CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 19 October 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11200/15 Massimo ROMAGNOLI against Montenegro lodged on 23 February 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s (already enforced) extradition to the USA where he is facing an indefinite prison sentence or an irreducible life sentence (on charges for conspiracy to kill US employees and workers, and conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation). The applicant complains that his extradition to the USA is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in view of the criminal sanction he is facing there. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, does he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in view of his extradition to the USA (see Trabelsi v. Belgium , no. 140/10, §§ 136-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? In particular, do the relevant provisions of US legislation provide for a possibility of a reduction of life sentences and Presidential pardons and, if so, do these provisions fulfill the criteria which the Court has laid down for assessing the reducibility of a life sentence and its conformity with Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Before deciding on his extradition, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment if extradited to the USA?   3.     The Government are also invited to provide the Court with “evidence   C”, which was submitted by the US authorities to the domestic authorities, containing parts of the US federal laws relevant to the present case, as well as a request of the US Department of Justice of 22   December 2014 requesting the applicant’s extradition.