In extradition matters, the risk that the person sought may be subjected to acts of private revenge by individuals unconnected with institutional authorities and acting for personal motives does not constitute a ground for refusal under Article 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, as such contingencies can be prevented through the adoption of adequate protective measures by the requesting State.

The progress made by Albania, particularly in the area of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, led the European Council to formally open accession negotiations with the European Union on 19 July 2022. Furthermore, with specific reference to prison conditions, on 23 November 2021 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of the Council of Europe conducted a visit to Albania, at the conclusion of which it did not report any instances of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: where the objections raised are generic and unsupported by evidence capable of substantiating them—being limited to a mere reference to a report following a visit by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, without any connection to the specific circumstances of the case—no obstacles arise to the granting of extradition.

The prohibition on granting extradition in cases where there are grounds to believe that the requested person will be subjected to persecution or discrimination, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, or in any event to acts amounting to a violation of fundamental human rights, applies only where such a situation is attributable to a legislative framework or a de facto practice of the requesting State. This applies irrespective of contingencies extraneous to institutional policies, in respect of which legal protection remains, in any event, available.

In extradition proceedings, the acquisition of information concerning detention conditions outside the adversarial process renders such information inadmissible and results in the nullity of a decision granting extradition where it is based on that material. the case concerned a situation in which the court of appeal relied on a communication from the foreign authority received after the hearing had taken place, on which the defence had no opportunity to comment.