Russia

The Supreme Court of Cyprus dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a habeas corpus application challenging the requested person’s extradition to Russia for prosecution for large-scale corporate tax evasion. The Court accepted that the assurances provided by the Russian authorities could not be regarded as satisfactory, in particular in light of Russia’s withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights system, but held that this did not automatically preclude extradition. It reiterated that the requested person bears the burden of establishing, through concrete and specific evidence, substantial grounds for believing that he personally faces a real risk of ill-treatment, an unfair trial or other human-rights violations, and found that such an individualized risk had not been demonstrated. The Court also rejected the allegation that the prosecution was pursued for ulterior motives, holding that suspicion alone was insufficient and that bad faith had to be established by positive and convincing evidence.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, when assessing the existence of grounds precluding the issuance of a decision in favor of surrender - which, pursuant to Article 714(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, also bar the adoption of coercive measures aimed at securing its execution - the Court of Appeal is required to determine whether, on the basis of objective and reliable elements, there is a risk that the person sought will be subjected, in the requesting State, to inhuman or degrading treatment (also considering the impact of Russia - Ukraine war).

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against an Uzbek national sought for:- murder committed to conceal another offence;- armed robbery committed by multiple offenders.The requested person was internationally sought through an Interpol Red Notice issued by Russian authorities.The İstanbul 15th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the Russian Federation.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition materials had not been sufficiently translated;- the offences were time-barred;- extradition would violate fair trial guarantees and legal certainty;- extradition conditions had not been satisfied.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.The Court emphasized that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- the offences constituted serious ordinary crimes under both Turkish and Russian law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the alleged crimes were committed in Russia and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- there was insufficient evidence that the requested person would face discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment upon extradition.The Court therefore concluded that the extradition request satisfied the requirements of Law No. 6706 and applicable treaty obligations.

risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: for the purposes of assessing the ground for refusal provided for by article 698(1) of the italian code of criminal procedure, the court of appeal must verify whether the penalty provided for under the law of the requesting state—regardless of its formal designation—effectively amounts to treatment that violates the fundamental rights of the individual.

The case concerned the requested extradition of a Ukrainian national to Russia for organised drug-related offences carrying a possible sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court was required, even beyond the grounds expressly raised on appeal, to examine whether a life sentence would be reducible de jure and de facto through a realistic review and release mechanism compatible with Article 3 ECHR. The mere existence of a formal parole provision was insufficient without assessing its practical accessibility, governing criteria and actual operation. The decision permitting extradition was therefore quashed and the case remitted for a comprehensive reassessment.

Article 59 of the russian criminal code provides that the death penalty shall not be applied to a person extradited if the legislation of the requested state does not provide for it, or if its non-application forms part of a specific condition of the extradition. In this respect, a provision of positive law within the legal system of the requesting state, according to which the death penalty is not prescribed for the offence for which extradition is sought, must be regarded as an absolute guarantee for the purposes of granting extradition.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a Georgian national sought for prosecution for intentional homicide. Russian judicial authorities had initiated homicide proceedings and issued an in absentia arrest warrant dated 15 December 2000. The requested person was internationally sought for extradition to Russia.He was apprehended in Türkiye on 23 May 2017 while attempting to leave the country. Following arrest, Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Russian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:- despite repeal of former Article 18 TCK by Article 36 of Law No. 6706,- the new law did not alter the requested person’s legal position.The Court further held that:- intentional homicide constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- extradition conditions were satisfied under: Law No. 6706; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was upheld.

The Belarusian authorities requested the extradition of a stateless person for prosecution for an alleged aggravated theft committed in Minsk. The appellant argued that the lower court had failed to consider his application for Russian citizenship, his family circumstances and his willingness to be prosecuted in Russia. The Supreme Court held that he had not acquired Russian citizenship, had not applied before the extradition review began, and had neither refugee status nor temporary asylum. It further found that double criminality was satisfied and that Belarus had provided adequate guarantees concerning speciality, defence rights, protection from ill-treatment and the absence of discriminatory or political persecution.