Constitutional court dismisses appeal against extradition

The Constitutional Court has confirmed a judgment in which it was ruled that the extradition of a Maltese man wanted in the US can proceed in the event of his appeal being dismissed on other grounds.

Lewis Muscat, 56, who lived in the US for 40 years, is wanted by Californian authorities for 18 counts of defiling a girl between the age of nine and 11.

On August 4, 2006, the Magistrates Court had ruled in favour of Mr Muscat's extradition to the US.

Mr Muscat filed an appeal in the Criminal Court where he asked that his case be referred to a court of constitutional jurisdiction. He argued that his extradition would lead to a breach of his constitutional rights since, if he were sent to the US, he would be subject to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

He also argued that he suffered from mental health problems and was not fit to withstand extradition.

After evaluating the matter, the First Hall of the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, dismissed the constitutional appeal and concluded that Mr Muscat did not prove that there existed, in the state of California, "a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights".

The court also heard a psychiatrist conclude that Mr Muscat had "normal mental capabilities, like any ordinary man, and is fit to stand trial".

The First Hall, therefore, decided that the extradition of Mr Muscat was to proceed unless the Court of Criminal Appeal decided otherwise.

Mr Muscat then appealed the First Hall's decision in the Constitutional Court, presided over by Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Albert J. Magri.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the first court was "perfectly correct" in stating that the evidence did not disclose the existence of "a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in California".

However, the quoted phrase was too generic an expression to be used in examining such a case.

It was sufficient if the evidence convinced the court that the circumstances were such that, if Mr Muscat was sent to California, he would face a specific, personal and significant risk of torture or of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

"This court is not so convinced and this for three reasons," the court ruled.

First, if extradited, Mr Muscat would be transferred to a state with a highly sophisticated and effective legal system which can, under normal circumstances, guarantee that his fundamental human rights would be respected. Besides, no evidence had been produced to suggest that the said legal system is generally ineffective.

Secondly, no evidence had been produced to suggest that the documented incidents of ill-treatment in a Californian jail, pointed out by Mr Muscat, were the result of this ill-treatment being, deliberately or de facto institutionalised.

Thirdly, like the First Hall before it, the court ruled it must take due account of the assurances given by the Governor of the State of California who signed a declaration stating that, if Mr Muscat was extradited and found guilty, he would not be subject to cruelty while in the California state prison. The Constitutional Court confirmed the decision reached by the First Hall and ordered that a copy of the judgment be brought to the attention of the Court of Criminal Appeal which is now expected to decide on Mr Muscat's extradition.

Police Inspectors Raymond Cutajar and Raymond Aquilina prosecuted with the assistance of Attorney General representatives Peter Grech, Donatella Frendo Dimech and Cynthia Scerri Debono.

Lawyer Chris Soler appeared for Mr Muscat.