FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 22205/13
Deniss ČALOVSKIS
against Latvia
lodged on 28 March 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Deniss Čalovskis, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Riga. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Vārpiņš, a lawyer practising in Riga.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The proceedings against the applicant in the United States
3. On 23 August 2012 a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York issued an indictment containing five criminal charges against the applicant. Each count in the indictment charged the applicant with conspiracy to violate a criminal law of the United States. In particular, conspiracy to commit: bank fraud, with maximum prison sentence of thirty years; wire fraud, with maximum prison sentence of twenty years; access device fraud, with maximum prison sentence of five years; computer intrusion, under several subsections, with maximum prison sentences of five and ten years; and aggravated identity theft, with mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment which must run consecutive to the sentence for any other count of conviction. The indictment also charged the applicant with criminal forfeiture.
4. The charges were based on the allegations that the applicant and his co-conspirators as members of a criminal enterprise had created and distributed malicious software known as the “Gozi Virus” which had infected computers worldwide, including in the United States. It was believed that Gozi Virus had been designed to steal login credentials, such as usernames and passwords, for online bank accounts and other Internet-based accounts. The data had then been used to withdraw funds from victims’ accounts in the United States and Europe. It was alleged that the applicant had specialised in creating web injects, which were software designed to work in conjunction with the Gozi Virus and other malware that altered how banking websites appeared on infected computers so as to deceive the account holder into divulging personal information that the bank’s legitimate website did not require.
5. Following the issuance of the indictment, a United States Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on 23 August 2012 issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant for the offences charged in the indictment.
6. In view of the foregoing, the United States Government requested the applicant’s extradition from Latvia. The applicant then contested his proposed extradition in separate proceedings in the Latvian courts.
2. The applicant’s extradition proceedings in Latvia
(a) The applicant’s detention and media reporting
7. On 4 December 2012, between 11.20 a.m. and 1.15 p.m. the applicant’s home was searched with the applicant being present. According to the applicant, he was under arrest starting from 11.21 a.m. and initially he was deprived of an opportunity to contact a lawyer and receive legal assistance.
8. On 6 December 2012 the applicant was brought before the Investigating Judge of the Riga City Centre District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa) for a detention hearing. Less than thirty minutes before the hearing the applicant and his lawyer were given an opportunity to become acquainted with the United States Government request for the applicant’s extradition. The hearing commenced at 2.30 p.m. Following the hearing the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition was authorised.
9. During the detention hearing in the courtroom the applicant was placed in a dock with metal bars. According to the applicant, he was instructed by the police to wear the hood of his jacket during the detention hearing. From that moment onwards mass media circulated photographs depicting the applicant in the courtroom behind the metal bars wearing a hood. The applicant’s case was covered in at least 103 mass media publications starting from the day of his arrest. The said photographs were included in 69 of these publications.
10. On 12 December 2012, upon the applicant’s appeal against his detention with a view to extradition, the Judge of the Riga City Centre District Court stated:
“in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law a decision of the investigation judge on the extradition detention may not be appealed...”
(b) Decisions of the prosecution and courts on the extradition request
11. On 20 December 2012 the prosecution issued a decision finding the United States Government request for the applicant’s extradition permissible in view of the 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty and the Criminal Procedure Law. The decision spelled out the allegations against the applicant and their legal classification pursuant to the United States Code. The decision indicated that on 23 August 2012 an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant in the United States. The applicant’s extradition was held to be permissible based on the following:
“- the maximum limit of the sentence of deprivation of liberty for the crimes [the applicant] is accused of exceeds one year;
- no criminal procedure has been initiated in the Republic of Latvia for the crimes the US Department of Justice has requested [the applicant’s] extradition;
- no decision has been taken in the Republic of Latvia not to initiate or to terminate the criminal prosecution for the crimes for which [the applicant’s] extradition has been requested;
- no court decision has entered into force with respect to [the applicant] for the crimes for which the extradition has been requested;
- the crimes [the applicant] is accused of are not of a political or military nature;
- [the applicant] is a citizen of the Republic of Latvia, however, pursuant to [the 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty] article 3 the citizenship is not a basis for the refusal of extradition;
- the statutory limitation periods have not expired either in the Republic of Latvia or in the US;
- [the applicant] has not been granted a pardon for the same crimes.”
12. On 11 January 2013 the applicant and his lawyer filed appeals against the aforementioned decision before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta). The appeals were supplemented on 29 January 2013.
13. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on 31 January 2013 affirmed the impugned decision. It found that the grounds in section 697 of the Criminal Procedure Law to refuse the applicant’s extradition were not present and further reasoned:
“The Criminal Chamber finds declaratory the defence indication that [the applicant’s] human rights would be violated if he were extradited to the United States of America.
The United States of America is democratic, who, in concluding with Latvia the treaty on extradition, committed to comply with the human rights, rule of law and guarantee an accused the right to a fair trial, including the right to a trial in an independent and impartial court.”
14. The aforementioned decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court was not subject to a further appeal.
(c) The applicant’s constitutional complaint
15. The applicant twice, on 12 April and 15 July 2013, lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa). He argued inter alia that the 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty and the national law which ratified it were incompatible with the fair trial right and the right of a Latvian citizen not to be extradited, except in cases foreseen in a ratified international treaty, provided the extradition did not violate the fundamental human rights guaranteed in the Constitution. He further requested that sections 701 (2) and 707 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law prohibiting an appeal against the judge’s decision on provisional detention and the court’s decision on permissibility of extradition, respectively, be declared unconstitutional.
16. On both occasions the Constitutional Court, on 31 May and 31 July 2013, respectively, refused to initiate a case. It held in the relevant part:
“The preamble of the Extradition Treaty expressis verbis provides that the parties conclude the treaty, undertaking to ‘have due regard for rights of individuals and the rule of law’ as well as ‘mindful of the guarantees under their respective legal systems which provide an accused person with the right to a fair trial, including the right to adjudication by an independent and impartial tribunal established pursuant to law’.
Therefore the Extradition Treaty expressis verbis foresees the same protection as the first and fourth sentences of Article 92 of the Constitution, as well as the third sentence of Article 98 of the Constitution, even though [the applicant] contests the compatibility of the Extradition Treaty precisely with these provisions.
Likewise in accordance with Article 15 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime the contracting parties shall ensure persons in the criminal investigation or adjudication such human rights protection procedural safeguards which are not lower than those foreseen in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The US has ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, has not made a reservation with respect to Article 15 of the mentioned Convention, and it is in force in the United States of America since 1 January 2007. The applicant is accused of committing the crimes, which correspond to those mentioned in Articles 2 through 10 of the Convention on Cybercrime.
Collegium of the Constitutional Court also indicates that pursuant to the [Criminal Procedure Law] and the Extradition Treaty it is precisely a duty of a court of general jurisdiction to ensure that individual’s fundamental rights are observed in a concrete extradition procedure.
...
Also in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights it is found that a person to be extradited shall be ensured the human rights protection guarantees precisely in the course of extradition process (see, for example, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 108, 116, 124, ECHR 2005‑I; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, §§ 160, 161, 165, 166, 2 March 2010).
At the same time the European Court of Human Rights has held: a possibility that a person may be applied a severe punishment, for example, a prolonged imprisonment, not in all cases of itself constitutes a sufficient basis for a decision to refuse a person’s extradition to the US (see Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 85, 129, 134, 17 January 2012).
The Cabinet of Ministers will adopt the final decision on [the applicant’s] possible extradition to the US, who also is under an obligation to observe the human rights protection guarantees provided for in the Constitution, the Convention and the Extradition Treaty.
Therefore ... the legal reasoning on the possible incompatibility of the Extradition Treaty ... is obviously insufficient to grant the claim.
...
The legislator has a wide margin of appreciation to provide which cases may be considered at several court instances and also a procedure for their adjudication...
...it is not substantiated in which manner the legislator’s mandatory duty could follow from Article 91 of the Constitution to foresee for persons, with respect to whom an investigation judge has taken a decision to apply a provisional detention, the same rights as for persons who have been applied a security measure of detention.”
(d) Information provided by the Embassy of the United States in Riga
17. On 25 July 2013 the applicant’s attorney received an extract prepared by the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the information provided on 4 July 2013 by the Embassy of the United States in Riga. It set out that “[t]he Constitution and laws of the United States, including the treaties to which [they] are a party, incorporate all fundamental human rights...” Further it stated that “[n]o person extradited to the United States may be subjected to torture or cruel and unusual punishment”. Specifically with regard to the applicant it read as follows:
“In the case of [the applicant], as previously stated in the extradition request, the death penalty is not an applicable punishment, and he therefore shall not be deprived of life in any event.
...
Finally, in accordance with Article 3 of Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Latvia, signed on December 7, 2005, if convicted, the United States will make best efforts to honor a request from [the applicant] to serve his sentence in Latvia in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the implementing statutes thereto, should he apply for such a transfer. In the event that the application cannot be honored, the Government of the United States shall consult with the Government of Latvia pursuant to Article 19 of the Extradition Treaty.”
(e) Decision of the Cabinet of Ministers on the applicant’s extradition
18. On 6 August 2013, at 2.40 p.m. the Cabinet of Ministers decided that the applicant be extradited to the United States of America. The order of the Cabinet of Ministers to this effect was issued on 7 August 2013.
(f) The applicant’s continuous detention with a view to extradition
19. The applicant has been held in custody pending extradition since 4 December 2012. His detention has not been subject to any form of judicial review.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Constitutional provisions
20. Article 92 of the Constitution (Satversme) provides, inter alia, that “every person has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court” and “every person has the right to assistance of a lawyer”.
21. Article 98 of the Constitution, as amended by the Law of 23 September 2004, in force as of 21 October 2004, in the relevant part reads as follows:
“A citizen of Latvia may not be extradited abroad, except in cases foreseen in international treaties ratified by the Parliament, provided the human fundamental rights provided for in the Constitution are not violated by the extradition.”
2. Criminal Procedure Law
22. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law are phrased in the following manner:
Section 696 Grounds for a Person’s Extradition
“(1) A person who is on the territory of Latvia may be extradited for criminal prosecution, to be tried ... provided the request for provisional arrest or the foreign state’s request for the person’s extradition has been received regarding the act which constitutes a criminal offence pursuant to the laws of Latvia and of the foreign state.
(2) A person may be extradited for criminal prosecution or to be tried for a criminal offence punishable by a sentence of deprivation of liberty with the maximum limit of not less than one year, or a more severe punishment, unless otherwise provided for in an international treaty.
...”
Section 697 Reasons for Refusal of a Person’s Extradition
“(1) A person’s extradition may be refused if:
1) the criminal offence has been fully or partly committed on the territory of Latvia;
2) he or she is suspected, accused of or tried in Latvia for the same criminal offence;
3) a decision has been taken in Latvia not to initiate or terminate criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence;
4) extradition is requested for political or military criminal offences;
...
6) extradition is requested by a foreign state with whom Latvia does not have an extradition treaty.
(2) A person’s extradition is not permitted if:
1) he or she is a citizen of Latvia;
2) the person’s extradition request relates to the purpose of initiation of prosecution or punishing the person on account of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion or there are sufficient grounds to believe that the person’s rights may be violated due to the foregoing reasons;
3) there is a final decision in force in Latvia with respect to the person for the same criminal offence;
4) pursuant to the law of Latvia the person’s criminal prosecution, conviction or enforcement of a sentence for the same criminal offence are barred by the period of statutory limitation, amnesty or on other similar grounds;
5) a pardon has been granted to the person pursuant to the procedure prescribed in law for the same criminal offence;
6) the foreign state does not provide sufficient guarantees that the person shall not be prescribed and shall not be executed capital punishment;
7) there is a risk that the person may be subjected to torture in the foreign state.
(3) The international treaty may prescribe other grounds for the refusal of extradition.”
Section 698 Person Sought and His or Her Rights
“(1) The person sought is a person whose extradition is requested or who is arrested or detained with the purpose of extradition.
(2) The person sought has the right to:
1) know who and for what requests his or her extradition;
2) use the language he or she understands in the process of extradition;
3) comment on the extradition;
4) make requests, also requests on a simplified extradition;
5) get acquainted with all the material for examination;
6) invite a lawyer for legal assistance.”
Section 699 Person’s Arrest with a Purpose of Extradition
“(1) An investigator or a prosecutor may arrest a person for up to 72 hours with the purpose of extradition, if there are sufficient grounds to believe that he or she has committed a criminal offence on the territory of another state, for which extradition is foreseen, or if the foreign state has announced his or her search and has submitted a request for provisional arrest or extradition.
(2) An investigator or a prosecutor shall prepare the record of the person’s arrest with the purpose of extradition, in which shall indicate the arrested person’s name, last name and other necessary personal data, the reasons for arrest, where, when and who has arrested the person. The record of arrest shall be signed by the person who carried out the arrest and the person sought.
(3) The person who carried out the arrest shall inform the person sought of his or her rights, a note on which shall be made in the minutes of arrest.
...
(5) If within 72 hours from the moment of the person’s arrest provisional detention or extradition detention is not applied, the arrested person shall be released or other security measure shall be applied.”
Section 700 Grounds for Provisional Detention
“(1) A provisional detention may be applied to the arrested person after a foreign state’s request on provisional detention until the receipt of an extradition request.
...”
Section 701 Imposition of Provisional Detention
“(1) A judge decides on the imposition of provisional detention in a court hearing, with participation of a prosecutor and the person sought.
(2) A judge issues a reasoned decision, which may not be appealed, after hearing the prosecutor, the person sought and a lawyer if he or she is present.
