![[Sökformulär]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/sok.gif){kind=icon}
![[Info om databasen]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/info2.gif){kind=icon}
![[Söktips]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/soktips.gif){kind=icon}
| [1 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 16.10.2001 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 2125; R2000/191 Reference to source KKO 2001:104. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 II July-December Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 II juli-december Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 II heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2002 Pages: pp. 654-661 Subject
prisoners,
prison conditions,
preventive detention,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1, 15 and 16 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists; section 22 of the Constitution Act = lag om internering av farliga återfallsförbrytare 1 §, 15 § och 16 §; grundlagen 22 § = laki vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä 1 §, 15 § ja 16 §; perustuslaki 22 §. ECHRP-7-4; ECHR (in general); CCPR (in general) Abstract A had been released on parole from an institution for preventive detention.While on parole, he committed manslaughter and was sentenced to prison by a court of first instance which considered that A had committed the offence without full possession of his senses.The prosecutor requested the court to authorize the Prison Court to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The court considered the conditions for incarceration under section 1 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists and concluded that these conditions were fulfilled in A's case.It decided to authorize A's incarceration and to cancel his parole. A claimed that incarceration in preventive detention was a violation of human rights treaties binding on Finland.In its decision, the court of first instance discussed this question at length.It noted, among other things, that incarcerated recidivists did not serve their sentence in a separate institution but in ordinary prisons under close to normal prison conditions.In practice, incarceration only meant that the offender served the total length of his sentence.The court also pointed out that there was a possibility of appeal against the decisions of both the sentencing court and the Prison Court.According to the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivist (section 15), an incarcerated recidivist shall be released on parole upon having served his total term of imprisonment, unless the Prison Court still considers him dangerous to the life or health of others.If he is not released, the matter shall be re-examined at least every six months.The court of first instance noted that such a possibility to continue the loss of liberty of the offender may be problematic.However, in the opinion of the court this constituted a security measure rather than an additional punishment, and in practice the possibility had not been used since 1971.The court continued that being released on parole was not a new punishment but a legal consequence of the fact that the offender had been incarcerated in preventive detention.Cancelling the parole in case the person on parole commits a crime (section 16) is not an additional punishment. The court of first instance concluded that incarcerating A in preventive detention and cancelling his parole did not violate his human rights.One lay member of the court took a different view and considered, among other things, that the authorization of an offender's incarceration was against Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR as the offender was not aware of the total length of his sentence. A took the case to the court of appeal which reduced the length of A's prison sentence but did not change the order of the first instance court concerning A's incarceration and the cancellation of his parole.In its decision, the court of appeal pointed out that international human rights treaties should be taken into account, especially when deciding on the possible continuation of the incarceration after the offender has served the total period of his imprisonment. The case went further to the Supreme Court which mainly agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts and concluded that incarceration in preventive detention could not be considered an inhuman, cruel or degrading punishment.With reference to section 22 of the Constitution Act and to the duty of public authorities to guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights, the Supreme Court pointed out that when considering the conditions for incarceration, the provisions of and legal practice under the CCPR and the ECHR had to be taken into account.It also mentioned the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights concerning applications 20560/92 and 29328/95 against Finland.The Commission had noted that the fact that an offender served the total length of his prison sentence was not a violation of the ECHR.In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is not a violation of the CCPR either.The Supreme Court concluded that the Prison Court could be authorized to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The order by the lower court to cancel A's parole was not relevant, as the Prison Court would in any case consider the question of A's incarceration. 30.10.2002 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 21.3.2003 Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 03/0156/2; 06500/02/5900 Reference to source Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
right to liberty,
security of person,
deported persons,
prison conditions,
prisoners,
Relevant legal provisions Section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; section 19 of the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions; Chapter 2, sections 13-1 and 13-2 of the Act on the enforcement of penal sanctions = grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; lag om internationellt samarbete vid verkställighet av vissa straffrättsliga påföljder 19 §; lag om verkställighet av straff 2 kapitel 13 § 1 mom. och 13 § 2 mom. = perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; laki kansainvälisestä yhteistoiminnasta eräiden rikosoikeudellisten seuraamusten täytäntöönpanossa 19 §; laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta 2 luku 13 § 1 mom. ja 13 § 2 mom. ECHR-5 Abstract An Estonian citizen A had been sentenced in Finland to imprisonment for a drug offence.The Directorate of Immigration had decided on A's deportation once A is released from prison.The Ministry of Justice ordered that A is transferred to Estonia in order to serve the prison sentence there.A appealed against the Ministry's decision to the administrative court. The administrative court noted that the formal conditions for A's transfer, as prescribed in the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions, were fulfilled.However, section 9-4 of the Constitution Act had to be taken into account as well, as a specific legal condition for the transfer.Section 9-4 provides that a foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity.According to the court, attention should be paid, in particular, to prison conditions in the state to which the person is transferred and to the time period after which the person would have the possibility of being released on parole.In Estonia, a person may be released on parole after having served two-thirds of his/her sentence, whereas in Finland it is after one-half of the sentence has been served.The administrative court considered that although the carrying out of the sentence in Estonia may in practice prolong A's time in imprisonment, this did not as such contain a danger of treatment violating human dignity.Furthermore, in the court's view, there was no violation of Article 5 of the ECHR, as long as the term of imprisonment ordered by the Finnish court was not exceeded.With reference to reports submitted by the Ministry of Justice, the court then noted that the prison conditions in Estonia in general could not as such result in treatment violating human dignity.Admitt edly, the security conditions in prisons were not altogether stable, but on the other hand the court saw no reason to doubt that the prison authorities in Eston ia would not have the means and the intention to prevent any possible threats to the security of the prisoners.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.Th e decision is final. See also European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 9764/03, decision on admissibility 2 December 2003 (partly inadmissible) and final decision on admissibility 15 June 2004 (inadmissible). 22.4.2004 / 2.1.2009 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 13.5.2003 Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus Reference: Report No. 6276:2001 Reference to source Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
torture,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
fair trial,
prisoners,
Relevant legal provisions Section 1 of the Act on accident compensation for convicted prisoners and persons in institutional care (894/1946) = lag om skadestånd för olycksfall åt personer, som intagits i särskilda straff-, underhålls- och vårdanstalter 1 § = laki eräisiin rangaistus-, huolto- ja hoitolaitoksiin otettujen henkilöiden tapaturmakorvauksesta 1 §. ECHR-3; ECHR-6; CCPR-7; CCPR-14-1 Abstract Convict A had been transferred to a prison hospital for rehabilitation.He was injured while playing football with the other inmates.The State Treasury did not grant A accident compensation.A appealed against the decision to a specific accident insurance appeal board which rejected the appeal.The board admitted that A had a duty to participate in the football match as a part of his rehabilitation programme.However, when the accident happened, A was not at work under the guidance and supervision of the prison authorities, as required in the Act on accident compensation for prisoners. A appealed to the Insurance Court and claimed, among other things, that the board's decision was in breach of Articles 3 and 6 of the ECHR and Articles 7 and 14-1 of the CCPR.The Insurance Court rejected the appeal on the same grounds as the board.The court also concluded that there had been no violation of the ECHR or the CCPR, but did not discuss the provisions in more detail in its decision. 22.4.2004 / 22.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 17.2.2005 Judicial body: Helsinki court of first instance = Helsingfors tingsrätt = Helsingin käräjäoikeus Reference: Report no. 4531; 04/27224 Reference to source Registry of the Helsinki court of first instance Helsingfors tingsrätts registratorskontor Helsingin käräjäoikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
respect for family life,
children,
visiting rights,
prisoners,
best interests of the child,
children,
Relevant legal provisions sections 2 and 10 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act = lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 2 § och 10 § = laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 2 § ja 10 §. Abstract A had been convicted to imprisonment of several offences, among them the rape of his ex-wife B.A and B had two children, aged 2 and 3.A petitioned the court to grant him the right to meet with his children twice a month in the prison premises as long as he is serving his sentence.He was to be released in September 2005.A claimed among other things that the fact that he was not able to see his children while he was in prison violated his human rights.B objected to A's request.When A was imprisoned in 2002, the younger child was 5 months old, and she could no longer remember her father.The older child remembered A, but was afraid of him and had among other things suffered from nightmares having witnessed A's violent behaviour towards B.B herself did not want to be present when A met with the children, and the children could not be left alone with a parent who was a stranger to them and whom they were scared of.The court of first instance agreed with B.It ruled that in order to build a positive relationship of confidence between A and the children, the first meetings should preferably be brief and be arranged in an environment in which the children felt safe.In the court's opinion, it was not in the best interests of the children to grant A the right to meet with the children while he was in prison.The court rejected A's petition. 29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 18.5.2006 Judicial body: Riihimäki Court of First Instance = Riihimäki tingsrätt = Riihimäen käräjäoikeus Reference: Report no. 06/350; R06/84 Reference to source Registry of the Riihimäki Court of First Instance Riihimäki tingsrätts registratorskontor Riihimäen käräjäoikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
respect for correspondence,
freedom of expression,
prisoners,
Relevant legal provisions Chapter 2, section 9-1 of the Act on the enforcement of penal sanctions; section 47-2 of the Prison Administration Decree; sections 10 and 12 of the Constitution Act = lag om verkställighet av straff 2 kapitel 9 § 1 mom.; fångvårdsförordning 47 § 2 mom.; grundlagen 10 § och 12 § = laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta 2 luku 9 § 1 mom.; vankeinhoitoasetus 47 § 2 mom.; perustuslaki 10 § ja 12 §. ECHR-8; ECHR-10 Abstract Prison governor B had stopped three letters sent by prisoner X, on the ground that X had misused his right of correspondence.In B's view it was not appropriate to send the letters further, because while the letters were directed to various authorities supervising prisons, the envelopes were in fact addressed to the media.In addition, B held that X had no right to sign and send the letters on behalf of all the prisoners, because the prisoners had not officially formed a prisoners' union with rules and elected president.The letters had later disappeared and could not be presented as evidence in court.The court of first instance found that X had a right to sign and send the letters.Although the prisoners had not formed a union, X had been elected the prisoners' representative in a meeting in which the prison governor had also been present.The court then agreed that, according to law, a prison governor may stop a prisoner's letters if there is reason to suspect that the right of correspondence has been misused.However, the wording of the provision is loose and open to interpretation.Because both inviolability of correspondence and freedom of expression are protected by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution Act, the court held that the provisions concerning misuse of correspondence must be given a narrow interpretation and letters can be stopped only as an exceptional measure.As grounds for its decision the court referred to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Silver and Others (judgment of 25 March 1983, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, Vol. 61) and McCallum (judgment of 30 August 1990, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A, Vol. 183).The court concluded that in this case the right of correspondence had not been misused and the governor had no right to stop the letters.The governor was issued a caution.The decision is final. 10.4.2007 / 10.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 31.3.2008 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report no. 624; 2945/1/07 Reference to source KHO 2008:20. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2008 January-June Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2008 januari-juni Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2008 tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2011 Pages: pp. 312-320 Subject
access to court,
freedom of religion,
prisoners,
Relevant legal provisions chapter 7 sections 5, 7 and 8 and chapter 20 section 9-1 of the Imprisonment Act; section 5 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; sections 6, 11 and 21-1 of the Constitution Act = fängelselag 7 kapitel 5 §, 7 § och 8 § och 20 kapitel 9 § 1 mom.; förvaltningsprocesslag 5 §; grundlagen 6 §, 11 § och 21 § 1 mom. = vankeuslaki 7 luku 5 §, 7 § ja 8 § ja 20 luku 9 § 1 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 5 §; perustuslaki 6 §, 11 § ja 21 § 1 mom. Abstract An Orthodox prisoner has requested that he would be served food which was prepared in accordance with the Orthodox Church's teaching on fasting and diet during Lent.A meal during Lent consists of vegetables and fish.The prison governor had rejected the request.The administrative court dismissed the prisoner's appeal against the governor's decision on the grounds that, according to the Imprisonment Act, this type of decision was not subject to appeal.Moreover, in the court's opinion, what was at issue here was the possibility of making an exception to the prisoners' basic diet in the applicant's case, not his right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution Act. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed that a prison governor's decision concerning exceptions to a basic diet is not included in the list of decisions which are subject to appeal as prescribed in the Imprisonment Act.However, the Court also referred to the preparatory works of the Act and more precisely to the opinion of the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament.The Court pointed out that a list of decisions which are subject to appeal cannot be interpreted as constituting an indirect prohibition of appeal.In assessing whether a decision is subject to appeal, the provisions of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act concerning right of appeal and admissibility as well as section 21 of the Constitution Act had also to be taken into account.Section 21 of the Constitution Act provides that everyone has the right to have his or her case dealt with by a legally competent court of law or other authority as well as to have a decision pertaining to his or her rights or obligations reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ for the administration of justice.The Supreme Administrative Court held that a special diet during Lent was as such a part of practising a religion.However, in this case, although the applicant had not been provided with a special diet during Lent, he had had the possibility of receiving vegetarian food.Considering this, this case was not concerning a limitation which would have infringed the core of the right to freedom of religion.Therefore, the applicant's right of appeal could not be directly based on section 21 of the Constitution Act.The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court. 14.9.2009 / 28.3.2011 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 17.3.2020 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report no. R2020/117; 362 Reference to source KKO:2020:25. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Ministry of Justice Databasen för Högsta domstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
extradition,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
prisoners,
prison conditions,
Relevant legal provisions section 5-1-6 of the Act on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other Member States of the European Union = lag om utlämning för brott mellan Finland och de övriga medlemsstaterna i Europeiska unionen 5 § 1 mom. 6 punkten = laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta Suomen ja muiden Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden välillä 5 § 1 mom. 6 kohta. ECHR-3; Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Abstract The district court of Helsinki had denied a request for surrender of a Romanian national (A) to Romania where A was to serve a four-year prison sentence.The public prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied Act 1286/2003 on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other EU Member States, which implements Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Mursic v Croatia) and the CJEU (C-128/18 Dorobantu) in which the courts interpret the prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Section 5(1)(6) of the Act on Surrender Procedures provides for a list of mandatory grounds for refusal, among them reasonable grounds to suspect that the requested person is in danger of being subject to torture or other treatment violating human dignity.The Supreme Court noted that while section 5(1)(6) is not explicitly based on the grounds for refusal as prescribed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision, the said provision can be derived from the obligation to respect fundamental rights and human rights binding on Finland.The key legal question in this case was whether the request for surrender should be denied pursuant to section 5(1)(6) and because of the inadequate prison conditions in Romania. According to information provided by the Romanian prison authorities, it was highly likely that A would serve a major part of the four-year sentence in a semi-open prison where the personal space allowed to a detainee is at least two square metres.The Supreme Court noted that the European Court of Human Rights has in the case of Mursic confirmed the standard of three square metres per detainee in multi-occupancy accommodation as the relevant minimum standard under Article 3 of the ECHR.The CJEU has assessed the minimum standards for prison conditions, following the guidelines set by the European Court of Human Rights.The Supreme Court concluded that in A's case there was a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Such a presumption can be rebutted only if the reductions in the required minimum personal space of three square metres are short, occasional and minor and the detainee has sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell.These criteria must be met cumulatively.Both the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU have held that in cases where a detainee has less than three square metres of personal space, a period of detention around 20 to 27 days cannot be regarded as short, occasional and minor.The fact that a detainee has a possibility to spend part of the day outside the overcrowded cell does not change the outcome of the assessment.The Supreme Court denied the request for surrender. 3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 16.4.2021 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report no. R2021/153; 581 Reference to source KKO:2021:24. Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för Högsta domstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
