Summary of the Legal Case
I. During the years 1996/1997, the Public Fiscal Ministry of the United States of America (Prosecutor) began three criminal cases against Mr. Ricardo Asch (Mr.RA):
- United States of America vs. RA and others. Case number SA CR 96-55 (C)-GLT (twenty charges of mail fraud, one charge of illegal association and two charges of signing false rent statements).
- United States of America vs. RA and others. Case number SA CR 97-74-AHS (twenty cases of mail fraud) and
- United States of America vs. RA Case number SA CR 97-75-GLT (ten charges of mail fraud and ten charges of introducing a new drug to the interstate commerce).
II. Dated the 6th of August, 2004, Mr. RA is arrested at the International Airport of Ezeiza, opportunity in which he was entering the Argentina Republic in a flight from Mexico.
In function of the arrest warrants against him informed against him by EEUU, he is arrested and placed under the disposition of the Federal Judge with jurisdiction at the Airport. As such Mr. RA began the way for his extradition process under the jurisdiction of the First Instance Federal Court in the Criminal and Correctional manner number 1 of Lomas de Zamora, Provincia de Buenos Aires headed by Judge Dr, Alberto SantaMarina. Dated the 17th of August, 2004, Wayne R. Gross (Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Southern Division, Central District of California) certifies the existence of the charges and of the existing warrants of arrests and begins the extradition process application.
III. The Court I of the Federal Chamber of the city of La Plata, Pcia. of Buenos Aires on the 17th of June, 2008, after evaluating (i) the Extradition Treaties subscribed between both countries – both the current-valid at the time of the alleged charges to RA and of the indictments, and the one current at the moment of his detention and as well (ii) the International Law of Cooperation of Criminal Matter decided to apply the Extradition Treaty current and valid at the time of the alleged crimes and thus,: :
- That in said process of extradition should be analyzed, in light of the Argentinean legislation, the possible prescription of the criminal action of the charges that motivated the demand of the United States of America;
- That in said extradition process governs the option of the Argentinean citizen to be judged in his country for the charges that motivated the demand of the United States of America;
- In virtue of the same, does not deliver the Argentinean citizen and establishes his judgment in the Argentinean Republic.
IV.Dated the 2nd of September, 2008, the government of the United States of America was duly notified -via the representative of the Department of Justice accredited in the American embassy in the city of Buenos Aires- of the decision issued by the the Court I of the Federal Chamber of the city of La Plata, Pcia. of Buenos Aires.–
V. Once the file was returned to the original Court of First Instance and in practice of what is established by the Federal Chamber, dated the 25th of September, 2008, it was resolved to assume the judgment of Mr. RA in respect to all the existing charges against him, and in consequence:
- Make place for the exception of lack of action by prescription of the criminal action in order to the charges 1 to 20 of the first case (fraud by mail), 1 to 20 of the second case (fraud by mail), 1 to 10 of the third case (fraud by mail), of the charge of illegal association (charge 21 of the first case) and of the charges 22 and 23 of the first case (sign statements of false rents) and in consequence of dismissal of RA by said charges;
- Make place for the exception of the lack of action for inexistence of a crime for the charges 11 to 20 of the third case (introduction of a new drug to the interstate commerce) and in consequence of dismissal to RA for said charges.
It is worth clarifying that, from this last decision, there is no charge pending judicial resolution.
VI. Dated the 7th of April, 2009, the United States of America was notified of said decision by means of a notification sent to the Embassy in the city of Buenos Aires.
VII. On August 10, 2010, California Attorney Eliel Chemerinski presented to the United States District Court for the Central District of California-Southern Division a motion to dismiss the accusations against Ricardo Asch , based on the grounds that the prosecution on this case violates the Double Jeopardy provision contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rigths (ICCPR), since Mr. RA has been already judged by the Argentinean Judicial System according to the Extradititon treaty signed by both countries.
It is emphasized the obligation that the United States of America has to obey the ICCPR according to article 14, section 7, as well as the Universal Principles of International Law-general and imperative- that respect the Human Rigth of non bis in idem.
No responses to such motions by the United States Federal Courts have been recieved to this date.
VIII. Being RA in the United Mexican States in November 2010, becomes subject to a new extradition process by identical charges to those referred to in point 1 of this report.
Dated the 11th of February 2011 –after RA was incarcerated for the period of three months- Lic. Judge Graciela Malja Aguirre, head of the Second Court of District for Federal Processes of the Distrito Federal of Mexico after reviewing the case notices that the warrants of arrest against Ricardo Asch presented by the United States of America were not valid , since they have expired even before his trial process in Argentina. The Judge concludes that the requested extradition should not proceed since all the charges had been prescribed in the Mexican Justice and because Mr. RA had already been tried for the same charges and acquitted by the Argentinean Justice System and the application of the principle of Non Bis In Idem.
Dated the 14th of March of 2011 the Government of the Mexican Republic by the Mexican Justice through its Ministry of Foreign Relations declares unwarranted the international extradition of the demanded requested by the Embassy of the United States of America in representation of its country as and when the charges were prescribed to the light of the legislation of the required state and by application of the principle of “non bis in idem”, since Mr. RA had already been judged in other country in respect to all the charges directed to him in the United States of America.
In both documents the Mexican authorities formulate serious criticisms to the United States authorities for submitting an extradition request without proper and validated warrants of arrest on Mr. RA.
IX. It is worth mentioning that upon de arrival of the formal Extradition petition the 30th of December, 2010, it is warned that the arrest warrants issued by the Judge of the United States of America are dated from the 30th of November and the 12th of December, 2010; therefore, they are after the real detention suffered in Mexico. Before those dates, on the 30th of November, 2010 Douglas F. McCormick –Assistant United States Attorney in The United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California- signs a document in virtue of which, it is understood that the arrest warrants used in the extradition requests were not valid from the month of June, 1997 and therefore requests the release of new arrest warrants with a retroactive effect to the month of February, 1998.
X. That is to say, Mr. RA had to endure an extradition process in The Republic of Argentina during five years and a similar one in The United States of Mexico, with a deprivation of his liberties and freedoms, even in the absence of a valid arrest warrant in both cases.
XI. In response to all the preceeding arguments that were shown above and due to the chronic and brutal persecution that Ricardo Asch suffered during the last 18 years from different authorities of the United States of America, dated on march 19 of 2012 it is presented an accusation before the Interamerican Comission of Human Rigths. This accusation is against the following responsible authorities and Institutions: (i) United States District Court for the Central District of California-Southern Division; (ii) State Department of the United States of America; (iii) Justice Department of the EEUU and its office of Federal Bureau Investigations (FBI); (iv) Wayne R. Gross, Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Southern Division, Central District of California,; (v) Douglas F. McCorminck, Procurador Asistente Jefe de la División Sur del Distrito Central de California and (vi) Rodolfo Orjueles, Asesor Legal de la Embajada de los Estados Unidos de América en Buenos Ares, República Argentina, y representante del Departamento de Justicia.
In this accusation it is made reference to the American Declaration of Human Rigths in its articles I, V, VI, VIII, XVII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV and XXVI, that refer to the rigths of personal integrity and identity, rigths to protection of the individual and personal honor and reputation, to the protection of his family, rigth to free transit throughout the world, rigth to the judicial security, and to live with the fundamental civil rights , to justice, to obtain a prompt response to his petitions, to the protection to arbitrary detention, and to a regular legal process. Particularly, and as a development of the justice right it is referred to the Principle of Non Bis In Idem regulated in the article 14, section 7.
This trial is now under progress.