Extradition of alien from Sweden to USA due to multiple offenses. No finding of inhuman or degrading treatment
JUDGMENT
Bijan Balahan v. Sweden 29.06.2023 (app. no. 9839/22)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the authorities’ decision to extradite Mr Bijan Balahan from Sweden to the US.
He is wanted in California on suspicion of aggravated mayhem, torture, inducing false testimony,
dissuading a witness after a prior conviction, and grand theft, all allegedly committed in 2020. The
Swedish Supreme Court had found that extraditing the applicant would not be contrary to the
Convention.
The Court found in particular that Mr Bijan Balahan had failed to make out his arguments that he
would risk either a de jure or a de facto life sentence without parole if extradited, or that the
sentence he might receive would be grossly disproportionate. The Court held that he at most risked
a life sentence with parole and that he had not shown that there was a real risk that he, as he
alleged, would have to serve a minimum term of 61 years before being eligible for parole. It also
noted the seriousness of the accusations against Mr Bijan Balahan in dismissing the argument that
the sentence would be grossly disproportionate.
The Court also indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it was desirable
in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicant until such
time as the present judgment became final or until further notice.
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Patrick Bijan Balahan, is a dual national of Iran and the United States of America who
was born in 1993. He is currently in detention in Sweden.
In May 2020 Mr Bijan Balahan was arrested in the US on suspicion of cutting a person over 30 times
with a knife and other related crimes. He was released on bail pending his trial, but did not appear
for his trial date, apparently having left the US.
In June 2021 the US Department of Justice requested his extradition from Sweden to the US for trial
on one count each of aggravated mayhem, torture, inducing false testimony, dissuading a witness
after a prior conviction, and grand theft, following a warrant issued in Los Angeles County. In
December of that year the Supreme Court of Sweden held, among other findings, that Mr Bijan
Balahan’s extradition to the US would not be contrary to the Convention.
The Swedish Government decided to extradite Mr Bijan Balahan for trial for torture and grand theft,
and part of the charge of aggravated mayhem. The Court indicated an interim measure in the case,
requesting that extradition be delayed.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3
Mr Bijan Balahan argued that if he were convicted, he would receive either a life sentence without
parole or a de facto life sentence without parole, because he would have to serve a minimum term
of 61 years before being eligible for parole, which would exceed his life expectancy. The Court
however was satisfied that Mr Bijan Balahan would not risk a life sentence without parole if
extradited to the US, since he at most faced the prospect of a life sentence with parole.
The Court was also not convinced by Mr Bijan Balahan’s argument that he would have to wait so
long to become eligible for parole. There was in fact significant uncertainty as to the length of the
minimum term he might receive. In particular, prosecutors and judges had discretion in how the
“Three Strikes Law” would be applied. Were it not applied, the minimum term would be 17 years.
The Court concluded that Mr Bijan Balahan had not shown that there was a real risk that he would
receive either a de jure or a de facto life sentence without parole if extradited.
Concerning Mr Bijan Balahan’s argument that he would receive a grossly disproportionate sentence
in the US, the Court reiterated that “gross disproportionality” is a strict test that will only be met on
rare and unique occasions. It noted the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant and
reiterated that the argument had not been made out that Mr Bijan Balahan risked life imprisonment
without parole if extradited. It therefore dismissed the argument that the sentence would be grossly
disproportionate.
In summary, the Court held that if Mr Bijan Balahan were extradited to the US, it would not be a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Rule 39
The Court indicated to the Government that it was desirable not to extradite the applicant until such
time as the present judgment became final.
Separate opinion
Judge Wojtyczek expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.
