Principle of Specialty and U.S. Obligations in Extradition: Analysis of Cassation No. 8931/2025

When a citizen is handed over via extradition to a foreign state, what guarantees remain in place to protect their rights? With judgment No. 8931 of February 6, 2025 (filed March 4, 2025, rapporteur E. C.), the Court of Cassation revisits the delicate balance between national sovereignty and international judicial cooperation, reaffirming the binding effect of the principle of specialty provided for by the 1983 bilateral Treaty between Italy and the United States of America.

The Regulatory Framework: From the 1983 Treaty to the Code of Criminal Procedure

Article XVI of the Italy-USA Treaty of October 13, 1983, implemented by Law 225/1984, introduces the principle of specialty: the requesting State may "detain, try, or punish" the extradited person only for the acts that were the subject of the granted request. Domestically, Articles 699 and 705, paragraph 2, letter a), of the Code of Criminal Procedure assign to the Court of Appeal (district section) the task of verifying compliance with this principle, in line with Article 10 of the Constitution, which requires the Italian legal system to conform to generally recognized international norms.

The Cassation's Decision No. 8931/2025: What it Says and Why it Matters

In matters of extradition abroad, the judicial authority of the United States of America – bound, by virtue of its Constitution, to respect international treaties – is bound by the principle of specialty provided for by Article XVI of the bilateral extradition Treaty between Italy and the United States of October 13, 1983, according to which the requesting State, in the absence of the consent of the requested State or of conclusive conduct by the extradited person, is obliged not to detain, try, or punish the latter for acts, committed before the person's surrender, other than those for which extradition has been granted.

The Supreme Court – seized of the appeal filed by G. I. against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bolzano of November 13, 2024 – recalls that the United States, by virtue of its constitutional Supremacy Clause, must apply international treaties with the same force as federal law. Consequently, any trial for further acts would violate not only the treaty but also Article 6 of the ECHR, potentially exposing Italy to international liability.

The reference to the precedent of the United Sections (judgment 11971/2008), which had already qualified specialty as an "objective condition of punishability," is interesting: in the absence of express consent from the requested State or conduct revealing the accused's acquiescence, any procedural use of non-extradited acts is precluded.

• Bilateral obligation: the rule applies to both States, strengthening mutual trust.
• Safeguard clause: Italy's consent can remove the obligation, but only through a formal diplomatic procedure.
• Conclusive conduct: the extradited person's tacit waiver must be evident from unequivocal acts, not from mere presence in court.

Practical Implications for Defense and Judiciary

For defense attorneys, the ruling opens up strategic avenues:

• Opposing the specialty exception before foreign judges if further charges emerge.
• Invoking protection under Article 705 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if Italy intends to provide subsequent consent, requiring parliamentary and diplomatic oversight.
• Referencing the decision before the ECHR in case of violations by the requesting State.

For the judiciary, on the other hand, the reasoning reinforces the obligation to assess the scope of extradition from the outset, preventing the expansion of charges from compromising the validity of the entire procedure and, consequently, the legitimacy of detention.

Conclusions

Cassation No. 8931/2025 confirms that the principle of specialty is not a procedural detail but a safeguard of substantive legality, aimed at ensuring predictability of judgment and fair cooperation between States. For legal professionals and citizens, it means being able to count on clearly defined boundaries: extradition does not become a passe-partout for subsequently prosecuting any conduct. Attention to clauses and procedures therefore remains central, so that international cooperation does not betray legal certainty.