Katerina Yaneva v Bulgarian Judicial Authority [2025] EWHC 803 (Admin)

[2025] EWHC 803 (Admin)Case No AC-2024-LON-001515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 03/04/2025
Before
MR JUSTICE MOULD
Between
KATERINA YANEVAAppellantBULGARIAN JUDICIAL AUTHORITYRespondent
Émilie Pottle (instructed by Stokoe Partnership) for AppellantLaura Herbert (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for RespondentHearing Hearing date: 26 th November 2024
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on Thursday 3 rd April 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................MR JUSTICE MOULD

Introduction

[1]The Appellant, Katerina Petkova Yaneva, a Bulgarian national born on 3 September 1989, applies for permission to appeal from the order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court made on 26 April 2024 that she be surrendered to Bulgaria to serve a remaining sentence of 2 years 8 months and 21 days imprisonment in relation to two offences, pursuant to section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 [“the 2003 Act”]. Bulgaria is a Category 1 territory for the purposes of the 2003 Act. These extradition proceedings are governed by Part 1 of the 2003 Act.[2]The Appellant’s extradition hearing took place before the District Judge on 26 March 2024. The Appellant did not have legal representation at that hearing. The Appellant gave oral evidence at the hearing and was cross examined by the Respondent Judicial Authority [“JA”].[3]On 26 April 2024 the District Judge handed down his judgment in writing [“the judgment”].[4]The Appellant seeks permission to appeal under section 26 of the 2003 Act. Her application was considered on the papers by Freedman J on 13 August 2024. Freedman J made an order for a “rolled up hearing” on notice to the Respondent, that the hearing of the substantive appeal should follow immediately if permission was granted.[5]The Appellant was represented before me by Ms Émilie Pottle and the Respondent by Ms Laura Herbert. I am grateful to them both for their helpful written and oral submissions.

Ground of appeal

[6]The Appellant seeks permission to pursue a single ground of appeal. She contends that the District Judge was wrong to find pursuant to section 21 of the 2003 Act that the Appellant’s extradition was compatible with her rights under article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights [‘ECHR’].

The extradition proceedings

[7]The JAseeks the Appellant’s surrender pursuant to an arrest warrant [“AW”] issued on 15 August 2023 and certified by the National Crime Agency [“NCA”] on 25 November 2023.[8]On 6 December 2023 the Appellant was arrested and appeared before Westminster Magistrates Court. She was remanded on conditional bail, where she remains.[9]The AW gives particulars of the following offences–(1) Conspiracy to supply drugs as part of an organised criminal group, the offence being committed between October 2011 and 20 June 2012.(2) Possession of class A drugs with intent to supply, the offence being committed on 27 June 2012.[10]The Appellant was initially convicted and sentenced on 4 February 2016 to 6 years’ imprisonment. She was represented by her lawyer. Following a series of appeals, on 17 September 2021 the Supreme Court of Cassation gave its decision reducing the Appellant’s sentence to 3 years 6 months, of which a period of 2 years 8 months and 21 days remains to be served.

The assurance

[11]On 12 February 2024, the Respondent judicial authority provided an assurance [“the assurance”] in the following terms – “Katerina Petkova Yaneva will be held in conditions for the duration of her detention which comply with the minimum international standards. She will be held in the facilities of Sliven Prison main building or one of its prison hostels. … Katerina Petkova Yaneva will be held in conditions for the duration of her detention which comply with the minimum international standards, according to which the minimum living area in the sleeping quarters for each prisoner must not be less than 4 square metres, not including sanitary facilities. Sliven Prison facilities allow for at least 4 square metres of living space with all the necessary furniture. Katerina Petkova Yaneva will have access to a private sanitary facilities and running water, with 24/7 access to it. The dormitories are equipped with standard beds, lockers, hangers, tables, and chairs. Katerina Petkova Yaneva will be held in conditions for the duration of her detention which comply with the minimum international standards. According to Article 62, paragraph one, point 5 of the EPDCA (in force as of 07/02/2017) if the conditions under Article 43 EPDCA are not in place, Katerina Petkova Yaneva has the legal opportunity for transfer to another prison hostel meeting the respective standards under Order No A-919 of 8 March 2017 of the Director General of the DG “Execution of penalties” and taking into account the wish of the person concerned. Please kindly note that in the event the extradition is ordered, the rights and interests of Katerina Petkova Yaneva will be safeguarded by the provisions of Articles 276 to 283 of the Implementation of Penal Sanctions and Detention in Custody Act - Part Six: Protection against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. We use the opportunity to express our willingness to resolve all the issues with commitment to the best interests of both Parties and fruitful cooperation in the area of mutual cooperation in criminal matters and the surrender procedures precisely, with the full respect of the rights of the wanted person”.

