A court on Tuesday said it could not pull the brakes on the extradition of a murder suspect, despite "groundbreaking" arguments by defence lawyers who are disputing a fingerprint expert's conclusions.

Ledjon Brakaj is alleged to have been involved in a 2015 double murder on a Greek island, in which a woman and her nephew were robbed of €780,000, tortured and then set on fire.

His lawyers are challenging the “outdated and nowadays seldom used system” employed by the court-appointed fingerprint expert. They did so through an application before the Magistrates’ Court that is hearing extradition proceedings. 

But on Tuesday the court, presided by Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, said the defence's arguments have to be dealt with before a different court.

His lawyers initially disputed the Greek authorities’ request by arguing that the European Arrest Warrant, on which he was arrested in August, listed a different name for the wanted person.

The Greek authorities sent their Maltese counterparts a copy of fingerprints belonging to 'Hoxha Ashar', and local police concluded that the fingerprints matched those of Brakaj.

After the court appointed an expert to lift Brakaj’s fingerprints and compare them with the Greek copy, to eliminate any doubt, the man’s lawyers raised doubts not only about the fingerprints sent by Greece, but also about the “outdated” method and conclusions by the local expert. 

'An impeccable piece of work'

The defence’s arguments were described by Magistrate Frendo Dimech as “an impeccable piece of work” that was “worthy and groundbreaking across the board in all criminal cases”, however, this court was not competent to delve into the merits. Extradition proceedings were very technical and bound by strict time limits.

In this case, the Greek authorities had explained that they tracked down the suspect through a DNA sample lifted from the alleged crime scene that matched that of Brakaj’s father and siblings. 

The suspect had also been tracked on-site and there were also witnesses’ testimonies to that effect. 

The wanted man’s identity, confirmed at the arraignment stage, was to be proved only on a basis of probability, said the court, pointing out that a dated photo of the wanted man had also been sent by the Greek authorities.

The fingerprint issues raised by Brakaj’s lawyers, “opened up new vistas” and merited further study but “not before this court,” said Magistrate Frendo Dimech.

Request to remove expert's results turned down

For this reason, the defence’s request to remove the expert’s results from the records of the case was turned down.

At this, defence lawyer Franco Debono questions how the court could accept the fingerprints sent by the Greek authorities.

“Let’s imagine this was not an extradition case but a criminal case where evidence is brought that if the accused were to be sent to jail, he would be tortured. Would the court render itself an accomplice to that torture?”

“Likewise, would this court send this person [to Greece] even if the safeguards we have requested [from the Greek authorities] have not yet arrived yet?” argued Debono, adding that the court was to “safeguard citizens’ rights.”

Extradition requests were based on the notion of mutual trust between states. But while the Maltese authorities provided safeguards to foreign states, that approach did not seem to be mutual, added the lawyer.

The court pointed out that the Greek authorities had informed their local counterparts about the prison where Brakaj would be detained if the extradition request were to be upheld. 

“That information placed [the defence] one step backwards rather than forwards,” rebutted Debono. There was evidence showing the over-crowded conditions in Greek prisons, he said.

“What if there is proof of torture in that jail?” pressed on Debono.

“Then I would expect the Attorney General to withdraw the request,” said the magistrate.

“No democratic state that upholds the rule of law and fundamental rights would send back the person unless there were guarantees ensuring that his rights are safeguarded,” insisted Debono.

And so far, those guarantees had not been produced, he added.

'This court has nowhere to manoeuvre'

Debono’s arguments were valid, but were to be raised before a constitutional court, the magistrate noted. “This court has nowhere to manoevre,” magistrate Frendo Dimech concluded. 

The court adjourned the case for judgment.

Inspector Kurt Ryan Farrugia prosecuted.

Lawyers Marion Camilleri and Francesca Zarb were also defence counsel.