Court of Appeal correctly pointed out that the defence submissions referred to a situation of significant political instability in Peru, but did not in any way substantiate — on the basis of reports issued by reliable organisations — the alleged serious problems of prison overcrowding. In the substantial absence of elements capable of raising doubts as to the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, it must be excluded that the Court of Appeal is under an obligation to nonetheless request further information, as this would amount to a merely exploratory activity, not justified by proven elements capable of undermining the principle of mutual trust between States. This principle is grounded in the treaty-based nature of extradition agreements, which are founded on a relationship of mutual confidence and reliance between States. Accordingly, the domestic judicial authority is required to seek additional information only where that presumption of reliability is called into question on the basis of concrete elements, which may also be derived from open sources, provided they are deemed reliable. Therefore, in the absence of any element capable of giving rise to suspicion that the conditions of detention would not comply with human rights standards, no general duty to request further information or assurances can be invoked, as this would undermine the very principle of mutual trust underpinning extradition treaties. Moreover, in the case law of this Court, there are no recent precedents establishing that detention conditions in Peru are incompatible with the protection of human rights.

Under the Extradition Treaty between Italy and Peru, surrender shall be refused “if, at the time of receipt of the request, the prosecution or the penalty is time-barred under the law of either Party in respect of the offence for which extradition is sought.” As this constitutes a mandatory ground for refusal, the identification of the relevant conditions necessarily falls within the assessment of the judicial authority of the requested State. Accordingly, that authority must both assess limitation under its own domestic law and verify whether the offence has become time-barred under the law of the requesting State. The assessment of limitation must be carried out by applying the law in force at the time the offence was committed. The principle of tempus regit actum, together with the autonomous determination of limitation periods under the legal systems of both the requesting and the requested States, stems from the principle of double criminality—and, by the same token, of double prosecutability. Consequently, the law applicable for limitation purposes is necessarily that in force at the time the offence underlying the extradition request was committed.

The case concerned a request by Peru for the extradition of a Peruvian national accused of drug trafficking for allegedly attempting to export cocaine to the United States. The requested person challenged the extradition decision arguing that the general human rights situation in Peru, including prison overcrowding, poor detention conditions, corruption within institutions, and concerns regarding judicial independence, exposed her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal had failed to adequately address the detailed submissions and international reports produced by the defence, including reports from Amnesty International and the Italian Embassy. The Court reiterated that, even in the presence of a bilateral extradition treaty, Italian courts must conduct a concrete assessment of detention conditions in the requesting State and, where necessary, seek additional information. The extradition decision was therefore annulled and remanded for a new assessment.

In matters of extradition to a foreign State, the late transmission of the surrender request by the Republic of Peru, after the arrest has been carried out, does not entail the nullity of the extradition proceedings, nor does it in itself indicate a lack of continued interest on the part of the requesting State, since the Extradition Treaty between Italy and Peru, ratified by Law No. 135 of 3 May 2004, contains no provision to that effect, without prejudice to the termination of the custodial measure upon the expiry of the ninety-day time limit.