Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania

In an extradition case, Article 3 is engaged only where there are strong grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on return. General evidence of ill-treatment is insufficient without a fact-sensitive assessment of its currency, systemic nature, frequency and relevance to the individual’s vulnerability. A Convention signatory should ordinarily be assumed capable of protecting fundamental rights and complying with its international obligations. An adjournment to obtain further expert evidence may properly be refused where the evidence could have been obtained earlier, previous funding applications have failed, and existing country material is adequate.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 directing his extradition to Lithuania to serve a 38-month sentence for violent rape of a male.

He argued that prison conditions in Lithuania created a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also sought an adjournment to obtain expert evidence about Lithuanian prisons. The District Judge relied on the age and quality of the evidence, the claimant’s individual vulnerability, and assurances and steps identified by the Lithuanian authorities.

The central issues were whether further expert evidence was required and whether the evidence established a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court refused an adjournment to obtain an expert report. The claimant had already made two unsuccessful funding applications, had had almost eight months to obtain the evidence, and had not shown that a further application would succeed. The court also agreed with Collins J that further expert evidence was unlikely to add materially to the existing country material.
2. The court applied the approach in Gomes v Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038: Council of Europe Convention signatories should be assumed capable of protecting rights and complying with their international obligations. That assumption did not determine the case, but supported refusal of the adjournment and formed part of the assessment of the merits.
3. On the merits, the applicable Article 3 threshold was the requirement for strong grounds for believing that the claimant faced a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on return, as stated in R v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah [2004] UKHL 26. The claimant had not met that threshold.
4. The court considered the evidence of prison violence, the claimant’s vulnerability as a convicted male sex offender, Lithuania’s status as a Convention signatory and party to other international agreements, and the Lithuanian authorities’ assurances and stated violence-prevention measures. The material relied on was old, and there was no sufficient basis for concluding that the claimant faced the required real risk.
5. The reasoning of Edgaras Miklis v The Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin), concerning systemic violations, frequency and particular vulnerability, was reflected in the assessment. The District Judge had reached the correct decision for essentially the correct reasons.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The court also refused an adjournment to obtain further expert evidence.
• District Judge: On 25 March 2009, District Judge Nicholas Evans ordered extradition under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.