Kendelse
UDSKRIFT
AF
HØJESTERETS ANKE- OG KÆREMÅLSUDVALGS DOMBOG
HØJESTERETS KENDELSE
afsagt tirsdag den 13. august 2024
Sag 7/2024
Anklagemyndigheden
mod
Udlænding
(advokat Eddie Omar Rosenberg Khawaja, beskikket)
I tidligere instanser er afsagt kendelse af Retten på Frederiksberg den 20. september 2023 (2681/2023) og af Østre Landsrets 16. afdeling den 6. november 2023 (S-2609-23).
I påkendelsen har deltaget tre dommere: Oliver Talevski, Lars Apostoli og Kristian Korfits Nielsen.
Påstande
Udlænding har nedlagt påstand om stadfæstelse af byrettens kendelse om ikke at tage anmodningen om udlevering af ham til strafforfølgning i Moldova til følge.
Anklagemyndigheden har påstået stadfæstelse af landsrettens kendelse om, at Udlænding skal udleveres til strafforfølgning i Moldova.
Sagsfremstilling
Udlænding indrejste i Danmark den 19. eller 20. september 2022. Den 5. december 2022 blev Udlænding antruffet i Danmark af politiet, som blev opmærksom på, at Udlænding var internationalt efterlyst af Moldova. Som følge heraf blev han anholdt og den efterfølgende dag fremstillet i grundlovsforhør ved Retten på Frederiksberg, hvor han blev varetægtsfængslet.
- 2 -
Den 13. december 2022 gennemførtes en afhøring af Udlænding i arresten i Vestre Fængsel til belysning af hans personlige forhold. Udlænding forklarede efter det op-lyste følgende:
”Afhørte forklarede at han ikke havde nogle problemer i Moldova, udover at han var blevet dømt til 14 års fængsel for noget han ikke havde begået. Afhørte forklarede at der i 2020 skete en tragedie i Soroca hvor en tidligere politimand døde, og at det var afhørte som blev gjort til syndebuk. Afhørte forklarede at der ikke var noget retfærdighed til-stede i Moldova, og afhørte vidste fra start, at han ikke ville få en retfærdig rettergang. Afhørte forklarede at han blev fængslet og efter mange måneder overført til husarrest. Her blev han konstant overvåget og chikaneret af gamle venner til afdøde. Inden sagen var afgjort blev afhørte bedt om at betale 120.000 euro til afdødes familie. Afhørte for-klarede at han ikke havde så mange penge, han havde heller ikke tænkt sig at betale, da han ikke var skyldig i det som var sket. Afhørte forklarede at han ikke var fysisk tilstede i retten i Soroca den dag dommen faldt, han oplyste at han valgte ikke at møde op, da der ikke var retfærdighed tilstede.
Afhørte forklarede at han ville modsætte sig udlevering til Moldova. Han forklarede at han ikke kunne tage tilbage dertil, da han ville blive slået ihjel af pårørende/familie til den afdøde. Den afdøde havde mange venner i politistyrken i Moldova og nye forbin-delser til mafiaen i Moldova. Han var blevet for fulgt og chikaneret af disse mennesker under sin husarrest. Afhørte forklarede at han ikke ville overleve at blive sendt retur, han var overbevist om at han vill e blive slået ihjel i Moldova”
Den 29. december 2022 anmodede de moldoviske myndigheder om udlevering af Udlænding til strafforfølgning. Af det vedlagte anklageskrift af 22. januar 2021 fremgik, at Udlænding var tiltalt for hooliganisme og forsætlig vold med døden til følge ved den 4. november 2020 at have tildelt to forskellige personer et slag i ansigtet med knyttet hånd, hvorved den ene pådrog sig hævelse, et blåt øje samt en hævet og blødende underlæbe. Den anden faldt og pådrog sig alvorlige skader og afgik senere ved døden. Af den vedlagte dom af 29. april 2022 afsagt af Distriktsretten i Sorrocca i Moldova i 1. instans fremgik, at Udlænding blev idømt 14 års fængsel for overtrædelse af den moldoviske straffelovs artikel 151, stk. 4. Retten lagde i sin afgørelse vedrørende skyldsspørgsmålet navnlig vægt på vidne-forklaringerne samt de retsmedicinske erklæringer. For så vidt angår hooliganisme traf retten afgørelse om, at strafforfølgningen blev afsluttet i henhold til amnestilov af 24. december 2021.
Som følge heraf indledte Rigsadvokaten en udleveringssag. Ved brev af 30. december 2022 anmodede Rigsadvokaten de moldoviske myndigheder om oplysninger om, hvilke forhold Udlænding ville blive undergivet under varetægtsfængsling og afsoning, såfremt han måtte blive udleveret til Moldova. Af brevet til de moldoviske myndigheder fremgik bl.a.:
- 3 -
“2. In the assessment of the Moldova n request for extradition the Danish authorities takes into account all available information in the request and publicly available infor-mation, including CPT-report to the Republic of Moldova dated 15 September 2020.
Against this background, the Director of Public Prosecutions finds it necessary to re-quest supplementary information, and therefore kindly requests the Moldovan authori-ties to provide the following information:
1)Information about the current status in Moldovan prisons regarding the problems with overcrowding, physical ill-treatment and inter-prisoner violence and inti-midation as described in CPT-report to the Republic of Moldova dated 15 Sep-tember 2020.
2)Information about in which prison Udlænding will serve the sentence and the current information about these facilities under which he will be impris-oned:
a) square metres of personal space in the cell
b) the possibility of physical activity and rec-reation
c) access to natural light, ventilation and heating,
d) overcrowding,
e) sanitary facilities, hygiene, and
f) medical treatment and control of medical health.
3)A specific guarantee that Udlænding, if surrendered to Moldova, will not be exposed to prison conditions that are in breach of Article 3 of the Europe-an Convention on Human Rights. ”
Rigsadvokaten har ved brev dateret den 10. januar 2023 modtaget en udtalelse fra Justitsmini-steriet i Moldova. Ministeriet henviste i sin udtalelse til en vedlagt garanti af 4. januar 2023 udstedt af ”The National Administration of Penitentiaries” . Endvidere oplyste ministeriet bl.a., at dommen af 29. april 2023 afsagt af Retten i Sorocca af Udlænding er anket til Appelretten i Bălţi.
Det fremgår af den vedlagte garanti, at såfremt Udlænding udleveres til Moldova, vil han kortvarigt blive indsat i fængsel nr. 13 i Chi ş in ă u, hvor han garanteres et personligt rum på mindst 4 m2. Eventuel afsoning vil skulle ske i fængsel nr. 3 i Leova, hvor han garanteres et personligt rum på mindst 4 m2. Om forholdene i de to fængsler fremgår bl.a.:
“The detention regime in the given institution pr esupposes the detention of persons in rooms completely insulated, which are permanently locked. Detainees are detained in the common cells of the criminal detention facility, in compliance with the main re-quirements of the detention regime on the isolation, guarding and permanent supervi-sion of detainees, as well as the rules of separate detention.
- 4 -
The following detention cells / spaces have been identified in the above-mentioned penitentiary institution, which guarantee the assurance of the detention conditions as fol-lows: Regime block no. I, cells no. 10; 11; 12; 93; 96; 98; 103, Regime block no. Ill, cells no. 106; 106A; 110; 111; 112; 113; 114; 114A; 127; 133; 137; 141; 156; 157; sa-lons no. 06; 07; 08; 09; 10; 13; 15; 18; 19; 20.
With reference to the request of the Danish party regarding the problems of overcrow-ding, we inform that, given the fact that the Penitentiary No. 13-Chisinau is still over-crowded, the premises identified as state guarantees in case of possible extradition from abroad, will ensure adequate conditions of detention with respect to a minimum of 4 m2 of detention excluding the area occupied by annexes / sanitary block. In this regard, in the event of Udlændings possible extradition and placement in Penitentiary No. 13-Chisinau, he will be detained in one of the identified premises that have been presented as State guarantees, both alone and jointly with other detainees, provided that this will not endanger his safety.
