EU member states should be held accountable when they break promises in extradition cases

In my new report, ‘Not worth the paper they’re written on: The unreliability of assurances in extradition cases’, published last week by campaign group Due Process, I explain that promises given by requesting authorities in European Arrest Warrant cases cannot and should not always be trusted, writes Emily Barley.

In April 2016 the European Court of Justice decided that in order to prevent extradition, evidence of the likelihood that the human rights of the accused would be violated needed to be specific and substantial – meaning that extraditions to countries with serious, systemic problems leading to large numbers of human rights violations could continue where ‘assurances’ were given to guarantee the person in question would be treated properly.

Since then the use of assurances in EAW cases has increased, with promises given over things like prison conditions, fair trials, medical care, and other concerns relevant in the individual cases.

However, this system is not fit for purpose. The promises made by requesting authorities are frequently broken, and the full extent of the problem is not known because the UK has no monitoring system in place – despite a House of Lords committee calling for monitoring back in 2015.

Experts including extradition lawyer Ben Keith have pointed out the fundamental flaw in the system of assurances: whatever promises requesting authorities may make, they are unable to change the physical situation in prisons that leads to human rights abuses.

And it’s not always a matter of circumstances overriding good intentions – some EU member states have told outright lies too. The Romanian justice minister in 2016 admitted that she had lied about a €1 billion prison building programme which would have substantially improved the dire state of the country’s prisons. "We do not have the money in the budget," she eventually confessed. Horrific overcrowding, dirty, rat and bug infested conditions, poor or no access to hygiene facilities, and lack of medical care continues to be the standard state of affairs in Romanian prisons.

Romania, of course, has become famous in the UK for its corrupt pursuit of London resident Alexander Adamescu under a politically motivated EAW. Adamescu has almost exhausted the limited appeals process allowed within the EAW system, and is now hoping British Home Secretary Priti Patel will intervene in the case.

In this context, what is to be done about the broken system of assurances? My conclusion is simple: requesting authorities must be held accountable when they break their promises. Where previous assurances have not been complied with, extraditions should be halted. Where there are substantial, systemic problems causing the violation of human rights, extraditions should be halted. This is the only way EU member states can ensure they avoid becoming complicit with violations and fulfil their moral and legal human rights obligations.

In order to facilitate this kind of accountability, a system of monitoring should be established. And, finally, the UK should use the opportunity of Brexit to rethink extraditions and shift to a more cautious system that offers greater protections for human rights.

Share this article: