Extradition of man convicted of drugs offences in Ukraine refused due to risk of inhuman and degrading tratment

Ukraine seeks extradition of respondent with a view to executing nine-year sentence imposed in 2006 for importation and sale of drugs - Part II of the Extradition Act 1965 - European Convention on Extradition 1957 - Legal formalities: Court satisfied that respondent's extradition has been duly requested - Court satisfied that Part II of the Extradition Act 1965 applies to Ukraine - warrant for arrest of respondent issued in June 2012 - arrested in August 2012 - granted bail and remanded on that status from time to time prior to these proceedings - Court satisfied it has had produced to it authenticated copies of the relevant conviction and sentence - Court satisfied that it has been provided with particulars of each offence for which extradition is sought - Court satisfied that legal requirements as regards correspondence and minimum gravity are met - respondent objects to extradition on ground that various rights under the ECHR would thereby be breached - respondent primary objection is based on his rights under Article 3 of ECHR - respondent claims Ukrainian prison conditions amount to torture and are inhuman and degrading - respondent claims that extradition would breach his Article 6 right to fair trial as his conviction was based on hearsay and/or evidence obtained by coercion - respondent says extradition would breach Article 8 guarantee to respect for private and family life - Country of Origin information: Court takes into account reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and US Department of State reports - Court also attaches some limited weight to camera footage available online of conditions in a specified Ukrainian prison - respondent submits that, as reflected in the reports, there is a substantial chance that he will be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment - presumption that in extradition cases country seeking to extradite will act in good faith and will respect extraditee's fundamental rights - Court notes however that presumption much weaker and more easily rebutted than comparable presumption in European Arrest Warrant cases - due to absolute nature of obligation imposed by Article 3, objectives of European Convention on Extradition cannot be invoked to overcome an established risk of torture - Court must examine the level of danger to which the respondent is exposed - whether there is "real risk" of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - respondent bears burden of producing cogent evidence showing such risk - overall, reports presented to Court paint a bleak picture - Court finds lack of respect for prisoners' rights in Ukraine is endemic - respondent's previous experience in prison in Ukraine, although of limited evidential weight, reflects this - evidence presented to Court is enough to rebut presumption that respondent's rights under Article 3 will be respected - representations made by Ukraine to Court have not allayed concerns - Court is heavily influence by dissatisfaction of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture with Ukraine's response to its reports - Article 6 fair trial point: whether respondent has suffered a flagrant denial of justice in Ukraine - Court finds that respondent has not produced any cogent evidence that he was denied fair trial - therefore, Article 6 point not made out - nor is Court disposed to uphold Article 8 objection - as Article 3 objection upheld, Court refuses to make committal order under s. 29 of the Act of 1965, and orders the discharge of the respondent.