The District Judge’s judgment

[12]At her extradition hearing, the Appellant gave evidence that she has a teenage daughter who lives in Bulgaria with her mother. The Appellant had come to the UK in November 2019 to look for work and to lead a more normal life. She said that she had not done so to avoid going to prison. She had returned to Bulgaria on 28 June 2021 to spend the summer with her daughter.[13]The District Judge found that the Appellant had returned to the UK on 18 September 2021, the day after her sentence became final, in order to avoid serving her remaining prison sentence in Bulgaria. She was a fugitive from justice.[14]At the date of her extradition hearing, the Appellant informed the District Judge that she was pregnant. She had been together with her partner for 7 months and had become engaged to be married.[15]The District Judge addressed the question whether the Appellant’s extradition would be compatible with her rights under article 3 ECHR at [50]-[55] of the judgment. He said that at present, Bulgaria is a state from which a prison assurance is required. The assurance had been provided and was before him.[16]At [51] and [53]-[55] of the judgment, the District Judge said – “51. An assurance was served on 12.2.24…It is Article 3 and [Mursic v Croatia [2017] 65 EHRR 1] complaint and there is no reason for me to take issue with it. …53. In relation to Article 3 it is for the RP to show that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if returned to Bulgaria she will face a real risk of treatment which violates Article 3. The test was encapsulated in the case of Elashmawy v Brescia Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin) at para 49 “Article 3 imposes absolute rights, but in order to fall within the scope of Article 3 the ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. In general a very strong case is required to make good a violation of Article 3. The test is a stringent one and it is not easy to satisfy.”54. It was suggested in Krolik v Poland [2013] 1 WLR 490 that “There must be something approaching an international consensus if the presumption is to be rebutted.” It was also said in Krolik “there is a strong, but rebuttable, presumption EU Member States will abide by their convention obligations.”55. Decision on Article 3: There is no basis for me to find the ‘stringent test’ can be met. There is no evidence upon which I could find there is likely to be a breach of Article 3 if the RP is returned to Bulgaria. There is no international consensus and objectively, there is nothing that could be considered capable of amounting to evidence of the ‘real risk’ that is spoken of. I cannot decline to extradite on Article 3 grounds”.[17]Having also found extradition also to be compatible with the Appellant’s rights protected under article 8 ECHR, the District Judge ordered her extradition in accordance with section 21(3) of the 2003 Act.

Freedman J’s order – 13 August 2024

[18]When the application came to be considered on the papers by Freedman J on 13 August 2024, he observed that as the Appellant had not been legally represented at her extradition hearing, the court may not have been given all the help which it might otherwise have received. He said that it was arguable that the District Judge had failed to apply the three-stage test in In re Aranyosi (EU:C:2016:140); [2016] QB 921 and erroneously applied a presumption of compliance in this case. Had the District Judge applied the second stage of the Aranyosi test, he would have been bound to consider whether the Appellant, a pregnant woman who would give birth during her sentence, would be at risk of breach of article 3 ECHR. The reasoning at [50]-[55] of the judgment did not address that question in the context of the District Judge’s assessment of whether extradition would be compatible with article 3. Nor had the assurance addressed that specific question. That was material as the Appellant was entitled to be held in a facility which would provide appropriate accommodation for her and her newborn child. It may be appropriate for the Respondent to offer an additional assurance in relation to the availability of such accommodation in the Bulgarian prison estate.[19]Freedman J extended the Appellant’s representation order for the purpose of enabling her to obtain expert evidence concerning prison conditions in the Bulgarian prison estate for pre-natal and post-natal women and their newborns. He also gave permission for the Respondent to file a response and, if desired, to apply to file an expert report for that purpose. He ordered a “rolled up hearing” to take place in November 2024. He made the following observations – “All of this recognises the unattractive features of the case including the very serious nature of the offending and the heavy balance in favour of extradition in a case, but the particular feature in this case is the effect of imminent confinement of the Applicant and the evidence required to be addressed in respect of the same referred to above. When and if new evidence and any additional assurances available, the Court will be able to determine whether permission is appropriate, and, if it is, whether the appeal should be allowed”.[20]I respectfully endorse those observations.

The fresh evidence

[21]On 24 October 2024, the Appellant applied for permission to admit and to rely upon a report by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee [“BHC”], signed by its authors on 16 September 2024, on the general conditions in Sliven Prison and the open type prison hostels ‘Sliven’ and ‘Ramanusha’ [“the BHC Report”]. The Appellant served the Report on the Respondent on 30 September 2024.[22]On 13 November 2024, the Appellant made a further application to admit and rely on fresh evidence, in the form of an updated proof of evidence of the Appellant and a certified copy of the birth certificate of the Appellant’s baby son born on 20 August 2024.[23]The Respondent did not oppose the admission of the BHC Report, which had been obtained in accordance with the order of Freedman J. Nor did the Respondent object to the admission of the Appellant’s updated proof of evidence and birth certificate for her son, as the evidence therein contained was not available at the time of the extradition hearing.[24]In her updated witness statement, the Appellant says that her partner had left her towards the end of her second trimester and returned to Bulgaria. Her son had been born on 20 August 2024. She had since been on maternity leave and would remain so for one year until late August 2025. She says that if she is returned to Bulgaria during that period, she wishes her son to remain with her until he is one year old, following which her mother will look after him together with her teenage daughter.

