Enforcement of criminal decisions of foreign courts

Enforcement of criminal decisions of foreign courts

Enforcement of criminal decisions of foreign courts

Enforcement of criminal decisions of foreign courts

Recognition of final criminal decisions of foreign courts is usually required for Albanian convicts, when their execution has begun in a foreign country and is required, as a rule, for the convict to continue suffering part of the recognition of final criminal decisions of foreign courts may also be necessary for convicts, Albanian citizens, for whom the final illegal decision has not started to be executed and who is with residence in the Albanian state, that is, for convicts who, or have been convicted in absentia by a foreign court, or being at large, after sentencing, have left the foreign country and come to Albania.

This category also includes convicts, Albanian citizens, who, although the criminal decision against them has begun to be executed in a foreign country, further serving a sentence there, has been interrupted, regardless of the reason that may be, for example, the escape of a convict from prison, his non-return from leave, etc.

The force of criminal decisions of foreign courts in the Republic of Albania is provided in Article 10 of the Criminal Code, according to which “Criminal decisions given by foreign courts against Albanian citizens proving the commission of a criminal offense, when not provided otherwise by agreements two or multilateral, are valid in Albania within the limits of the Albanian law and for the following:
a) for the effect of repeated qualification of the person who has committed the criminal offense;
b) for the implementation of decisions containing additional sentences;
c) for the implementation of security measures;
d) for the compensation of damage or other civil effects”.

This provision is also not unique about the implementation of foreign criminal decisions, as the legislator has provided several other provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 512 – 518). Comparing these provisions, we note that a foreign court’s criminal decision, to be applicable in Albania, must meet two conditions: it must be within the limits of Albanian law and must not be hindered by bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Decisions of foreign courts are executed in Albania only if they are recognized by the competent Albanian court (court of appeal): the recognition is done according to the procedure provided by the code of criminal procedure. It should be noted that the decision that is being executed is the foreign court’s decision and not the conclusion of the Albanian court that recognizes it. In this sense, the Supreme Court has expressed with the Decision of the United Colleges no. 154 dated 15.04.2000 “To calculate the case law, the United Colleges recognize that (…) in any case, the decision of the Albanian Court is not new. For this reason, the Albanian court does not review the case on the merits, nor does it verify the evidence obtained from the foreign court.

It demonstrates whether the conditions for recognition of a foreign decision exist and must respond to that decision with a decision that converts the foreign sentence into a sentence provided by Albanian legislation, defining the relevant provisions which apply. According to the United Colleges, it is essential to highlight that it is the foreign decision that is executed through a cognitive decision of the Albanian court. So we are not dealing with the Albanian court’s finding that is put into execution, but with a foreign court’s conclusion that is executed by the Albanian legislation.

Jurisdictional Relations With Foreign Authorities

The competent body for adjudicating disputes in the field of extradition is the court. Arguments that are submitted for the trial are part of the criminal jurisdiction of the court. In court, the right of individuals to go to court is realized, and social peace is ensured through the settlement of disputes by court. The right to go to court, and the right to a fair trial are universal human rights and serve as constitutional guarantees.

A fair trial is achieved when the court respects legal court proceedings, adjudicates fairly and within a reasonable time, and is independent and impartial. Opportunities should be provided for both parties to clarify the issue, not favoritism, not discrimination; both parties are equal. Thus, in such a case, in decision 6/2006, the Constitutional Court argues that the principle of legal certainty requires that final court decisions not be called into question to be implemented. The request of the applicant with the object of ascertaining the violation of the constitutional right for a standard legal process, as a result of the non-enforcement of the final court decision, within a reasonable time, must be accepted for another reason, because the non-implementation of a final decision such, violates the right of the individual to go to court.

Case Run against Albania.

The case of Almir Rrapos was a delicate issue because we were facing each other two different legal systems such as “Civil Low” and “Common low”. This issue is directly related to the deportation or extradition of an individual, Albanian citizen, whereas a consequence his death could result. However, this is addressed together with Article 3 for protection from inhuman and degrading treatment.

Since the advent of the democratic system in the Republic of Albania’s Constitution, the maximum punishment of an individual is “life imprisonment”, a Constitution drafted according to the most critical European conventions and treaties, mentioning here the European Convention on Human Rights. While in the United States, although known as the most democratic countries in the world and the countries that fight hardest in protecting human rights, the maximum punishment is the death penalty again in these countries. This was the problem of extraditing Mr Rrapo to these countries.

On July 2, 2010, the accused applied to the United States Embassy in Tirana to renew his US passport. On the same day, he was arrested by Albanian police at the United States Embassy’s request. The Embassy of the United States sent diplomatic note no. 55, by which he requested the prior arrest of the complainant, for his extradition by Article XI of the Extradition Treaty.

According to the diplomatic note, on May 28 2010, an arrest warrant was issued for the United States court’s complainant.
On August 30, 2010, the United States’ Embassy sent to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, diplomatic note no. 071, requesting the extradition of the complainant. According to the diplomatic note, the complainant was indicted, along with other defendants. The respective sentences ranged from several years in prison to life imprisonment to death in these charges.

