CCPR/C/126/D/2570/2015 turmoil. This attitude shows a total disregard for the obligations ensuing from article 7 of the Covenant. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 8 March 2016, the State party provided additional observations to the Committee. After describing the substantive and procedural human rights guarantees in the Italian legal system, the State party refers to the use of the interim measures procedure by the European Court of Human Rights and by the Committee.27 6.2 The Court of Cassation, as a last-instance adjudicator, intervened three times in the author’s case. In its final decision of 8 April 2014, the Court of Cassation noted that the Venice Court of Appeal had pointed to the vagueness of the evidence presented by the author.28 The Court of Cassation further noted the “constant repressive intervention by the Ukrainian judiciary” in respect to the cases of police abuse invoked by the author in support of his allegation of the risk to which he would be exposed if sent back to Ukraine. The author has also failed to demonstrate the concrete impact of the general political uncertainty on himself or in respect of his detention treatment. The State party further recalls that the author’s case refers to a common offence. 6.3 The State party finally refers to the extradition proceedings in the Italian system, which consists of two phases: a judicial phase, where the court of appeal focuses on the respect of rights; and an administrative phase which falls under the competence of the Minister of Justice and which can undergo the control of an administrative court. According to the Italian Constitution, an extradition may not be allowed, under any circumstances, for political crimes. Moreover, the offence for which extradition is requested must be a crime under the legislation of both the requesting and the requested States. Author’s additional observations 7.1 On 23 May 2016, the author noted that instead of addressing his complaints, the State party’s remarks remained general. He notes the State party’s inconsistency when affirming that he is sought by the Ukrainian authorities “due to a robbery committed … in the year 2000 in Poland”, whereas it is undisputed that he is sought for “being prosecuted on that charge”. The core of his complaints relates to his extradition being sought for facing charges for an alleged robbery that dates back 16 years and in a foreign territory. 7.2 As to the State party’s reference to the urgent measures procedure before the European Court and the Committee, the author recalls that the decisions by the Court are not published and their reasons remain obscure. The Committee should not be influenced by the outcome of the interim measures procedure before the European Court. 7.3 The author further contests the State party’s allegation that the evidence he produced was unsubstantiated. The Court of Cassation mistakenly questioned the reliability of statements given by the director of a Ukrainian human rights NGO whose members are listed among individual human rights lawyers at risk, as well as by a Ukrainian lawyer subjected to threats for lodging cases before the European Court. 7.4 Recent reports and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights show that the risk of suffering serious human rights violations has increased since the author lodged his communication.29 The Court has repeatedly held that conditions of detention in SIZO No. 30 in Cherkasy, where the author would be imprisoned awaiting trial if he was extradited, 27 28 29 8 Without mentioning specific pages, the State party quotes from Helen Keller and Cedric Marti, “Interim relief compared: use of interim measures by the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 73 (2013). For example, when a case was mentioned with regard to the situation in Ukrainian prisons – as considered by the European Court – that case referred to the medical treatment of one prisoner. See OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 November 2015 to 15 February 2016”, paras. 52–55, and European Court of Human Rights, Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine, application No. 7193/04, judgment of 17 March 2016.