Extradition is designed as a legal process for cooperation between states, primarily to ensure that fugitives cannot escape justice simply by crossing borders. However, in 2025, growing evidence shows that extradition abuse by authoritarian states are increasingly abusing extradition treaties and INTERPOL mechanisms to silence political opponents, journalists, human rights defenders, and businesspersons.
This misuse—often referred to as extradition abuse by authoritarian states—poses severe legal, political, and human rights risks for targeted individuals. From politically motivated charges to fabricated evidence, authoritarian governments weaponize extradition to extend their repression abroad.
In this guide, we explore:
- The legal framework of extradition and how authoritarian states exploit loopholes.
- The risks of politically motivated extradition requests.
- Key safeguards under international law that protect individuals.
- The role of courts, human rights law, and refugee protections in resisting abuse.
- Practical defense strategies for lawyers and individuals facing such requests.
👉 For related reading, see our detailed guide: INTERPOL Abuse by Authoritarian Regimes – Legal Risks & Remedies (2025 Guide).
What Is Extradition Abuse?
Extradition abuse occurs when a state misuses extradition treaties and mechanisms to pursue individuals for political, religious, journalistic, or business-related reasons, rather than for legitimate criminal prosecution.
Some common features include:
- Politically Motivated Charges – framing opposition leaders with corruption, terrorism, or fraud charges.
- Use of Fabricated Evidence – submitting weak or falsified documents to justify extradition.
- Targeting Exiles and Refugees – attempting to bring back dissidents who have already sought asylum.
- Suppression of Business Rivals – using extradition to seize assets or eliminate competition.
This practice undermines the credibility of international extradition law and violates the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to a country where they face persecution.
How Authoritarian States Exploit Extradition
Authoritarian regimes manipulate extradition in several ways:
- Bilateral Treaties with Weak Safeguards
Many bilateral treaties signed decades ago lack strong human rights protections, making them easy to exploit. - INTERPOL Red Notices
Countries submit Red Notice requests that appear legitimate but are politically motivated. Although INTERPOL has improved its review system, abuse continues.
👉 See: How to Challenge an INTERPOL Red Notice – Legal Grounds & Remedies (2025 Guide). - Extradition via Informal Channels
When formal extradition is difficult, regimes use extraordinary renditions, covert transfers, or deportation disguised as immigration enforcement. - Abuse of Terrorism and Security Laws
Broad definitions of terrorism allow regimes to classify political dissent as terrorism, making extradition appear legitimate.
Real-World Examples of Extradition Abuse
- Russia has repeatedly sought to extradite dissidents and exiled business figures from Europe and the U.S. on politically motivated charges.
- China has used bilateral treaties to pursue Uyghur activists abroad.
- Turkey has sought extradition of journalists and alleged Gülen movement members.
- Middle Eastern regimes have requested extradition of political exiles in Europe to suppress opposition movements.
These examples highlight how extradition abuse often overlaps with INTERPOL abuse, further complicating legal defenses.
Legal Risks of Extradition Abuse
Extradition abuse presents multiple risks:
1. Violation of Human Rights
Individuals face torture, unfair trials, and persecution if returned.
👉 See: INTERPOL and Human Rights – Legal Safeguards Against Misuse (2025 Guide).
2. Erosion of Rule of Law
When authoritarian states misuse treaties, they undermine trust in the international legal system.
3. Risk of Refoulement
Extraditing someone to a country where they face persecution violates the 1951 Refugee Convention.
4. Diplomatic Tensions
Western democracies face political backlash when accused of collaborating with authoritarian regimes.
Safeguards in International Law
Several legal safeguards exist to prevent extradition abuse:
1. Political Offense Exception
Most treaties exclude extradition for political offenses, shielding dissidents from persecution.
2. Non-Refoulement Principle
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture, states cannot extradite individuals to countries where they face persecution or torture.
3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits extradition to states where individuals risk torture or inhuman treatment.
4. Judicial Review
Courts in democratic states often review extradition requests for compliance with human rights obligations.
Defense Strategies Against Extradition Abuse
If you are targeted by an authoritarian state, several legal strategies can be used:
1. Challenging Political Motivation
Courts can reject extradition if charges are proven politically motivated.
2. Presenting Human Rights Evidence
Defense lawyers often rely on reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the UN to show risks of torture or unfair trials.
3. Seeking Asylum Protection
Asylum provides a shield against extradition.
👉 Related: Can Asylum Protect You from INTERPOL Red Notices? (2025 Guide).
4. Challenging INTERPOL Notices
Filing a complaint with the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) can help remove abusive notices.
👉 See: How to Contact the CCF – Step-by-Step Guide (2025).
5. Using Diplomatic Channels
In some cases, lobbying host governments and international organizations helps resist abusive requests.
The Role of Democratic States
Democratic states have a responsibility to protect individuals from authoritarian abuse of extradition. This includes:
- Conducting strict judicial reviews of extradition requests.
- Refusing to honor requests with political overtones.
- Strengthening treaty language to include human rights protections.
- Working with INTERPOL reform efforts to stop misuse.
Case Law on Extradition Abuse
Courts across Europe and North America have rejected politically motivated extradition requests. Some landmark cases:
- Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) – The European Court of Human Rights barred extradition to the U.S. due to inhuman prison conditions.
- Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK (2012) – The court blocked extradition to Jordan due to risk of evidence obtained by torture.
- Recent EU rulings (2020–2024) – Multiple denials of Russian and Turkish extradition requests based on political motivation.
Future of Extradition Law – Reform Needed
With authoritarian regimes becoming more sophisticated, extradition law must evolve. Potential reforms include:
- Stronger human rights clauses in bilateral treaties.
- A UN-led oversight body for extradition requests.
- Greater transparency in INTERPOL and Red Notice review systems.
- International cooperation to prevent extraordinary renditions.
FAQs
1. Can authoritarian states misuse INTERPOL for extradition?
Yes. Authoritarian states frequently request Red Notices to trigger arrests abroad. Courts must carefully review such cases.
2. What happens if extradition is denied?
If denied, the individual often remains under asylum or other legal protection in the host state.
3. Can asylum stop extradition?
Yes. Asylum status under international law generally prevents extradition to the persecuting state.
4. Is there a difference between extradition abuse and INTERPOL abuse?
Yes. Extradition abuse involves misuse of treaties, while INTERPOL abuse involves misuse of notices. However, they often overlap.
Conclusion
Extradition is a vital tool for international justice, but when authoritarian states weaponize it, the system becomes a mechanism of transnational repression. Legal safeguards such as political offense exceptions, human rights protections, and asylum law play a crucial role in preventing abuse.
For lawyers, human rights defenders, and individuals at risk, understanding the legal landscape of extradition abuse in 2025 is essential. Courts, governments, and international institutions must remain vigilant to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.
👉 For further reading, see: