Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michail Michailov

In an extradition case involving an alleged risk of ill-treatment because of disability and mental and physical health conditions, the court must make a specific and current assessment of the requested person’s likely detention conditions. General evidence of deficiencies in the requesting state’s prison system does not by itself establish a real risk under Article 3 ECHR. Where the requesting state retains the presumption of compliance, specific and credible information about healthcare, adapted accommodation, personal assistance and suicide-risk management may suffice. The court must assess whether the proposed arrangements will protect human dignity and meet the individual’s needs. Information need not always take the form of a formal assurance, provided that mutual trust and the evidence as a whole justify reliance on it.

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania appealed against an order made by District Judge Callaway at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 November 2021. The District Judge had discharged the requested person under Article 3 ECHR, finding a real risk that his mental and physical conditions, including wheelchair use and suicide risk, would not be adequately accommodated in Lithuania.

On an earlier appeal, Sir Peter Lane held that it was irrational to conclude that no further assurance or information could address the concerns. He directed that specific questions be put to the Lithuanian authorities. The central issue was whether, on the evidence now available, extradition would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

1. Appeal allowed. The High Court made a fresh Article 3 assessment under sections 28 and 29 of the Extradition Act 2003, taking account of the updated medical evidence and the further information from the Lithuanian Prison Service.
2. The Aranyosi procedure is flexible. A court may request supplementary information where there is a need to investigate the individual detention conditions, without first finding a real risk of an Article 3 breach or establishing a prima facie case. General concerns about prison conditions must be followed by a specific and precise assessment of the individual’s proposed detention.
3. The presumption that Lithuania, as a Convention and Council of Europe state, will comply with Article 3 had not been rebutted. The 2023 and 2024 CPT reports disclosed continuing concerns about other aspects of the prison estate, but did not establish a real risk arising from healthcare, wheelchair provision or unqualified assistance.
4. The December 2024 information was sufficiently specific. It described health assessments, treatment and referral arrangements, adapted cells at Kaunas and Pravieniškės, accessible sanitary facilities, minimum space, and a specialist unit for prisoners requiring assistance with mobility and self-care. It also addressed suicide-risk assessment and monitoring.
5. The court rejected the argument that the information was inadequate merely because it was not a formal assurance from the judicial authority. The distinction between information and assurances is not absolute, and mutual trust required cogent evidence before the information was rejected.
6. There were therefore no substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court allowed the appeal and would consider consequential directions, including whether the Lithuanian authorities should receive the updated medical evidence and the judgment.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The present court allowed the appeal and made a fresh determination under sections 28 and 29 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) — On 18 October 2024, Sir Peter Lane held that the District Judge’s conclusion that no further information could address the Article 3 issue was irrational: [2024] EWHC 3001 (Admin) . He directed that specific questions be put to the Lithuanian authorities.
3. Westminster Magistrates’ Court — On 15 November 2021, District Judge Callaway discharged the requested person under Article 3 ECHR. No citation for that decision was stated.