Vasile Stanciu v Procurator General's Office of the Republic of Armenia

Extradition is barred by Article 3 where there are strong grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The risk must be more than fanciful, but need not be proved on the balance of probabilities. The assessment is holistic, fact-sensitive and directed to current conditions. Where the risk arises from other prisoners, the requested person must establish both a real risk of serious harm and the absence of reasonable protection by the requesting state. Generic or aspirational assurances carry little weight unless they explain how the risk will be prevented. The court may consider later evidence and relevant findings in another extradition case where ordinary evidential restrictions are relaxed and fairness is preserved.

Armenia requested the appellant’s extradition for prosecution for four offences. The district judge rejected his objections, including his Article 3 challenge, and the Secretary of State ordered extradition. Permission to appeal was limited to whether detention in Armenian prison conditions would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

After the district judge’s decision, further CPT material, information and assurances were produced. The appeal therefore required the court to determine the admissibility and weight of that material and to assess the current position, particularly the risk of inter-prisoner violence and the adequacy of protection at Armavir prison.

1. Appeal allowed. The extradition order was quashed and the appellant was discharged.
2. Article 3 is absolute. Extradition is prohibited where there are strong grounds for believing that the person faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The risk must be more than fanciful, but proof on the balance of probabilities is unnecessary. The assessment is holistic, fact-sensitive and contextual. It does not involve balancing the severity of the alleged offences or the public interest in extradition against the risk.
3. In the absence of a pilot judgment against the requesting state, that state benefits initially from a presumption that it will comply with the Convention. The requested person must produce objective, reliable, specific and properly updated material sufficient to rebut it. Where the danger comes from non-state actors, he must also show that the requesting state is unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection.
4. The court adopted a broad approach to evidence in extradition cases involving Article 3. It admitted most later information and assurances, applying the interests of justice and prejudice considerations. It excluded the late evidence concerning the separate detention of foreign nationals because the point could have been raised earlier and further investigation would have been required.
5. The 2021 CPT report and Dr Ksel’s evidence demonstrated that informal prisoner hierarchies and inter-prisoner violence remained serious problems at Armavir. The Armenian material was largely generic, stereotypical and aspirational. It did not adequately explain how the risk would be prevented at source. The court was sceptical of the reported incident statistics and placed substantial weight on the independent CPT evidence.
6. The court accepted that the appellant would be held at Armavir and moved only if operational imperatives required it. That did not justify assessing conditions in every Armenian prison. Physical conditions, including ventilation, personal space and quarantine accommodation, did not independently establish an Article 3 violation. The decisive issue was the real risk from inter-prisoner violence combined with inadequate reasonable protection.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Vasile Stanciu v Procurator General's Office of the Republic of Armenia [2022] EWHC 3368 (Admin) — appeal allowed; extradition order quashed and appellant discharged.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the district judge rejected the appellant’s objections on 27 May 2021 and the Secretary of State ordered extradition on 1 June 2021.