They are starving in vain, they will be extradited

The Ministry of Justice explained that extradition proceedings are against American citizens Marijeta Terebelian (37) and Richard Aivazian (43) concluded and that there is no right of appeal against final decisions in those proceedings.

They also announced that the two will be extradited to the United States of America - regardless of criminal charges and hunger strikes.

They spoke out because of, as they said, "inaccurate and unargued media appearances by lawyers." Ratko Pantović” related to that subject.

Pantović previously announced that Terebelijan and Ajvazijan, after their extradition detention expired, were illegally transferred from the Investigation Prison to the Penal Correctional Facility. He claims that he and his clients were not provided with any documents on the basis of which the two convicted of multimillion-dollar fraud were transferred to the prison in Spuz, where the convicts are staying. Announcing the criminal charges, Pantović announced that his clients had started a hunger strike in prison.

"The Montenegrin judicial authorities, in the procedures prescribed by law, decided to extradite Marijeta Terebelian and Richard Aivazian to the requesting state, and created an obligation for the state of Montenegro to carry out those decisions. This state obligation will be fulfilled, and it will not reduce or exclude any criminal charges or hunger strikes", said the government department headed by the minister Marko Kovač.

They announced that the extradition proceedings were completed in the way that the High Court in Podgorica and the Ministry of Justice decided to extradite the mentioned persons to the requesting state - the United States of America.

They explain that Terebelijan gave her consent to be extradited, which is why the High Court in Podgorica allowed her extradition in a shortened procedure, and that in relation to Ajvazijan, that court determined in the regular procedure that the legal prerequisites for extradition were met.

"That decision was confirmed by the Appellate Court of Montenegro, after which the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro issued a decision allowing his extradition to the requesting state. The Ministry of Justice informed the requesting state about the adoption of both decisions before the end of the extradition detention. Here, first of all, we point out that the extradition proceedings have ended, and that there is no right of appeal against final, final decisions in these proceedings", said the Ministry of Justice.

In the press release, they point out that both American citizens participated in the extradition proceedings: "And they were enabled to enjoy all the rights that follow them in accordance with the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of Montenegro, which is confirmed by the fact that in those proceedings they had a lawyer whom they themselves chose lawyer Pantović, who took actions on their behalf and declared legal remedies. In other words, their right to defense could not be violated, especially in the case of Marietta Terebelijan, who, in the presence of the defense attorney, asked the court to be extradited as soon as possible".

They also said that Pantović's argument that in this particular case, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code were violated to the detriment of Terebelijan and Ajvazian.

"Because this is not a criminal procedure, nor are the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Montenegro applied, but rather an extradition procedure, in which the provisions of the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of Montenegro and other international documents that regulate this are applied area. In such a specific procedure, specific rules apply. In this regard, the allegation that the mentioned persons' right to a fair trial has been violated does not stand, because they are not tried in the extradition procedure in Montenegro, but only the fulfillment of the conditions for extradition and the permissibility of extradition are determined", explained the Ministry of Justice.

The lawyer only threatens and has not submitted the power of attorney

The Ministry of Justice announced that lawyer Pantović, along with the submission requesting information and threatening criminal charges, did not submit a power of attorney.

They also said that an experienced lawyer, like Pantović, knows that his power of attorney for representation before the High Court and the Court of Appeals does not extend to the Ministry of Justice as an executive authority.

"Unless he has received from his clients a general power of attorney for representation before all state bodies in Montenegro. Even if such a power of attorney exists, it is the obligation of a lawyer who addresses a state authority on someone's behalf to submit such a power of attorney, as proof that he has the authority to address a state authority on behalf of the person giving the power of attorney. "Attorney Pantović did not legitimize himself before the Ministry of Justice in that capacity, but only submitted a submission requesting information and threatening criminal charges," the Ministry of Justice announced.

If there were no additional deadlines, they could escape

Explaining why the additional deadline for extradition was left, the Ministry of Justice also pointed out that extradition decisions were delivered to American citizens immediately after they were passed and translated into their language.

"As we previously announced, the legal basis that, after the decision on the extradition of these persons, remains deprived of their liberty until they are taken over by the requesting state, is derived from the provisions of Article 25 of the Law on International Legal Assistance of Montenegro, which serves as a kind of reserve when for objective reasons, the persons cannot be taken over until the moment when the extradition detention expires, which period in this case was very short, because it is a requesting state from another continent. That is why the countries, which were the authors and signatories of the European Convention on Extradition, left such a reservation, so that there would not be a situation where the state, which, through its state authorities, in a legally prescribed procedure, decided to extradite a person to the requesting state, that person does not released a few days before the extradition, because the extradition, due to objective circumstances that sometimes do not depend on the states, could not be carried out during the time covered by the extradition detention".

The Ministry of Justice explains that due to these circumstances, a solution was found that is used in all European countries when it comes to extraditions - that, after the requesting country has been informed that extradition is allowed, a deadline of 30 days is left for that country to take over the person. during which time it is logical that the person must be deprived of liberty, in order to realize the extradition.

"According to the domestic law, upon the reasoned proposal of the requesting state, the specified deadline can be extended for another 15 days, under the threat of the release of the person, if it is not taken over within that deadline. If it were not for the mentioned article as a kind of protective mechanism, which was carried over from Article 18 of the European Convention on Extradition, there would be open space for various abuses, delays in the extradition procedure and the extradition system would be very ineffective, because it is realistic to expect that every foreigner who did not give consent to be extradited, if he is given the opportunity and possibly a loophole in the law, to escape and prevent the requested state from fulfilling the obligation that its judicial authorities have decided to be fulfilled", said the Ministry of Justice.

Their punishment will also include a term of imprisonment

Explaining that the legal basis for the treatment of Terebelijan and Ajvazian exists in the Law on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of Montenegro, the European Convention on Extradition and the European Convention on Human Rights, they said that in this particular case it was the last stage of extradition: "Although in there is no obligation under the law to make a decision on keeping a person in the so-called transit, the legal basis for their deprivation of liberty is established in domestic and international regulations, and the time for which persons were deprived of their liberty in the extradition procedure in Montenegro is included in the imposed sentence in the requesting state, of which the Ministry of Justice informs it immediately after the extradition has been carried out , which excludes the possibility of an unfounded deprivation of liberty in the requested state", said the Ministry of Justice.