FPC, 10.24.2025, RR.2025.78 + RR.2025.92, RP.2025.38
Facts
On November 7, 2024, Albania requested the extradition of its national, A., from Switzerland based on an arrest warrant issued by the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime in Tirana. A. is accused of participating in the planning of a homicide, specifically by creating the material conditions for its commission, and of participating in a structured criminal group.
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) issued an extradition arrest warrant on March 6, 2025, for A., who was already serving a sentence in Switzerland for other offenses. During his hearing, A. opposed his extradition, citing a danger to his life and a total lack of trust in the Albanian state, which he holds responsible for the murder of his father and two of his brothers.
By decision of May 26, 2025, the FOJ granted the extradition. However, as A.________ raised the exception of a political offense, the FOJ, in accordance with the law, referred the matter to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FPC) for a ruling. Concurrently, A.________ filed an appeal with the FPC against the FOJ's extradition decision. The Appeals Chamber joined the two proceedings due to their connection.
Law
The Court notes that extradition relations between Switzerland and Albania are governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECExtr) and, subsidiarily, by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
- Jurisdiction and procedure: The FOJ rules on extradition requests (Art. 55 para. 1 IMAC). However, when the person being prosecuted invokes the political nature of the offense, the authority to rule on this exception lies in the first instance with the Appeals Chamber of the FPC (Art. 55 para. 2 IMAC). The FOJ's extradition decision may be appealed to this same Court.
- Dual criminality: Extradition is granted only if the facts described in the request are punishable under the laws of both states (Art. 2 para. 1 ECExtr). The requested authority (Switzerland) is bound by the statement of facts provided by the requesting state, unless it contains manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. It does not examine guilt or evidence, but verifies whether the facts, as described, would constitute an offense under Swiss law (principle of abstract dual criminality). Under Swiss law, preparatory acts for murder are punishable (Art. 260bis SCC).
- Alibi evidence: According toArt. 53 IMAC, if the person being prosecuted claims to be able to prove their absence from the scene of the crime (alibi), verifications are conducted. However, case law requires "clear" evidence, meaning evidence that is immediate and does not require complex investigations. It is not the role of the Swiss authorities to conduct an assessment of evidence or an in-depth investigation into this matter.
- Political offense exception: Extradition is refused if the offense is considered political or if there are serious reasons to suggest that the request is intended to prosecute or punish a person based on their political opinions, race, religion, etc. (art. 3 ECExtr ; art. 2 let. b and c IMAC). The person subject to extradition must make the existence of serious and objective risks credible and demonstrate that the criminal prosecution is merely a pretext. Fear of retaliation by third parties (rather than the State) does not constitute an obstacle to extradition. The principle of trust dictates that it is presumed that a State party to the ECHR, such as Albania, will honor its international commitments.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber examined and rejected all of the appellant's arguments.
- Regarding dual criminality and procedural defects: The appellant argued that the facts were described in a confusing and contradictory manner, particularly the allegation of his collaboration with the alleged mastermind behind his own brother's murder. He claimed that the alleged acts would, under Swiss law, constitute only an unpunishable attempt at complicity. The Court ruled that the statement of facts was sufficiently precise for the purposes of the extradition review. The alleged contradictions pertain to the assessment of evidence, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Albanian courts. Legally, the described facts—locating the victim on behalf of the killers as part of a joint plan—do not constitute mere complicity, but clearly fulfill the conditions for punishable preparatory acts under Art. 260bis of the Swiss Criminal Code. The condition of dual criminality is therefore met.
- Regarding the alibi evidence: The appellant claimed to have been at a funeral ceremony for his brother at the time of the events, providing notarized statements from relatives. The Court found that these elements did not constitute "clear" alibi evidence within the meaning of case law. Testimony from relatives and the suggestion of a GPS verification would require an in-depth investigation, which exceeds the scope of extradition proceedings. The alibi was therefore not considered proven.
- Regarding the political offense exception: The appellant argued that the proceedings were politically motivated due to alleged corruption within the Albanian authorities and the danger to his life. The Court rejected this argument for several reasons. First, the alleged offenses are common crimes, not political offenses. Second, the appellant failed to demonstrate how the prosecution would be a pretext to punish him for his political opinions. Third, the fear of retaliation by third parties (criminal groups) is not a ground for refusing extradition. Finally, under the principle of trust, the Court presumes that Albania will respect the appellant's rights, especially since formal guarantees have been provided. The appellant did not provide concrete evidence to rebut this presumption.
- Regarding legal aid: The application for legal aid was rejected because the appeal and the political offense exception were, from the outset, devoid of any chance of success.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejected the political offense exception as well as A.________'s appeal against the extradition decision. The appellant's extradition to Albania was deemed admissible. The application for legal aid was also rejected, and court costs, set at 3,000 francs, were charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