(3) The provisional detention shall be imposed for 40 days from the day of the person’s arrest, unless otherwise provided for in the international treaty.
...”
Section 702 Extradition Detention
“(1) Extradition detention is imposed after the request for the person’s extradition is received along with:
1) a decision of the foreign state on the person’s arrest...
2) a description of the criminal offence or the decision charging the person;
3) a text of the provisions of the law pursuant to which the person is charged or convicted, and a text of the provisions of the law which regulate statutory limitation;
4) information on the person sought.
...
(3) A proposal on the extradition detention is considered in the same procedure as the request on provisional detention.
...
(5) The term of detention of the person sought may not exceed one year...”
Section 704 Examination of Extradition Request
“(1) The Office of the Prosecutor General, having received a foreign state’s request for a person’s extradition shall commence its examination. The prosecutor shall ascertain whether the grounds for a person’s extradition provided for in section 696 of the present law and the reasons for a refusal of the person’s extradition provided for in section 697 of the present law exist.
(2) If the request does not contain sufficient information in order to decide a matter regarding extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor General shall request from the foreign state the necessary additional information and may set the deadline for providing the information.
...
(4) The prosecutor shall acquaint the person sought with the extradition request within 48 hours from the moment of its receipt, and provide the relevant person with the opportunity to provide explanations. If the person sought has not been arrested or detained, and within 48 hours from the moment of the receipt of the extradition request the prosecutor has established the conditions referred to in section 697 (2) of the present law, the extradition request shall be presented to the person within 20 days.
...”
Section 705 Completion of Examination
“(1) Having assessed the grounds and permissibility of a person’s extradition the prosecutor shall take a reasoned decision on the following:
1) permissibility of the person’s extradition;
2) refusal to extradite the person.
(2) If a decision has been taken on permissibility of the person’s extradition, the person shall be served a copy of the decision.
(3) The person sought may appeal the decision on permissibility of extradition to the Supreme Court within 10 days from the receipt of the decision. If the decision is not appealed, it enters into effect.
...”
Section 706 Review of a Complaint against Permissibility of Extradition
“(1) The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in a panel of three judges shall decide the appeal against permissibility of extradition.
...
(3) The Office of the Prosecutor General, a person who filed the appeal and his or her lawyer shall be informed of the time of the hearing in which the appeal shall be considered and of their right to participate in the hearing.
...”
Section 707 Decision of Court
“(1) Having heard the person who filed the appeal, his or her lawyer and the prosecutor, the court shall retire to deliberate and shall take one of the following decisions:
1) to leave the prosecutor’s decision unmodified;
2) to revoke the prosecutor’s decision and find extradition impermissible;
3) to transfer the extradition request for additional examination.
(2) The court decision may not be appealed.
...”
Section 708 Decision on a Person’s Extradition to a Foreign State
“(2) The Cabinet of Ministers upon proposal of the Minister of Justice shall take a decision on the person’s extradition to a foreign state.
(3) The Cabinet may refuse extradition only if one of the following circumstances exists:
1) the person’s extradition may harm the sovereignty of the State;
2) the offence is considered political or military;
3) there are sufficient grounds to believe that extradition is related to the aim of prosecution of the person on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, gender or political opinion.
(4) The Ministry of Justice shall inform the person sought, the respective foreign state and the Office of the Prosecutor General of the adopted decision.
(5) The Ministry of the Interior shall execute the decision on the person’s extradition.
...”
3. Criminal Law
23. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Law read as follows:
Section 1771 Fraud in an Automated Data Processing System
“(1) Whoever obtains another person’s property or right to such property or other material benefit by knowingly entering false data into an automated data processing system in order to influence the operation of its resources (computer fraud), shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or short term imprisonment or compulsory work or a fine.
(2) Whoever commits computer fraud as a member of a group with a prior agreement (personu grupa pēc iepriekšējas vienošanās) shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years or short term imprisonment or compulsory work or a fine, with or without confiscation of property.
(3) Whoever commits computer fraud in a large amount or in organised group (organizēta grupa) shall be punished by imprisonment of two to ten years, with or without confiscation of property, and with or without police control of up to three years.”
Section 1931 Acquisition, Manufacture, Distribution, Use and Storage of Data,
Software and Equipment for Illegal Activity with Financial Instruments
and Means of Payment
“(1) Whoever obtains or distributes data enabling illegal use of financial instruments or means of payment shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or short term imprisonment or compulsory work or a fine.
(2) Whoever uses data enabling illegal use of financial instruments or means of payment, or manufactures or adapts a software or equipment for the commission of the crimes provided in section 193, or obtains, stores or distributes such software or equipment for the same purpose shall be punished by imprisonment of up to five years or short term imprisonment or compulsory work or a fine, with or without confiscation of property.
