Yilmaz & Anor v Government of Turkey (No 2)

In an extradition case involving prison conditions, detailed and categorical assurances from the requesting state may be accepted where they address the identified risks and satisfy the criteria in Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR. The court should begin from the premise that assurances given by a member of the Council of Europe will be honoured, unless the circumstances justify shifting that approach. Personal space is assessed on the evidence as a whole, including accommodation and sanitary facilities. A late application to raise a new Article 6 issue may be refused where the alleged risk is unsupported by real evidence and the issue could have been raised before the district judge.

The appellants challenged extradition to Turkey. In its first judgment, the court adjourned the Article 3 issue and sought information about the prisons in which they would be detained, available personal space, detention conditions and assurances.

The Turkish authorities identified Yalvaç Prison and supplied further assurances concerning accommodation, trial arrangements, detention and access to safeguards. The appellants relied on expert evidence concerning overcrowding, the reliability of the assurances and the use of a video-link system. They also sought to amend their grounds to raise Article 6 issues afresh. The central questions were whether extradition created a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and whether the late Article 6 application should be permitted.

1. Article 3. The court accepted the Turkish authorities’ assurances and dismissed the Article 3 appeals. The evidence showed that Yalvaç Prison was operating close to its stated maximum capacity, and the personal-space calculation was based on that level of occupancy. Although the precise space occupied by sanitary facilities had not been separately stated, it was extremely improbable that their area would reduce the available space below the 3 square metre minimum identified in the case law.
2. The court rejected the submission that the assurances could not be relied upon because the prison had not been independently inspected and reports of the CPT had been published slowly. Turkey remained a member of the Council of Europe, and there was no pilot judgment of the ECHR shifting the burden to the requesting state. The criteria in paragraph 189 of Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR were satisfied.
3. Article 6. The court refused the applications to amend the grounds and to adjourn. It was not shown that there was a real risk that the appellants could not appear in person at their trial in Bursa. Their use of video link for later parts of the trial would not, on the evidence, breach Article 6. The wider challenge to the inquisitorial trial procedure should have been raised before the district judge, and there was no real evidence of interference with privileged communications.
4. The appellants’ appeals were dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): In the first judgment, [2019] EWHC 272 (Admin), the court adjourned the Article 3 issue and sought further information and assurances. In the present judgment, the court accepted the assurances, refused the applications to amend and adjourn, and dismissed the appeals.