Case Context and Petitioner’s Complaints
In the Italian legal context, the Supreme Court of Cassation has recently issued a significant ruling concerning a case of extradition to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In this document, we will examine the details of this ruling and the issues raised by the petitioner.
The case involves an individual against whom an international arrest warrant was issued following a three-year sentence of forced labor in Jordan. The petitioner was found guilty of human trafficking under Jordanian law against human trafficking.
The petitioner has put forward two grounds for appeal. The first ground alleges that the sentence of forced labor in Jordan is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Italian and conventional legal system, particularly Article 4, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits forced labor. Furthermore, it is noted that the petitioner’s health condition is severe and incompatible with detention in Jordan.
The second ground concerns the risk of death that the petitioner would face if extradited. Official documentation released by the Ministry of Justice of Jordan indicates that the petitioner has been threatened with death by the Sunni ethnic group, the majority in the requesting country, due to actions committed in the past.
Supreme Court’s Decision and Considerations
The Supreme Court, in line with the conclusions of the Prosecutor General, has annulled the challenged decision and remitted it to the Milan Court of Appeals due to the validity of the first ground for appeal. However, it rejected the second ground raised by the petitioner regarding the risk of death in Jordan.
The Court emphasized that the prohibition of forced labor under Article 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessarily apply to work imposed on detainees, in accordance with the ECHR. Furthermore, the requesting authority has assured that the work assigned to the petitioner will be suitable for his age and health condition.
However, the Court highlighted the lack of a proper assessment of the specific characteristics of forced labor under Jordanian law. It emphasized that it should be clearly established that such work does not violate the fundamental rights of the individual and is oriented toward the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the convict.
Therefore, the judgment was annulled and remitted to the Milan Court of Appeals for a more thorough review of the conditions of forced labor in Jordan and its implications for the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
In conclusion, the extradition case to Jordan has raised significant questions regarding the compatibility of forced labor and the risk to the petitioner’s life. While the first ground for appeal was upheld, the second was rejected, but the decision was nevertheless annulled to allow for a more in-depth review of the conditions of forced labor in Jordan and the safeguards for the fundamental rights of the individual involved.
