🇮🇹 Italy → 🇺🇦 Ukraine

The mere fact that a State is involved in an armed conflict does not automatically imply that detainees will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In any event, within extradition proceedings—during which the actual evolution of the armed conflict must be assessed on a case-by-case basis—it is always possible to request additional information from the requesting State, as well as any necessary assurances regarding the place of detention of the requested person and the respect of their fundamental rights.

With regard to the request to replace the current custodial measure with house arrest, and as to why such measure — even with the prescribed conditions and safeguards — would not be sufficient to neutralise the identified precautionary needs, the Court is effectively silent. It follows that the challenged order must be quashed on this point; the Court of Appeal shall apply the stated principles and carry out a fresh assessment as to the adequacy of the measure currently in place, or the possibility of replacing it with house arrest.

The prohibition under Article 297(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on multiple precautionary charges entailing the application of the same coercive measure for “the same facts” also applies in extradition proceedings, in the absence of specific conventional or domestic provisions to the contrary. This follows from the general reference made by Article 714(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the provisions set out in Title I of Book IV of the Code. The Court declared the custodial measure ineffective in respect of a requested person who had already served the maximum period of detention in the course of a different extradition proceeding initiated, for the same facts, following a prior request.