The Tirana District Court ruled in favour of the accused’s extradition, asking for no guarantee from the American state that the citizen A.Rrapo would not be sentenced to death. The Prosecution and Mr Rrapo appealed against the decision. Still, the Tirana Court of Appeals also rejected the applicant’s objection, alleging that the United States authorities had not provided any security against the death penalty because such protection was not required by law.

The Court of Appeals relied on its decision among other things in Article XI of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Albania. However, there was still no official notice from the US to protect the accuser’s life, a statement which so far was not requested by the Albanian side. The responsible state within its jurisdiction should in no way make individuals subject to a real risk of being sentenced to death and then executed unless sufficient and mandatory security was required and provided by the responsible authorities. Of the requesting state.

On November 3 2010, the Minister of Justice sent a verbal note to the United States Embassy asking if the applicant would be subject to capital punishment for the criminal acts he was charged with.
On November 8, 2010, the United States Embassy sent Diplomatic Note No. 1 to the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 91, in which, as far as the matter is concerned, it is written as follows:

The United States Department of Justice has authorized and directed the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York not to seek the death penalty against Almir Rrapos. For this reason, the United States Government assures the Government of Albania that if Mr Rrapo is extradited to face trial on charges of extradition, the death penalty will neither be required nor will it be sought. applies against Almir Rrapos after he is extradited to the United States. ”

The security provided by the United States of America was specific, precise. As was later confirmed in another diplomatic note from the United States Embassy on February 24, 2001, “this security is mandatory for the Department of Justice of the United States of America. United”. The court must further emphasize that in the context of an extradition request, no breach of security has been reported by the United States Government against a Contracting State.

Only the United States’ long-term interest to honor its extradition commitments would be sufficient to give confidence and remove any doubt about the possibility of the risk that this security would be breached. Finally, as evidenced by the record of July 19 2011, when the complainant pleaded guilty to the charges, the United States did not mention any risk it might face. The appellant with the death penalty. In the circumstances set out above, the court considers that the applicant’s extradition to the United States did not constitute a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 13 regarding the risk of exercising the death penalty.

At the end of this paper, we conclude that the extradition institute is one of the most accomplished forms of international judicial cooperation in the criminal field. What is addressed in this paper is the concept of extradition seen internally as well as in terms of international cooperation.
Initially, this paper analyzes the elaboration of means and methods by which states assist each other, with the common goal of punishing persons who commit criminal offenses, i.e. the forms of judicial cooperation and their purpose in relations between states the field. Of criminal cooperation.

Based on the historical facts that speak of extradition, it is an institute that dates back to after the Second World War, where Europeans focused on improving international cooperation in the criminal field by drafting a comprehensive legal framework. As we discussed above, these significant agreements have been implemented in our domestic legislation. Since Albania has ratified these important conventions and agreements in its ruling, it has had many cases of judicial cooperation statistics which increase year by year both for extradition and extradition, as we analyzed.

Another form of judicial cooperation in the criminal field is the UEN. This mechanism is one of the most outstanding achievements of the acquits communicative, which has solved the problems that European criminal justice had in this context. Albania is facing the EU; we must look more seriously at recognizing and implementing UEN in the system our legal.
In the issue that has been examined in this paper, the extradition process is necessary cooperation. However, in our internal system, there may be some shortcomings in implementing laws and conventions ratified by the Albanian state. But we must emphasize that the ratification of these agreements has brought closer cooperation of our country in the criminal field with that of EU member states, where Albania aspires to be.

Forms of judicial cooperation are the most reached agreements in the criminal field because according to them, a crime can be punished regardless of the perpetrator’s location. But these forms of judicial cooperation are not always adequately achieved, especially in the Albanian state, where the problems encountered are not few.

1. Countries should have an adequate legal basis for assisting and, where possible, concluding treaties, agreements or other mechanisms to increase cooperation in the criminal field. Still, in our legislation, the scope of extradition procedures is a pact. Therefore, it is necessary to create a more detailed legal framework in Albania, which would administer the entire extradition procedure in detail, leaving no room for misunderstandings, which as we mentioned in the case (the case of Mr Rrapo v. Albania ) reviewed above, leaving these spaces can lead to fatal errors. Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the issues of extradition of Albanian citizens, when the death penalty is included in another country where the individual has committed crimes, should be handled more carefully by Albanian judges and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The second problem lies in the lack of “seriousness” of our legislative bodies in the field of criminal judicial cooperation. I say lack of “seriousness” for the very fact that the procedures followed by our bodies leave much to be desired, it is enough to see two or three extradition decisions and understand that nothing is taken with due seriousness. A lack of “accountability” to the other party especially in the case of active extradition (a state requires the extradition of a person from Albania to that state) especially for states belonging to another legal system such as the Common Low, in which the law is interpreted in a completely different way, it is a lack of responsibility of our bodies. In short, our bodies must “get involved” in work.

3. In addition to improving extradition procedures, a shortcoming of our legislation in judicial cooperation is the non-implementation of the UEN, which is currently not implemented in Albania.

– I suggest that the immediate implementation of this mechanism should be done in our domestic legislation because it brings several facilities, such as eliminating administrative procedures.
Accession to the European Union is undoubtedly one of the main goals. Still, it also requires an adequate legal framework in content and the implementation of the written law. The need arises, the drafting of new policies in better performance of the written law, which is not in vain labelled as a rich right “de jure”, but which leaves much to be desired in the plan de facto “.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *