Ion Ciorici & Ors v Government of Moldova

Where a requested person establishes substantial grounds for believing that surrender would expose him to an Article 3 risk, the requesting state bears the legal burden of showing that the real risk has been discounted. The assessment is fact-specific and may depend on detailed, case-specific assurances. Assurances must be assessed for their terms, good faith, objective reliability and capacity for verification. Past compliance and breaches are relevant. A dedicated, protected prison area may sufficiently reduce the risk from inter-prisoner violence even where general prison conditions remain seriously deficient.

Moldova sought the extradition of three appellants under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The District Judge ordered extradition after concluding that detailed assurances concerning detention at Chișinău 13 and Leova 3 removed any real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

The appellants relied on evidence concerning systemic inter-prisoner violence, informal prison hierarchies, staff shortages and restrictive regimes. One appellant also raised Article 8 and another dual criminality. The central issues were whether the District Judge had applied the correct burden and approach to the assurances, whether later evidence was decisive, and whether the subsidiary grounds were arguable.

Appeals dismissed. Once the appellants had shown substantial grounds for believing that surrender created a real Article 3 risk, the requesting state bore the legal burden of showing that the risk had been discounted. The assessment was individual and fact-specific. Assurances had to be assessed by reference to the Zagrean criteria: adequate terms, good faith, an objective basis for fulfilment and verifiability.

1. Leova 3. Block 4 was a dedicated area for extradited prisoners. The evidence indicated that the informal prison hierarchy did not operate there and that prisoners felt relatively safe. Detention in a closed regime, with limited outdoor exercise, was not equivalent to solitary confinement and did not itself breach Article 3. Later evidence of violence did not establish that the assurances were insufficient or that the fresh evidence was decisive.
2. Chișinău 13. The Court upheld the conclusions for Ciorici and Codreanu. Their specified detention arrangements, Article 206 protection and relatively short anticipated stay were sufficient on the evidence. Codreanu’s status as a sex offender required close attention, but the evidence did not establish an unacceptable Article 3 risk. In Lungu’s case the District Judge had wrongly altered her reasoning and misstated the burden. The Court nevertheless decided the issue itself and concluded that the assurances were sufficient despite possible detention for up to 12 months.
3. Reliability. The breaches concerning Simionescu and Barbacar resulted from communication failures. The Respondent’s explanations and assurances that procedures had changed were accepted. The absence of further reported breaches was relevant, although monitoring was largely reactive.
4. Subsidiary issues. Ciorici’s Article 8 point did not affect the outcome. Lungu’s conduct could, on the particulars, amount to dangerous driving for dual-criminality purposes. His Article 8 challenge also failed.

The appeals and Ciorici’s and Lungu’s renewed applications for permission to appeal were dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tempia ordered extradition of all three appellants after judgments handed down in February and April 2024.
• High Court, Divisional Court: The appeals were dismissed. Ciorici’s and Lungu’s renewed applications for permission to appeal were also dismissed.