10 Key Facts About The Arbitrary Extradition Of Ambassador Saab

During the weekend, evidencing its submission to the wishes of the United States, the Cape Verde government extradited Venezuela's Special Envoy Alex Saab without waiting for all the legal processes to be completed as required by the laws of this African country. The main facts showing the arbitrariness of Cape Verde's proceedings are summarized below.

RELATED:

Venezuelans Join Diplomat Alex Saab’s Call to Not Give Up

1). On June 12, 2020, Alex Saab was detained by the Interpol and Cape Verdean authorities during a technical stopover at the Amilcar Cabral Airport. This arbitrary action was justified by arguing the existence of an international arrest warrant issued by the United States, which considers him a “front man” of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro.

2). Since then, the Venezuelan diplomat remained a prisoner of the Cape Verde government. His lawyers presented several legal resources to release him and evidence about the illegalities committed during his detention. These illegalities are related to aspects of form and content that violate international and national laws. After several legal proceedings, the Bolivarian ambassador was placed under house arrest due to his delicate health condition.

3). On Oct. 16, 2021, Cape Verdean police officers entered the house where Saab was being detained and took him to Sal airport, where he was handed over to U.S. agents. This action was taken with no representative of the defense team having been provided with prior notification and nor did they have the relevant documentation or resolution to that effect.

4). The Cape Verde government did not wait for the case to go down to the Barlavento Appeal Court, which could have ruled on the issue of Saab's health precluding extradition and on the dismissal of the money laundering allegations by the Geneva Public Prosecutor.

5). On Oct.13, the Constitutional Court dismissed the request for a declaration of nullity of judgment against Saab. However, judgments handed down by this Court only become final when they are not subject to appeal or claim. The Constitutional Court’s decision could have been appealed by Saab's lawyers as Cape Verde laws make the Court's decision final only five business days after its date of issuance. It is also incumbent upon the first instance court to issue the necessary dismissal warrants, without which the delivery of the extradited person to the requesting State is not possible.

6). The Defense Team of Ambassador Saab was not been made aware of any decision of the Barlavento Appeal Court, which issued the original extradition decision, confirming that it could be executed and nor is the existence of such a decision mentioned in the letter from the Justice Ministry.

7). Before this happened, this Appeal Court should have decided on the application submitted by Saab, through which it was requested that the extradition be declared inadmissible due to facts such as the violation of the right not to be tried twice on the same matter.

8). The surrender of the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.S. on a date prior to the final and unappealable decision granting the extradition, without the case having been transferred to the lower court for decision on the pending issues and for the issuance of the competent warrants of dismissal, constitutes a flagrant illegality, and disregard for the rules of international law.

9). Over the past 16 months, Cape Verde have challenged the binding decisions of the Justice Court of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), five United Nations Special Rapporteurs, and one UN Working Group.

10). The decision to extradite a Special Envoy and Deputy Ambassador, who is entitled to immunity and inviolability, violates a long-established customary international law.

Once extradited to the United States, Alex Saab must defend his rights at the Court of Appeals of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia. If this Federal Court recognizes the political motivations underlying the case, it must admit Saab's entitlement to immunity and annul the indictment issued against him.