Summary

When making extradition decisions, countries often face a complex dilemma: on the one hand, the obligation to cooperate internationally and ensure that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice; on the other hand, the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the individual. This tension becomes particularly acute in situations where extradition could result in a person being subjected to conditions of detention that threaten their right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). This article focuses on how conditions of detention – both physical living conditions (space, hygiene, fresh air, and lighting options) as well as the measures and regimes applied in prison (searches, measures of restraint, solitary confinement, etc.) – affect the assessment of whether extradition is permissible. First, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), an overview is provided of the issues regarding detention conditions in the requesting state that may lead to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and result in the liability of the requesting state for a violation of the Convention. The article then analyses how objections related to detention conditions can be raised during extradition proceedings. To this end, the article examines the possibilities offered by international and supranational law, as well as the regulation of extradition proceedings in Estonia, to determine whether and how the current procedural framework allows for a substantive assessment of such objections. In the final section of the article, based on the preceding discussion, a conclusion is drawn regarding the substantive arguments and sources that can be relied upon in extradition proceedings to substantiate the claim that detention conditions in the requesting state are problematic within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR.