CCPR/C/126/D/2570/2015 4.2 The State party notes that the Italian Court of Cassation made clear that the risk of ill-treatment stems from either specific legislative or administrative provisions or from de facto situations that are the result of isolated cases dependent upon the behaviour of individuals. Given the absence of possible legislative measures with a negative impact on the treatment of prisoners, the Court of Cassation decided along those lines. The Ministry of Justice upheld that position, adding that the current political situation in Ukraine could not have a direct impact on the author’s situation. Following this decision, the author went into hiding. 4.3 Finally, the State party describes the extradition proceedings, emphasizing that there is no legal provision as to the power or faculty to ask or require assurances on the modalities of execution of coercive measures or of detention measures in the case of a sentence. Such a condition or request would amount to undue interference of the requested State in the judicial activity of the requesting State and thus would be totally in contrast with the principles of general international law. 18 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 15 January 2016, the author first notes that the State party does not rely on its reservation with regard to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol for the purpose of the admissibility of the present communication. In any event, the decision adopted by a single judge of the European Court of Human Rights does not amount to a real assessment of the substance of his complaint. 5.2 In order to oppose the author’s claims under the Covenant, the State party simply relies on the fact that Ukraine is a member of the Council of Europe and a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an argument alone is clearly insufficient to show that there is no real risk of ill-treatment in the requesting State, since the ratification of a human rights treaty does not in itself provide any guarantee as to the actual compliance with the obligations ensuing thereof, nor does it give rise to any presumption of compliance. In any event, any such presumption would be rebutted in light of the substantiated information submitted and establishing the existence of a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violation of detainees’ rights in Ukraine. 5.3 According to the author, reliable reports already invoked in the original communication show that: (i) conditions of detention in Ukraine are “far from acceptable”; (ii) many detainees are subjected, inter alia, to “beatings, ill-treatment … sleep deprivation and forced labour”; (iii) from the outbreak of the current hostilities “as an alternative to torture and ill-treatment, detainees are suggested to join the ranks”; and (iv) there is “widespread use of torture … by law enforcement officers in Ukraine”.19 5.4 In addition, the Committee against Torture has recently reiterated its concerns about the lack of measures to counteract torture and ill-treatment in Ukraine. It found that in Ukraine, “detained persons do not enjoy in practice all the fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, in particular in police detention and temporary holding centres, such as being informed of and understanding their rights, having access to an independent doctor and/or to a lawyer and having the right to inform a relative or person of their choice”.20 Moreover, the Committee against Torture stressed the poor conditions in places of detention, including serious overcrowding, which gives rise to interprisoner violence. It also expressed concern that the vast majority of Ukrainian prisons do not conform to international standards and about the continuing resort to torture (or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) in order to extort confessions, in spite of the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. 21 5.5 In a recent case, the Committee found a violation of article 7 of the Covenant on account of several episodes of torture suffered by the author while provisionally detained in 18 19 20 21 6 The State party refers to article 696 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Italy. The author does not mention the sources of these citations. CAT/C/UKR/CO/6, para. 9. Ibid., paras. 19 and 22.