If there is a current and concrete risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of the requested person, the extradition request must be refused. After reconstructing the procedural background and confirming that the formal requirements for extradition were met, the Court ruled out surrender on the ground that, if transferred to Turkey, the requested person would face a concrete risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, the Court relied on the updated picture of systemic concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Turkey, with specific reference to detention conditions, the independence of the judiciary, the protection of fair trial rights, and the effectiveness of the guarantees arising under the ECHR. Referring to domestic and supranational case law, as well as several institutional and international sources, the Court held that any assurances provided by the requesting State were not sufficient, in the absence of objective, precise and up-to-date elements, to rule out the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights.

Where the 1957 European Convention on Extradition applies — which does not provide for an autonomous assessment of the evidentiary material by the authority of the requested State in cases of extradition for prosecution — the Italian judicial authority, on the one hand, must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the surrender request and, on the other hand, is required to ascertain that the request sets out the reasons why, from the perspective of the requesting State, the commission of the offence attributed to the accused person was considered probable, without any possibility of directly examining the sources of evidence. Accordingly, even within the limits of a summary assessment as to the seriousness of the evidentiary indications, the requested authority must nevertheless assess, on the basis of the documents produced and the content of the request, the specificity of the charges and of the sources of evidence. That being clarified, where the evidentiary framework is sparse, Italian courts cannot rely on unsatisfactory and merely apparent reasoning, without specifying the allegations and the sources of evidence or investigative findings capable of linking the facts to the charges.

Article 714 requires, for the adoption of a coercive measure aimed at securing surrender, a prognostic assessment as to whether the conditions exist for a judgment granting extradition. This provision constitutes an unavoidable “safeguard” for the requested person, as it prevents the risk of unjustified restrictions on his personal liberty and introduces a threshold already at the moment when the Court must decide whether to impose the coercive measure — and also when it is called upon to decide on an application for revocation or replacement of the measure. Therefore, especially if the request comes from a State — Turkey — whose situation is extremely complex, in light of the circumstances specifically documented by the defence concerning the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights, the Court cannot omit the prognostic assessment.

In matters of flight risk, neither prior convictions nor the severity of the sentence can, in themselves, establish proof of a risk of absconding, as they are abstract considerations from which it is not possible to infer a genuine intention to evade the decision that the Court of Appeal will ultimately take at the end of the proceedings. In particular, while the severity of the sentence is an element of undeniable relevance, it cannot be regarded as the sole benchmark; rather, it must be assessed in conjunction with other specific factors capable of demonstrating a concrete likelihood that the requested person may clandestinely abscond.

With reference to extradition requests submitted by Turkey, in light of the situation—ascertained by various international institutions—of systematic violations by that State of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of detainees, particularly those belonging to the Kurdish ethnic group or to opposition parties, which persist notwithstanding the lifting of the suspension of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in that State following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, it is necessary for the judicial authority to obtain unequivocal elements in order to verify, in concreto, that the person sought does not face a risk of being subjected, within Turkish detention facilities, to inhuman or degrading treatment.

In extradition proceedings, a mandatory ground for refusal arises where the request, formally based on an ordinary offence, in fact conceals a purpose of political persecution, provided that the person concerned submits concrete elements showing that surrender would expose them to a violation of their fundamental rights.

Extradition to turkey and risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: in cases of passive extradition to turkey, the detention conditions to be afforded to the requested person must be assessed in concreto, given that, since july 2016, the application of the european convention on human rights has been formally suspended in that state, and that instances of arbitrary detention and widespread practices of torture within penitentiary facilities have been documented, giving rise to a high level of risk of inhuman or degrading treatment not limited to political detainees.