Madrid State Prosecutor’s Office opposes the extradition request from Thai authorities in the case filed in Spain for the crime of wounding, seeking to have the hearing take place in Spain on a date that has not yet been determined. The public ministry argues that alternative measures could allow the proceedings to proceed and notes there is no evidence that the defendant’s stay in Thailand was an attempt to evade Spanish justice, as he remained available to the Court for every summons received.
Before the murder charge in the Asian country, an investigation was opened in Spain for the offense of injury. In this context, the prosecutor requested one year in prison in addition to paying the civil liability arising from the crime, after an incident in which the defendant punched another person who was attempting to enter a taxi on José Abascal Street in Madrid, bypassing the queue. On November 30, 2021, the Court of Investigation No. 21 of Madrid opened an oral hearing, and the decision was personally notified to him on January 18, 2022. The procedure remains awaiting a date for the hearing.
On September 8, the procedural representative for Sancho informed the court that he had been held in temporary detention in Thailand since August. Accordingly, he requested the relevant procedures to be carried out for active extradition and surrender to the Spanish judicial authority, a process the prosecution considered unnecessary.
It is not possible to request this
In the proceeding opened in Spain, the public ministry notes that no prison decision was made at the procedural stage. It holds that a request for extradition at this moment is not possible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the offense to carry a maximum penalty of two years or more. Moreover, the case has been paralyzed since February 2, 2022. This situation would permit the consideration of mitigating circumstances related to excessive delays, potentially reducing the penalty or leading to a fine. A second reason is that the accused was at the disposal of the Spanish authorities at all times for appearances when required.
On behalf of the prosecution there is no need to seek a refund as if the defendant had fled abroad. The prosecution argues that since he has not been required to appear since service of the indictment and no trial date has been set, there is no evidence that his stay in Thailand was driven by a desire to escape justice. The public ministry emphasizes that, at present, the sole binding agreement between Spain and Thailand concerns cooperation in matters of execution of criminal sentences. The agreement is valid only in cases where the person queried is declared guilty and convicted, and any international cooperation requests will follow the reciprocity principle.
Based on this principle, the Prosecutor’s Office notes that other international cooperation instruments with the Kingdom of Thailand may be used in addition to extradition to ensure the defendant’s presence in the proceedings. Given that he is in temporary detention, his location can be readily determined by the judicial authorities in the relevant country. A trial could be conducted with video conferencing. The possibility exists for a temporary transfer of the prisoner solely for the purposes of prosecution in Spain or for any alternative measures under the reciprocity principle in force between the two kingdoms. Additionally, Spanish law permits trial in absentia for sentences of less than six years, if applicable. (Source: Madrid Prosecutor’s Office, official statements)