Erdinc Uckac v The Government of the Republic of Türkiye

Where extradition engages a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR, assurances must be sufficiently clear and effective to address the identified risk. The requesting state remains responsible for compliance, monitoring and reporting, even where responsibility is distributed between governmental departments. The court should avoid micro-managing departmental arrangements, but may require further assurances addressing material qualifications or past failures. A reporting period must be realistic and should run from the point at which an official becomes aware of the breach. Where a guaranteed prison location is necessary to secure adequate personal space, a permitted move for security or disciplinary reasons must be accompanied by an equivalent minimum-space guarantee and notification obligation.

The judgment concerned the continuing extradition appeals of Erdinc Uckac and Aykut Sahin against the Government of the Republic of Türkiye. In the first judgment, the court found a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR in the absence of effective assurances, identified culpable failures in implementing the Yalvac assurance, and stayed the prison-conditions grounds pending further assurances: [2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin).

The requesting state supplied amended assurances. The court determined the remaining disputes concerning possible transfers for security or disciplinary reasons, departmental responsibility, the reporting period, further confirmation of detention, and the form and timing of the assurances.

1. Further assurance required for permitted transfers. The qualification allowing transfer from Yalvac for security or disciplinary reasons affected the original assurances. Because the relevant risk concerned inadequate personal space, any such transfer had to guarantee at least 4 square metres of personal space and be reported to the United Kingdom Central Authority within 21 days.
2. State responsibility. The existing assurances requiring the requesting state to monitor compliance and report breaches were sufficient. It was unnecessary to identify particular departments. Although there had been a culpable failure to co-ordinate governmental branches, the court would not micro-manage departmental responsibilities, which might change. The requesting state remained responsible for ensuring compliance.
3. Reporting period. The 21-day period was retained. It allowed time for assessment, governmental reporting, preparation and translation. A shorter period, particularly one likely to generate further non-compliance, would not assist the parties or the court.
4. No further confirmation assurance. A separate assurance confirming that Mr Uckac and Mr Sahin had in fact been detained in accordance with the guarantees was unnecessary. The amended structure already provided for compliance, monitoring and reporting.
5. The requesting state was directed to provide the amended fifth assurance and the additional transfer assurance within 21 days. The stay of the prison-conditions appeals continued pending receipt of those assurances.

High Court (Administrative Court): In the first judgment, the court stayed the prison-conditions grounds of the appeals pending further assurances, while dismissing the requesting state’s appeal concerning Mr Demir and refusing or dismissing other grounds: [2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin).

High Court (Administrative Court): The present judgment amended the assurances, required an additional assurance concerning transfers, and continued the stay pending receipt of those assurances.