FPC, 01.07.2026, RR.2026.45
Facts
A. is sought by the Kosovo authorities to serve a prison sentence for robbery (fact A).
Arrested in Switzerland on July 29, 2025, he opposed his extradition (facts B and C).
On July 30, 2025, Kosovo formally requested his extradition, providing standardized guarantees regarding the respect of fundamental rights (fact E).
A. was sentenced in the first instance to two years in prison, a sentence increased to three years on appeal.
A fine was subsequently converted into an additional 25 days of imprisonment (fact E).
By decision of March 13, 2026, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) granted the extradition (fact I).
A. (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision, citing a violation of his defense rights and the risk of ill-treatment in Kosovo (fact J).
Law
In the absence of a bilateral treaty, mutual legal assistance with Kosovo is governed by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) (consid. 1).
A request for mutual assistance must be written in one of the Swiss official languages or be accompanied by a translation (art. 28 para. 5 IMAC).
However, the absence of a translation only renders the request inadmissible if it prevents the person concerned from understanding the request and defending their rights (consid. 3.2).
Extradition may be refused if the trial proceedings abroad did not respect the minimum defense rights guaranteed byart. 6 ECHR (art. 37 para. 2 IMAC).
However, Art. 6 ECHR only applies to proceedings determining the merits of a criminal charge, and not to decisions relating to the execution of sentences, such as the conversion of a fine into days of imprisonment (consid. 4.2).
Extradition is refused if the person is at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment (art. 37 para. 3 IMAC, art. 3 ECHR).
For states that are not parties to human rights protection conventions, such as Kosovo, Switzerland systematically makes extradition conditional upon obtaining specific diplomatic assurances (recital 5.2).
Under the principle of trust, it is presumed that the requesting state will honor the assurances provided, unless the appellant demonstrates the bad faith of that state in a concrete manner (recital 5.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant complains that the extradition request was initially in English.
The Court rejects this formal grievance, as the appellant and his lawyer never claimed they did not understand the request, which was, in any case, subsequently translated into French (recital 3.3).
The appellant alleges a violation of his defense rights, as neither he nor his lawyer were present at the hearing where his fine was converted into a prison sentence (recital 4.1). The Court dismisses this argument.
The judgments on the merits were rendered following adversarial proceedings in the presence of the appellant and his defense counsel.
The procedure for converting a fine, which pertains to the execution of a sentence, is not subject to the guarantees of Article 6 of the ECHR.
The rights of the defense were therefore not violated (recital 4.3).
The appellant claims there is a risk of ill-treatment in Kosovo due to corruption, his state of health, and threats from creditors (recital 5).
The Court notes that the FOJ obtained the standard assurances in this matter from Kosovo: respect for dignity, non-discrimination, adequate medical care, the right of access for Swiss representatives, etc. (recital 5.3.1).
The appellant provides no concrete or objective evidence to cast doubt on Kosovo's good faith or its ability to uphold these assurances.
His allegations regarding his state of health or threats from third parties are vague and unsubstantiated (recital 5.3.3).
The grievance is therefore rejected (recital 5.3.4).
Finally, the appellant's request to demand guarantees regarding the credit for time served in detention in Switzerland is rejected.
This matter falls exclusively under the law of the sentencing state (recital 6).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed (operative part 7).
The FOJ's decision authorizing the appellant's extradition to Kosovo is upheld.
The appellant's request for legal aid is also rejected, as the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset.