Principle of double criminality in passive, forced extraditionPrincipio de doble incriminación en extradición pasiva y forzosa

II.- [...] 1) Generalities and principles of the special procedure. First, it must be reiterated (as the trial judge already indicated) that the extradition process, unlike other criminal processes, does not address the substantive issue but only the guarantees surrounding its prosecution in the State seeking a person, to verify whether the international cooperation tending toward the surrender of someone sought by another country—whether for trial or to execute an imposed sentence—is appropriate or not. However, this does not prevent some evidentiary matters from having to be analyzed, with greater or lesser depth, depending on the country in question, the treaties signed with it, its political-legal system and the risk the person may face resulting from the surrender, as well as the theoretical soundness of the prosecution system. In other words, the aim is to determine whether, upon surrender to the requesting State, the latter is capable of satisfying, or not, the minimum guarantees for the prosecution of the person, or, should the person have been sentenced, whether those guarantees were observed in that event and whether the execution of the sentence would likewise proceed accordingly. Therefore, strictly speaking, the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica) for discarding authorship do not apply to this process (as invoked by the defense), as these are characteristic of a system for evaluating substantive elements and are not always assumed as valid by all States, since there are countries where judgment in conscience operates, by juries or with rules for the appraisal of certain evidence, and, although those are systems different from ours, they are equally valid. To that extent, one State cannot impose its prosecution system on another, but only ensure that, whatever it may be, it respects basic rules of public rights and freedoms established in international treaties signed and ratified by both the requesting and the requested State, as well as the minimum rights in force in the country where the requested person is detained. Now, in an extradition process, the State can have an active or passive position (depending on whether it requests someone outside its borders or another country asks for someone located within its own), the extradition can occur in a voluntary-simplified or forced manner (according to the willingness, or lack thereof, of the requested person to travel to the country seeking them), be a requested or spontaneous extradition (depending on whether the State where the person is located offers them to another or is asked for them), among other modalities (in transit, re-extradition) which, for now, are not important for this matter. The guarantees and requirements that must be verified depend on each of those types of extradition. In this case, Costa Rica was requested to surrender a Mexican citizen who has decided to submit to the ordinary procedure, meaning we are facing a passive, requested, and forced extradition. With that understanding, when resolving the request, certain principles apply, referring, for example, to the applicable legislation, and general matters are analyzed relating to the hierarchy of sources and the respect for basic rules of Public International Law, for example, the following: [...]

[...] 3.4) Regarding the legal provisions for the acts, the principles of legality and identity of the norm or dual criminality (doble incriminación), discussed at length in the first part of this recital (considerando), govern. According to these precepts, the conduct must be among those contemplated by the bilateral treaty, but, in addition, it must be a crime in both the requesting and the requested country, both at the time of the request and at the time of surrender. In that sense, the Treaty between the Government of Costa Rica and that of the United States of America incorporates this precept in the following terms (in what is of interest here) set forth in Article 3: "Extradition shall be granted for any extraditable offense, regardless of the place where the act or acts constituting it were committed" and, subsequently, in Article 4, it specifies which offenses are not subject to extradition (those related to political persecution, whether of a military nature, etc., none of which is discussed here). Thus, all others would be extraditable, in accordance with the governing hierarchy of norms, the minimum penalty threshold being one year of imprisonment or another more severe sanction for the first offense since, if alongside it there are others with lesser sanctions, the treaty does allow their surrender and prosecution if that is the only missing requirement, as already explained. In any case, the offense of money laundering (blanqueo o legitimación de capitales o lavado de dinero) (laundering of monetary instruments, according to the formal request and the arrest warrant) is sanctioned in Title 21, sections 1956 (a) (1) (B) (i) and 1956 (h) of the United States Code: “Section 1956 of title 18 of the United States Code Laundering of monetary instruments (a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity: (B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source of control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity shall be sentenced to [...] imprisonment for not more than twenty years [...] (h) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy” One of the unlawful activities in that country is drug or narcotics trafficking sanctioned in Section 841 of Title 21 of the United States Code with a prison sentence of not less than 10 years nor more than life imprisonment. That, as well as the offense of criminal association (asociación ilícita para delinquir) (which is the abstract figure comparable to conspiracy in that country or to the aforementioned "conspiracy"), are also criminalized in Costa Rica. The first, under the name of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), is provided for in numeral 69 of the Law on narcotics, psychotropic substances, drugs of unauthorized use, related activities, money laundering and financing of terrorism (Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades Conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo) No. 8204, as follows: [...]

II.- 1) Generalities and principles of the special procedure. First of all, it must be reiterated (as the trial judge already indicated) that the extradition process, unlike other criminal proceedings, does not address the merits of the case but only the guarantees surrounding its adjudication in the State seeking a person, to verify whether the international cooperation tending toward the surrender of the person sought by another country—whether to be tried or to serve an imposed sentence—is appropriate or not. However, this does not prevent the examination, with varying degrees of depth, of certain evidentiary issues, depending on the country in question, the treaties signed with it, its political-legal system and the risk the person may face as a result of surrender, as well as the theoretical soundness of its prosecution system. In other words, the aim is to establish whether, upon surrender to the requesting State, the latter is capable of satisfying, or not, the minimum guarantees for the person's trial or, if they have already been sentenced, whether those guarantees were observed in that event and whether the execution of the sentence would likewise proceed in accordance. For this reason, strictly speaking, the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica) for discarding authorship (as invoked by the defense) do not apply to this proceeding, since these are specific to a system for evaluating merits-based elements and are not always assumed as valid by all States, as there are countries where conscience-based adjudication operates, through juries or with rules for weighing certain evidence, and although those systems differ from ours, they are equally valid. To that extent, one State cannot impose its adjudication system upon another, but only ensure that, whatever that system may be, it respects the basic rules of rights and public freedoms established in international treaties signed and ratified by both the requesting and the requested State, as well as the minimum rights in force in the country where the requested person is detained. Having said that, in an extradition proceeding, the State may take an active or passive position (depending on whether it requests someone outside its borders or another country requests someone located within them), the extradition may occur in a voluntary-simplified or forcible form (according to whether or not the requested person voluntarily agrees to be transferred to the country seeking them), it may be a requested or spontaneous extradition (depending on whether the State where the person is located offers them to another or is asked for them), among other modalities (in transit, re-extradition) which, for now, are not important for this matter. The guarantees and requirements that must be verified depend on each of those types of extradition. In this case, Costa Rica was requested to surrender a Mexican citizen who has decided to submit to the ordinary procedure, meaning we are faced with a passive, requested, and forcible extradition. In that understanding, when resolving the request, certain principles govern, relating, for example, to the applicable legislation, and general issues are analyzed concerning the hierarchy of sources and respect for basic rules of Public International Law, for instance, the following:

[...]

3.4) Regarding the legal provisions for the facts, the principles of legality and identity of the norm or double incrimination (doble incriminación), discussed at length in the first part of this recital, govern. According to these precepts, the conduct must be among those contemplated by the bilateral treaty, but it must also be a crime in both the requesting and the requested country, both at the time of the request and at the time of surrender. In that sense, the Treaty between the Government of Costa Rica and that of the United States of America reflects this precept in the following terms (as relevant here), as set forth in article 3: "Extradition shall be granted for any extraditable offense, regardless of the place where the act or acts constituting it were committed" and, subsequently, in article 4, it details which offenses are not extraditable (those related to political persecution, whether of a military nature, etc., none of which is disputed here). Thus, all others would be extraditable, according to the hierarchy of norms that governs, the minimum penalty limit being one year of imprisonment or another more severe sanction for the first offense, because if there are others with lesser penalties alongside it, the treaty does allow for their surrender and prosecution if that is the only missing requirement, as already explained. In any case, the crime of money laundering or legitimization of capital (legitimación de capitales) (money laundering, specifically laundering of monetary instruments, according to the formal request and the arrest warrant) is penalized in Title 21, sections 1956 (a) (1) (B) (i) and 1956 (h) of the United States Code: "Section 1956 of title 18 of the United States Code Laundering of monetary instruments (a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity: (B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity shall be sentenced to [...] imprisonment for not more than twenty years [...] (h) Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy." One of the unlawful activities in that country is drug trafficking or narcotics, penalized in Section 841 of Title 21 of the United States Code with a prison sentence of not less than 10 years and not more than life imprisonment. That offense, as well as illicit association (asociación ilícita) to commit crimes (which is the abstract figure comparable to conspiracy in that country or to the aforementioned "criminal association"), are also regulated in Costa Rica. The former, under the name of legitimization of capitales, is set forth in article 69 of the Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades Conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo No. 8204, as follows: [...]

