FPC, 02.04.2026, RH.2026.2, RP.2026.15
Facts
The Italian judicial authorities have issued a European arrest warrant for A., an Italian national, for the offenses of homicide and grievous bodily harm. She is accused of having, along with her partner, systematically abused her minor son, leading to his death in November 2024.
Based on a report from SIRENE Italy, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered the provisional arrest of A. in Switzerland. She was arrested on March 13, 2026, in Ticino. During her hearing, she confirmed her identity but refused the simplified extradition procedure. The FOJ then issued an arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition.
A. appealed this arrest warrant to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. She primarily requests the cancellation of her detention and, alternatively, her release subject to substitute measures (surrender of identity documents, house arrest, reporting obligations, electronic monitoring). At the same time, she filed an application for free legal aid.
Law
The Appeals Chamber examines the legality of the arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition, but does not, at this stage, rule on the merits of the extradition itself. The procedure is governed by a set of international treaties (notably the European Convention on Extradition and the Schengen acquis) and, subsidiarily, by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
According to consistent and strict case law, the detention of the person being prosecuted is the rule throughout the extradition procedure, while release remains the exception. To deviate from this rule, rigorous conditions must be met.Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC allows for release if it is likely that the person will neither evade extradition (absence of flight risk) nor compromise the criminal investigation (absence of risk of collusion). These two conditions are cumulative. Release may also be ordered if the extradition appears manifestly inadmissible (Art. 51 para. 1 IMAC) or for other exceptional reasons (Art. 47 para. 2 IMAC).
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: the applicant does not have the necessary resources to cover legal costs without compromising their basic subsistence.
- The chances of success of the appeal: the arguments must not appear doomed to failure from the outset. An appeal is considered to have no chance of success if the prospects of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing.
Application to the specific case
The appellant disputes the existence of a flight risk. She highlights her family ties in Switzerland (she has lived in Vacallo since 2025 with her partner and their two very young daughters), her role as a homemaker, her precarious financial situation, and the lack of ties to other countries. She believes that the presence of her young children makes any flight unlikely. She also disputes any risk of collusion, noting that the events are old and her version of events has already been provided to investigators.
The Criminal Chamber rejects this argument based on highly restrictive case law in this area. It recalls that even strong family and social ties in Switzerland have not been sufficient, in previous cases, to rule out the risk of flight in the face of a potential long custodial sentence.
In this specific case, the Court notes several elements that establish a concrete and significant flight risk:
- The gravity of the alleged offenses (homicide) and the significant sentence faced in Italy (up to 10 years of imprisonment) constitute a strong incentive to flee.
- The weakness of ties to Switzerland: the appellant has only resided there for a short time (2025) and is awaiting a residence permit.
- Prior conduct: the appellant left Italy while aware of the criminal proceedings opened against her, which demonstrates a propensity to evade justice.
Given this high flight risk, the proposed alternative measures (electronic monitoring, surrender of travel documents, etc.) are deemed insufficient to effectively mitigate it. The Court notes that the FOJ has made arrangements for the appellant’s children: the youngest is detained with her mother in appropriate conditions, while the eldest has been placed in a protective facility. The FOJ has also consulted with Italian authorities regarding the children’s welfare in the event of extradition. Detention is therefore considered proportionate.
Regarding the request for legal aid, the Court finds that the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset. In light of established case law and the facts of the case, the arguments raised against the flight risk were clearly doomed to fail. As the condition regarding the chances of success is not met, the request for legal aid is rejected, regardless of the appellant’s financial situation.
Outcome
The Criminal Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejects the appeal and confirms the arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition. The request for free legal aid is also rejected. Court costs, set at 500 francs, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
