Extradition to Russia: Naples Court of Appeal Revokes Detention in a Case Handled by Our Law Firm
ESTRADIZIONE /I NOSTRI CASI
The Naples Court of Appeal granted an application filed by the defence and ordered the immediate release of a person facing extradition to the Russian Federation. The case, handled by our law firm, focused on the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of surrender to Russia.
Download the Court Order ↓
On 29 September 2026, the Naples Court of Appeal revoked pre-extradition detention and ordered the immediate release of a client represented by our law firm in extradition proceedings initiated at the request of the Russian Federation.
The decision is particularly significant because the Court did not limit its assessment to the risk of absconding. It addressed a more fundamental question raised by the defence: can a person remain in custody for the purpose of extradition when there are serious grounds for believing that surrender may expose that person to treatment contrary to fundamental rights?
In the case handled by our firm, the Court found that continued detention was no longer justified.
Arrest in Italy on the Basis of an INTERPOL Red Notice
Our client was arrested in Italy on 22 September 2026 on the basis of an INTERPOL Red Notice issued at the request of the Russian authorities.
The extradition request concerned the enforcement of a Russian judgment imposing a ten-year prison sentence for conduct classified by the requesting State as fraud.
Following the arrest, the Italian judicial authorities ordered the client's detention pending extradition.
From the earliest stage of the proceedings, the defence conducted by Attorney Salvatore del Giudice applied for the revocation of the custodial measure.
Our position was that the existence of potential grounds preventing extradition could not simply be postponed until the final extradition hearing while the requested person remained deprived of his liberty.
The defence strategy therefore developed along two distinct but interconnected lines: the general human rights and prison conditions in the Russian Federation, and the specific personal circumstances of our client.
Our Defence Strategy: From General Risk to Individual Risk
This distinction became one of the central aspects of the case.
It is not sufficient merely to claim that human rights violations occur in the prisons of a requesting State. The defence must establish why the particular person concerned may face a real risk if extradited.
For this reason, our law firm collected and submitted extensive documentation concerning our client's personal and family circumstances, his long-standing ties to another European country and his publicly expressed position regarding the war in Ukraine.
The material submitted to the Court included documentation concerning his family and residence, photographs showing participation in demonstrations in support of Ukraine, material relating to statements published on social media, and declarations from individuals belonging to the community in which the family had lived for many years.
The Court considered these elements relevant when assessing whether the general situation in Russia could translate into a specific and individual risk for the requested person.
The Risk of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment in Russia
The defence also submitted updated international sources concerning human rights and detention conditions in the Russian Federation.
The Court examined material concerning allegations of torture and ill-treatment, structural problems within the Russian prison system and the effectiveness of mechanisms available to prevent or remedy such violations.
The decision also considered the changed institutional framework following Russia's withdrawal from the system of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This does not mean that every extradition request from Russia must automatically be refused.
It does mean, however, that the courts must carefully assess the effectiveness of the safeguards available to the individual concerned and the reliability of any assurances offered by the requesting State.
In the present case, the Court found that there were objective, reliable, precise and up-to-date elements indicating a general risk of prohibited treatment within the Russian detention system.
But the case presented by our law firm went further.
Anti-War Views and the Client's Individual Risk
The documentation submitted by the defence connected the general situation in Russia with the personal circumstances of our client.
The Court considered his participation in public demonstrations supporting Ukraine, social media material, third-party statements and other evidence concerning the position expressed by him and his family.
The Court did not treat these elements as definitive proof that persecution would necessarily occur.
However, taken together — particularly in light of their public nature, continuity and consistency — they were considered relevant to determining whether the requested person could be exposed to a risk different from that faced by an ordinary prisoner.
This is one of the most important aspects of the decision.
In extradition proceedings, a general human rights risk becomes particularly significant when the defence can demonstrate how that risk may materialise in the individual circumstances of the requested person.
Diplomatic Assurances Must Be Specific and Verifiable
Another important issue concerned the guarantees that may be provided by the requesting State.
General statements that domestic law or international standards will be respected are not necessarily sufficient where a serious risk has already been identified.