All the specified spaces were subjected to the capital repair, which consisted of chang-ing the windows, bars, separating the sanitary installations through a wall to the ceiling and installing the door, plastering the walls, ceiling and floors, drawing the engineering networks (electricity, sewerage, aqueduct and supply with thermal agent), endowment with new furniture. Ventilation and airiness are pro-vided through the windows of the cell, as well as through the window above the front door. The institution has autono-mous heating, which ensures the heating of the rooms during the cold period of the year, so that the temperature in the detention areas is on average 19 °C - 22 °C.
Subsequently, within 15 days from the receipt of the enforcement order, the citizen Udlænding will be transferred to Penitentiary no. 3-Leova in order to serve the criminal sentence of deprivation of liberty.
Thus, following the evaluation of the detention conditions in Penitentiary no. 3-Leova, the following detention facilities have been identified that meet the requirements for the acceptance of extraditions, as follows:
Detention cells / spaces in which one person can be ac-accommodated - Sector no. 4 (new block) (cells 36; 40; 42; 50; 56; 60; 62; 68; 70; 76; 80; 82; 88)
Detention cells / spaces where 2 to 4 people can be ac-accommodated - Sector no. 4 (new block) (cells 33-35; 37-39; 41; 43-49; 51-55; 57-59; 61; 63-67; 69; 71-75; 77-79; 81; 83-87).
The spaces identified in Penitentiary no. 3-Leova, which are presented as state guaran-tees in case of possible extraditions from abroad, are located in a new detention block, recently put into operation; the conditions of detention correspond to the minimal norms.
It is worth mentioning that in all the spaces indicated above, the extradited person will be detained in one of the identified cells, which will provide at least 4 square meters excluding the area occupied by annexes / sanitary block and will be able to move freely around the furniture. Any cell occupied by the extradited person during detention will have light provided both naturally, by means of win-dows, which correspond to the statutory norms (1.2x0.9 m) and artificially from the basic lighting system powered by the 220V mains network, mattress and clean beds, without pests. The extradited person
- 5 -
will have outdoor activities for at least one hour a day, the duration of the walks is de-termined by the administration of the place of detention taking into account the daily schedule, weather conditions, completion limit and other circumstances, which are car-ried out in a specially arranged place on the territory of the penitentiary and are orga-nized according to a mobile schedule. Likewise, until the distribution in the cell, the in-stitution will ensure that it is equipped with all the provided inventory items. The extra-dited person will also be given the opportunity to meet their physiological needs in clean and decent conditions, the toilets being separated from the rest of the room by a wall up to the ceiling and door. At the same time, the extradited person will be provided with the possibility to take a bath or shower, at acceptable temperatures, whenever it re-quires general hygiene, but not less than once a week. The extradited person will have the right to wear his / her own clothes, provided that a decent and clean appearance is ensured. If he / she does not have his / her own clothes, depending on the season or suf-ficient financial means, the administration of the
penitentiary will provide him / her with clothes free of charge. At the same time, the ex-tradited person will be provided with a bed and sheets, which are changed at least once a week.
At the same time, we inform that the National Administration of Penitentiaries reserves the right to transfer the prisoner to other penitentiary institutions for short periods of time in case it will be necessary for the prisoner to participate in procedural actions, which cannot be carried out in his absence or by videoconference.
…
The convicts are provided with hot food at the expense of the state budget, 3 times a day, in compliance with the minimum norms established by the Government.
…
The extradited person will receive free medical care and medicines in the volume estab-lished for the civil sector. Free medical assistance is provided in the medical unit of the penitentiary institution after prior registration and according to a schedule approved by the director of the penitentiary, except emergencies. The extradited person receives therapeutic, surgical, psychiatric, gynaecological and dental assistance. He / she can al-so benefit from the services of a private doctor on his / her own. Pursuant to the deci-sion of the specialized medical commission, per-sons suffering from tuberculosis, vene-real diseases, alco-holism, and drug abuse or drug addiction are subject to compulsory treatment. In case of a serious illness or the finding that the extradited person has been subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or other ill-treatment, the administration of the penitentiary shall also inform the family or other persons close to the detainee of this fact.
…
With reference to the request of the Danish party for information concerning the situa-tion with regard to the problems of ill-treatment, violence and intimidation among de-tainees described in the CPT report to the Republic of Moldova, we inform you that:
-…
-In order to improve the quality of video documentation of incidents taking place in penitentiary institutions, by order of the Director of the National Ad-ministration of Penitentiaries No 616 of 28.12.2021 was approved the "Regula-
- 6 -
tion on the organization and operation of the portable video surveillance system "Body camera". According to the provisions of the given regulation, video re-cordings are mandatory started when the employee enters in contact with the de-tained persons until the end of the communication, and the term of retention of recordings is 180 days. However, the period may be extended in the event of a work-related investigation, at the request of the criminal prosecution body, pro-secutor or judge. Similarly, during 2021, all penitentiary institutions under the National Administration of Penitentiaries were subject to an evaluation of the functionality of the stationary video surveillance system (CCTV). As a result of the evaluation, recommendations were made on making the operation of video systems in prisons more efficient, replacing surveil-lance and storage equipment.
At the same time, the extradited person will be provided and ensured a reasonable pro-tection against violence and negative influence from behalf of the non-formal leaders. In this regard, the prison staff will take several measures, as follows:
-detention separately from convicted persons who have previously served their prison sentences and who have a criminal record not extinguished;
-detention separately of those sentenced to life imprisonment;
-ensuring personal security at his/her request or ex officio, according to the provi-sions of art. 206 of the Enforcement Code;
-placement in the cell with other detainees is carried out together with the evalua-tion of the compatibility of the detainees and the reduction of the risks of vio-lence.
-permanent supervision of the behaviour of convicts both during the day and at night;
-movement outside the cell during the day from waking up to sleep will be car-ried out controlled both by physical accompaniment from the employees and by video monitoring of the common access spaces for the detainees;
-participation in group, recreational activities take place in the presence of the employees of the penitentiary institution or video surveillance of the spaces in which it takes place.
-carrying out planned and unannounced search measures to detect and seize pro-hibited objects that could be used by other convicts to commit acts of violence;
-carrying out special investigation activities aimed to prevent acts of violence be-tween convicts;
-in case of an incident, the immediate separation of the aggressor from the victim.
- 7 -
We also inform you that, in case Udlænding will be detained jointly with other detainees, and in the course of detention will be subject to acts of violence by one or more detainees with whom he is detained jointly, the person/persons who committed the acts of violence will be removed from the cell and placed in other detention facilities.
In case of receipt of a written request from the detainee Udlænding for his re-moval from the cell where the persons deprived of liberty who committed the acts of vi-olence are held and placement in another cell where he will be detained alone or jointly with other persons deprived of liberty, he will be transferred to another cell, according to his request.
…
It is worth mentioning that in 2021, in a working group at the level of the NAP, the situ-ation regarding the conditions of detention in all penitentiary institutions was analysed, and a separate detention sector was identified in Penitentiary No. 3-Leova that meets the requirements for accepting extraditions. Similarly, cells have been identified within Penitentiary No. l3-Chisinau which are repaired and adequately equipped. Within the same group, in order to ensure that the guarantees presented in the case of all ex-traditions are respected, at the level of the National Administration of Penitentiaries by the order of the Director No. 553 of 07.12.2021, the "Procedure for the reception of Moldovan citizens extradited from partner states to the Republic of Moldova for deten-tion in penitentiary institutions, based on the guarantees presented by the national au-thorities" was approved. The document aims to regulate all actions of employees and processes to which the person to be extradited on the basis of guarantees is subject at all stages of detention in penitentiary institutions of the Republic of Moldova.
…”
På baggrund heraf fandt Rigsadvokaten, at betingelserne for udlevering var opfyldt, hvorfor Rigsadvokaten den 24. februar 2023 indbragte sagen i medfør af udleveringslovens § 35, stk. 1, for Retten på Frederiksberg med indstilling om, at retten traf afgørelse om udlevering af Udlænding til de moldoviske myndigheder til strafforfølgning. Under udleveringssa-gens behandling i Retten på Frederiksberg forklarede Udlænding bl.a. følgende:
”Han kender god t til fængsel nr. 13 i Chisinau. Det er værre end det, han sad i. Det er hovedfængslet. De fotos, der er i hans moldoviske forsvarsadvokats redegørelse, er så-dan, det er. Han ved godt, hvad han i givet fald vil blive sendt til. De gode celler er til rige mennesker eller politibetjente. Han har ingen forbindelser til at skaffe sig sådanne forhold under varetægtsfængsling eller afsoning. Han vil gerne afsone i andre lande, hvis han skal straffes, men ikke i Moldova.
Han mener ikke, at han har mulighed for en retfærdig rettergang i det moldoviske rets-system. Selve dommeren, der førte sagen, truede ham. Han kunne ikke få lov til at for-tælle sin version af sagen. Hans forsvarsadvokat gjorde, hvad han kunne, men alt blev afvist.
Han tror ikke på en retfærdig rettergang i anken. De fem involverede personer i sagen har nogen, der beskytter dem. De ved godt, at han er uskyldig. De har aftalt med højere instanser, højere placerede mennesker, at han skulle have skylden for drabet. Han hand-
- 8 -
lede i selvforsvar. Det får man ikke 14 år for. Men han tror ikke, at det er muligt, at straffen vil blive nedsat ved appeldomstolen. Hans advokat blev afbrudt, når advokaten forsøgte at stille spørgsmål til vidnerne.
…
Fængsel nr. 3, Leova, har han hørt om. Han ønsker ikke at afsone der. Det har han ikke tillid til. Han er bange for det. Han er bl.a. bange for, at de personer, han taler om, har forbindelser. Der er mange, der bliver slået ihjel i fængslerne. Det er ikke muligt at blive ordentligt beskyttet i fængslerne. Han tror ikke, der findes et andet land som Moldova. Andre kan ikke forestille sig, hvor slemt det er.
…
De ustabile politiske forhold i Moldova vil indvirke negativt på afsoningsforholdene og-så. De er tæt på krigen i Ukraine. Han kan ikke se en fremtid, hvis han skal afsone 14 år i Moldova.
…
Han ønsker at tilføje, at han kom til Danmark for at søge retfærdighed og for at opnå beskyttelse fra dem, der vil slå ham ihjel i Moldova. Han kan godt forstå, hvis de ting, han siger, lyder utrolige, men forholdene er helt anderledes i Moldova, end de er her.
Hans forsvarer fik kun en times varsel til retsmødet ved appeldomstolen, så hun ikke kunne deltage. Det gjorde de med vilje. Han har ikke nogen rettigheder. Han nægtede at tage en anden advokat end sin forsvarsadvokat, men fik at vide, at han ikke havde nogen rettigheder.
Det har været svært for ham at bevise, at han er uskyldig.”
Ved kendelse af 20. september 2023 traf Retten på Frederiksberg afgørelse om, at Udlænding ikke skulle udleveres til strafforfølgning i Moldova. I kendelsen hedder det bl.a.:
”Rettens begrundelse og resultat
…
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt udlevering vil være i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2 (Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3)
I “Amnesty International Report 2022/23 THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S HUMAN RIGHTS” , s. 254, er om Moldova bl.a. anført:
“No visible progress was made in reducing instances of torture and other ill-treatment in detention.”
Af rapportens s. 255 fremgår endvidere:
“No visible progress was made in addressing i nstitutional causes of torture and other ill- treatment in detention. Overcrowding, unsanitary and other-wise inadequate detention conditions and poor health provision remained common in adult, juvenile and mixed penitentiary institutions.”
- 9 -
Af “U.S. Depart ment of State 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mol-dova” fremgår på s. 5 bl.a.:
“Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Conditions in most prisons and detention centers remained harsh, due to overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of privacy, insufficient or no access to outdoor exercise, and a lack of facilities for persons with disabilities. In a June statement on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International Mol-dova, Promo-Lex, and the Legal Resources Center, stated that detention conditions in the country, particularly at Penitentiary No. 13 in Chisinau, did not meet minimum standards to prevent and combat torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Af “COMMUNICA TION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PAR-LIAMENT, THE EUROPE-AN COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL - Commission Opin-ion on the Republic of Moldova’s application for membership of the European Union” af 17. juni 2022 fremgår på s. 9 bl.a.:
“More needs to be done c oncerning the right to fair trial and the adequate investigation and prosecutions of acts of ill treatment.
People deprived of their liberty do not enjoy all the fundamental legal safe-guards from the outset of their detention. The inadequate investigation of al-leged cases of illtreatment leads to a sentiment of impunity. Conditions in places of detention and pretrial detention remain below international stand-ards, notably due to overcrowding of prison facilities, lack of effective med-ical service or use of lengthy solitary confinement as a disciplinary meas-ure.”
Af “Report to the Moldovan Government on the ad hoc visit to the Republic of Moldo -va carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 13 Dece mber 2022” fremgår bl.a.:
(s. 3) “[...] it is regrettable that many key recommendations repeatedly made by the CPT in previous visit reports remain unimplemented. This concerns in particular recommendations related to the phenomenon of informal pris-oner hierarchy and the resulting inter-prisoner violence and intimidation, to the poor material conditions for the majority of persons held in prison, the poor regime of activities offered to incarcerated persons and the low staffing levels in prisons insufficient to effectively control the establishments. [...]
Once again, a high number of persons held in prison described to the dele-gation the overall atmosphere of intimidation and violence created by the in-formal prison leaders and their close circles. The documentation examined by the delegation again registered numerous cases of persons held in prison who were found with injuries indicative of interprisoner violence. Due to the atmosphere of fear and the lack of trust in the staffs ability to guarantee safety, persons found by staff with injuries refused to provide a plausible explanation as to the origin of their injuries. Moreover, although all cases of
- 10 -
inmates bearing injuries were registered and reported to the prosecutor’s of -fice, in none of the cases was an investigation initiated.
[...]
Once again, the delegation received many complaints of frequent verbal abuse, systematic demeaning behaviour by other persons held in prison and threats of physical violence. As already stressed in previous visit reports, the CPT considers that their situation could be considered to constitute a con-tinuing violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
(s. 4) “Material conditions in the establishments visited in general were poor, many cells/dormitories being dilapidated, dirty and poorly equipped. Although the prison system operated below its official capacity, the delega-tion again observed overcrowding in a number of cells and dormitories at Chisinau and Cricova Prisons.
[…]
Further, the delegation observed a strikingly uneven distribution of prison-ers within the establishments visited, a situation closely linked with the phe-nomenon of informal prisoner hierarchy; certain privileged prisoners were dwelling in spacious rooms or even small flats consisting of several rooms, with abundant equipment. The CPT recommends, inter alia, that prisoners be fairly distributed in cells/dormitories and be provided at least 4 m2 of liv-ing space per person, and that all cells/dormitories be kept in adequate state of repair and hygiene and be suitably equipped.
[...]
The situation was even more problematic for adult remand prisoners at Chisinau Prison who continued to be locked up in their cells for up to 23 hours per day, without being offered any out-of-cell activities, apart from one or, at bes t, two hours of daily outdoor exercise”
(s. 5) “E ver since its first visit to Moldova in 1998, interprisoner violence and intimidation in prisons has been a matter of grave concern to the CPT. Most recently, during the January/February 2020 visit, the CPT found that this issue remained as serious as ever among the adult male inmate popula-tion and was, as in the past, largely linked to the wellestablished informal hierarchies amongst prisoners in the country’s pri son system.”
(s. 6) “As was alre ady stated in the reports on the 2015, 2018 and 2020 vis-its [ …] the CPT once again calls up on the Moldovan authorities to take de-cisive action to address the longstanding recommendations made by the Committee,”
(s. 8) “A lthough the prison system as a whole and most prison establish-ments operated below their official capacity (the most notable exception be-ing Prison no. 13 in Chisinau (see paragraph 15)), the delegation again ob-served overcrowding in a number of cells and dormitories in the prisons vi-
- 11 -
sited, in particular at Chisinau and Cricova Prisons. This was at least partial-ly caused by a strikingly uneven distribution of prisoners within the estab-lishments, a situation closely linked with the phenomenon of informal pris-oner hierarchy [...]”
(s. 10) “Chisinau Prison has been visited by the CPT several times in the past, most recently during the 2020 visit. The detention area consists of three interconnected blocks accommodating men and a separate block for women. At the time of the visit, this remand prison was accommodating 816 persons: 632 held on remand (including 29 women and 15 male juveniles) and 184 sentenced (including two women who worked in the establishment and eight who have been temporarily transferred therein).
[…]
In the past, the official capacity of the establishment (based on the require-ment of 4 m2 of living space per person) had been 570 places and would have been exceeded by more than 40% at the time of the visit. However, it was recalculated to 818 places, based on a decreased norm for living space of 3 m2. This decreased norm only applied at Chisinau Prison.
After the visit, the Moldovan authorities informed the CPT that the official capacity of the establishment has again decreased to 570 places. This, how-ever, was not accompanied by a decrease in the prison population and the establishment was accommodating 843 persons as of 27 March 2023, thus remaining the most overcrowd ed prison in the country [ ...].”
(s. 12) “As already observed during previous visits, the delegation noted in the establishments visited during the 2022 visit that persons who refused to submit to the informal prisoner hierarchy and abide by its rules were segre-gated, upon their request, under Section 206 of the Enforcement Code. In the past, the Moldovan authorities presented this possibility as a measure to protect prisoners from threats and violence.
However, [...], this measure, as implemented at the time of the visit, cannot be regarded as an efficient solution and the findings of the visit clearly show that interprisoner violence and intimidation among the male adult prison population remains largely unaddressed, prisons still generally fail to ensure a safe environment for incarcerated persons and several recommendations made by the CPT have not be en implemented.”
(s. 15) “At Chisinau Prison, despite the assurances provided to the delega-tion by the management that persons accused or convicted of sex offences (who are typically regarded as “humiliated”) were accommodated in dedi-cated cells and were separated from the general prison population, detailed examination of the lists of persons held in the establishment clearly showed that these persons were in fact not grouped together but accommodated one or two per cell, in amongst the general prison population, regardless of their specific vulnerability, and were thus exposed to a particularly high risk of be ing assaulted and exploited by other persons held in the same cells.”
- 12 -
(s. 16) “Moreover, informal prison leaders apparently became easily aware of requests for protection which were lodged with staff, swiftly gained ac-cess to persons requesting this measure and tried to pressure them to with-draw their requests.
[…]
Furthermore, it is a matter of particular concern that in all three establish-ments visited, segregated persons were subjected to very impoverished re-gimes for prolonged periods of time (that is, for months and, in a number of cases, years on end) – they were locked up in their cells for 22 or 23 hours per day, with nothing to do except read and, for some of them, watch TV. These persons were thus de facto punished for requesting protection from the informal prisoner hierarchy.”
(s. 17) “At Chisinau Prison, eight to nine members of custodial st aff were in a 24-hour shift every day and were reinforced from Monday to Friday be-tween 08:00 and 17:00 by 50 to 60 staff members who were deployed in de-tention areas. Most strikingly, at Cricova Prison, only five members of cus-todial staff were deployed in detention areas at any given time and worked in a 24- hour shift. It therefore continued to be the case that staff were not in a position to have effective control over the situation in the establishments visited and could neither be aware of, nor effectively intervene in instances of interpri soner violence.”
(s. 20) “The CPT noted the continuing efforts to carry ou t maintenance works at Chisinau Prison and to improve material conditions. According to the management, repairs had been done in approximately 120 to 130 (of 170) cells. This concerned in particular increasing the size of cell windows, partitioning of incell sanitary annexes, provision of new beds and white-washing the walls, most notably in the cells accommodating women. Fur-ther, between 2020 and 2021, the medical unit and the kitchen for persons held in prison were refurbished and two cells in the vicinity of the medical unit were adapted for persons with physical disabilities.
Despite these efforts, material conditions in the establishment remained poor, many cells still being dilapidated, dirty and poorly ventilated. The equipment in the cells was usually limited to beds and a table but there were normally no chairs, the storage space was insufficient and there were no call bells. In several multi-pleoccupancy cells, the incell sanitary facilities were in a poor state of repair and hygiene and were only partially partitioned.
Several complaints were heard about infestation with insects and rats.
Moreover, many cells were overcrowded, providing only between 2 and 3 m2 (and sometimes less than 2 m2) of living space per person. The situation in a number of other cells would be equally problematic if all available beds therein were occupied.
Particular reference should be made to several cells located in the basement of Block 2. In addition to displaying most of the aforementioned deficien-cies, these cells were very narrow (approximately 1.7 m between opposite walls) and had virtually no access to natural light. During the 2020 visit, the
- 13 -
CPT had requested that these cells either be enlarged, with a view to ensur-ing that there is a distance of at least two metres between the opposite walls, or withdrawn from service. Al though these cells were not occupied at the time of the 2022 visit, it became clear that they had been used until shortly prior to the visit and were also accommodating persons segregated under Section 206 of the Enforcement Code. Pending the entry into service of the new prison (see paragraph 12), the CPT once again recommends that the Moldovan authorities pursue their efforts to improve material conditions of detention in the current premises of Prison no. 13 in Ch isinau.”
(s. 22) “certain privileged prisoners were dwelling in spacious rooms or even small flats consisting of several rooms. Some of them were equipped with large double beds, sofas and armchairs, lockers, mirrors, kitchenettes with multidrawer fridges, coffee machines and microwave ovens, large flat screen televisions, video game consoles, stereo systems with floor standing speakers, private sports equipment, washing machines and private sanitary facilities containing a sitting toilet, a shower and a hotwater boiler. They were decorated with carpets on the floor and paintings on the walls and con-tained large fish tanks.
[...]
The CPT recommends that the Moldovan authorities take steps to ensure that all persons held in prison are treated equally and benefit from similar material conditions.
[...]
Persons held in the three prisons visited were neither provided with personal hygiene items (with the exception, in some cases, of a small piece of a soap), nor with cleaning products to keep their cells/dormitories and sanitary facilities in a reasonable state of hygiene. The CPT reiterates its recommen-dation that steps be taken in the prisons visited (and, as appropriate, in other prisons in Moldova) to ensure that incarcerated persons are provided free of charge with adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products (in-cluding sanitary towels for women) and cleaning products.”
(s. 23) “[...] at the time of the visit, the programme of regime activities of-fered to many prisoners remained impoverished.
This concerns in particular the situation of adult remand prisoners at Chis-inau Prison. Despite the recommendations repeatedly made in previous visit reports, the vast majority of these persons continued to be locked up in their cells for up to 23 hours per day, without being offered any out-of-cell activi-ties, apart from one or, at best, two hours of daily outdoor exercise, taken in small and dilapi dated yards.” (s. 23)
Indholdet af de seneste rapporter og tidligere rapporter, samt praksis fra Den Europæ-iske Menneskerettighedsdomstol, viser således entydigt, at de igennem en meget lang årrække stærkt kritisable forhold i Moldovas fængselsvæsen, der ikke lever op til krave-ne i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3, ikke ændrer sig til det bedre.
- 14 -
Der må i denne forbindelse lægges betydelig vægt på, at den seneste CPT-rapport er ba-seret på et uanmeldt ad hoc-besøg, og at det i rapporten gentagne gange påpeges, at tid-ligere løfter om forbedringer af forholdene ikke er blevet honoreret.
Herefter – og i øvrigt i betragtning af det i CPT-rapporten anførte om den korrupte og retsstridige forskelsbehandling (jf. herved bl.a. Den Europæiske Menneskerettigheds-konventions artikel 14 og Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 13. de-cember 2011 i sagen Laduna v. Slovakia) af indsatte i de moldoviske fængsler, alt efter disses økonomiske forhold eller personlige forbindelser – finder retten ikke, at oplys-ningerne fra Justitsministeriet i Moldova kan lægges til grund og udgøre en tilstrækkelig garanti for, at Udlændings rettigheder efter Den Europæiske Menneskerettig-hedskonventions artikel 3 og artikel 3, og eventuelt artikel 8, sammenholdt med artikel 14, vil være sikret ved hans varetægtsfængsling og eventuel sidenhen afsoning i Moldo-va.
Retten finder det således ikke på den anførte baggrund plausibelt, at Udlænding gennem en længerevarig varetægtsfængsling, henholdsvis afsoning, i op til mere end 12 år, vil være garanteret en bedre behandling, end den generelle norm og den be-handling, han ellers ville have fået, blot fordi han har unddraget sig retsforfølgning i Moldova ved at flygte til Danmark og herefter er blevet udleveret.
Baseret på det i øvrigt oplyste om Moldovas rets- og fængselsvæsen finder retten såle-des at kunne se bort fra, at fanger, der tidligere er flygtet fra strafforfølgning eller afso-ning i Moldova til et andet sted i Europa, skulle være garanteret en særlig lempelig be-handling i overensstemmelse med Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions ar-tikel 3, som "belønning" for deres unddragelse. Noget sådant er da heller ikke beskrevet i den seneste CPT-rapport, hvorefter de eneste fanger, der nyder særlige privilegier, er økonomisk stærke fanger med forbindelserne i orden.
Det er derimod understreget i rapporten (s. 3), at:
“The cooperation received by th e delegation throughout the visit, both from the national authorities and staff in the establishments visited, was excellent. However, the principle of cooperation is not limited to facilitating the work of a visiting delegation but also requires that decisive action is taken to en-sure that recommendations made by the Committee are effectively imple-mented in practice. Although the CPT noted progress in certain areas, it is regrettable that many key recommendations repeatedly made by the CPT in previous visit reports remain unimplemented. This concerns in particular recommendations related to the phenomenon of informal prisoner hierarchy and the resulting inter-prisoner violence and intimidation, to the poor mate-rial conditions for the majority of persons held in prison, the poor regime of activities offered to incarcerated persons and the low staffing levels in pris-ons insufficient to effectively control the establishments."
På baggrund af indholdet af rapporten og de tidligere rapporter m.v. og dommene over Moldova fra Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol kan spørgsmålet om, hvor-vidt der er reel fare for, at Udlænding vil blive udsat for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling i strid med Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3 i øvrigt på ingen måde reduceres til et spørgsmål om de kvadratmeter, eller
- 15 -
mangel pa samme, han vil blive tildelt i hele eller væsentlige dele af den – langvarige – periode, han måtte sidde varetægtsfængslet eller være under afsoning.
Retten finder dog anledning til særligt at fremhæve om dette spørgsmål, at det fremgår af den seneste CPT-rapport, at der pr. den 27. marts 2023 sad 843 personer i fængsel nr. 13 i Chisinau, men at fængslet kun har officiel kapacitet til 570 personer, og at 818 per-soner er det maksimale antal, der kan være i fængs let, hvis der skal være et “living space of 3 m2.”
Det fremgår endvidere af rapporten, at personer, som ønsker at blive adskilt fra øvrige fanger for at beskytte sig selv mod de massive problemer med vold og overgreb fra an-dre indsatte, er blevet placeret (i hvert fald indtil for nylig) i celler med en størrelse på omkring 2,89 m2 i kælderen i fængselsblok 2 i fængsels nr. 13 i Chisinau uden adgang til naturligt lys.
Udtalelsen af 4. januar 2023 fra Justitsministeriet indeholder i øvrigt ingen som helst form for tilbagevisning af den kritik af situationen i de moldoviske fængsler, som bl.a. CPT er fremkommet med i årevis. Der ligger herefter en direkte, henholdsvis en indi-rekte, erkendelse i rapporten af, at det er korrekt, at der er massive problemer med over-belægning og vold og overgreb i fængslerne i almindelighed og i fængsel nr. 13 i Chisi-nau i særdeleshed.
Udtalelsens forsikringer om, at personalet i fængslerne vil gribe ind overfor volden og overgrebene, harmonerer ikke med de i de uafhængige rapporter gennem mange år be-skrevne problemer, herunder den seneste CPT-rapport og dennes beskrivelse af massiv underbemanding af personale i fængslerne, hvilket leder CPT til konklusionen:
“It therefore continued to be the case that staff were not in a position to have effective control over the situation in the establishments visited and could neither be aware of, nor effectively intervene in instances of inter-prisoner violence.”
På denne baggrund og efter en samlet vurdering, er der – uanset det af Justitsministeriet i Moldova oplyste – ingen rimelig tvivl om, at risikoen for en krænkelse af Udlændings rettigheder efter Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3 er helt reel, hvis han udleveres til strafforfølgning og dermed varetægtsfængsling og formentlig også yderligere afsoning sidenhen i Moldova.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt udlevering vil være i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 3 (Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 6)
Af “U.S. Department of State 2022 Cou ntry Reports on Human Rights Practices: Mol-dova” fremgår bl.a.:
(s. 1 0 f.) “While the law provides for an independent judiciary, judicial in -dependence remained a problem due to problems stemming from corruption and selective justice, in which the law was not applied equally to all and was often selectively enforced for politically motivated reasons.
Selective justice remained a problem and lawyers complained of instances in which their clients ’ rights to a fair trial were denied. [...]
- 16 -
Media and judicial reform activists noted that it was common for judges to indefinitely postpone hearings for wealthy or well-connected defendants. This practice was believed to be connected to personal corruption of the judges.
[...]
Although the law presumes the innocence of defend-ants in criminal cases, judges’ remarks occasionally jeop ardized the presumption of innocence.
Af “COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PAR-LIAMENT, THE EUROPE-AN COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL – Commission Opinion on the Republic of Mol dova’s application for membership of the European Un ion” af 17. juni 2 022 fremgår bl.a.:
(s. 7) “The full functional independence of the Prosecution Serv ice needs to be strengthened, as well as the efficiency of the General Prosecutors Office. Decisions affecting management and leadership of the Moldovan Prosecu-tion Service are at times politically motivated, such as the removal, (tempo-rary) replacement and arrest of the Anti-corruption Prosecu tor in 2021.”
(s. 9) “More needs to be done concerning th e r ight to fair trial [...]”
I forhold til behandlingen af straffesagen mod Udlænding har hans moldoviske advokat i det fremlagte notat anført en række oplysninger om processen, ligesom Udlænding under hovedforhandlingen er fremkommet med oplysninger om, at han ik-ke har fået en retfærdig rettergang.
Dette giver ikke i sig selv retten mulighed for at vurdere rigtigheden af oplysningerne og betydningen heraf i givet fald.
Retten finder dog anledning til at bemærke, at Udlænding, der var 22 år gam-mel på gerningstidspunktet, og hidtil ustraffet, er idømt en straf pa 14 års fængsel for at tildele en anden person et knytnæveslag i ansigtet, der ikke i sig selv medførte alvorlige skader, men hvorved den pågældende faldt og slog hovedet mod jorden, og derved på-drog sig de skader, der resulterede i, at den pågældende senere afgik ved døden.
Dette kan i sig selv rejse spørgsmål i forhold til, om Udlænding har fået en ret-færdig rettergang, da han efter dommens indhold ikke synes at have haft det fornødne forsæt til alvorlig legemsbeskadigelse, endsige dødens indtræden, der efter den citerede bestemmelse fra den moldoviske straffelov ellers synes at være en betingelse for at bringe den bestemmelse, og den skærpede strafferamme, som Udlænding er dømt efter, i anvendelse.
Det kan endvidere også rejse et spørgsmål i forhold til om Udlænding har faet en retfærdig rettergang, at det synes at fremgå af dommens præmisser, at der ved fast-sættelsen af straffen er lagt vægt på, at Udlænding ikke har ønsket at tilstå den forbrydelse, han var tiltalt for.
Efter Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols praksis på området og dommen re-fereret i U 2014.423 H er kriteriet for, hvornår udlevering ikke kan ske som følge af Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 6, imidlertid formuleret som et
- 17 -
krav om, at ’’the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesti ng country” , og som sagen er forelagt for retten, finder retten ikke fuldt til-strækkeligt grundlag for at fastslå, at Udlænding ’’has su ffered or risks suffe-ring a flagrant denial of a fair trial” i Moldova.
Retten bemærker herved, at eventuelle tilsidesættelser af Den Europæiske Menneskeret-tighedskonventions artikel 6 i underinstansen ikke i sig selv siger noget om, hvorvidt sådanne krænkelser vil blive gentaget – eller derimod udbedret – i ankeinstansen.
Retten finder imidlertid, at de ovenfor nævnte generelle oplysninger om Moldovas rets-system og de ovenfor nævnte konkrete forhold ved dommen af 29. april 2022 fra retten i Soroca samlet set også taler imod udlevering, da disse omstændigheder dog understøt-ter, at risikoen for, at udleveringen vil være i strid med Danmarks internationale forplig-telser, er reel.
Retten finder herefter, og efter det i øvrigt anførte ovenfor, herunder om at udlevering vil være i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, ikke anledning til at indhente supple-rende oplysninger i medfør af udleveringslovens 35, stk. 5, med henblik på en vurdering af, hvorvidt der alligevel måtte være grundlag for at statuere, at udlevering tillige vil være i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 3.
Konklusion
Udlevering af Udlænding til Moldova må antages at indebære en reel risiko for tilsidesættelse af Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, og vil herunder med sikkerhed indebære en reel risiko for tilsidesættelse af Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskon-ventions artikel 3.
Da udlevering af Udlænding herefter vil være i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, idet der er fare for, at Udlænding efter udleveringen vil blive udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf, tages an-modningen om udlevering ikke til følge.”
Den 20. september 2023 kærede anklagemyndigheden Retten på Frederiksbergs kendelse til Østre Landsret.
Den 6. november 2023 omgjorde landsretten byrettens kendelse, således at Udlænding skulle udleveres til strafforfølgning i Moldova. I kendelsen hedder det bl.a.:
”Udlænding er i Moldova tiltalt for den 4. november 2020 i forening med en medgerningsmand at have tildelt to forskellige personer et slag i ansigtet med knyttet hånd, hvorved den ene pådrog sig hævelse, et blåt øje samt en hævet og blødende under-læbe. Den anden faldt og pådrog sig alvorlige personskader og afgik senere ved døden som følge heraf. Udlænding er således tiltalt for lovovertrædelser, der efter dansk ret ville være omfattet af i hvert fald straffelovens § 244, stk. 1, om vold, hvor strafferammen er fængsel i indtil 3 år. Kravet om dobbelt strafbarhed i udleveringslo-vens § 19 er herefter opfyldt.
- 18 -
Landsretten finder, at der ikke foreligger sådanne særlige omstændigheder, der antage-liggør, at tiltalen savner tilstrækkeligt bevismæssigt grundlag, jf. udleveringslovens § 23. Landsretten har herved lagt vægt på, at Distriktsretten i Soroca som første instans har fundet Udlænding skyldig på baggrund af adskillige vidneforklaringer og tekniske beviser.
Efter udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, kan udlevering ikke finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter udleveringen vil blive udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf. Bestemmelsen skal ses i sammenhæng med artikel 3 i den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention, hvorefter ingen må underka-stes tortur og ej heller umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf.
Det fremgår af præmis 84 og 87 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 27. oktober 2011 i sagen Ahorugeze mod Sverige, at der ved udlevering til strafforfølg-ning kan rejses spørgsmål om overtrædelse af artikel 3, når vægtige grunde (”substantial grounds”) støttet af p as sende beviser (”appropriate evidence”) giver grund til at antage, at den person, der ønskes udleveret, står over for en reel risiko for at blive behandlet i strid med artikel 3.
På baggrund af de foreliggende oplysninger om forholdene i Moldova fra Amnesty In-ternational, U. S. Department of State, Europa-Kommissionen og Europarådets Komite til forebyggelse af tortur og umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf (CPT) samt praksis fra Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol, finder landsretten, at Rigsadvokaten havde anledning til at indhente yderligere oplysninger fra Moldova om fængslingsforholdene, herunder oplysninger om, hvilke konkrete forhold Udlænding vil blive undergivet, såfremt han udleveres til Moldova, således som det skete ved Rigsadvokatens brev af 30. december 2022.
Det fremgår af de moldoviske myndigheders svar herpå af 4. januar 2023, at Udlænding ved udlevering til Moldova under varetægtsfængslingen vil blive anbragt i fængsel nr. 13 i Chişinău, hvor Moldova har renoveret og indrettet særlige celler med henblik på opfyldelse af statslige garantier afgivet i forbindelse med anmodninger om udlevering af personer til Moldova. Disse celler har separat toilet, elektricitet og en temperatur på 19-22 °C, ligesom indsatte har et personligt areal på mindst 4 m2. Under den efterfølgende afsoning vil han blive overført til fængsel nr. 3 i Leova, hvor der i et nyopført fængselsafsnit ligeledes er indrettet særlige celler med henblik på opfyldelse af statslige garantier afgivet i forbindelse med anmodninger om udlevering af personer til Moldova. Disse celler har ligeledes separat toilet, ligesom indsatte har et personligt are-al på mindst 4 m2. I cellerne er der både elektrisk lys og naturligt dagslys gennem vin-duer på 1,2 x 0,9 meter. Cellerne er møblerede, herunder med senge og rene madrasser samt sengetøj, der skiftes mindst en gang om ugen. Indsatte i disse celler har adgang til udendørs aktiviteter i mindst en time om dagen og kan tage varmt bad mindst en gang om ugen. Der serveres et varmt måltid tre gange om dagen, og indsatte har adgang til g ratis medicin og sundhedsbehandling. Fængselspersonalet går med ”bo dy-camera” , der optager hver gang, fængselspersonalet er i kontakt med en indsat, hvorefter optagelsen gemmes i mindst 180 dage. Indsatte sikres endvidere rimelig beskyttelse mod vold og negativ påvirkning fra medindsatte i henhold til en række nærmere beskrevne foran-staltninger.
Landsretten finder, at de moldoviske myndigheders oplysninger om de forhold, der efter udlevering af Udlænding vil gælde for ham ved henholdsvis varetægtsfængs-ling og eventuel efterfølgende afsoning af fængselsstraf, må lægges til grund ved sagens
- 19 -
afgørelse, og at disse ikke giver grundlag for at fastslå, at der er reel risiko for, at han vil blive udsat for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling i strid med udleveringslo-vens § 6, stk. 2, eller Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3. Det er heller ikke godtgjort, at forholdene i Moldova er sådanne, at Rigsadvokaten har været retligt forpligtet til at fremskaffe yderligere oplysninger om dem i videre omfang end sket.
Det følger af praksis fra Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol, at spørgsmålet om brud på den europæiske menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 6 om retfærdig ret-tergang kun undtagelsesvis kan rejses i forbindelse med en beslutning om udlevering, nemlig i tilfælde, hvor den pågældende risikerer at blive udsat for en åbenbar tilsidesæt-telse af retten til en retfærdig rettergang i den anmodende stat (”would risk suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesti ng country”), jf. bl.a. præmis 113 i Den Eu -ropæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 27. oktober 2011 i sagen Ahorugeze mod Sverige. Fo r at der er tale om ”a flagrant denial of justice” , skal der foreligge et brud på principperne om retfærdig rettergang, som er så grundlæggende, at det svarer til en ’’nullification, or destruction of the very essence, of the right guaranteed by tha t ar-tic le” , jf. dommens præmis 115. Det er den, som udle veres, der har bevisbyrden herfor, og han skal – i lighed med hvad der gælder efter artikel 3 – fremføre beviser, der inde-bærer, at der foreligger vægtige grunde til at antage, at han ”would be expose d to a real risk of being subjected to a flagrant denial of justice” , jf. dommens præmis 116.
Som anført i byrettens kendelse fremgår det af oplysninger fra U. S. Department of State, at der i Moldova er problemer med korruption og manglende lighed for loven, li-gesom landets dommere lejlighedsvist har udtrykt sig på en måde, der har bragt uskyldsformodningen i fare. Det fremgår yderligere af oplysninger fra Europa-Kommissionen, at der er behov for at styrke anklagemyndighedens uafhængighed.
Uanset dette finder landsretten, at der ikke er grundlag for at antage, at Udlænding ved udlevering til Moldova vil få en behandling, der vil udgøre en åbenbar tilsidesættelse af retten til en retfærdig rettergang. Det forhold, at Distriktsretten i Soro-ca som første instans har fundet, at der i relation til overtrædelse af den moldoviske straffelovs § 157, stk. 4, jf. stk. 1, alene skal foreligge forsæt til ’’the primary harmful consequences (injury to the body)” , kan ikke føre til en anden vurdering af, om udlev e-ring kan ske i anledning af den verserende ankesag. Tilsvarende gælder for den om-stændighed, at Distriktsretten i Soroca ved straffastsættelsen har lagt vægt på, at Udlænding ikke har erkendt sig skyldig, smh. den danske straffelovs § 82, stk. 1, nr. 9. Det er heller ikke godtgjort, at forholdene i Moldova er sådanne, at Rigsadvokaten har været retligt forpligtet til at fremskaffe yderligere oplysninger om dem.
Da betingelserne for udlevering af Udlænding til Moldova herefter er opfyldt, tager landsretten anklagemyndighedens påstand om udlevering til strafforfølgning i Moldova til følge.”
Retsgrundlaget
Udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, har følgende ordlyd:
”§ 6 …
- 20 -
Stk. 2. Udlevering kan endvidere ikke finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter udleveringen vil blive udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdi-gende behandling eller straf.”
Bestemmelsen blev videreført ved lov nr. 117 af 11. februar 2020, som erstattede den tidligere udleveringslov, jf. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 833 af 25. august 2005 om udlevering af lovovertræ-dere.
I bemærkningerne til lovforslaget hedder det bl.a. (Folketingstidende 2019-20, tillæg A, pkt. 3.2.4, s. 46-48):
”3.2.4. Fare for forfølgelse på grund af afstamning eller politisk opfattelse mv. samt ri-siko for tortur
3.2.4.1. Gældende ret
Efter udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 1, § 10 h, stk. 1, og § 10 n, jf. § 10 h, stk. 1, må udleve-ring ikke finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter udleveringen på grund af sin afstamning, sit tilhørsforhold til en bestemt befolkningsgruppe, sin religiøse eller politiske opfattelse eller i øvrigt på grund af politiske forhold vil blive udsat for forføl-gelse, som retter sig mod den pågældendes liv eller frihed eller i øvrigt er af alvorlig ka-rakter.
Det fremgår desuden af udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, § 10 h, stk. 2, og § 10 n, jf. § 10 h, stk. 2, at udlevering ikke må finde sted, hvis der er fare for, at den pågældende efter ud-leveringen vil blive udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende be-handling.
3.2.4.1.1. Udlevering til stater uden for Norden og Den Europæiske Union
Udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, der er indsat i udleveringsloven ved lov nr. 433 af 10. juni 2003 om ændring af lov om udlevering af lovovertrædere og lov om udlevering af lov-overtrædere til Finland, Island, Norge og Sverige (Gennemførelse af EU-rammeafgørelse om den europæiske arrestordre m.v.) som en præcisering af gældende ret, svarer til artikel 3 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention, hvorefter in-gen må underkastes tortur eller umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf. Det fremgår af forarbejderne til ovennævnte lov, at Justitsministeriet i lyset af, at det i præambelbetragtning nr. 13 i rammeafgørelsen udtrykkeligt er anført, at personer ikke må udleveres til en stat, hvor der er alvorlig risiko for, at de vil blive udsat for dødsstraf, tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf, har fundet det naturligt at indsætte en præciserende bestemmelse, jf. Folketingstidende 2002-03, tillæg A, side 4297 (pkt. 4.1.1).
…
3.2.4.2. Justitsministeriets overvejelser og den foreslåede ordning
- 21 -
Lovforslagets § 6 viderefører de gældende bestemmelser i udleveringslovens §§ 6, 10 h og 10 n, jf. § 10 h, og der er med lovforslaget ikke tilsigtet ændringer i den gældende retstilstand.
…”
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3 har følgende ordlyd:
”Artikel 3.
Ingen må underkastes tortur og ej heller umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling eller straf.”
Artikel 4 og artikel 19, stk. 2, i Den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettighe-der har følgende ordlyd:
”Artikel 4
Ingen må underkastes tortur, ej heller umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling el-ler straf.
Art. 19. …
Stk. 2. Ingen må udsendes, udvises eller udleveres til en stat, hvor der er en alvorlig ri-siko for at blive idømt dødsstraf eller udsat for tortur eller anden umenneskelig eller nedværdigende straf eller behandling.”
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 25. juni 2020 i sagen Ahorugeze mod Sverige (sag nr. 37075/09) angår udlevering af en person til strafforfølgning i Rwanda. Dom-stolen udtalte, at det vil være i strid med den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3, såfremt der er væsentlige grunde til at antage, at der er reel risiko for, at den pågæl-dende vil blive udsat for en behandling i strid med artikel 3. I dommen hedder det bl.a.
”83. The Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the en-try, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among other authorities, Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, § 102).
84. It is the settled case-law of the Court that extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question would, if extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. The establishment of such responsibility inevitably involves an assessment of conditions in the requesting country against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention. Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicat-ing on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country, whether under general international law, under the Convention or otherwise. In so far as any liability under the
- 22 -
Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has – as a direct consequence – the ex-posure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91, and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I, § 67).
85. It would hardly be compatible with the “common heritage of pol itical traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law” to which the Preamble refers, were a Contracting State knowingly to surrender a person to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or inhu-man or degrading treatment or punishment (see the above-cited Soering, pp. 34-35, § 88, and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, § 68).
86. In determining whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing that a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 exists, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu. If the applicant has not been extradited or deported when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for the assessment of the existence of such a risk will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 No-vember 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1856, §§ 85-86, and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, cited above, § 69).
87. Furthermore, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its du-ration and its physical or mental effects (see the above-cited Vilvarajah and Others, p. 36, § 107, and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, § 70). Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30).”
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 17. januar 2012 i sagen Othman mod Det Forenede Kongerige (8139/09) angår anvendelsen af diplomatiske garantier i udleverings-sager. I dommen hedder det bl.a.:
“185. Third, it is well-established that expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Arti-cle 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country. Article 3 is absolute and it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion (Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 125 and 138, ECHR 2008-...).
186. Fourth, the Court accepts that, as the materials provided by the applicant and the third party interveners show, there is widespread concern within the international com-munity as to the practice of seeking assurances to allow for the deportation of those considered to be a threat to national security (see paragraphs 141- 145 above and Is-moilov and Others, cited above, §§ 96-100). However, it not for this Court to rule upon the propriety of seeking assurances, or to assess the long term consequences of doing
- 23 -
so; its only task is to examine whether the assurances obtained in a particular case are sufficient to remove any real risk of ill-treatment. Before turning to the facts of the ap-plicant’s case, it is the refore convenient to set out the approach the Court has taken to assurances in Article 3 expulsion cases.
187. In any examination of whether an applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment in the country to which he is to be removed, the Court will consider both the general human rights situation in that country and the particular characteristics of the applicant. In a case where assurances have been provided by the receiving State, those assurances con-stitute a further relevant factor which the Court will consider. However, assurances are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment. There is an obligation to examine whether assurances provide, in their practi-cal application, a sufficient guarantee that the applicant will be protected against the risk of ill-treatment. The weight to be given to assurances from the receiving State depends, in each case, on the circumstances prevailing at the material time (see Saadi, cited above, § 148).
188. In assessing the practical application of assurances and determining what weight is to be given to them, the preliminary question is whether the general human rights situa-tion in the receiving State excludes accepting any assurances whatsoever. However, it will only be in rare cases that the general situation in a country will mean that no weight at all can be given to assurances (see, for instance, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 138, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 73, 4 November 2010; 1 Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 85, 8 July 2010; Ismoilov and Others, J cited above, §127).
