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.

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.

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.

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.