50 measures consisting in the preventive detention of the accused as well as preventive attachment in order to ensure that the defendant be made available to the court and the success of the procedure. […] That […] according to A.I No. 2351 of November 1993, by which the Court, based on the current status of the case and the probative elements attached to the proceedings, the procedural assessment pursuant to the rules of the judge’s sound criticism, and the provisions of our codes regarding form and content, proceeds to classify the crimes attributed to the accused, ALFREDO STORESSNER MATIAUDA, and finds that they are included in the provisions of arts. 274, 278, 334 and 337 of the previous Penal Code, in accordance with arts. 36(3) and 47 of the same Code; articles that define the illegal acts of ABDUCTION, ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, TORTURE and DOUBLE HOMICIDE, which are of an ordinary and common nature corresponding to the ORDINARY LAW AND JURISDICTION; the possible sanctions for these types of illegal acts defined as crimes in the said articles are in excess of one year’s imprisonment and they have not extinguished. That this Court, aware that the fugitive from justice, ALFREDO STROESSNER MATIAUDA, is on Brazilian territory, in official communication No. 35 addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 7, 2001,…requested the Ministry to inform the Court about the legal situation of the accused fugitive from justice, as regards his status as a political refugee in the Federative Republic of Brazil. […] That, from the evidence, the guilt is presumed of the defendant, ALFREDO STROESSNER MATIAUDA, as mastermind of the criminal acts that cost the life of the brothers RODOLFO FELICIANO RAMÍREZ VILLALBA and BENJAMÍN DE JESÚS RAMÍREZ VILLALBA on September 21, 1976. The examination of the written communications between the defendants PASTOR MILCIADES CORONEL, BENITO GUANES SERRANO and ALFREDO STROESSNER, the latter as the person giving instructions, is also emphasized. That, although in the instant case the accused fugitive from Paraguayan justice has not yet been detained in national territory or abroad, the legal mechanism established for this type of situation is EXTRADITION. Therefore it is necessary to examine whether the Paraguayan State, through this Court, is able to request the extradition and fulfill the requirements established in the treaty in force between our countries and the corresponding laws. That, pursuant to the foregoing, the Court indicates, in particular, that extradition is an act of sovereignty, a pronouncement whereby the respective State, in countries that recognize this mechanism and through the Judiciary, complies with a duty or a moral obligation in order to cooperate with other nations in the task of suppressing crime, in compliance with the provisions of rules any relevant treaties that may have been signed, the provisions of its own laws or the principles of international law. However, such decisions do not include any kind of decision concerning exoneration or conviction because, when extradition is denied or granted, the individual is neither exonerated nor convicted, since extradition is not a punishment. That, in view of the above, it is a very normal practice among nations to accede to extradition requests, which is what is known as conditional extradition, since it is granted under specific conditions; for example, that a person handed over will not receive the death penalty and will only be tried for the crime for which extradition has been granted. These conditions are frequently established by treaty or law. […] That an extradition treaty was duly ratified and exchanged by the Governments of Brazil and Paraguay, and has been part of the law of both nations since 1925. Therefore, the said treaty governs on matters relating to extradition. […] That, the criminal acts of which the defendant, ALFREDO STROESSNER MATIAUDA, is accused are ABDUCTION, ILLEGAL DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, TORTURE and DOUBLE HOMICIDE, established and sanctioned by arts. 274, 278, 334 and 337 of the previous Penal Code, in accordance with arts. 36(3) and 47 of the same Code; illegal acts that are of a COMMON and EXTRADITABLE nature, in view of the penalties that would correspond to the accused should he be convicted after compliance with the guarantee of a trial prior to sentencing.