189. More usually, the Court will assess first, the quality of assurances given and, sec-ond, whether, in light of the receiving State’s practices they can be relied upon. In doing so, the Court will have regard, inter alia, to the following factors:
(i) whether the terms of the assurances have been disclosed to the Court (Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 119, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 97, 11 December 2008; see also Pelit v. Azerbaijan, cited above);
(ii) whether the assurances are specific or are general and vague (Saadi, cited above; Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, § 55, 1 April 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, § 111, 20 May 2010);
(iii) who has given the assurances and whether that person can bind the receiving State (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 344, ECHR 2005-III; Kordian v. Turkey (dec.), no. 6575/06, 4 July 2006; Abu Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no 26844/04, 9 May 2006; cf. Ben Khemais v. Italy, no. 246/07, § 59, ECHR 2009-... (ex-tracts); Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 74, 10 June 2010; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, § 51, 18 February 2010; Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, § 73, 23 October 2008);
(iv) if the assurances have been issued by the central government of the receiving State, whether local authorities can be expected to abide by them (Chahal, cited above, §§ 105-107);
(v) whether the assurances concerns treatment which is legal or illegal in the receiving State (Cipriani v. Italy (dec.), no. 221142/07, 30 March 2010; Youb Saoudi v. Spain
- 24 -
(dec.), no. 22871/06, 18 September 2006; Ismaili v. Germany, no. 58128/00, 15 March 2001; Nivette v. France (dec.), no 44190/98, ECHR 2001 VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; see also Suresh and Lai Sing, both cited above)
(vi) whether they have been given by a Contracting State (Chentiev and Ibragimov v. Slovakia (dec.), nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08, 14 September 2010; Gasayev v. Spain (dec.), no. 48514/06, 17 February 2009); (vii)the length and strength of bilateral rela-tions between the sending and receiving States, including the receiving State’s record in abiding by similar assurances (Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, §§ 107 and 108; Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 68, 20 February 2007);
(viii) whether compliance with the assurances can be objectively verified through dip-lomatic or other monitoring mechanisms, including providing unfettered access to the applicant’s lawyers (Chentiev and Ibragimov and Gasayev, both cited above; cf. Ben Khemais, § 61 and Ryabikin, § 119, both cited above; Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 73, 17 June 2010; see also Agiza, Alzery and Pelit, cited above);
(ix) whether there is an effective system of protection against torture in the receiving State, including whether it is willing to cooperate with international monitoring mecha-nisms (including international human rights NGOs), and whether it is willing to investi-gate allegations of torture and to punish those responsible (Ben Khemais, §§59 and 60; Soldatenko, § 73, both cited above; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 63, 10 Decem-ber 2009);
(x) whether the applicant has previously been ill-treated in the receiving State (Koktysh, § 64, cited above); and
(xi) whether the reliability of the assurances has been examined by the domestic courts of the sending/Contracting State (Gasayev, Babar Ahmad and Others, § 106; Al-Moayad, §§ 66-69).”
Anbringender
Udlænding har anført navnlig, at det på baggrund af indholdet af diverse rapporter fra relevante organisationer mv. samt praksis fra Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol entydigt kan lægges til grund, at fængselsforholdene mv. i Moldova i en lang årrække har været og fortsat er stærkt kritisable. Der er således holdepunkter for at antage, at der består en konkret, umiddelbar og reel risiko for, at han under varetægtsfængsling og efterfølgende eventuel afsoning i Moldova vil blive udsat for fængselsforhold, der indebærer behandling i strid med udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, jf. EU-chartrets artikel 4, jf. artikel 19, stk. 2, og Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3. Denne risiko er ikke afhjulpet konkret i lyset af de oplysninger, der er afgivet af myndighederne i Moldova som led i udleveringssa-gen.
Garantierne meddelt af Justitsministeriet i Moldova er heller ikke tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at der ikke konkret består en risiko for, at han vil blive udsat for umenneskelige eller nedværdi-
- 25 -
gende forhold under sin tilbageholdelse og eventuelle efterfølgende afsoning. Garantierne er hovedsageligt af generel karakter, ligesom den mere konkrete del af garantierne ses at være identisk med garantier afgivet til danske myndigheder i tilsvarende sager, hvor Moldova har anmodet om udlevering. Garantierne er derudover ikke afgivet af en judiciel myndighed, men af Moldovas justitsministerium, og garantierne ses ikke at have været undergivet nærmere vurdering eller prøvelse ved domstolene i Moldova. Det er derfor usikkert, om de konkrete oplysninger om afsoningsforhold mv. er retvisende.
Det er derudover tvivlsomt, hvorvidt han i hele perioden vil være placeret i en af de ”statsga -ranterede celler” , blot fordi han har unddraget sig retsforfølgning ved at flygte til Danmark. De statsgaranterede celler ses alene at blive stillet til rådighed på ad hoc-basis og ikke som særskilte afsoningsfaciliteter. Der foreligger ikke klare oplysninger om adgangen til, at afso-ningsforholdene løbende kan verificeres af de danske myndigheder, eller om han har adgang til en uafhængig domstolsprøvelse af fængselsforholdene. De statsgaranterede celler afhjælper desuden ikke alle de kritisable forhold, herunder problemerne med overgreb fra andre indsat-te.
Anklagemyndigheden har anført navnlig, at udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, ikke er til hinder for udlevering.
De oplysninger, som anklagemyndigheden i nærværende sag har indhentet hos de moldoviske myndigheder, må lægges til grund, jf. også U.2018.2632H. Det kan herefter lægges til grund, at Udlænding vil blive frihedsberøvet i statsgaranterede celler, der sikrer ham mini-mum 4 m2. Cellerne vil have elektricitet, vand og varme og vil være udstyret med nye møb-ler, herunder madrasser og rene senge. Derudover er der ventilation, udluftning og naturligt lys gennem vinduer i cellen samt separat toilet. Han vil derudover have mulighed for uden-dørs aktiviteter i mindst en time om dagen, og der vil være mulighed for bad mindst en gang om ugen, ligesom lægefaglige faciliteter vil kunne benyttes. Der serveres et varmt måltid tre gange om dagen, og han vil have adgang til gratis medicin og sundhedsbehandling. Udlænding vil derudover modtage rimelig beskyttelse mod overgreb fra andre indsatte, her-under ved adskillelse fra livstidsfanger og permanent overvågning af fanger, ligesom indsæt-telse sker i fælles celler efter en evaluering af de indsatte.
Der er ikke grundlag for at betvivle den diplomatiske garanti, som de moldoviske myndighe-der har givet. Garantierne er lagt frem og er meget præcise og udførlige samt indeholder de-
- 26 -
taljerede oplysninger om de konkrete forhold, som vil gælde for Udlænding. Garan-tierne er derudover afgivet af de moldoviske fængselsmyndigheder gennem Justitsministeriet i Moldova, og fængselsmyndighederne må derfor klart forventes at overholde dem. Moldova er medlem af Europarådet og har tiltrådt Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention og samarbejder med Europarådet via Europarådets Torturkomité om forbedringer af fængselsfor-holdene. Endelig har Danmark som EU-medlemsstat relativt tætte bilaterale relationer til Moldova gennem samarbejdet mellem EU og Moldova i henhold til associeringssaftalen fra 2014 og det forhold, at Moldova siden juni 2022 har haft status som EU-kandidatland, lige-som EU har indledt tiltrædelsesforhandlinger med Moldova i december 2023. De diploma-tiske garantier er således tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at Udlænding kan udleveres, uden at Danmark krænker Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3.
EU-chartrets artikel 4 og 19, stk. 2, giver ikke en anden og bedre beskyttelse end Menneske-rettighedskonventionens artikel 3. EU-domstolens dom af 6. september 2016 i sag C-182/15 (Petruhhin) udelukker ikke, at der kan foretages en konkret og individuel vurdering af de for-hold, den pågældende vil blive frihedsberøvet under i tredjelandet, således at diplomatiske garantier kan føre til, at der ikke er risiko for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling efter EU-chartrets artikel 4 og 19, stk. 2.
Højesterets begrundelse og resultat
Sagen angår udlevering af Udlænding til strafforfølning i Moldova i henhold til de moldoviske myndigheders anmodning herom. Spørgsmålet er for Højesteret, om udlevering skal nægtes i medfør af udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, med den begrundelse, at fængselsfor-holdene og afsoningsvilkårene, som Udlænding i givet fald vil blive undergivet, vil være af umenneskelig eller nedværdigende karakter, sådan at udlevering vil indebære en over-trædelse af Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 3 og af den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettigheder artikel 4, jf. artikel 19, stk. 2.
De moldoviske myndigheder har besvaret rigsadvokatens forespørgsel om fængselsforholdene for Udlænding, hvis han udleveres.
Af de grunde, som landsretten har anført, tiltræder Højesteret, at der ikke er grundlag for at fastslå, at der er reel risiko for, at Udlænding vil blive udsat for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling i strid med Danmarks internationale forpligtelser, hvis han udleve-res til Moldova. Højesteret bemærker herved, at der under hensyn til det, som anklagemyn-
- 27 -
digheden har anført, ikke er grundlag for at betvivle troværdigheden af de moldoviske myn-digheders erklæring om de fængselsforhold, som konkret kan forventes for Udlænding, hvis udleveringsanmodningen tages til følge.
Der er herefter ikke grundlag for at nægte udlevering i medfør af udleveringslovens § 6, stk. 2, og Højesteret stadfæster derfor landsrettens kendelse.
Statskassen skal betale sagens omkostninger, jf. udleveringslovens § 34, stk. 2.
Thi bestemmes :
Landsrettens kendelse stadfæstes.
Statskassen skal betale sagens omkostninger for Højesteret.
