Published on 8 November 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 49134/20
Craig Austin LANG
against Ukraine
lodged on 6 November 2020
communicated on 11 October 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s extradition to the United States of America, where he is wanted for trial on a number of federal charges carrying a potential sentence of life imprisonment, most notably use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (robbery) that resulted in death. The General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine granted the extradition request. The applicant’s asylum application and appeals against the extradition decision, which ended in the decision of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal of 15 March 2021, were unsuccessful.
Referring to Article 3 of the Convention the applicant, a United States national, alleges that, if extradited, he would face a real risk of being sentenced to an irreducible life imprisonment without a possibility of release.
Upon the applicant’s request, on 19 April 2021 the Court decided to indicate to the Ukrainian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
If the applicant were to be extradited to the United States of America, would he face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading punishment through the imposition of an “irreducible” life sentence?
In particular:
(a) would his extradition, in circumstances where he risks the imposition of a life sentence without parole, be consistent with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see in particular Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts), Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 41216/13, § 168, 12 March 2019, with further references)?
(b) did the domestic authorities consider, and if so by reference to what evidence, whether in a case such as the present the exercise of the executive clemency power, compassionate release and any other possible avenues of requesting early release for the applicant under applicable laws would be subject to safeguards or guarantees that the relevant powers “would be exercised in a consistent and broadly predictable way” and that “appearance of arbitrariness would be avoided” (see, mutatis mutandis, Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 258, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57592/08, 17 January 2017; and Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, 23 May 2017)?