9.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently detained in Voghera. 10.  On 6 August 1996 the applicant, accused of international drug‑trafficking, was arrested in Milan. He was in possession of a false passport in the name of José Luis Troccoli Perdomo. 11.  On 7 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by the Milan Public Prosecutor. Criminal proceedings were instituted against José Luis Troccoli Perdomo. 12.  By an order of 9 August 1996, the Milan investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody. He observed that there was strong evidence of guilt against the applicant, who was in possession of documents showing that he was in contact with persons connected to drug-trafficking. Given the amount of cocaine (104 kilograms) imported by those persons and the fact that they were probably part of a major criminal organisation, the investigating judge considered that there was a serious risk of re-offending and a risk of tampering with evidence. Moreover, the applicant had declared that he was a tourist and that he had no links whatsoever to Italy. It was therefore reasonable to believe that he would try to abscond in order to avoid the consequences of the legal proceedings commenced against him. 13.  The applicant challenged the order before the Milan District Court, which dismissed his appeal on 23 September 1996. The District Court observed that new evidence had emerged against the applicant, who had been recognised as the person who had rented a deposit box in which the cocaine had been found, had helped to move a container into the deposit box and was facing another set of proceedings for drug-trafficking pending in Bassano del Grappa. The Milan District Court held that there was a serious risk of his re-offending, as evidenced by the fact that the applicant was part of a powerful criminal organisation. Moreover, if he were released, the applicant might try to get in touch with the other members of the organisation in order to tell them about the investigations with a view to tampering with the evidence. Finally, there was a risk of his absconding, confirmed by the fact that the applicant had given a different name to the Bassano del Grappa judicial authorities. 14.  The applicant did not appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation against the order of 23 September 1996. 15.  On 27 May 1997 the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the applicant and twelve other persons be committed for trial. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for 23 June 1997, on which date the applicant was committed for trial, to begin on 2 April 1998 before the Milan District Court. 16.  In a judgment of 22 April 1998, filed with the registry on 27 April 1998, the Milan District Court declared that the case was outside its jurisdiction ratione loci and ordered the transmission of the case-file to the Genoa Public Prosecutor’s Office. 17.  In a decision of 8 May 1998 the Genoa investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on remand. After confirming the observations made in the orders of 9 August and 23 September 1996, he noted that further investigation had revealed that the applicant had played an active role in renting the deposit box where the cocaine had been found and in sending the container in which it was concealed and had kept in contact with the other defendants who had been caught by the police in the act of removing the cocaine from the container. The investigating judge considered moreover that there was a risk of his re-offending and absconding after having committed the offence. He noted in that respect that another set of criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant in Bassano del Grappa, and that the accused had tried to abscond, producing false identification papers. 18.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 8 May 1998. 19.  On 4 November 1998 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Genoa District Court forwarded the case-file to the Como Public Prosecutor’s Office. 20.  In a judgment of 7 October 1999, filed with the registry on 28 October 1999, the Como District Court found the applicant guilty of the charges against him and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of 130,000,000 Italian lire (ITL). The applicant’s name was established as being in reality Horacio Sardinas Albo. 21.  On 20 December 1999 the applicant appealed against that judgment. He challenged, in particular, the jurisdiction of the Como District Court. 22.  The hearing was scheduled for 16 March 2000. On that date, the applicant concluded a plea bargain (applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti) with the Public Prosecutor attached to the Milan Court of Appeal. The applicant agreed to withdraw his appeal in return for a reduction in his sentence. 23.  In a judgment of 16 March 2000, the Milan Court of Appeal recognized the agreement reached by the parties and reduced the applicant’s sentence to eleven years’ imprisonment and a fine of ITL 100,000,000. 24.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 2 February 2001. 25.  Meanwhile, on 14 May 1998, the Ministry of Justice had requested that the applicant be placed in detention with a view to his extradition to the United States. In an order of 15 May 1998 the Brescia Court of Appeal had provisionally granted the request. 26.  On 22 May 1998 the applicant was interviewed by the President of the Brescia Court of Appeal. He declared that he did not agree to be extradited since the absence of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States could result in his being detained for an indefinite period of time (a situation commonly known as “limbo incarceration”). 27.  On 22 May 1998 the applicant challenged the order of 15 May 1998. He contested in particular the authorities’ assumption that it was necessary to prevent him from absconding before the extradition decision could be enforced. By an order of 26 May 1998 the Brescia Court of Appeal rejected his claim. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible. 28.  On 22 June 1998 the United States authorities requested the applicant’s extradition for offences related to drug-trafficking (importation and possession of 425 kilograms of cocaine). 29.  On 25 August 1998 the Brescia Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that extradition be granted. It was noted that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant on 9 June 1993 by the Porto Rico District Court and that in the light of the evidence produced by the United States authorities it was reasonable to believe that the applicant was guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. 30.  In a judgment of 2 October 1998, filed with the registry on 6 October 1998, the Brescia Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition. 31.  On 27 October 1998 the applicant appealed on points of law. He submitted that Cuban nationals incurred a serious risk of indefinite detention in the United States. 32.  By a judgment of 29 January 1999, filed with the registry on 29 March 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 33.  On 12 May 1999 the Ministry of Justice granted the extradition request. However, noting that criminal proceedings against the applicant were then pending before the Como District Court, the Ministry decided, according to Article 709 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, the “CCP”), to suspend the enforcement of the extradition. 34.  Meanwhile the United States authorities had once again requested the applicant’s extradition in relation to a charge of false statements. The applicant had allegedly declared that his name was Gilberto Ramos in order to obtain a United States passport and had produced evidence corroborating the assertion. 35.  By an order of 4 June 1999 the Brescia Court of Appeal decided that the applicant should be detained with a view to extradition. It noted, in particular, that the applicant had already left the jurisdiction of the Florida courts and that there was a specific risk of his absconding. The order indicated that the applicant was a Cuban citizen who, in February 1973, had obtained a permanent residence permit in the United States. 36.  On 8 July 1999 the applicant appealed on points of law against the order of 4 June 1999. 37.  By a judgment of 19 August 1999, filed with the registry on 1 September 1999, the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible because it had been lodged out of time. 38.  By a judgment of 9 March 2000, filed with the registry on 21 March 2000, the Brescia Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition. 39.  The applicant appealed on points of law. By a judgment of 19 September 2000, filed with the registry on 30 October 2000, the Court of Cassation, considering that the Court of Appeal had duly given reasons for its decision, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 40.  By an order of 3 November 2000 the Ministry of Justice granted the extradition request. However, noting that criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending, the Ministry decided to suspend enforcement of the extradition.