FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF LANG v. UKRAINE(Application no. 49134/20)  JUDGMENT Art 3 • Extradition • No evidence showing a real risk of a de jure or de facto irreducible sentence of life imprisonment in the event of the applicant’s extradition to, and conviction in, the USA • As first stage of the test set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC] not fulfilled, unnecessary to proceed to second stage STRASBOURG9 November 2023  FINAL 08/04/2024  This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lang v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Georges Ravarani, President, Lado Chanturia, Carlo Ranzoni, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, María Elósegui, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 49134/20) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a national of the United States of America, Mr Craig Austin Lang (“the applicant”), on 6 November 2020;the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;the decision to indicate an interim measure to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The case concerns the decision to extradite the applicant to the United States of America (“the US”). The applicant, who has US nationality, complained that his extradition would violate Article 3 of the Convention because, if convicted on the charges against him, he would risk receiving an irreducible sentence of life imprisonment.THE FACTS2. The applicant was born in 1990 and, according to the most recent information, lives in Kyiv. He was represented by Mr D. Morgun, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko.4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.5. The applicant is a former US Army serviceman. He travelled to Ukraine several times between 2015 and 2019 and served in Ukrainian armed formations fighting in the east of the country.THE APPLICANT’S ARREST AND THE REQUEST FOR HIS EXTRADITION6. On 21 August 2019 the applicant was arrested in Ukraine while re-entering the country from the Republic of Moldova. In the course of proceedings which followed, he was eventually released on his own recognisance.7. On 25 September 2019 the US requested the extradition of the applicant from Ukraine under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Subsequently, in February 2020 the US expanded the extradition request, adding additional charges brought against the applicant in the US. According to the amended extradition request, the applicant faced charges of federal offences with their respective potential sentences as follows below.Charge[1]Maximum potential sentence[2] Charges in the US District Court for the Middle District of FloridaConspiracy to Interfere with Commerce by ViolenceTwenty years’ imprisonmentInterference with Commerce by ViolenceTwenty years’ imprisonmentConspiracy to Carry and Use a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence Twenty years’ imprisonmentUse and Discharge of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence Resulting in MurderDeath penalty, life imprisonment or at least ten years’ imprisonment and up to any maximum term of imprisonmentConspiracy to Kill, Kidnap, Maim or Injure Persons in a Foreign Country (specifically the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)Imprisonment for any term or life imprisonment (for conspiracy to murder or kidnap);Imprisonment for a term of up to thirty-five years (for conspiracy to maim)Violation of the Neutrality ActThree years’ imprisonmentCharges in the US District Court for the District of ArizonaMisuse of a PassportTen years’ imprisonmentCharges in the US District Court for the Eastern District of North CarolinaConspiracy to Commit Passport Fraud and Aggravated Identify TheftFive years’ imprisonmentPassport Fraud and Aiding and AbettingTen years’ imprisonmentAggravated Identity Theft and Aiding and AbettingMandatory term of imprisonment of two years consecutive to any other term of imprisonmentFraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits and Other Documents and Aiding and AbettingTwenty-five years’ imprisonmentFalse Representation of a Social Security Account NumberFive years’ imprisonment8. According to the charges brought in the US District Court in Florida, the applicant and his alleged co-conspirator had proposed to sell firearms to another man, thus luring him to attend a meeting and bring cash for the gun deal. They had then shot and killed him and another person who had accompanied him and had taken the money that the victim had brought. According to the charges, the accused had planned to use the acquired funds to go to Venezuela and fight the regime in power there.9. In the indictments filed with the US District Courts in Arizona and North Carolina, the applicant was charged with, respectively, unlawfully using a US passport previously cancelled by the authorities and applying for a passport under a false identity.10. On 15 October 2019 the US Embassy in Kyiv provided assurances to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”) that the death penalty would not be sought or imposed on the applicant and that the applicant would not be prosecuted for any offence committed prior to his extradition other than those for which his extradition was granted.11. On 17 October and 4 November 2019 the applicant asked the GPO to request assurances that he would not be sentenced to death for any offences and that he would have an opportunity to request a reduction of any life sentence, if imposed, for any offence. He also pointed out that in Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 121-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) the Court had held that the exercise of the power of pardon by a US president did not satisfy the requirements imposed in this field by Article 3 of the Convention.12. On 29 October 2019 the GPO responded that assurances in respect of the death penalty had been requested.13. On 4 August 2020 the assurances in respect of the death penalty were reiterated by the US Department of Justice.EXTRADITION DECISION AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS14. On 28 August 2020 the GPO granted the extradition request, finding that there were legal grounds for extradition. In noted the assurances given in respect of the death penalty.15. The applicant lodged an appeal with the courts against that decision. The applicant mainly relied on his requests for additional assurances in respect of the death penalty and life imprisonment (see paragraph 11 above) and argued that no adequate assurances had been provided in respect of the reducibility of any life sentence. He relied on Trabelsi (cited above).16. On 15 March 2021 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the extradition decision, finding that there were no grounds to set it aside since the charges against the applicant were for extraditable offences which were not time-barred and his asylum applications had been rejected.

Outcome for Article 3: no_violation