Brazil requested the extradition of a former federal parliamentarian for the enforcement of a sentence concerning unlawful carrying of a firearm and unlawful coercion committed with a firearm. The appellant challenged surrender on political-offence and persecution grounds, alleged unfairness before the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, disputed double criminality, and relied on prison conditions and serious health concerns. The Court rejected the objections concerning the political character of the offences, fair trial, double criminality, and the general conditions at the designated women’s prison, finding the information and assurances on those matters sufficiently specific. It nevertheless quashed the judgment and remitted the case because the lower court had not obtained precise, individualised information showing that the requested person would receive continuous specialist monitoring, appropriate medication, and adequate treatment for her documented medical conditions.

The case concerned an extradition request by Brazil for the prosecution of the requested person in relation to aggravated sexual violence against a minor allegedly committed in Brazil between 2011 and 2018. The requested person challenged the judgment granting extradition, arguing that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in Brazil and should have requested information on the specific prison facility of destination, overcrowding, sanitary conditions and minimum living standards. The Italian Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the requested person to provide objective, precise, reliable and up-to-date evidence capable of raising a concrete risk of treatment incompatible with fundamental rights. General references to prison conditions, NGO reports or press articles were held insufficient, especially where the material relied upon did not contain specific and individualised information concerning the requested person’s likely detention. Since no concrete elements had been produced to undermine mutual trust between the States, the Court held that the Court of Appeal was not required to seek further information from the Brazilian authorities and dismissed the appeal.

The absence, in the requesting State, of effective protection of the guarantee of judicial impartiality, viewed from an objective standpoint, constitutes a bar to surrender, since that guarantee forms part of the essential core of the right to a fair trial and of the rights of the defence, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the legal order, as guaranteed by the Constitution and by supranational instruments. In the case at issue, the person injured by the offences charged against the requested person had sat on the judicial panel as reporting judge, had also dealt with the preliminary issue of his own incompatibility, had issued the arrest warrant, and had drafted the extradition request.

The case concerned Brazil’s request for the extradition of a former Brazilian parliamentarian, also holding Italian citizenship, for the execution of custodial sentences imposed by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court for offences relating to unlawful access to judicial information systems and ideological falsification. The defence opposed extradition on several grounds, arguing that the proceedings in Brazil had violated fair trial guarantees, that the requested person had been subjected to political and judicial persecution, that the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court lacked impartiality, and that detention in Brazil — in particular in the women’s prison facility indicated by the Brazilian authorities — would expose her to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court of Appeal of Rome first held that the late production of documents by the parties was admissible, since the strict five-day time limit for defence memoranda does not apply to documentary evidence in extradition proceedings and the material had been acquired and discussed at the hearing. On the merits, the Court found that the conditions for extradition under the Italy–Brazil treaty and Italian procedural law were satisfied. It rejected the objections based on fair trial and political persecution, holding that the extradition court could not reassess the merits of the foreign criminal proceedings and that the material relied on by the defence did not establish a flagrant denial of justice or a discriminatory prosecution. As to detention conditions, the Court considered the specific information and assurances provided by Brazil concerning the intended women’s detention facility, including separation from other categories of prisoners, access to medical care and educational activities, monitoring by institutional bodies, and available safeguards against abuse. The Court therefore concluded that the alleged risks had not been shown to be concrete, individualized and sufficiently serious to bar extradition. Extradition was granted, subject to the ordinary treaty and statutory safeguards on speciality and subsequent surrender.

Under the Italy–Brazil Extradition Treaty, the validation of a provisional arrest and the imposition of coercive measures do not require a formal extradition request at the initial stage. Pursuant to Article 13(4), such measures lapse only if the extradition request and supporting documents are not received within forty days from the notification of the arrest. Accordingly, a mere preliminary request is sufficient at the validation stage, provided that the complete extradition request is submitted within the prescribed time limit.

The existence of a flight risk, which justifies the application of a measure restricting personal liberty, must be supported by a reasoned assessment based on specific, concrete, and indicative elements pointing to a real possibility that the requested person may abscond clandestinely. The severity of the penalty that the person would face upon surrender does not, in itself, constitute a relevant factor for this purpose. In the present case, the reasoning provided by the Court of Appeal is merely apparent, as it relied on a factor—the seriousness of the offence—which is not, per se, unequivocally indicative of a flight risk, while at the same time failing to verify the existence of elements capable of establishing the concreteness and present nature of such risk, or, conversely, its absence. As to the type of decision, the Court considers that the preferable solution is to make the annulment of the order for lack of reasoning entail the immediate release of the requested person.

In matters of compensation for unlawful detention, the deprivation of personal liberty suffered within the framework of passive extradition proceedings may be deemed unjust even where those proceedings do not end with a decision refusing extradition, but with a purely procedural ruling, such as a decision of no grounds to proceed due to the requested person’s departure.

In the absence of a treaty between the States concerned, or where an applicable treaty does not provide for an assessment by the requested State of the existence of serious indications of guilt, the Italian judicial authority must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the extradition request. Rather, it must ascertain that the request sets out the reasons why, within the framework of the requesting State’s procedural system, it has been considered probable that the requested person committed the offence forming the basis of the extradition. This requirement is satisfied where the competent judicial authorities have reconstructed in detail the time, place, manner of commission and underlying motives of the alleged criminal conduct, identifying the existence of multiple indicia of guilt in the results of police investigations, witness statements, and the findings of forensic medical examinations carried out on the victim’s body.

With regard to the protection of the fundamental rights of the person whose surrender is sought — and, in particular, the right to health — the Court cannot confine itself to verifying whether, in the requesting State, healthcare facilities are adequate to meet the person’s therapeutic needs, but must also take into account the concrete impact and, therefore, the potential adverse effects of the surrender procedure on the individual’s health condition, including, for example, the difficulties and possible complications arising from the transfer abroad or the need to ensure continuity of ongoing medical treatment.

In matters concerning the extension of extradition, the conditions for granting the request are not met where, although only a summary assessment of the evidence submitted by the requesting State is required, the accompanying documentation does not provide a sufficient prima facie evidentiary basis as to the unlawful origin of the assets involved in the alleged self-laundering offence. The mere purchase of assets abroad, the failure to comply with tax disclosure obligations, and the temporal connection with offences already adjudicated are not, in themselves, sufficient to establish that the reinvested funds originated from the predicate offences.

For the purposes of assessing the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, sources of knowledge may properly include documents and reports produced by non-governmental organisations whose reliability is generally recognised at the international level, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. According to reports from various non-governmental sources, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the situation in Brazilian prisons has long been endemically characterised—particularly in certain state districts, including Espírito Santo, which is specifically relevant to the present proceedings—by practices of violence and abuse against detainees, carried out both by internal criminal gangs, known to and tolerated by prison authorities, and by prison officers themselves. This occurs within a broader structural context of dilapidation and inadequacy of prison facilities, resulting in severe overcrowding and deficient sanitary and hygienic conditions, which in turn facilitate the spread of serious infectious diseases.