Pimenta v Government of the Republic of Brazil

Extradition engages the returning state’s Convention responsibilities where substantial grounds establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, or of a flagrant denial of justice contrary to Article 6. Specific and authoritative assurances may answer general evidence of poor prison conditions where they can reasonably be relied upon. A flagrant denial of justice requires unfairness so fundamental that it nullifies or destroys the essence of the fair-trial right. On the evidence, the assurances relating to detention, monitoring, transport and trial arrangements were sufficient. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for extradition to Brazil. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition. Accused of two murders, the appellant argued that extradition would expose him to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment because of Brazilian prison conditions, and to an Article 6 violation because of pre-trial delay and possible trial by video-link. The central issue was whether the evidence established a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 or of a flagrant denial of justice under Article 6.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Article 3 requires substantial grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court must assess the actual and cumulative conditions likely to be experienced.
2. General evidence of poor prison conditions was insufficient where specific assurances identified Agreste prison, guaranteed an individual cell and eight hours outside the cell, and provided for monitoring. Those assurances were accepted as reliable.
3. Assurances concerning transport and detention if the appellant attended trial in person were sufficient despite the absence of precise details of the particular cell or transport arrangements.
4. Applying Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 1, Article 6 requires a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice: unfairness so fundamental that it nullifies or destroys the essence of the fair-trial right. The evidence did not establish chronic or systemic delay, loss in the criminal justice system, or an ineffective choice between video-link participation and attendance in person.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal against the Deputy Senior District Judge’s extradition decision dismissed.