The BHC Report

[25]The BHC Report states that Sliven Prison is the only prison for women in the Bulgarian prison estate. The BHC visited Sliven Prison and its two prison hostels on 2-3 September 2024. They were able to observe cells and other facilities in the three institutions and to speak with prisoners in private. They also spoke to prison staff. They were able to consult prison records and to receive data from the prison governor and other members of staff. They described both the prison governor and his staff as having facilitated their visit, being generally cooperative and responding to their requests with goodwill and diligence.[26]Sliven Prison comprises of the main building and the two open type prison hostels. On the day of the BHC’s visit, there were 143 prisoners held in the main building, 49 in the “Sliven” hostel and 30 in the “Ramanusha” hostel. The main building was operating at 56% of its capacity applying the requisite international space standard which is provided for under Bulgarian law; “Sliven” hostel was at 92% of capacity and “Ramanusha” at 79% of capacity.[27]The work and life of the main prison and in the prison hostels are organised around wards, essentially corridors where prisoners’ cells, bathroom and communal facilities are located. There are 12 wards in the prison, of which 11 were in actual use at the time of the BHC’s visit. The high security ward was closed because its conditions were judged to be inhuman and degrading, due to its extreme dilapidation, lack of toilets in cells, and the inability to maintain proper hygiene across the entire ward. For women prisoners, the wards were occupied as follows –(1) Six closed-type wards on three floors in the main building where prisoners held on the strict or general regime are held.(2) Two wards on the “Sliven” hostel where prisoners are held on the general or light regime.(3) One ward on the “Ramanusha” hostel where prisoners are held on the general or light regime.[28]Prisoners held in the main prison building on the strict or general regime are not locked in their cells during the day and can spend as much time as they wish in the corridor of their ward and the ward facilities. The first floor accommodates the reception ward, where prisoners are held for between 15 and 30 days following arrival at the prison. On the second floor of the main building are two wards for “non-recidivists”. Each comprises of 11 cells which can accommodate three prisoners and two smaller cells which can accommodate two prisoners. The BHC Report states that – “The two smaller rooms were used to place troublemakers and mentally unstable prisoners who were prone to violence. This however was of little help as these prisoners were free to walk around the ward during the day, just as the other prisoners - their cells were locked only at night (after 22.00)”.[29]On inspection, the BHC found that the physical condition, cell furniture, overall hygiene and the standard of sanitary facilities in these wards was satisfactory. The beds had new mattresses. The BHC Report then states the following - “We conducted several interviews with inmates from these wards in private. Some of them did not have any complaints. Others complained of inter-prisoner violence, of the prices in the prison shop, of the lack of work and other activities, of the poor quality of medical (including dental) care, and of the infestation of bedbugs (this was a serious problem in the 4th rather than 3rd group). Some also complained of liens on their bank accounts. These are imposed by bailiffs in cases where the sentencing court impose payment of the costs of the proceedings, allow the civil claims of the victims and award them compensation. The liens cover every source of income, including transfers from the prisoners’ family members, no matter how small. As a result, the prisoner is unable to dispose of any money to buy anything from the prison shop. In such situations, affecting a significant number of prisoners in every prison of Bulgaria, they have to either rely on what the prison office offers them (which is very little), or on other prisoners to whom sometimes her/his family members would transfer some money. If Mrs Yaneva does not pay the costs of the proceedings she was sentenced to pay, her bank account will be frozen”.[30]The two wards for “recidivists” are located on the top floor of the main prison building. Both wards largely comprise three person cells, there are a small number of two person cells which are again used to accommodate unruly and mentally unstable prisoners. Again, on inspection the BHC found the physical condition, cell furniture, overall hygiene and the standard of sanitary facilities in these wards to be satisfactory. Private interviews with inmates are reported to have raised the following matters – “In the ward for recidivists during interviews, which we conducted in private, we received many complaints from prisoners, which were similar to those from other wards - high prices in the prison shop, lack of work and other activities, poor quality of medical care, infestation of bedbugs. In addition, the women complained of violence from other prisoners. The first prisoner we met in 5th group was a young lady who had signs of a severe beating all over her body. On one of her legs there was a fresh wound with clotted blood. She explained that she was beaten by another inmate with a stick a few days ago. We tried to find out more about this incident and sought information also from the staff. We were told there had indeed been such an incident but that the young woman, who had a serious mental disorder, started the fight first and hit another prisoner in the eye. Then the prisoner who was hit retaliated. Several other prisoners complained that they were harassed or physically assaulted by the prisoners accommodated in the smaller rooms. Others complained that inter-prisoner violence is common in the ward, as well as in the prison as a whole”.[31]Paragraph 2.1.5 of the BHC Report is headed “The Ward for Pregnant Women and Mothers with Babies”. It states as follows – “Article 85 of the EPPTDA provides that pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers should be accommodated in separate wards. Babies can stay with their mothers in the prison before they reach one year. They are thus effectively imprisoned without a court order. There is only one prison ward in Bulgaria for prisoners who are pregnant and for mothers with babies - in the main building of the Sliven Prison. If she is extradited, Mrs. Yaneva will be held together with her baby in the mother and baby facility of the Sliven Prison until August 2025. On the day of our visit, there was only one prisoner there with her 5-month baby. She gave birth at the city hospital while serving her sentence. The Bulgarian law does not allow for temporary suspension of the imprisonment after birth. In 2023, two other women with their babies were accommodated in the ward. The ward was large, renovated, with six beds for babies and six beds for adults. The inmates could use a large balcony at any time. In addition, they were entitled to 1.5 hours outdoor exercise (one hour at the time of the visit). Next to the big room, there was a separate bathroom and a separate toilet. A small kitchen was also available to the inmates. A nurse from the medical unit visits the ward regularly to assist with care. The baby is regularly checked by a paediatrician from the City Hospital”.