Peru/Chile: Whether a person who was prosecuted in Peru but living in Chile could be extradited back to Peru (2005-2007)
|Publisher||Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada|
|Author||Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa|
|Publication Date||23 July 2007|
|Citation / Document Symbol||ZZZ102580.E|
|Cite as||Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Peru/Chile: Whether a person who was prosecuted in Peru but living in Chile could be extradited back to Peru (2005-2007), 23 July 2007, ZZZ102580.E, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/47d654832d.html [accessed 24 May 2017]|
|Disclaimer||This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.|
Chapter four in the December 2005 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report entitled Probable Cause: Evidence Implicating Fujimori provides the following legal analysis about extradition from Chile to Peru:
Extradition to Peru from Chile is governed by the 1932 Treaty on Extradition between the two countries. The treaty provides that Peru and Chile agree to extradite persons to one another to face criminal charges provided the following standard requirements are met: first, the crimes charged must also be crimes that carry sentences of a year or more in the country from which extradition is requested. Second, the crimes charged must not be considered political crimes under the law of the country from which extradition is requested. Third, the crimes charged must not be crimes for which the statute of limitations would have run in the country from which extradition is requested. And fourth, the requested individual must not have been convicted or acquitted, or be under trial or prosecution, for the same facts in the country from which extradition is requested as in the requesting country.
Chilean courts also have the practice, in extradition cases, of applying additional requirements drawn from Chilean law on criminal procedure. In particular, courts have in the past looked at the evidence supporting the charges for which extradition was requested, to determine whether the evidence would have justified bringing charges in Chile had the crime been committed there. In other words, if the courts consider that there would not have been probable cause to indict in Chile under similar circumstances, then they do not extradite. However, it is important to note that the standard of review the courts have applied is not that the evidence must be sufficient to convict: the evidence need only be sufficient to justify an indictment.
In accordance with the Chilean Code of Criminal Procedure, extradition requests are decided by a member of the Supreme Court. In the event that extradition is granted, the individual who is the subject of the extradition request may appeal the decision to a panel of the same court. Once the court's decision is final, the individual is placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, so that he may be handed over to the country that requested his extradition.
The 1932 Treaty on Extradition is also mentioned by a number of other sources (IPS 7 Nov. 2005; AI 7 Nov. 2005; NACLA 30 Dec. 2006). In a 30 December 2006 story posted on the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) Web site, the author mentions that the 1932 treaty requires there be "enough evidence (from a Chilean legal perspective) to support the Peruvian indictments."
Further information about this subject could not be found by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of additional sources consulted in researching this Information Request.
Amnesty International (AI). 7 November 2005. "Chile/Peru: Chilean Courts Must Extradite or Try Alberto Fujimori."
Human Rights Watch (HRW). December 2005. Vol. 17. Probable Cause: Evidence Implicating Fujimori.
Inter Press Service (IPS). 7 November 2005. Gustavo Gonzalez. "Peru: Under Arrest in Chile, Fujimori Faces Extradition Trial."
North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). 30 December 2006. Benjamin Witte. "Extraditing Fujimori: The Other Dictator in Chile."
Additional Sources Consulted
Internet sites, including: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Justice Studies Center of the Americas (JSCA), Resource Center of the Americas, United States (US) Department of State.