Klimas, R (on the application of) v Prosecutors General Office of Lithuania

Extradition to a Convention country will not ordinarily breach Article 3 merely because prison conditions there fall below international standards. Where the requesting state is a Convention state, the individual’s domestic remedies and access to the Strasbourg court are relevant safeguards. A domestic extradition court need not generally investigate prison conditions, save in wholly extraordinary circumstances affecting the requesting state’s constitutional order. In any event, evidence must show that the individual faces a real risk of treatment reaching the high Article 3 threshold. General evidence of poor or overcrowded conditions, without a sufficient connection to the individual and the treatment likely to be experienced, is inadequate.

A Lithuanian court issued a domestic arrest warrant in 2001, followed by a European arrest warrant in 2005. The warrant was certified in the United Kingdom in 2009, and the City of Westminster Magistrates Court ordered extradition on 2 February 2010.

On appeal, the appellant pursued only the argument that extradition would breach Article 3 of the Convention because of prison conditions in Lithuania. He relied on a 2009 US Department of State report, which was unavailable before the district judge. The issue was whether that evidence required the extradition court to refuse extradition under sections 21 and 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court rejected the appeal both as a matter of principle and on the evidence.
2. The Strasbourg court’s reasoning in KRS v the United Kingdom, concerning removal to another Convention state, applied equally to extradition. A Convention state is presumed to comply with its Convention obligations and the individual may pursue complaints against that state through its domestic authorities and the Strasbourg court. Accordingly, a domestic extradition court need not ordinarily examine allegations about prison conditions in the requesting state.
3. The exception is limited to wholly extraordinary circumstances in which the constitutional order of the requesting state has been upset, such as a military coup or violent revolution.
4. Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 required the court to decide whether extradition was compatible with Convention rights. That question was narrower than whether removal to a Convention country could expose the United Kingdom to Article 3 responsibility in the abstract. The safeguards identified in KRS v the United Kingdom meant that the risk could ordinarily be treated as eliminated or reduced below the level of a real risk.
5. The US report showed significant shortcomings, including overcrowding and poor conditions in some facilities. It did not establish that this appellant would suffer Article 3 ill-treatment, or that there were substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of such treatment.
6. Orchowski v Poland illustrated the fact-specific nature of the assessment. The serious and prolonged conditions in that case were materially different from the general evidence relied upon here. The appeal was therefore rejected.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order made by the City of Westminster Magistrates Court was dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Extradition was ordered on 2 February 2010.