Published on 31 May 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 20863/21
Beverly Ann MCCALLUM
against Italy
lodged on 22 April 2021
communicated on 28 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s extradition to the State of Michigan, United States of America (USA), where she is wanted for trial on charges of being the leader and co-conspirator in the May 2002 homicide of her then husband and in the removal and burning of his corpse. By a judgment of 26 June 2020, the Court of Appeal of Rome granted the extradition request. The extradition was confirmed by judgment of the Court of Cassation (No. 7262 of 2021).
Referring to Article 3 of the Convention the applicant (a national of the USA) alleges that, if extradited to the USA, she will face a real risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Upon request by the applicant, on 22 April 2021, the Court decided to indicate to the Italian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited until 7 May 2021. This interim measure was subsequently prolonged on 7 May 2021 and, on 25 May 2021, the Court decided to prolong the measure for the duration of the proceedings before it. The applicant is currently in detention in Italy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
If the applicant were to be extradited to the State of Michigan, would she face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading punishment through the imposition of an “irreducible” life sentence?
In particular:
(a) would her extradition, in circumstances where she 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), and Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
(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 clemency power by the Governor of Michigan, following a recommendation by the Parole Board, is (de facto or de jure) subject to safeguards or guarantees that it “will be exercised in a consistent and broadly predictable way” and that “appearance of arbitrariness is 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)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy