The ombudsman's inquiry into the extradition of Azeri convict

The ombudsman's inquiry into the extradition of Azeri convict

The Hungarian government did not violate international norms, it acted within its powers when approved the repatriation of the Azerbaijani prisoner. However, the requirement of legal certainty may have been violated in several aspects and it has raised doubts about the adequate interpretation of the rule on the fulfillment of international obligations in good faith – found Máté Szabó, as a conclusion of his ex-officio conducted inquiry.

According to the documentation provided to the commissioner for fundamental rights, the convict asked to be transferred to Azerbaijan, his petition was handed over to the government's representative by the ambassador of Azerbaijan to Hungary. The transfer was approved by the minister of administration and justice before the Azerbaijani party would have informed the Hungarian government, upon request, on how the sentence delivered by the Hungarian court will be executed in Azerbaijan. This decision is not objectionable under the provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, because the relevant information must be provided before the actual transfer has taken place and not before the approval of it.

The ombudsman argues that the Hungarian government must have been aware of that Azeri people considered that the convict had carried out a „patriotic act" by brutally murdering his defenseless, NATO-seminar participant, Armenian classmate in Budapest. Therefore, it was practically certain that if he were transferred to Azerbaijan, he would be granted pardon and set free. Under these circumstances, the Hungarian party's approval given prior to the Azerbaijani party's statement – meaning the reversed chronological order of these two acts – creates doubts concerning compliance with the requirement of the rule of law and legal certainty and the fulfillment of international obligations in good faith.  

According to Máté Szabó, the Hungarian government did not act with all due care when failed to ask for assurances on that the Azerbaijani government would not grant pardon to the military officer sentenced to life imprisonment. Insisting on Azerbaijani guarantees would have been necessary to consider afterwards the procedure followed by Hungary as carried out in good faith. Due to the fact that this request for a guarantee was not presented, part of the Hungarian and international community consider the governmental decision on approving the transfer to Azerbaijan as an act of bad faith. Failure to such a request for guarantees jeopardized the application of the principles of rule of law and legal certainty.

The ombudsman has pointed out that the decision taken without any guarantees on further execution of the sentence may have weakened the public trust in the national and international criminal justice system, given that the extradition made the pardon decision possible, overruling the Hungarian court's judgment, meaning a final decision. The convict was found guilty by the Hungarian court for committing one of the most serious crimes, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, which sentence has been modified to a pardon practically in the very moment of transferring the convict without having received any guarantees. This was a violation of the principle of equality before the law implying that similar offenses deserve similar punishments, or it was rather overruled by the Azerbaijani presidential pardon, which could not have been applied without the extradition.

The commissioner has asked the prime minister of Hungary to draw the attention of the minister of administration and justice to the fact that, in similar cases, the Hungarian authorities should act taking into account the arguments and general aspects set forth in the report, because the sovereignty of the Hungarian state was violated when the pardon decision of another state's president has overruled the final decision of the independent Hungarian court.