Lawyers for a man wanted in Italy to face drug trafficking charges have argued that Maltese authorities are applying a less rigorous yardstick when assessing extradition requests than their Italian counterparts.  

A court in Catania decided earlier this month to turn down a request to extradite a man to Malta, because information supplied about the conditions in Maltese prisons was not deemed sufficient to guarantee protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. 

That standard is not being upheld when Maltese authorities are asked to extradite people to other countries, lawyers for John Spiteri argued this week.  

The lawyers, Franco Debono and Charles Mercieca, say Maltese authorities are quick to uphold such requests even when foreign counterparts provide scant information about prison conditions abroad. 

John Spiteri, a 56-year-old Qrendi man, is wanted in Italy to face drug trafficking charges related to an alleged drug ring spanning Albania, Italy and Malta.  

He has been at the centre of an extradition saga since he was first arrested in June last year on the strength of a European Arrest Warrant issued by judicial authorities in Catania.  

Although local courts have approved his extradition to Italy, Spiteri has filed last-ditch constitutional proceedings to block that, arguing that his fundamental rights would be breached if his extradition to Italy goes through.  

The Italian authorities’ request to extradite Spiteri was initially turned down by the Magistrates’ Court on the basis of the fact that important paperwork had not been filed by the prosecution.  

That decision was annulled on appeal and the records sent back before the first court which was to hear the case again, since it had not granted the prosecution the opportunity to make its case and had not considered other issues raised by prosecutors. 

Subsequently, the Magistrates’ Court upheld the request, paving the way for Spiteri’s extradition. 

That decision was confirmed on appeal. 

But following final judgment, delivered in September last year, Spiteri’s lawyers filed proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction flagging serious human rights issues if the extradition were to go ahead.  

Meanwhile, as proceedings moved from one court to another over a period of thirteen months, Spiteri was granted bail three times in a row, the latest being last September. 

On that occasion Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja observed that the person awaiting “final decision to surrender” had not yet been judged in Italy and was still presumed innocent.  

When his constitutional case continued this week, a lawyer from the Attorney General’s office and Malta’s contact for Eurojust (EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation), presented documentation about conditions in Italian prisons, which the office had received on request.  

Another AG lawyer, representing the European Affairs and Legal Research Unit, gave an overview of the manner whereby requests for prisoners’ transfer on a voluntary basis, from one country to another, were processed in terms of the EU Framework Directive.  

Asked directly by the court about information concerning the state of Italian prisons, the witness explained that he was only involved in voluntary transfers of prisoners and that extraditions were dealt with by a different unit. 

However, he had personally never come across any complaints about conditions in Italian prisons. 

That was when Spiteri’s lawyers stepped in, asking the witness whether he was aware of a decision delivered on July 3, 2023 by the Court of Appeal in Catania rejecting a request by the Maltese state to extradite an Italian national wanted in Malta over alleged involvement in an armed robbery. 

The witness gave a negative reply. 

In the Catania case, Italian authorities had requested detailed information about conditions at the Corradino Correctional Facility, to determine whether the extradited person’s fundamental rights risked being violated while detained in the Maltese prison.  

The Maltese authorities duly complied, forwarding detailed information about the size of cells, particularly those in Division 6, which were equipped with electric fans, surveillance cameras and an emergency call system as well as adjacent showering facilities.  

Inmates were allowed out of their cells for seven and a half hours a day.  

Yet the Italian court deemed that information “insufficient,” saying that there was no indication of the internal floor space for each cell occupant, the location of sanitary facilities, access to drinking water and the average cell occupancy.  

Moreover, the limestone walls were prone to humidity which could not guarantee a healthy environment within the cells, the Italian magistrates observed. 

In light of such conditions, the Italian court rejected Malta’s request for extradition, deeming that there was not sufficient guarantee that the person to be surrendered would not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.  

Yet, on the contrary, “although the Italians sent very scant information about the state of prisons in Italy, we [the Maltese authorities] rush to extradite,” argued lawyer Franco Debono, highlighting the comparison to Spiteri’s case.  

The European Arrest Warrant was an instrument based upon the principle of reciprocity among Member States and was to be given uniform interpretation by all states, argued Spiteri’s lawyers presenting a copy of the Italian judgment in the constitutional proceedings. 

The parties then declared that they had no further evidence to produce.  

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Toni Abela, deferred the case for final written submissions.  

Lawyer Julian Farrugia represented the State Advocate’s Office. Lawyers Franco Debono and Charles Mercieca assisted Spiteri.