extradition,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
prisoners,
prison conditions,
Relevant legal provisions section 5-1-6 of the Act on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other Member States of the European Union = lag om utlämning för brott mellan Finland och de övriga medlemsstaterna i Europeiska unionen 5 § 1 mom. 6 punkten = laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta Suomen ja muiden Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden välillä 5 § 1 mom. 6 kohta. ECHR-3; Article 4 of the Charter for Fundamenral Rights of the European Union Abstract The public prosecutor had requested in the court of first instance that a Romanian national (A) is surrendered to Romania where he was to serve a five-year prison sentence and a three-year supplementary sentence.A referred to various national (Ombudsman) and international (CPT) reports on prison conditions in Romania and objected to the request.The court of first instance found that despite the assurances given by the Romanian judicial authorities, there were reasonable grounds to suspect that A was in danger of being subject to treatment violating human dignity, because of the poor conditions and overcrowding in the prisons where A was to serve his sentence.The court denied the request.The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied the Act (1286/2003) on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other RU Member States, which implements Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.Section 5 of the Act provides for a list of mandatory grouds for refusal, among them reasonable grounds to suspect that the requested person is in danger of being subject to torture or other treatment violating human dignity.The section is not explicitly based on the grounds for non-execution in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision but can be derived from the human rights obligations binding on Finland.The Framework Decision does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights (Article 1).The CJEU has held (C-128/18 Dorobantu) that the executing judicial authority has an obligation to bring the surrender procedure to an end where surrender may result in the requested person being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.The Supreme Court found that section 5 of the Act on Surrender Procedures should therefore be interpreted as far as possible in line with the interpretation given by the CJEU to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the related human rights obligations. The CJEU has found (C-128/18 Dorobantu) that the mere existence of evidence that there are deficiencies with respect to detention conditions does not necessarily imply that, in a specific case, the person, whose surrender has been requested, will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.When considering whether a request for surrender should be denied on grounds of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the assessment must be specific and precise and based on objective, reliable, and properly updated data.The Romanian judicial authorities had submitted a detailed report on the conditions in the prisons where A would be placed.Based on the report it seemed that a minimum personal cell space of three square metres could not be guaranteed throughout the execution of A's prison sentence.The CJEU (C-128/18 Dorobantu), the European Court of Human Rights (Mursic v Croatia) and the Supreme Court (KKO:2020:25) have found that when the personal space available to a detainee is below three square metres, it creates a strong presumption of a violation of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Following the request by the public prosecutor, the Romanian Ministry of Justice, as the competent central authority, provided assurances, given by the prison service authorities, to the effect that A will have a personal cell space of at least three square metres for the entire duration of the execution of his sentence.According to the case law of the CJEU (C-220/18 PPU Generalstaatsanwaltschaft; C-125/18 Dorobantu), the European arrest warrant system is based on mutual trust.Assurances given or endorsed by the issuing judicial authority after the assistance of a central judicial authority, are as a rule considered reliable.It is only in exceptional circumstances, and on the basis of precise information, that the executing judicial authority can find that, notwithstanding assurances, there is a real risk of the person concerned being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because of that person's detention conditions. The Supreme Court noted that the assurances given by the competent Romanian authorities applied to this specific case only and where explicitly concerning A.In their report, the Romanian judicial authorities had also described in detail the arrangements for sanitation, hygiene, health care and social support in the prisons where A would be detained.The Supreme Court held that generic, national and international reports on overcrowding and conditions in the prisons where A was going to be detained, were not sufficient to show exceptional circumstances where the request for A's surrender could be denied, notwithstanding assurances. 3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|