Information Note on the Court’s case-law 25
December 2000
Nivette v. France (dec.) - 44190/98
Decision 3.7.2001 [Section I]
Article 3
Extradition
Extradition to the United States of a person for an offence punishable by the death penalty: inadmissible
Article 1 of Protocol No. 6
Abolition of the death penalty
Extradition to the United States of a person for an offence punishable by the death penalty: inadmissible
An international warrant was issued by an American criminal court for the arrest of the applicant, an American national, on suspicion of murdering his companion. He was arrested in France and detained with a view to being extradited. The American authorities lodged a request for his extradition with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The French courts issued an opinion in favour of his extradition subject to their receiving an assurance from the American authorities that they would not call for or carry out the death penalty in his case. The courts referred to a statement by the American prosecution attorney in which he had said that he would not seek the application of the death penalty. The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. The Conseil d’État dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order, holding that the Government had obtained sufficient assurances from the American authorities. The applicant alleged that in any event he faced a full life sentence for the offence of which he was accused.
Inadmissible under Articles 3 and 1 of Protocol No. 6: Exposing a prisoner to “ death row syndrome” could, in certain cases, depending in particular on the time spent in extreme conditions, the ever-present and increasing anguish caused by the execution, and the prisoner’s personal circumstances, be regarded as treatment that went beyond the bounds laid down by Article 3. Furthermore, it was possible that a State’s responsibility might be engaged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 if a person was extradited to a State in which there was a serious risk of their being sentenced to death and executed. In the case before the Court, Article 190.2 of the Californian Criminal Code laid down that the death sentence could not be imposed unless the prosecuting attorney pleaded special circumstances. The prosecuting attorney had twice formally undertaken not to do so. The assurances obtained by the French State were, in the final analysis, such as enable the danger of the death penalty being imposed to be excluded. Extradition was therefore not likely to expose the applicant to a serious risk of treatment or a penalty prohibited by those Articles: manifestly ill-founded.
Communicated under Article 3 with regard to the applicant’s allegation that he was in danger of having to serve a full life sentence. The Court also decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy