Extradition to Turkey and Risk of Torture: Analysis of Cass. pen. no. 15109/2025

With its decision of 12 March 2025 (filed 16 April 2025), no. 15109, the VI Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation annulled with referral the order of the Court of Appeal of Rome which had granted clearance for the extradition of B. B. to Turkey. The case, focused on the fear of inhuman and degrading treatment of a citizen of Kurdish ethnicity, offers a valuable opportunity to reflect on the standards of protection of fundamental rights within the framework of international judicial cooperation.

Legislative and Jurisprudential Framework

Article 705, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the Court of Appeal to deny extradition if there are grounds to believe that the person risks penalties contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. On this point, the Court of Cassation refers not only to domestic precedents (nos. 26742/2021, 31588/2023, 18044/2022) but also to the recent ruling of the CJEU, Grand Chamber, of 18 June 2024, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm v. Turkey, case C-352/22, which established that Member States must rely on "objective, reliable, precise and up-to-date elements", without settling for mere diplomatic assurances.

In matters of extradition abroad, where the request is made by Turkey, there is a concrete risk of subjection to inhuman or degrading treatment, particularly with regard to individuals of Kurdish ethnicity affiliated with opposition parties, as multiple and reliable supranational sources demonstrate the existence of systematic human rights violations in prisons, torture and ill-treatment, as well as the compromise, in the Turkish judicial system, of the right to defence and the independence of the judiciary concerning a fair trial, also demonstrating that no importance can be attributed to the withdrawal of the suspension of the application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which had been ordered in that State in July 2016.

Comment: the maxim, of unequivocal clarity, binds national judges to a precise check on prison conditions and the independence of Turkish judicial bodies. Therefore, the revocation of the state of emergency of 2016 or a generic commitment from the requesting government is not sufficient; a documented analysis of the risk of violations of Article 3 ECHR is necessary on a case-by-case basis.

Criteria for Assessing the "Concrete Risk"

The Court of Cassation identifies several parameters that the Court of Appeal will have to re-examine upon referral:

• Reports from NGOs, the Council of Europe, UN Special Rapporteurs, and the European Commission on the state of Turkish prisons.
• Any political or ethnic minority affiliation of the person, with particular regard to Kurds.
• Examination of procedural conditions: independence of judges, access to defence, use of coerced evidence.
• Verification of the reliability of diplomatic assurances, in light of objective and recent findings.

Where a reasonable doubt persists, the precautionary principle applies: extradition must be denied.

Operational Implications for Defence

For lawyers, the ruling offers a powerful defence tool. It will be essential to:

• Provide updated documentation on human rights violations in the requesting country.
• Highlight any personal precedents (political, ethnic, journalistic) likely to increase the risk.
• Request independent expert reports on detention conditions.

For judges, on the other hand, the decision serves as a warning: the mere acceptance of Turkish diplomatic notes does not meet European protection standards.

Conclusions

Cass. no. 15109/2025 confirms a line of rigor already established by national and supranational jurisprudence: the protection of fundamental rights takes precedence over the needs of criminal cooperation. In the presence of a concrete risk of torture or degrading treatment, Italy must deny extradition. The message is clear: judicial cooperation cannot become complicity in human rights violations.