CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 June 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9839/22 Patrick BIJAN BALAHAN against Sweden lodged on 17 February 2022 communicated on 24 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pending extradition to the State of California in the United States of America, where he is set to stand trial. On 10 June 2021 the United States’ Department of Justice requested the applicant’s extradition from Sweden for the purposes of prosecution. In support of the request, an arrest warrant issued by the Superior Court of the State of California for Los Angeles County of 5 May 2021 was submitted. Therein, the applicant was charged with five counts constituting (1) aggravated mayhem, (2) torture, (3) inducing false testimony, (4) dissuading a witness after a prior conviction, and (5) grand theft, all of which had allegedly been committed on 18 May 2020 in Los Angeles. The extradition was requested under the Convention on Extradition between the United States and Sweden, signed on 24 October 1961, and the Supplementary Convention on Extradition between the United States and the Kingdom of Sweden, signed on 14 March 1983, with reference to Article   3 §   2 of the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union, signed on 25 June 2003. On 23 December 2021, the Supreme Court of Sweden rendered a decision pertaining to the permissibility of the applicant’s extradition. Pursuant to the Act of Extradition for Criminal Offences, the Supreme Court found no obstacles to the applicant’s extradition with respect to the second and fifth count. With respect to the first count, the Supreme Court found there to be obstacles to extradition insofar as the charge alleged the infliction of permanent disability and loss of limb or organ, as it considered there to be no support in the material provided for that charge. With respect to the second and fifth count, the Supreme Court found there to be no obstacles to extradition. With respect to the third and fourth count, the Supreme Court found there to be obstacles to extradition as the alleged acts did not constitute criminal violations under Swedish law. Finally, the Supreme Court found that Sweden’s international human rights obligations, including Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, did not prevent the applicant’s extradition. On 3 February, the Swedish Government decided to extradite the applicant to the United States in respect of the second and fifth counts, as well as part of the first count. On 17 February 2022, the applicant submitted an application to the Court, and requested that the Court indicate to the Government interim measures preventing his extradition. On 21 February 2022, the Court (the duty judge) indicated to the Government interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, namely not to extradite the applicant to the United States until 21 March 2022, during which time the Government were invited to submit further information. The Court furthermore decided to give priority to the application under Rule   41 of the Rules of the Court. The Government submitted the information requested on 17 March 2022. On 18 March 2022, the Court (the duty judge) decided to prolong until 4   April 2022 the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, and to invite the applicant to comment on the further information submitted by the Government. The applicant submitted his comments on 30   March 2022. On 31 March 2022, the Court (the duty judge) decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to prolong until further notice the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. The applicant complains that his extradition to the United States would constitute a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. In this respect, the applicant submits that he has a criminal record which includes two serious felonies. On account of these, the applicant submits that he would be liable, if convicted, to be sentenced to lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or to multiple indeterminate life sentences. He maintains that he could be sentenced to serve such multiple indeterminate life sentences consecutively, meaning effectively that he would have no chance of parole within the rest of his natural life. The applicant also submits that he would in any event not be granted parole in the light of his criminal record and the seriousness of the charges against him. Finally, the applicant submits that as a registered sex offender, he faces a real risk of irreparable harm being inflicted on him by other inmates, if he were to be returned to the United States. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Taking account of the charges against the applicant, the conditions of his extradition, his criminal record and any applicable repeat offender legislation, in the event that the applicant were to stand trial in the United States and be convicted on all charges, would he risk incurring a life sentence without the possibility of parole? If not, what is the maximum possible period of imprisonment without eligibility for parole which the applicant risks incurring, taking account of any applicable rules on the serving of multiple indeterminate life sentences?   2.     If the applicant were to be extradited to the United States of America, would there be a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading punishment on account of the pending criminal proceedings he faces and the punishment which he risks incurring (see, for example, Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom , nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17   January 2012; Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   66069/09 and   2   others, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Trabelsi v. Belgium , no.   140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?