Chapter VIII. Decisions of national tribunals

SUMMARY

A. Argentina Proceedings for review of leave to appeal Jorge Francisco Baca Capodónico, Plea of no action, Case No. 35.295, 27 May 2004 Question of jurisdictional immunity of an official of the International Monetary Fund requested for extradition—Determination of the stage of the judicial proceedings in which the issue of immunity shall be raised—Issue of diplomatic immunity not included—Definit... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
  1. Argentina

    supreme Court of Justice of the nation Proceedings for review of leave to appeal Jorge Francisco Baca Capodónico, Plea of no action, Case No. 35.295, 27 May 2004

    Question .of .jurisdictional .immunity .of .an .official .of .the .International .Monetary . Fund . requested . for . extradition—Determination . of . the . stage . of . the . judicial . proceedings .in .which .the .issue .of .immunity .shall .be .raised—Issue .of .diplomatic . immunity .not .included .in .requirements .laid .down .by .the .Montevideo .Treaty .on . International .Penal .Law .(1889) —Definitive .nature .of .the .injury .at .stake—Issue . of .immunity .requires .a .special .prior .ruling .to .the .extradition .trial

    Office .of .the .Attorney-General

    Supreme .Court:

    I

    Jorge .Francisco .Baca .Campodónico, .a .Peruvian .citizen .residing .in .our .country, .was . summoned .by .the .judge .of .the .Criminal .and .Correctional .Court .No .6 .of .this .city .to . attend .the .hearing .provided .for .in .articles .33 .and .34 .of .the .Montevideo .Treaty .on .International .Penal .Law .of .1889 .and .article .49 .of .Act .No .24767, .under .which .the .judicial .authorities .of .the .Republic .of .Peru .are .requesting .his .handover .for .trial .in .criminal .proceedings . brought .against .him .Mr .Baca .Campodónico, .on .this .first .occasion .in .the .proceedings .and . invoking .his .status .as .an .official .of .the .International .Monetary .Fund .on .an .official .visit . to .Argentina, .invited .by .the .local .government .authorities .for .a .technical .assistance .mission, .invoked .the .right .to .immunity .from .arrest .accorded .to .him .by .international .treaties . (folios .41/42)

    In .response, .the .federal .judge .decided .“to .declare .that .Baca .Campodónico .has .no . immunity .and/or .privilege .whatsoever .with .respect .to .the .conduct .of .the .present .extradition .trial” .(folios .75 .to .90 .verso)

    When . Mr . Baca . Campodónico . appealed . against . this . decision, . division . I . of . the . National .Federal .Criminal .and .Correctional .Appeals .Court .of .this .city .concluded .that .“the .

    . Translated .from .Spanish .by .the .Secretariat .of .the .United .Nations

    . OASTS .34, .p .1 .

    3 2 . UNITED .NATIONS .JURIDICAL .YEARBOOK .2004

    arguments .put .forward .by .Mr .Baca .Campodónico’s .legal .counsel .concerning .his .‘functional’ .immunity .are .pleas .on .the .merits .relevant .to .the .debate—though .limited .to .the . feasibility .of .extradition, .since .‘his .guilt .or .innocence .in .the .acts .giving .rise .to .the .request . for .extradition’ .cannot .be .analysed .(see, .inter alia, .judgements .97:39; .106:20; .139:94 .and . 150:317)—which .this .Court, .as .appeal .court .with .respect .to .the .judge .bringing .the .extradition .proceedings, .is .prohibited .by .law .from .evaluating” .It .added .that .“the .conclusion .that . must .be .drawn .from .joint .analysis .of .all .the .arguments .put .forward .is .that .this .is .not .the . appropriate .stage .at .which .to .raise .such .questions .This .conclusion .is .closely .linked .to .the . argument .put .forward .by .the .Appellant’s .legal .counsel .and .resolves .any .doubts .that .might . exist .as .to .the .sphere .in .which .the .case .must .continue .to .be .handled, .bearing .in .mind .the . reservations .expressed .by .Mr .Roberto .Durrieu .and .Mr .Guillermo .Arias, .with .the .result . that .this .is .the .decision .taken” .(folios .442/443)

    As .can .be .seen, .the .lower .court .considers .that .the .plea .of .immunity .must .be .raised . in .the .trial .proper, .despite .which .it .does .not .annul .the .decision .of .the .federal .judge .in . ruling—erroneously, .in .the .Appeal .Court’s .opinion—on .the .merits .of .the .issue, .in .other . words, .on .whether .or .not .the .Appellant’s .jurisdictional .immunity .should .be .recognized

    A .special .federal .appeal .was .lodged .against .this .decision .(folios .454 .to .473) .and .it .was . the .ensuing .refusal .of .leave .to .appeal, .on .grounds .that .the .requirements .of .a .higher .court . and .a .final .judgement .or .its .equivalent .(folio .497 .and .verso) .had .not .been .met, .that .gave . rise .to .the .present .Complaint

    II

    1 . According .to .the .doctrine .established .by .the .Court .in .the .precedent .Proceedings for review of leave to appeal, Martinez Adalid, Jorge Oscar, concerning fraud by means of fraudulent administration and various incidents of pleas of no action .(M .1286 XXXVI), . this .case .raises .an .important .federal .issue .in .that .the .Appellant’s .argument .concerning .the . jurisdictional .immunity .to .which .Mr .Baca .Campodónico .is .entitled .in .his .capacity .as .an . official .of .the .International .Monetary .Fund, .a .body .with .legal .personality .under .international .law, .involves .the .interpretation .and .application .of .conventions .signed .by .Argentina .and .hence .the .State’s .fulfilment .of .its .obligations .in .this .area .(judgements .318:2639; . 319:2411) .Furthermore, .the .injury .is .definitive .since .the .conduct .of .extradition .proceedings .would .entail .effective .submission .to .jurisdiction .and .deprivation .of .the .immunity .to . which .the .Appellant .considers .himself .entitled .(judgement .319:585) .These .exceptional .circumstances .warrant .a .finding .by .Your .Excellency .that .the .requirements .of .a .final .judgement . and .a .higher .court .have .been .met .for .the .purposes .of .the .special .appeal

    2 . Your .Excellency .made .such .a .finding, .mutatis mutandis, .in .the .domestic .sphere . when, .on .the .occasion .of .the .discussion .as .to .whether .or .not .summoning .two .national . deputies .to .a .conciliation .hearing .for . .privately .actionable .offences .constituted .the .commitment .to .trial .referred .to .in .articles .68, .69 .and .70 .of .the .Constitution, .you .said .that .the . ruling .precluding .a .discussion .of .this .issue .caused .a .present .damage .and .could .not .be . repaired .subsequently, .since .once .the .hearing .was .held .the .damage .would .be .irreversible . (case .Alvarez, Carlos Alberto, .judgement .319:585) .This .argument .was .reiterated .by .this . Office .in .its .ruling .in .the .case .Marquevich, Roberto Jose .S C M .216, .L XXXVII .of .18 .July . 2002, .to .which .you .referred .for .reasons .of .brevity .in .the .Judgement .of .3 .April .2003 .The . ruling .said .that .“if .the .issue .under .discussion .is .the .constitutional .validity .of .the .institution .of .judicial .proceedings .against .a .judge, .then .the .mere .institution .of .such .proceedings .

    . Chapter .VIII . 3 3 would .immediately .infringe .the .guarantee, .in .which .case .it .would .be .pointless .to .expect . final .judgement .to .be .passed .against .the .person, .especially .when .immunity .is .not .personal . but .protects .the .institution .and .the .free .exercise .of .judicial .functions”

    3 . The .essence .of .the .extradition .trial .is .the .discussion .on .“the .identity .of .the .person .whose .extradition .is .requested .and .fulfilment .of .the .requirements .laid .down .by .the . applicable .laws .or .treaties” .(Judgements .139:94; .150:316; .212:5; .262:409; .265:219; .289:216; . 298:138; .304:1609; .and .308:887, .among .many .others)

    In .the .present .case, .this .would .be .verification .of .all .the .requirements .laid .down .by .the . Montevideo .Treaty .on .International .Penal .Law .of .1889: .the .jurisdiction .of .the .requesting . State; .that .the .nature .or .gravity .of .the .offence .justifies .handing .the .person .over .(it .is .punishable .by .at .least .two .years .imprisonment, .does .not .involve .political .crimes .or .crimes .against . the .internal .or .external .security .of .a .State .and .does .not .involve .duelling, .adultery, .insults .and . defamation .or .crimes .against .religion); .that .documents .are .submitted .which .under .the .laws . of .that .State .authorize .the .imprisonment .and .trial .of .the .accused; .that .the .crime .is .not .time-barred; .and .that .the .person .has .not .already .been .punished .for .the .same .crime .(articles .19 .to .

    23) .It .will .also .be .necessary .to .verify .whether .the .penalty .to .be .applied .is .the .death .penalty, . in .which .case .the .substitution .of .a .lesser .penalty .must .be .requested .(article .29); .whether .any . other .requests .for .extradition .have .been .made .by .other .countries, .so .that .the .person .can .be . handed .over .to .the .country .where .the .most .serious .crime .was .committed .(article .27); .and . whether .the .person .has .been .granted .asylum .(articles .15 .and .16)

    As .can .be .seen, .neither .the .Treaty .nor .the .corresponding .law, .mention .that .the .issue .of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP