TPF, 04.02.2026, RH.2026.1, RP.2026.14
Facts
On March 5, 2026, the Preliminary Investigation Judge of Novara (Italy) issued a European arrest warrant for A. on charges of homicide and grievous bodily harm. He is accused, in complicity with his partner, of having systematically abused their minor son, C., who died on November 24, 2024, as a result of the injuries sustained.
Based on this warrant, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered the provisional arrest of A. on March 13, 2026. He was arrested the same day by the Ticino cantonal police. During his interrogation, A. acknowledged being the person sought but refused the simplified extradition procedure. Consequently, the FOJ issued an extradition detention order, which was served to him on March 18, 2026.
On March 20, 2026, A. appealed this detention order to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). He requested, primarily, the annulment of the detention order and, alternatively, its replacement with substitute measures such as the impounding of his identity documents, house arrest, the obligation to report to a public office, or electronic monitoring. At the same time, he filed an application for free legal aid.
Law
The Appeals Chamber of the FCC has jurisdiction to rule on appeals against extradition detention orders (Art. 37 para. 2 let. a ch. 1 LOAP in conjunction withArt. 48 para. 2 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, IMAC).
Extradition cooperation between Switzerland and Italy is primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its protocols, as well as the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis. The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies subsidiarily to matters not covered by treaties or if it is more favorable to extradition (principle of favor).
According to established case law, in extradition matters, the detention of the person sought is the rule and release is the exception. The conditions for release are stricter than for pre-trial detention under domestic law. Release may only be ordered in exceptional cases, particularly if it is likely that the person will not evade extradition and will not compromise the criminal investigation (Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC). These two conditions are cumulative. Other grounds for release include the immediate provision of an alibi, health reasons, or if extradition appears manifestly inadmissible (Art. 47 and 51 IMAC).
Case law regarding the risk of flight is particularly restrictive. The Federal Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the detention of individuals with close ties to Switzerland (family, long-term residency, Swiss nationality of children) on the grounds that the prospect of a long custodial sentence provides sufficient incentive to flee. Release is only ordered under very specific circumstances (e.g., advanced age, precarious health, very light potential sentence).
Regarding free legal aid (Art. 65 APA and Art. 29 para. 3 Cst.), it is granted if two cumulative conditions are met: the applicant's indigence and claims that do not appear to be devoid of any chance of success from the outset. A case is considered to lack chances of success when the prospects of winning are significantly lower than those of losing.
Application to the specific case
The Court first analyzes the appeal against the detention order. The appellant disputes the existence of a flight risk, citing his family situation (domiciled in Switzerland with his partner and their two very young children) and the absence of ties to any country other than Italy.
The FCPC rejects this argument. It reiterates that detention is the rule. In this case, several factors establish a concrete and significant flight risk:
- The gravity of the offenses: The appellant is accused of homicide and grievous bodily harm against his own child.
- The potential sentence: He faces a custodial sentence of up to 10 years in Italy, which constitutes a strong incentive to evade justice.
- The lack of substantial ties to Switzerland: The appellant, a 27-year-old Italian citizen, has only resided in Switzerland since 2025 and is awaiting a B residence permit. These ties are deemed too recent and too weak to counterbalance the flight risk.
- Prior conduct: The FCPC notes that the appellant left Italy while aware of the criminal proceedings opened against him, which demonstrates a propensity to evade the authorities.
In view of this high flight risk, the proposed substitute measures (electronic monitoring, surrender of travel documents, etc.) are deemed insufficient to effectively mitigate it. The Court notes that an electronic ankle monitor does not prevent a flight, but merely detects it after the fact. Detention is therefore considered proportionate.
Next, the Court examines the request for free legal aid. Although the appellant's financial situation is described as "difficult," the Court rejects the request on the grounds that the second condition, regarding the chances of success, is not met. The appeal was, from the start, manifestly doomed to failure. Given the extremely strict case law regarding flight risk in the context of extradition proceedings, the arguments raised by the appellant had no chance of being accepted.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejects the appeal and confirms the detention order for the purpose of extradition. The request for free legal aid is also rejected. The court costs, set at 500 CHF, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