[32]The BHC found the cells in open hostel “Sliven” to be in need of renovation but to contain the correct facilities.The BHC found overall conditions in open hostel “Ramanusha” to be bad. It is heated with wood and coal, with a furnace in each cell. The BHC Report states that the effect of continuous burning of these furnaces on the cell walls is “devastating – in several cells they were almost black, especially around the chimney”. The cells have no toilets. The communal toilets were unhygienic and are unheated in winter. The BHC concluded – “We believe that the conditions in Ramanusha in the winter are inhuman and degrading for anybody accommodated there due to the inadequate heating, to the exposure to pollution stemming from it and to the bad hygiene”.[33]The BHC Report found the medical centre at Sliven Prison to be better staffed with medical personnel compared to other Bulgarian prisons. It had been renovated recently. It includes an examination room, dental office, pharmacy store, two sanitary facilities (one for patients, one for staff), storage room, inpatient facility with four beds and an isolator with one bed. The lack of a psychiatrist was seen as a serious deficiency, given the high number of psychiatric patients examined at the centre (66 cases of psychiatric disorders in 2023). Specialist psychiatric treatment was provided in 196 registered cases in 2023 for patients including drug addiction, alcoholism and psychiatric conditions. Some prescribed drugs may be obtained free of charge by patients, but many others must be paid for, which is particularly difficult for inmates whose bank accounts have been frozen by bailiffs.[34]The BHC Report refers to difficulties that the families of poor prisoners may experience in getting to and from Sliven Prison from remote locations in Bulgaria. Generally, family visits can be difficult and expensive to arrange. Family visits are not subsidised by the state. Prisoners who have had their bank accounts frozen find it very difficult to pay for phone cards to make phone calls to family members and their lawyers.[35]In a section addressing violence and disciplinary practice, the BHC Report refer to official prison records which show that for the first half of 2024, there were some 185 disciplinary punishments, in comparison to 169 for the whole year in 2020. The BHC found the high number of punishments for physical violence – 74 cases – particularly disturbing. The BHC assumed that the number of violent incidents during the first six months of 2024 would have been significantly greater, since a proportion if such incidents would not have been reported by those involved. The BHC saw a journal of traumatic injuries which showed an upward trend from 90 registered cases in 2020 to 150 in 2023; and 121 such cases in the first half of 2024 alone. The BHC Report continues – “The prison management tries to explain the high incidence of Sliven Prison we read:
“Incarceration for a woman is a highly traumatic circumstance compared to that of a male inmate. The mental health needs of female offenders differ substantially from those male offenders. Depression, anxiety and self-injurious behaviour are more prevalent among female offenders than among male offenders.”
This reference to gender serves a clear purpose - to excuse the failures of the prison administration to deal appropriately with the problem of inter-prisoner violence. Another explanation, which the prison management offered, was the lack of possibilities to remove the violent prisoners from the wards and isolate them in the high security zone, which was not functioning. During our interviews with prisoners we heard lots of complaints of inter-prisoner violence. The violent incidents allegedly took place in a variety of settings. Some women were very scared. They knew who the usual perpetrators were (mostly mentally unstable prisoners with unpredictable behaviour) and lived with this fear every day. We spoke also with some of the perpetrators. Almost without exception they showed clear signs of mental disorder. We heard from the staff that they have undergone treatment several times, but there was no result. It was not clear at all why these women served prison sentences and what would be the purpose of their criminal imprisonment. When asked about the staff behaviour in such incidents, the interviewed prisoners replied that the staff would intervene during fights if they were alerted. But this is not always the case. In each violent incident the staff require that all those who took part in its right an “explanation”. Then follows a punishment, sometimes of all prisoners involved. The staff does not inform the prosecution since the incidents usually result in minor injuries. In such cases the law provides for private prosecution, i.e. the interested party should hire a lawyer and bring the case to the court through private action. The prosecution is not involved in such cases”.[36]In paragraph 7 of the BHC Report, the BHC stated the following conclusions on possible article 3 violations in cases of extradition to Sliven Prison – “At present, there are no risks of Article 3 violations in cases of extradition to Sliven Prison due to overcrowding. The Bulgarian standard provides for 4 sq. m. personal space per prisoner, which is higher than the standard of Mursic v Croatia. At present, the Sliven Prison is not overcrowded by the national standard and is even less so by the standard of the ECtHR. There are no other risks of Article 3 violations relating to issues, such as access to food, outdoor exercise or physical abuse of prisoners by prison guards. Yet, there are structural issues of concern and possibilities of Article 3 violations in at least five areas: 1. Inter-prisoner violence in the main building. This is a serious and ongoing problem of the Sliven Prison with no prospect for resolution any time soon. Every prisoner can be exposed to inter-prisoner violence and there is little she can do to prevent such incidents. 2. Degrading conditions of detention for those prisoners who have their personal accounts freezed. They have no possibility to access basic goods, to communicate with the outside world and are exposed to dependence from other prisoners. 3. Medical care for those prisoners who have no money if they have to pay medication, which is not covered by the state or the prison. Such prisoners may be unable to receive treatment for serious conditions, which can make their life in the prison inhuman and degrading. 4. Conditions of detention for older prisoners and prisoners with physical disabilities if accommodated in the OTPH “Sliven” because of the difficult access to toilets, especially at night. 5. Conditions in OTPH “Ramanusha” in the winter due to the inadequate heating, to the exposure to pollution stemming from it and to the bad hygiene. 6. Infestation of bed bugs. This is a serious problem in the main building. It affects many prisoners but those with allergies are particularly vulnerable”.[37]The Respondent did not file a response to the BHC Report. No further assurances have been offered by the Respondent beyond the assurance already given on 12 February 2024.

The parties’ contentions

[38]In the light of the findings of the BHC Report, the Appellant does not seek to argue that the conditions of her detention in the mother and baby unit at Sliven Prison would pose a risk of ill-treatment sufficient to engage article 3 ECHR.[39]The Appellant, however, now relies on other findings of the BHC Report to advance the argument that, following her transfer in late August 2025 from the mother and baby unit at Sliven Prison into the main prison building or prison hostels to serve the remainder of her prison sentence, she would be held in conditions which raise the real risk of ill-treatment which is in breach of her rights under article 3 ECHR. The Appellant contends that, taken together, the conclusions reached by the BHC in the BHC Report substantiate a real risk that she will be subjected to article 3 ill-treatment if returned to Bulgaria. She submits that the assurance does not respond to the particular risks arising from the conclusions of the BHC Report.[40]The Respondent contends that the concerns identified in the conclusions of the Report do not substantiate a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment. At worst, the BHC Report raises the possibility of such ill-treatment. The BHC Report does not support a finding of strong grounds for believing that, if returned, the Appellant faces a real risk of being subjected to article 3 ill-treatment. The Respondent further contends that, insofar as such a finding may be contemplated by the court, the assurance effectively addresses that risk and may properly be relied upon by the court.

Legal principles

[41]Article 3 ECHR provides – “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.[42]The correct approach to the application of article 3 in an extradition case in which the requested person alleges that their return will expose them to inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting state was stated by Lord Bingham of Cornhill at [24] in R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 – “In relation to article 3, it is necessary to show strong grounds for believing that the person, if returned, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.[43]In a case where the allegation is that the risk of being so subjected arises not from direct action taken by the requesting state itself by non-state actors, the relevant question is whether the state can provide reasonable protection to the requested person. In R(Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 668 at [24], Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said – “In cases where the risk ‘emanates from intentionally inflicted acts of the public authorities in the receiving country’… the intentionally inflicted acts without more constitute the proscribed treatment. Where, however, the risk emanates from non-state bodies, that is not so: any harm inflicted by non-state agents will not constitute article 3 ill-treatment unless in addition the state has failed to provide reasonable protection… Non-state agents do not subject people to torture or to other proscribed forms of ill-treatment, however violently they treat them: what, however, would transform such violent treatment into article 3 ill-treatment would be the state’s failure to provide reasonable protection against it”.[44]Lord Advocate v Dean [2017] UKSC 44; [2017] 1 WLR 2721 was a case concerning the risk of inter-prisoner violence in Taiwan which was said to expose the requested person to article 3 ill-treatment. At [25], Lord Hodge JSC summarised the approach to be taken by the court – “Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. It is therefore incumbent on the court to be assiduous in its assessment of a challenge on this ground. A person asserting a breach of this article must show that there are substantial grounds for believing that he faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 if he is extradited... In addressing that challenge, the court can have regard to assurances given by the receiving state… in particular, the court must assess not only the quality of the assurances given but also whether they can be relied on, having regard to the general situation in that country with regard to respect for human rights”.[45]I was referred by both Ms Pottle for the Appellant and Ms Herbert for the Respondent to the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Neshkov and others v Bulgaria (2015) Applications 36925/10 and others – final judgment 1 June 2015. The effect of that pilot judgment is stated by the Divisional Court in Chechev v Bulgaria [2021] EWHC 427 (Admin) at [23] – “It is common ground that the position in relation to prison conditions in Bulgaria is such that, in the absence of satisfactory assurances, there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. This was the effect of the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Neshkov and Others v Bulgaria (judgment of the Fourth Section, 27 January 2015). That principle has been applied by the courts of this country since that time: see e.g. Vasilev v Regional Prosecutor's Office, Silistra, Bulgaria (Burnett LJ and Mitting J) [2016] EWHC 1401 (Admin), at para. 9”.[46]It was common ground before me that the position remains as stated by the Divisional Court in Chechev.[47]In Vasilev v Regional Prosecutor's Office, Silistra, Bulgaria [2016] EWHC EWHC 1401 (Admin) at [25], the court summarised the approach to be adopted to assurances given by Part 1 states in extradition proceedings as follows –(1) Assurances can in principle be accepted.(2) The factors identified by the Strasbourg Court in Othman v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1 at [189] should be considered, but are not a 'tick list'.(3) The fact that an assurance is given by a territory designated for the purposes of Part 1 of the 2003 Act by an order made by the Secretary of State is a highly relevant factor;(4) In the case of an assurance given by such a State, there is a rebuttable presumption that it can be relied upon.(5) There is no requirement that an assurance must contain any particular form of words or promise; what matters is whether or not the assurance 'dispels all doubts' about the existence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if the requested person is extradited.[48]In Sunca v Iasi Court of Law [2016] EWHC 2786 (Asmin) at [54], the court referred to the approach to be taken for the purpose of evaluating assurances given by a requesting state – “We accept that the factors which Mitting J identified in BB v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, SC/39/2005, and approved by the Court of Appeal, are those for evaluating the assurance in this case. Mitting J said:
"Without attempting to lay down rules which must apply in every case, we believe that four conditions must, in general, be satisfied. (i) the terms of assurances must be such that, if they are fulfilled, the person returned will not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3; (ii) the assurances must be given in good faith; (iii) there must be a sound objective basis for believing that the assurances will be fulfilled; (iv) fulfilment of the assurances must be capable of being verified."
.

Discussion

[49]The assurance states that, if returned, the Appellant will be held either in the main prison building at Sliven Prison or in one of the two open type prison hostels at that prison. As Sliven Prison is the sole prison facility provided for women in Bulgaria, it is not suggested that the Appellant may be transferred into custody elsewhere in the domestic prison estate in that country.[50]The Appellant will be held in the mother and baby unit at Sliven Prison until the first anniversary of her baby son. If returned, therefore, she will remain on the mother and baby ward in the main prison building until 20 August 2025. The evidence given in the BHC Report is clearly sufficient to satisfy this court that, if returned prior to August 2025, the Appellant and her son will be held in conditions which will not breach her rights under article 3. No further assurance is required in respect of the particular concern understandably raised by Freedman J on 13 August 2024, on the basis of the evidence then available to the court.[51]The question is whether the findings and conclusions of the BHC Report substantiate the Appellant’s contention that, if returned, from 20 August 2025 onwards and for the remainder of her prison sentence she faces the real risk of being subjected to article 3 ill-treatment, following her transfer from the mother and baby unit into the general prison or one or other of the prison hostels at Sliven Prison.[52]The authorities to which I have referred make clear that it is for the Appellant to show that there are strong grounds for believing that, if she is returned, she faces the real risk of being subject to article 3 ill-treatment. The Appellant founds her case on the conclusions of the BHC Report.[53]On behalf of the Respondent, Ms Herbert drew my attention to the terms in which the BHC had stated their conclusions. The BHC clearly state that there are no risks of article 3 violations in cases of extradition to Sliven Prison due to overcrowding. The Bulgarian standard for personal space at 4 square metres per prisoner is satisfactory. The BHC further state that there is no risk of article 3 violation in relation to access to food, outdoor exercise or physical abuse by prison guards at Sliven Prison. The position is assured by the terms of the assurance, which confirms that the Appellant will be held in conditions for the duration of her detention at Sliven Prison which comply with minimum international standards for personal living space.[54]Ms Herbert pointed out that the six specific matters raised by the BHC in their conclusions were stated to be structural issues of concern which raised the possibility of article 3 violations. The BHC did not conclude that those matters gave rise to a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment. Ms Herbert drew the contrast with the BHC’s finding in respect of conditions at Bobov Dol and Samoranovo Prisons as reported at [38] in Chechev, which the BHC researcher spoke of “a real risk” and “no real risk” of violation of article 3. In [29] of Chechev, the court records that the BHC is a non-governmental organisation established in 1992 which has maintained a programme for monitoring prisons in Bulgaria since 1994. It was submitted that BHC researchers are familiar with the well-established legal threshold against with alleged violations of article 3 ECHR are to be judged in the context of extradition. In the present case, the choice of language in the conclusions of the BHC Report, which speaks of “no risks” of article 3 violations and of “possibilities” of such violations in respect of specific matters is argued to be careful and deliberate.[55]There is force in Ms Herbert’s submission. In my view, it is safe to proceed on the basis that had the two BHC researchers in the present case, who both signed expert declarations, reached the conclusion that the six specific matters to which they refer do give rise to a real risk that the Appellant will be exposed to article 3 ill-treatment at Sliven Prison, they would have stated that conclusion in clear and precise terms. They did not do so. There is an obvious distinction between a conclusion that, on the one hand, a matter of specific concern or a number of such matters give rise to the possibility of violation of article 3 rights; and, on the other hand, that such matter or matters give rise to the real risk of violation of the Appellant’s article 3 rights.[56]I turn to the specific matters of concern on which the BHC Report concludes.[57]The Appellant is 35 years old. It is not suggested that she suffers from any physical disability. Nor is there evidence before the court that she requires medication for any serious or chronic medical condition. It is not said that she is vulnerable to any allergies. The BHC’s reported concerns about access to toilets in the “Sliven” hostel at night, elderly and disabled prisoners’ ability to pay for medication and particular vulnerability to bed bug infestation are accordingly not of any direct relevance to the Appellant’s circumstances.