The effectiveness of diplomatic assurances must be assessed in practical terms.
Relevant considerations may include the place and regime of detention, material prison conditions, access to medical treatment, confidential communication with lawyers, contact with family members and, crucially, the existence of an independent and effective mechanism capable of verifying whether the assurances are actually respected.
In the case handled by our firm, the Court observed that adequate guarantees of this kind had not yet been obtained.
The reasoning is particularly important from the perspective of personal liberty: a person cannot remain in prison today merely on the assumption that adequate guarantees may perhaps be provided at a later stage of the extradition proceedings.
Extradition Detention Is Not an Anticipated Punishment
This is at the heart of the Court's decision.
Detention pending extradition is not intended to punish the requested person.
Its purpose is exclusively procedural: to ensure that the person remains available for surrender if the legal requirements for extradition are ultimately satisfied.
Under Article 714(3) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must therefore consider whether there are grounds for believing that the conditions required for a future decision granting extradition are absent.
Where serious obstacles to surrender emerge, the relationship between detention and its procedural purpose becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
Detention cannot become a punishment imposed while waiting for the extradition case to be decided.
The Court Also Rejected the Risk of Absconding
The Naples Court of Appeal also accepted a further argument advanced by the defence.
Our client had established long-standing family, social and professional ties in another European country, where his wife and five children lived.
The circumstances surrounding his arrest did not reveal conduct demonstrating an intention to evade the authorities.
On the material available, the Court found no sufficiently concrete and current risk of absconding capable of justifying continued detention.
The Decision of the Naples Court of Appeal
At the hearing held on 29 September 2026, the Naples Court of Appeal granted the defence application.
One passage of the decision is particularly significant.
The Court held that, at the present stage of the proceedings, there were sufficient grounds for considering that the conditions required for a judgment granting extradition were not met.
The Court therefore revoked detention and ordered the immediate release of our client.
Only seven days had passed between the arrest and the order for release.
Release from Detention and Refusal of Extradition Are Two Different Decisions
An important distinction must be made.
The order revoking detention does not constitute the final judgment refusing Russia's extradition request.
The Naples Court of Appeal itself makes clear that the assessment concerning detention and the final determination of the extradition request remain legally distinct.
Nevertheless, the order is highly significant.
It recognises, already at the interim stage, that the material submitted by the defence raises issues sufficiently serious to affect the justification for continuing to deprive the requested person of his liberty.
This demonstrates why an extradition defence should begin immediately after an arrest rather than waiting for the final hearing.
Extradition and INTERPOL Red Notices: Why Immediate Legal Assistance Matters
When a person is arrested in Italy on the basis of an extradition request or an INTERPOL Red Notice, the first days of the proceedings may be decisive.
The defence cannot be limited to discussing the criminal allegations made by the foreign State.
It is necessary to identify the legal basis of the arrest, examine the documents transmitted by the requesting State, challenge the requirements for detention where appropriate, and immediately collect evidence capable of establishing any grounds preventing surrender.
Where fundamental rights are at stake, an effective defence may also require the use of up-to-date international sources, individual evidence and independently verifiable documentation.
The case handled by our law firm demonstrates how extradition proceedings require the simultaneous application of criminal procedure, international judicial cooperation and fundamental human rights law.
In extradition cases, the defence does not begin with the final extradition judgment.
It begins at the moment of arrest.
Legal Assistance in Extradition and INTERPOL Red Notice Cases
The Law Office of Attorney Salvatore del Giudice represents individuals in international criminal proceedings involving extradition, European Arrest Warrants and INTERPOL Red Notices, including cases concerning the protection of fundamental rights.
Legal assistance may begin immediately following an arrest and may include proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning detention, applications for release or replacement of custodial measures, preparation of defence submissions and international human rights documentation, the extradition proceedings themselves and proceedings before the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation.
If you or a family member has been arrested in Italy following a foreign extradition request or is subject to an INTERPOL Red Notice, you may contact our law firm for an assessment of the case and the available documentation.