FPC, 06.30.2026, RH.2026.6, RP.2026.30
Facts
On January 25, 2024, Brazil requested the extradition of A., a Brazilian national residing in Switzerland. This request follows his conviction on August 25, 2013, to a 12-year prison sentence for triple attempted murder committed on March 21, 2004, in Sao Paulo. (Facts, A-B)
Pursuant to a warrant issued by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) on April 30, 2026, A. was arrested on May 20, 2026, in the canton of Neuchâtel. During his hearing, he opposed simplified extradition. The arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition was served to him on the same day. (Facts, C-D)
On June 1, 2026, through his lawyer, A. filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court against this arrest warrant. He primarily requested his immediate release, and alternatively, the imposition of substitute measures such as the obligation to report to the police and the surrender of his Spanish passport. He also requested the granting of legal aid and the appointment of a court-appointed lawyer. The FOJ requested that the appeal be dismissed. (Facts, E-F)
Law
The Court reiterates that extradition relations between Switzerland and Brazil are governed by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). The appeal procedure is subject to the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA). (consid. 1.1)
In extradition matters, the detention of the person sought is the rule, and release is the exception. The requirements for release are stricter than for pre-trial detention in domestic proceedings. Release may be granted exceptionally, in particular if there is no risk of flight (Art. 47 para. 1 let. a IMAC), if extradition is manifestly inadmissible (Art. 51 para. 1 IMAC), or for other reasons provided by law. Detention is primarily intended to prevent the risk of flight, and case law is very restrictive regarding the admission of such a risk, so as not to render Switzerland's extradition commitment illusory. (consid. 2.3.2, 2.3.3)
TheArt. 8 ECHR guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Although this provision does not confer a right not to be extradited, extradition may, in exceptional circumstances, violate this article if it results in the destruction of family ties. However, a mere limitation on family life, inherent in any detention, is not considered disproportionate if contact with loved ones (visits, calls) remains possible. (consid. 3.3.1, 3.3.2)
Non-custodial measures may be ordered if the person is unable to be incarcerated or if other grounds justify it (Art. 47 para. 2 EIMP). However, case law is very restrictive: in the presence of a high flight risk, measures such as surrendering identity documents or surveillance are deemed insufficient to mitigate it. (consid. 4.5.1, 4.5.2)
Legal aid is granted if the party lacks sufficient resources (indigence) and if their claims do not appear doomed to failure from the outset (Art. 65 para. 1 APA). These two conditions are cumulative. A case is considered to have no chance of success when the prospects of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing. (consid. 6.1, 6.4)
Application to the specific case
The Court examines the appellant's grievances. First, regarding the flight risk, it finds the appellant's arguments unconvincing. The gravity of the offenses (attempted murder) and the severity of the sentence (12 years) create a concrete and high risk of flight. Although the appellant has resided in Switzerland since 2015, this duration is not considered sufficient to establish a solid foundation to rule out this risk. The Court cites Federal Supreme Court case law that denied release to a person with much stronger ties to Switzerland. Furthermore, the appellant's dual Brazilian and Spanish nationality increases the risk of him taking refuge in Spain, which would complicate his extradition to Brazil. The grievance is therefore dismissed. (consid. 2.4)
Secondly, regarding the violation ofArt. 8 ECHR, the Court finds that the appellant's detention does not destroy his family ties. He can maintain contact with his children through visits, calls, and letters. Although his daughters exhibit psychological fragility, they are supported by the appellant's ex-wife. Moreover, his eldest daughter only recently lived with him in Switzerland. The impact of the separation is therefore judged to be less significant than the appellant claims. The Court concludes that there is no violation of Art. 8 ECHR. (consid. 3.4)
Thirdly, regarding non-custodial measures, the Court reiterates that the flight risk was deemed high. In accordance with established case law, measures such as surrendering identity documents or the obligation to report to the police are insufficient to mitigate such a risk. Furthermore, as the appellant did not propose bail, the request for non-custodial measures is rejected. (consid. 4.6, 4.7)
Finally, the Court addresses the request for legal aid. It finds that the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset, as the appellant's arguments could clearly not challenge the clear legal provisions and well-established case law regarding extradition detention. As the condition of chances of success is not met, the request is rejected without the need to examine the condition of indigence. (consid. 6.5, 6.6)
Issue
The appeal is dismissed. The arrest warrant for the purpose of extradition is upheld, and the appellant remains in detention. (Recital 5)
The requests for legal aid and the appointment of a court-appointed attorney are denied. (Ruling, pt. 2)
The costs of the proceedings, set at a reduced fee of CHF 800, are to be borne by the appellant. (Ruling, pt. 3)