[58]For the Appellant, however, Ms Pottle relied on the following risk factors arising from the conclusions of the BHC Report –(1) The assurance states that the Appellant will be held in the main prison at Sliven or in one of the prison hostels. The conditions at “Ramanusha” hostel in the winter are inhuman and degrading for any prisoner held there.(2) The assurance does not confirm that the Appellant's bank account will not be frozen, such that she may be left without means to purchase food and essential medicine. She may be completely cut off from her family and baby.(3) The assurance does not set out any reasonable steps that will be taken to protect the Appellant from inter-prisoner violence.[59]I accept that the BHC Report does record the BHC’s belief that conditions at “Ramanusha” hostel in the winter are inhuman and degrading for anybody accommodated there, by virtue of the inadequate heating , exposure to pollution from the wood and coal burning furnaces in the cells and the poor hygiene of the communal toilets and sanitary facilities at that hostel. However, in the case of the Appellant, any risk of article 3 ill-treatment arising from the reported living conditions at “Ramanusha” hostel is addressed by the terms of the assurance. As Ms Herbert submitted, the assurance confirms that the Appellant will have access to private sanitary facilities and running water throughout her period of imprisonment at Sliven Prison. Such facilities are not available at “Ramanusha” hostel. It would accordingly be in breach of the assurance for the Appellant to be accommodated in “Ramanusha” hostel.[60]In the event, moreover, that the Appellant were to be placed in that hostel, the assurance guarantees her right to apply for transfer to alternative accommodation at the prison which complies with minimum international standards. Ms Pottle did not question that the assurance had been given in good faith. Nor did she submit that there was any reason to doubt that the assurance would be fulfilled in accordance with its terms; or that its fulfilment could not be verified. At [52] in Chechev, the court said that there was evidence before it that there are independent mechanisms in Bulgaria for monitoring compliance with assurances and more generally for monitoring prison conditions. Those included the national ombudsman and the BHC, which as I have said is an independent and experienced NGO. The BHC Report in the present case provides evidence that the Bulgarian prison authorities take an open and co-operative approach to interaction with the BHC and its inquiries. It was not suggested to me that the position has deteriorated since Chechev.[61]I do not accept that the reported complaints recorded in the BHC Report about the imposition of liens on the bank accounts of prisoners who have outstanding legal costs or compensation to pay, are sufficient to substantiate a real risk that the Appellant will be exposed to article 3 ill-treatment.[62]The practice appears from the BHC Report to be widespread across the prison system in Bulgaria. However, the BHC Report is clear that there is no risk of an article 3 violation in relation to access to food at Sliven Prison. The BHC report that the medical facilities are satisfactory at the prison. The BHC Report indicates that basic medical care and treatment is provided by the prison. The Appellant’s mother lives in Burgas which is about 120km from Sliven Prison. The evidence before the court does not show that the Appellant will face severe difficulties in maintaining contact with her family, including her children, following her transfer from the mother and baby unit in late August 2025 to serve the remaining term of her prison sentence.[63]While the reported impact on some prisoners of the practice of freezing bank accounts is concerning to read, the evidence does not establish that the Appellant will be subjected to this practice. Nor do her personal circumstances enable me to conclude that it presents a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in her case.[64]In any event, I am satisfied that no further assurance is needed to address the concerns raised by the BHC Report. The assurance specifically states that the rights of the Appellant will be safeguarded against inhuman and degrading treatment by the relevant provisions of the domestic penal sanctions and detention in custody legislation. I am required to assess that assurance in accordance with the principle of mutual trust between states: see Mihaylov v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin) at [38]. If the terms of the assurance offered specifically for the benefit of the Appellant are fulfilled, in my judgment, they are sufficient to address the possibility of article 3 ill-treatment raised by the BHC in respect of the risks to prisoners at Sliven Prison associated with the freezing of bank accounts. It is not suggested that the assurance fails the second, third and fourth Sunca conditions identified in paragraph 48 above.