The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are a privileged source for considering whether the extradition of a citizen to the requesting country may lead to inhuman and degrading treatment.
in violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 ECHR.
This is what has been established by Court of Cassation con ruling 53741 of 2016, filed on December 19th.
The Supreme Court has refused the extradition of the chairman of the Ukrainian Central Anti-Corruption Committee, defended by the’Attorney Fulvio Sarzana of S.Ippolito accepting the defense's objections.
The Supreme Court noted “ The Court of Appeal underestimated the concrete risk that the person to be extradited may be subjected to persecutory or discriminatory acts or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in light of the documentation produced by the defense.
This risk is evident not only because of the extradited individual's status as an anti-corruption activist, but also because of the conditions of detention in the requesting country. This risk is supported by the documentation attached to the appeal, which comes from international associations and organizations, as well as by the numerous ECHR rulings condemning Ukraine for violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the ECHR. These are qualified sources, whose reliability has never been doubted by this Court's jurisprudence, even in cases of extradition to Ukraine (Section 6, no. 28822 of 28/06/2016, Diuligher), given the well-known climate of instability and political conflict and the well-known critical conditions of the penitentiary system. As required by this Court for the purpose of assessing the concreteness of such a risk, the assessment must be based on objective, reliable, precise, and appropriately updated elements regarding the detention conditions in force in the requesting State and demonstrating the presence of deficiencies that are either systemic or widespread, or limited to certain groups of people or specific detention centers (Section 6, no. 23277 of 01/06/2016, Barbu). To this end, all findings from qualified sources of knowledge, such as international judicial decisions, and in particular those of the ECHR, judicial decisions of the requesting State, as well as decisions, reports, and other documents prepared by the bodies of the Council of Europe or by those belonging to the United Nations system, must be the subject of a reasoned assessment.”
For these reasons, the Court of Cassation, "Considering that the request for subsidiary international protection, presented by the extradited person on 11 July 2016, also falls within the same line and also submits the assessment of the risk of persecution to the competent administrative authority, on the basis of all the elements illustrated, it is considered that the risk that the extradited person may be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the event of his return to the requesting State is well-founded and concrete.
Since there are grounds for refusing extradition, the contested sentence must be annulled without referral and, as a result, the release of the person to be extradited must be ordered, unless he is detained for another reason.“
here is the full sentence
English 
Italian 