The case concerned Ecuador’s request for the extradition of the requested person for prosecution for sexual violence. The Court of Appeal of Rome had found that the conditions for extradition were met. The requested person challenged that decision, arguing that his serious diabetes and alleged depressive condition with suicidal thoughts made detention and transfer incompatible with his health, that the assurances provided by Ecuador concerning detention conditions were generic and misunderstood by the Court of Appeal, and that extradition would disproportionately affect his family life and social roots in Italy. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the appeal. As to health, it held that the expert assessment had found the diabetes, which did not present complications, compatible with ordinary detention and with transfer to Ecuador, and that the Ecuadorian authorities had confirmed the availability of healthcare, medicines and assistance in the intended detention facility. The Court also found that the medical material concerning alleged suicidal ideation was generic and did not disclose a structured suicide risk capable of barring extradition. As to detention conditions, the Court held that the Court of Appeal had correctly understood the information supplied by Ecuador, including the reported 82% overcrowding rate, and had assessed it together with the other specific assurances on detention and healthcare. The risk of inhuman or degrading treatment could not be inferred from overcrowding alone where the requesting State had provided concrete assurances and no precise contrary evidence had been submitted. Finally, the Court held that family ties and social integration in Italy do not constitute a judicial ground for refusing extradition, since such considerations fall within the exclusive competence of the Minister of Justice and cannot be treated as equivalent to the refusal ground applicable in European Arrest Warrant proceedings. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

In matters of extradition, under a surrender regime governed by a specific bilateral or multilateral convention, the Italian judicial authority is required — by way of a summary assessment — to verify that the documentation attached to the request is, in concrete terms, capable of demonstrating, from the perspective of the requesting State’s procedural system, the existence of incriminating elements against the person sought.

The case concerned an Ecuadorian request for extradition from Italy for the execution of a final conviction imposing a sixteen-year prison sentence. The conviction related primarily to intentional homicide and also included other offences, such as abuse of office, torture and concealment of a corpse. The Court of Appeal of Bologna held that the extradition request was supported by the required documentation and that the judgment had become final. It found that the offences were also punishable under Italian law and that the double criminality requirement was therefore satisfied. The Court further noted that the requested person had been properly identified and that no grounds for refusal under Articles 698 or 705 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure were present. It therefore declared that the conditions for extradition to Ecuador were met.