commission suggest a political or military dimension. The argument that he was hired by an Indian government agent responsible for security matters, implying it was likely an assignment given by the Indian government (with the person committing the crime being a “soldier sui generis” eliminating a member of a terrorist movement), cannot be a reason preventing the complainant’s extradition. As the High Court stated, the complainant is not a political activist and the act was not aimed at changing the order of public affairs.
According to the Constitutional Court, the lower courts sufficiently addressed all of the complainant’s objections and also took the necessary evidence. The Constitutional Court found no circumstance that would lead to the violation of any constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms by declaring the extradition admissible. This marks the end of the complainant’s proceedings before the Czech courts.
(This text is an unofficial translation of the press release concerning case file No III.ÚS 185/24.)
Kamila Abbasi, Ph.D.
spokesperson