Court/Judicial body: Supreme Court of Argentina
Date: 15 June 2010 CRC
Provisions: Article 3: Best Interest of the Child
Domestic provisions: Law 25,304 on extradition Argentine Constitution
Case summary
Background: A mother challenged her proposed extradition from Argentina to Uruguay to face drug trafficking charges on the grounds that her children were not effectively given a chance to participate in the proceedings surrounding her extradition and that her extradition would not be in their best interests.
Issue and resolution: Extradition; separation from parents. The mother may be extradited to face charges in Uruguay.
Court reasoning: The child’s best interests must be considered, but do not prevent the extradition of a parent in every circumstance. In this case, they are in this case outweighed by the public interest in extraditing the mother to face serious criminal charges in Uruguay. The CRC expressly provides for instances where children may be separated from their parents, including where the parent has been detained, incarcerated, exiled or deported. Hence, it
Excerpt citing CRC and other relevant human rights English translation:4) That, in addition, the appellant requests that, prior to this appeal being decided, the appellant’s daughters be allowed to participate in the proceedings in compliance with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in order to avoid any flaw in the proceedings and give effect to the rights recognised in existing international law, and that a “socio-environmental report” be carried out regarding the girls. Finally, that the appeal decision be reversed because the lower court has not complied with the provisions of the agreed 40/97 of the Hon. Federal Court of San Martin, Buenos Aires (reverse of p. 195). 5) that the existence of a child/children or minor/S is not contemplated as grounds to prevent the extradition of its/their parent/s in the applicable extradition treaty approved by law 25.304 or the law on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters 24.767. This is in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which permits the “separation of parents and children” (either one parent or both) in cases of “arrest”, “imprisonment”, “exile”, “deportation” or even “death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State” ( Article 9.4., CRC) (Lagos Quispe, judgement 231:1352, paras. 5 and 6). 6) That, apart from the above, the appellant did not, in her submission, take into account the intervening judge’s actions to guarantee the girls’ “right to be heard”, in the case and for the time being, through their “representative” and “in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of nation law”, just as is stipulated in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (refer to attached custody file). As published in full-text Spanish decision: 4) Que, además, la parte recurrente solicita que, previo a resolver este recurso, se dé intervención a las hijas de la requerida en aplicación del art. 12 de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, Acon el objeto de evitar cualquier vicio en el procedimiento y la afectación a los derechos reconocidos en la legislación internacional vigente” y que se realice de un “informe socio ambiental” respecto de las niñas. Por último, que se anule la resolución apelada porque el a quo no habría dado cumplimiento a lo dispuesto por la acordada 40/97 de la Excma. Cámara Federal de San Martín, provincia de Buenos Aires (fs. 195 vta.). 5) Que la existencia de hijo/s menor/es no está contemplada como causal que impida la extradición de su/s progenitor/es ni en el tratado de extradición aplicable aprobado por ley 25.304 ni en la ley de Cooperación Penal Internacional 24.767. Ello en consonancia con la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño que admite la “separación de padres e hijos” (ya sea de uno de los padres o de ambos) en supuestos de “detención”, “encarcelamiento”, “exilio”, “deportación” o incluso “muerte (incluido el fallecimiento debido a cualquier causa mientras la persona está bajo la custodia del Estado”, (art. 9.4. de la Convención) (“Lagos Quispe” Fallos: 331:1352, considerandos 5° y 6°). 6) Que, por lo demás, la parte recurrente no se hizo cargo en su memorial de lo ya actuado por el juez interviniente para garantizar el “derecho a ser oído” de las menores, en el caso y por el momento, a través de su “representante” y “en consonancia con las normas de procedimiento de la ley nacional”, tal como prescribe el art. 12 de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (conf. legajo tutelar que corre por cuerda).
CRIN comments: CRIN believes that this decision is consistent with the CRC in that, as stated by the Court, children’s best interests must be considered in all proceedings that affect them under Article 3 of the Convention. However, it must also be noted that the Convention does not grant an open license for States parties to separate children from their parents via detention, incarceration, exile or deportation. Rather, it remains clear that children should not be separated from their parents by State action as far as possible; the Convention merely addresses children’s rights where these circumstances arise.
Citation: L. 125. XLV Link to Full Judgment: Download via http://www.csjn.gov.ar/cfal/fallos/cfal3/cons_fallos.jsp