"II.- [...] 1) Generalidades y principios del procedimiento especial. En primer lugar, debe reiterarse (como ya lo indicara la jueza de instancia) que el proceso de extradición, a diferencia del resto de procesos penales, no aborda el tema de fondo sino solo las garantías que rodean su juzgamiento en el Estado que pretende a una persona para verificar si la cooperación internacional que tiende a la entrega de quien es buscado por otro país —ya sea para ser juzgado o para ejecutar una sanción impuesta— es procedente o no. Sin embargo, esto no impide que deba analizarse, con mayor o menor profundidad, algunos temas probatorios, según el país de que se trate, los tratados con este rubricados, su sistema político-jurídico y el riesgo que pueda correr la persona derivado de la entrega, así como la solidez teórica del sistema de enjuiciamiento. En otras palabras, se busca establecer si, con la entrega al Estado requirente, este está en capacidad de satisfacer, o no, las garantías mínimas para el juzgamiento de la persona o, en caso de que haya sido sentenciada, si en tal acontecer se observaron aquellas y en la ejecución de la pena de igual manera se procedería de conformidad. Por ello, en estricto sentido, no aplican a este proceso las reglas de la sana crítica para el descarte de la autoría (como lo invoca la defensa) pues estas son propias de un sistema de valoración de los elementos de fondo y que no siempre son asumidas como válidas por todos los Estados, pues hay países en donde opera el juzgamiento en conciencia, mediante jurados o con reglas de tasación de ciertas pruebas y, aunque esos son sistemas distintos al nuestro, son igualmente válidos. En esa medida, un Estado no puede imponer a otro su sistema de juzgamiento, sino solo velar porque, cualquiera que este sea, respete reglas básicas de derechos y libertades públicas establecidas en tratados internacionales suscritos y ratificados tanto por el Estado requirente como por el requerido, así como los derechos mínimos vigentes en el país en que se da la detención de la persona solicitada. Ahora bien, en un proceso de extradición el Estado puede tener una posición activa o pasiva (según que este solicite a alguien fuera de sus fronteras u otro país le pida a quien esté ubicado en las suyas), la extradición puede darse de forma voluntaria-simplificada o forzosa (de acuerdo con la voluntariedad, o falta de ella, de la persona solicitada de trasladarse al país que la pretende), tratarse de una extradición requerida o espontánea (según que el Estado en donde se encuentra la persona la ofrezca a otro o a este se la pidan), entre otras modalidades (en tránsito, reextradición) que, por ahora, no son importantes para este asunto. De cada uno de esos tipos de extradición dependen las garantías y requisitos que deben verificarse. En este caso, a Costa Rica se le solicitó la entrega de un ciudadano mexicano que ha decidido someterse al trámite ordinario, por lo que nos encontramos ante una extradición pasiva, requerida y forzosa. En ese entendido, al momento de resolver la solicitud rigen algunos principios referidos, por ejemplo, a la legislación a aplicar y se analizan temas generales relativos a la jerarquía de las fuentes y al respeto de reglas básicas del Derecho Internacional Público, por ejemplo, los siguientes: [...]

[...] 3.4) En lo que a las previsiones legales de los hechos se refiere, rigen los principios de legalidad y de identidad de la norma o doble incriminación aludidos con amplitud en la primera parte de este considerando. Según estos preceptos la conducta deberá estar dentro de las que el tratado bilateral contempla, pero, además, debe ser delito tanto en el país requirente como en el requerido, tanto en el momento de la solicitud como de la entrega. En ese sentido, el Tratado entre el Gobierno de Costa Rica y el de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica recoge este precepto en los siguientes términos (en lo que aquí es de interés) que prevé el artículo 3: "Se concederá la extradición por cualquier delito extraditable, sin importar el lugar donde el hecho o los hechos que lo constituyan hayan sido cometidos" y, de seguido, en el artículo 4, puntúa cuáles son los delitos no susceptibles de extradición (los relacionados con persecución política, sea de naturaleza militar, etc. nada de lo cual se discute acá). De modo que todos los demás serían extraditables, de acuerdo con la jerarquía de las normas rige, siendo el límite mínimo de pena el año de prisión u otra sanción más severa para el primer delito pues, si junto a este hay otros con sanciones menores, el tratado sí posibilita su entrega y juzgamiento si solo ese es el requisito faltante, como ya se explicó. En cualquier caso, el delito de blanqueo o legitimación de capitales o lavado de dinero (lavado de instrumentos monetarios, según la solicitud formal y la orden de arresto) está sancionado en el Título 21, secciones 1956 (a) (1) (B) (i) y 1956 (h) del Código de los Estados Unidos: “Sección 1956 del título 18 del Código de los Estados Unidos Lavado de instrumentos monetarios (a)(1) Quien quiera que, sabiendo que los bienes involucrados en una transacción representan las ganancias de algún tipo de actividad ilegal, lleva a cabo o transacción financiera tal que, de hecho, implica las ganancias de la actividad ilegal especificada: (B) sabiendo que la transacción está diseñada en su totalidad o en parte (i) para ocultar o encubrir la naturaleza, la ubicación, la fuente de control de las ganancias de la actividad ilegal especificada será sentenciado a [...] prisión por no más de veinte años [...] (h) Cualquier persona que se una en una asociación delictuosa para cometer un delito definido en esta sección o en la sección 1957 estará sujeta a las mismas sanciones que las prescritas para el delito cuya comisión fue el objeto de la asociación delictuosa” Una de las actividades ilegales en dicho país es el tráfico de drogas o estupefacientes sancionado en la Sección 841 del Título 21 del Código de los Estados Unidos con pena de prisión que no podrá ser inferior a 10 años ni superior a cadena perpetua. Ese, tanto como el de asociación ilícita para delinquir (que es la figura abstracta equiparable a la conspiración en aquel país o a la antes mencionada “asociación delictuosa”), están normados también en Costa Rica. El primero, bajo el nombre de legitimación de capitales está previsto en el numeral 69 de la Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades Conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo No. 8204,de la siguiente forma: [...]"