The Facts
The Applicant was accused of giving bribes to officials from 2013 until 2015, with the aim of obtaining economic benefits by securing lease contracts, which were not profit for the state enterprise. After the applicant’s detention in Spain, the court decided to refuse extradition to Belarus.
What was the position of the NCB of Belarus
The NCB said that its legislation guarantees the fundamental rights of the accused in a criminal case, and that the judges are independent and are subject exclusively to the law. The NCB considered the fact that the Applicant lodged a request before the Commission Confirmed his maliciousness because a law-abiding citizen would not even think of applying to the Commission in order to challenge the data concerning him, registered in the INTERPOL Information System. At the same time the NCB stated that the Spanish decision for refusal of an extradition applicant “cannot represent a model of reference for objectivity, but only a specific decision of the court in relation to a particular person.”
Findings of the CCF
The main arguments of the Commission were based on the court decision for refused on extradition, issued by the Audiencia Nacional of Madrid explicitly outlined a tangible risk that the Applicant will not be subject to fair process carried on by an independent and impartial body, not be provided with an effective remedy, which based on a political dimension that underpins the Applicant’s case. Commission also highlighted that Belarusian position concerning the applicant rights to submit the request to the Commission is symptomatic of a problem of lacking respect for independent oversight.
The Results
The CCF found that the data concerning the Applicant did not meet the necessary criteria under Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution. Consequently, the Commission decided to delete the wanted notice.
