The case concerned a person sought by Kuwait for extradition in relation to a money laundering offence and subject to extradition detention in Italy. Following an earlier annulment by the Italian Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Rome replaced custody in prison with house arrest at the requested person’s home in Rome, with electronic monitoring, relying essentially on his health conditions. Kuwait challenged that decision, arguing that the Court of Appeal had failed to assess the continuing concreteness and actuality of the risk of flight, despite the requested person’s foreign nationality, lack of stable ties in Italy, and the fact that the extradition proceedings had already been concluded. The Italian Supreme Court upheld the appeal. It held that, in extradition proceedings, the existence of a flight risk justifying coercive measures must be assessed concretely and currently, on the basis of recent factual indicators showing a real and foreseeable risk that the person may abscond and jeopardize Italy’s international obligation to secure surrender. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had merely replaced prison custody with a less restrictive measure on the basis of the requested person’s precarious health, without explaining whether a concrete flight risk still existed and, if so, whether house arrest with electronic monitoring was sufficient to address it. Since the previous annulment had expressly required the lower court to reassess both the existence of flight risk and the adequacy of any alternative measure, the order was annulled with remand for a fresh assessment.