[65]The most concerning element of the conclusions drawn by the BHC is the apparently increasing trend in inter-prisoner violent incidents in the wards in the main building at Sliven Prison. There is no suggestion that the prison staff are directly responsible for such violence. The question is whether the evidence of the BHC Report substantiates a real risk that the Appellant will be exposed to such violence following her transfer from the mother and baby unit and for the remainder of her sentence; and if so, whether the prison authorities will take reasonable steps to protect her from it. In considering that question, regard must be had to the assurance.[66]As I have already said, the BHC did not find that the threat of inter-prisoner violence presented a real risk of the Appellant being exposed to article 3 ill-treatment. The way is which the BHC concluded on this issue merits repetition. They found that there was a serious and ongoing problem of inter-prisoner violence in the main prison building with no prospect of resolution any time soon. The BHC say that every prisoner can be exposed to the risk of such violence and there is little that the prisoner can do to prevent such incidents.[67]The BHC’s summary of the position seems to me to be a fair and accurate summary of the evidence which was reported to them by both prisoners during interviews and the prison authorities. There is evidence that the prison staff do intervene and seek both to manage and to punish the perpetrators of violent incidents at the prison. There is, therefore, evidence of steps being taken to impose discipline. The situation is obviously challenging due to the closure of the high security ward. I am no more impressed than were the BHC with the explanation given by the prison management based upon the alleged inherent vulnerability of women to imprisonment.[68]I have not found this issue easy to resolve. The possibility of being exposed to violent assault by fellow prisoners is supported by the evidence heard by the BHC when they visited Sliven Prison. It is obviously challenging for the prison authorities and staff to manage that risk and providing reasonable protection to prisoners housed in the main building at Sliven Prison, given that the high security unit is not in use and seems unlikely to be brought back into use in the foreseeable future.[69]The Respondent was served with the BHC Report in sufficient time to enable consideration to be given to whether a further assurance was necessary in order to address the risk of inter-prisoner violence. No such further assurance has been offered. Ms Herbert’s submission was that no further assurance was required, since the assurance of 12 February 2024 is sufficient to safeguard the Appellant’s rights under article 3 ECHR.[70]With some initial hesitation, I have come to the conclusion that Ms Herbert is correct in that submission. The findings and conclusions of the BHC Report have drawn attention specifically to the possibility of a violation of the Appellant’s article 3 rights in the event that she is exposed to the risk of inter-prisoner violence at Sliven Prison. As I have said, the assurance specifically states that the rights of the Appellant will be safeguarded against inhuman and degrading treatment by the relevant provisions of the domestic penal sanctions and detention in custody legislation. I am required to assess that assurance in accordance with the principle of mutual trust between states.[71]I proceed on the basis, therefore, that the assurance has been given by the Respondent Bulgarian Judicial Authority specifically for the benefit of the Appellant, in order to reassure the executing judicial authority that it is unnecessary to seek further assistance in accordance with [104] in Aranyosi. I am satisfied that the terms of the assurance are sufficient to assure this court that the Appellant will be offered reasonable protection against the risk of being violently assaulted in Sliven Prison, in fulfilment of the specific commitment given by the Respondent in the assurance that the Appellant will be safeguarded from inhuman or degrading treatment. Under the established jurisprudence, such safeguarding must include reasonable protection against violence perpetrated by non-state actors such as her fellow prisoners.[72]It is on that basis that I have concluded that it is not necessary for this court to seek further assistance from the Respondent. I repeat that it is not suggested that the assurance fails the second, third and fourth Sunca conditions identified in paragraph 48 above. I therefore expect the Respondent to honour the explicit commitment given in favour of the Appellant in the assurance, that if extradited she will be “safeguarded” by being given protection against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The BHC Report has drawn clear and precise conclusions as to the possible ways in which such ill-treatment may arise at Sliven Prison. The assurance requires the Respondent to take reasonable steps to safeguard the Appellant against them.

Disposal

[73]I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant permission on the sole ground of appeal but, for the reasons I have given, the appeal is dismissed.