The case. A Chinese person has been in an Italian prison for over a month after being arrested at the request of authorities in Changchun, China. They have been accused of financial fraud involving € 400 million, affecting 10,000 savers.
- While in pre-trial detention in Italy due to the “consistent risk” of escape, they were awaiting the decision on their extradition case.
- According to the defence, there would be no grounds for using pre-trial detention in this case, as highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights’ Liu v. Poland case on October 6, 2022.
- As noted by our sister website, Italy’s Supreme Court blocked the extradition of a woman, the former CEO of a well-known Chinese company, due to concerns about violations of the European Convention on Human Rights after the Liu v. Poland case.
The defence… has been assigned to Enrico Di Fiorino, who, based on some Chinese trial precedents and a decision taken by the Greek Supreme Court in a previous case involving another Chinese citizen, it has been shown that China tends to challenge less criminal severe offences early in the investigation and then bring different charges, for which can result in imprisonment or the death sentence.
- The defence also raised concerns about Chinese courts’ lack of human rights protection and procedural safeguards.
- Furthermore, the defence lawyer referenced a memorandum from the NGO Safeguard Defenders, led by Laura Harth, which had called on the European Council to “immediately suspend all bilateral extradition agreements with the People’s Republic of China”.
- The Court of Appeal of Ancona rejected the request to extradite the Chinese citizen to China.
The respect for the rule of law. Defence lawyer Di Fiorino said: “There is a growing awareness among judges in European states that they can no longer provide any assistance to countries that are not democratic, which do not respect the rule of law and” do not offer a “fair trial”.
- “The abuse of the Red Notice instrument by authoritarian regimes must lead to a reflection on the purpose of the instrument,” he added. The lawyer also pointed out that “as much as an effective law enforcement system needs a network of cooperation, we cannot risk these tools becoming instruments of intimidation or persecution”.
