51 That abduction is condemned in Art. 7 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, while Arts. 1 and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have proclaimed the liberty and equality of all human beings; ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY is mentioned in Arts. 7 to 9 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, Arts. 5 and 7 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, Arts. 59 to 64 of the Constitution, and Art. 274 of the previous Penal Code, which established a sanction of three to six months’ imprisonment; ILLEGAL DETENTION and ABUSE OF AUTHORITY in Art. 278 of the same Code, with the same sanction as that established in Art. 274, in addition to suspension of up to six months; TORTURE is condemned in Art. 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 5 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, and Art. 65 of the Constitution; in addition, there is an InterAmerican Convention against Torture, Act 56/89, Arts. 3 to 5 of which establish the criminal responsibility of the authors of the crime of torture; HOMICIDE in Art. 4 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, and Art. 334 of the previous Penal Code, which established a sanction of six to twelve years’ imprisonment; AGGRAVATED HOMICIDE in Art. 337 with a penalty of 15 to 25 years’ imprisonment. In this regard, Art. 10 of the 1992 extradition treaty states: “extradition or provisional detention shall not be admissible: (1) when the maximum penalty applicable or applied is less than one year, including cases of attempted crimes and complicity; (2) when, for the same act, the individual whose extradition is requested, has been tried or has already been convicted or absolved in the requesting country; when the offense or penalty is before a proceedings or court of special jurisdiction, according to the law of the requesting country; (5) when the offense is of a military or political nature, against religion or publications. Nevertheless, alleging that the crime is for a political purpose or intention shall not prevent extradition if the act is an ordinary crime; however, the political purpose or intention shall not increase the penalty. […] That, it should be emphasized that the criminal action has not prescribed or extinguished, that the person requested cannot be considered to be free of criminal responsibility, and that the Paraguayan Judiciary is able to grant broad assurances of the guarantees of due process of law to the person requested, allowing him full exercise of the right to defense, conditions which make it viable to request the defendant’s extradition. […] That, consequently, it is concluded that all the essential requirements for the viability of the extradition request have been fulfilled: existence of the extradition treaty, ratified and exchanged between the Republic of Paraguay and the Federative Republic of Brazil; court order for the detention and even for the imprisonment for the purpose of extradition of the accused, STROESSNER MATIAUDA; conduct of the accused classified as a crime, as proved during the proceedings; the illegal acts of which he is accused being of an ordinary nature and not prescribed, since the preliminary proceedings are being processed currently. […] DECIDE[D]: TO REQUEST THE EXTRADITION of the defendant fugitive from justice, ALFREDO STROESSNER MATIAUDA, of Paraguayan nationality, born on November 3, 1912, in Encarnación, married, of age, son of HUGO STROESSNER and HERIBERTA MATIAUDA, bearer of identity document No. V082094-T and card No. 0387H8-SPMAF/SR/DF, issued on June 8, 1993, who is the object of a court order for preventive detention and who resides actually in Brasilia, Federative Republic of Brazil. The supporting documents required by the extradition treaty in force between the Republic of Paraguay and the Federative Republic of Brazil are attached so that they may be forwarded to the Federal Supreme Court with competence in the jurisdiction and matter. TO FORWARD to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Paraguay the pertinent letter rogatory, through the Supreme Court of Justice, following translation into the official language of the requested country, in order to proceed to send the pertinent documents, by the diplomatic channel, to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Federative Republic of Brazil. TO REGISTER, notify and transmit a copy to the SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. The same day, this Criminal Court sent the letter rogatory to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that it could forward the pertinent documents to the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court of Justice and issued a letter rogatory to the Brazilian Federal