(3) Whoever commits an act provided in subsection one or two of this section in organised group shall be punished by imprisonment of two to ten years, with or without confiscation of property and with police control of up to three years.”
4. The 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty
24. The preamble of the 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty in the relevant part states:
“The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”),
...
Having due regard for rights of individuals and the rule of law;
Mindful of the guarantees under their respective legal systems which provide an accused person with the right to fair trial, including the right to adjudication by an impartial tribunal established pursuant to law...”
25. Article 2 of the 2005 US – Latvia Extradition Treaty provides extraditable offences. Article 3 reads as follows:
Article 3
“Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought. A person who is national of the Requested State may request to be allowed to serve in that State a sentence which has been imposed in the Requesting State. The Requesting State shall make best efforts to honor such a request pursuant to a treaty on the transfer of sentenced persons in force between the Parties. In the event that a request pursuant to a treaty on the transfer of sentenced persons cannot be honored, the Parties shall consult pursuant to Article 19 of this Treaty.”
26. Further, Article 7 paragraph 2 lists the documents and information which the extradition request must contain. To this Article 7 paragraph 3 adds as follows:
“3. A request for extradition of a person who is sought for prosecution also shall include:
(a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge, court, or other authority competent for this purpose;
(b) a copy of the charging document; and
(c) such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is sought.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that he was deprived of an opportunity to contact a lawyer and receive legal assistance at the time of his arrest on 4 December 2012, and that the prosecution did not serve on him the extradition request, as required by the domestic law, within 48 hours from its receipt, but less than thirty minutes before the detention hearing on 6 December 2012 and the applicant and his lawyer did not have adequate time to prepare their defence.
2.Under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the domestic courts did not assess if reasonable suspicion existed that he had committed the offenses for which his extradition to the United States was sought.
3. The applicant complains that he did not have at his disposal a procedure by which the lawfulness of his detention after 6 December 2012 could be examined by a court.
4. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that during the detention hearing on 6 December 2012, in the courtroom he was placed in a dock with metal bars, wearing the hood of his jacket as instructed by police, and that the media published photographs of this.
5. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the national authorities did not examine the probability of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited to the United States and did not obtain adequate assurances to this effect. The applicant refers to the statements by United States officials that cybercrime is perceived to be a threat to United States’ security and therefore the same concerns exist as for treatment of terrorist suspects, and that in the United States he would face a disproportionate prison sentence of up to 67 years, which he would have to serve far from his place of residence, whereas in Latvia the maximum sentence of imprisonment would be ten years.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant placed under arrest on 4 December 2012, from 11.20 a.m. and, if so, until what time did his arrest last? Was the applicant’s arrest “lawful” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic law give the applicant a right to contact a lawyer and receive legal assistance on 4 December 2012, from 11.20 a.m.? Did the national authorities comply with this requirement? Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of access to a lawyer?
2. Did the applicant have an opportunity to effectively challenge the basis adduced at the detention hearing on 6 December 2012 in support of his detention with a view to extradition, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have, prior to the detention hearing on 6 December 2012, adequate time to study the request for his extradition to the United States? Was there a domestic remedy available to the applicant in this regard?
3. Was the applicant’s detention pending extradition “lawful” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? What was the applicable law in this regard? Did the applicable law require that the national authorities ascertain if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant had committed offenses for which his extradition to the United States was sought?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal a procedure by which the lawfulness of his detention after 6 December 2012 could be examined by a court and his release ordered, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant suffer treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in that during the detention hearing on 6 December 2012, in the courtroom he was placed in a dock with metal bars, wearing the hood of his jacket as instructed by police, with media publication of photographs of this? Was there a domestic remedy available to the applicant in this regard?
6. Did the State authorities comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention in granting the applicant’s extradition to the United States (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161)? Did the State authorities adequately ascertain that the conditions awaiting the applicant in the receiving State are in full accord with Article 3 of the Convention?
7. The Government are further requested to clarify what assurances they received from the United States with regard to the applicant’s extradition? What was the status and effect of the extract prepared by the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the information provided on 4 July 2013 by the Embassy of the United States in Riga, referred to by the applicant?
8. The Government are requested to provide copies of the following documents to the Court:Order (authorisation) for the applicant’s arrest implemented on 4 December 2012;Record of the applicant’s arrest of 4 December 2012;Decision on the applicant’s detention issued following the hearing on 6 December 2012;Minutes of the detention hearing of 6 December 2012;The minutes of the hearing in which the appeals against the prosecution decision of 20 December 2012 were considered.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy