Countries without extradition 2024

[Friend]

Extradition in international law plays a key role in combating crime and maintaining law and order. This process involves the arrest and transfer of persons accused or convicted of crimes from one country to another at the request of the relevant authorities. However, not all States participate in this practice, and there are countries that do not extradite criminals to other States.

Content:

• Extradition models and their differences
• Who is subject to extradition
• Extradition procedure
• Is extradition mandatory?
• Application of extra-treaty extradition
• Extradition and deportation – what's the difference?
• What is the difference between transfer and delivery
• Extradition of citizens of one's own state
• List of countries where there is no extradition
• Which country to choose?
• What criminals are not extradited by countries where there is extradition?
• Countries Not Extraditing FAQ

Extradition is a form of international cooperation in the fight against crime, including the arrest and return of persons who have committed crimes in their homeland and are hiding abroad. This transfer of offenders is carried out at the request of the state where the crime was committed or where the person was convicted. It is applied to suspects, accused persons and persons sentenced to imprisonment. The extradition process involves the prosecutor's office, the court, the police, other law enforcement agencies and the National Bureau of Interpol.

Extradition includes the following stages:

• the request of a State to establish the whereabouts of the person to be extradited in the territory of another State and the extradition of such a person;
• verification of circumstances that may impede extradition;
• the decision-making process on the request;
• the actual surrender of such a person to the requesting State.

The extradition of offenders is usually based on international treaties, including bilateral and multilateral agreements such as the European Convention on the Extradition of Offenders (1957) and the Convention on Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters. Key instruments include the UN Model Treaty on Extradition (1990), the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959) and the Berlin Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (1978).

Extradition models and their differences​

To date, there are two systems for the extradition of persons:

1. The Euro-continental system used in Europe and Latin America (and their former colonies) is characterized by the fact that extradition issues are governed by bilateral or multilateral agreements between specific countries.
2. The Anglo-American system, common in the UK, USA, Canada, etc., involves each extradition case being considered in court, where a person must be found guilty of specific crimes before an extradition decision is made.

At the same time, the presence or absence of an agreement on the extradition of a person between countries does not mean that the person will be extradited or, conversely, will not. A treaty is an exclusively legal mechanism for transfer, and the issue of extradition itself is considered in each case separately.

Who is subject to extradition​

All aspects, including the range of persons (offenders) to be extradited, the list of crimes and the criteria for classifying crimes according to gravity and intent, are defined in the relevant bilateral/multilateral treaties and conventions.

The basic rule applied by all countries is that the conduct must be established as an offence under the laws of both the requesting and the requested State.

The following are subject to extradition:

• Foreigners;
• stateless persons and having citizenship of several countries at once;
• citizens of the countries carrying out the extradition.

But most countries do not extradite their citizens – in this case, there is such a way of bringing to justice as the transfer of production materials to the country of citizenship (but not all countries have regulatory support for this procedure).

Extradition is carried out not only for the purpose of prosecution, but also in particular:

• extradition of persons within the framework of the investigation of criminal cases;
• extradition for the purpose of participation of private persons in the court hearing on the case;
• extradition for the execution of a court sentence by which a person has been sentenced to imprisonment;

A country may request the extradition of a person (extradition) in the following cases:

• a criminal offence has been committed in the territory of that country;
• the person who committed the crime is a citizen of that country;
• the committed crime was directed against the interests of a certain state, or the crime caused harm to a certain state.

Extradition procedure​

Extradition is possible only if guilt is proven. The requesting country must provide substantiated evidence that the person has committed the crime and must be punished for it. The extradition of persons whose guilt has not been confirmed is not allowed.

The extradition procedure itself goes through specific stages:

1. The Attorney General's Office accepts a request for the extradition of a person accused or convicted of a crime.
2. The offender is detained in order to check the documents for extradition. While the check is underway, the person is under arrest (the court chooses a preventive measure).
3. A special department of the prosecutor's office examines the materials of the case on the extradition of a person, verifies the circumstances that exclude the extradition of the offender. On the basis of these data, a decision is made on the extradition or refusal of extradition.
4. This is followed by the stage of familiarizing the accused with the decision, which he can appeal within a certain period. Usually this period is short (10 days).

Possible application of a deferral in issuance (if it is impossible to make an unequivocal decision on the basis of the documents provided). In some cases, temporary extradition is possible (to participate in investigative actions).

Is extradition mandatory?​

The extradition of criminals is a right, not an obligation of the state, exercised by the government. It becomes an obligation only if there is a bilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, although even then the country may refuse extradition.

Extradition can be carried out only in relation to certain crimes - as a rule, their list or criteria for their determination (severity of punishment, etc.) are established in the contract.

Application of extra-treaty extradition​

Even countries without bilateral extradition agreements can extradite individuals upon request. In the UK, despite clear extradition rules, the country rarely extradites people to avoid human rights violations. The Secretary of State decides to enter into "special extradition arrangements" and may be inclined to extradite if certain conditions are met.

Such special arrangements can be concluded between different countries of the world. In particular, the United States of America has been successful in submitting and receiving positive extradition requests in the absence of a treaty on several occasions.

Extradition and deportation – what's the difference?​

Extradition and deportation are two different legal procedures that are often confused due to their similarities in the context of the movement of people across borders. However, the goals, processes and legal bases of these procedures vary considerably. Extradition aims to criminalize and is based on international agreements, whereas deportation aims to comply with immigration laws and is based on national immigration laws. Extradition requires a trial, and deportation is a purely administrative process. Extradition applies to criminals, while deportation applies to immigration violators.

What is the difference between transfer and delivery​

In legal practice, the term "extradition" is used, in everyday life they often say "extradition". Transmission is most commonly used in an administrative or civil context. It is the process of transferring a person, documents, or property from one party to another. For example, the transfer of a convict to serve a sentence in his country of citizenship within the framework of international agreements on the execution of sentences. The transfer can take place both by mutual consent of the parties and as a result of a decision of a court or other competent authority.

Extradition of citizens of one's own state​

International law often does not allow the extradition of their own citizens, which is a common reason for refusing extradition at the request of other countries. However, countries have the right, not the obligation, to refuse the extradition of their nationals. For example, the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters allows EU countries to extradite their nationals unless prohibited by their domestic law.

Countries where there is no extradition to Ukraine​

There are a number of states that have not concluded extradition treaties with Ukraine, which makes it impossible to return fugitives from Ukrainian justice.

The list of countries where there is no extradition to Ukraine includes the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the United Arab Emirates, and China. They do not have bilateral treaties with Ukraine on the extradition of offenders. In these countries, only agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters are in force, which do not provide for mandatory extradition. This means that Ukraine's requests for the extradition of criminals can be rejected or ignored.

On the other hand, Ukraine has signed and successfully implemented bilateral treaties on legal assistance with countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Poland.

From 2014 to 2018, Ukraine extradited 118 people to foreign countries. At the same time, 76 people were transferred from other countries to Ukraine in five years, although a total of 252 requests for extradition were sent.

Extradition to the United States​

Extradition to the U.S. is an important part of international cooperation and the legal system. The U.S. currently has more than 100 extradition agreements with various countries. However, about 70 states are not required to hand over criminals to the United States.

It is worth noting that even in the absence of formal treaties, the U.S. often seeks extradition through effective diplomacy.

Among the countries that are in no hurry to extradite criminals to the United States are the UAE, China, Russia, Syria, Tunisia, Cuba, Bhutan and North Korea. These States have either not concluded extradition agreements or rarely comply with such requests.

The United States has the closest cooperation on extradition issues with Great Britain, Spain, Greece, the Baltic countries and some Latin American countries.

List of countries where there is no extradition​

In which countries there is no extradition is a question that every migrant asks himself. Today we will share countries in which there is no such institution as extradition at all. At the same time, these are not the last countries in terms of their level of development, there are even world leaders in this list, and it is these countries that include:

1. Bhutan
2. Israel
3. United Arab Emirates
4. United Kingdom
5. Solomon Islands
6. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
7. Free Kashmir
8. Republic of Kosovo
9. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
10. Cook Islands and Niue.

Importantly! But on the other hand, it should be understood that some countries (like the United States) have such powerful diplomatic relations with most countries that it is not a problem for them to obtain permission to extradite criminals, even from countries that do not have extradition.

Bhutan​

The Kingdom of Bhutan is a state located in the Himalayas between India and China, which has diplomatic relations with a limited number of countries, which does not include the countries of Europe, the United States, the CIS countries. This country has no access to the sea, and the total population exceeds 800 thousand people.

At the same time, Bhutan is distinguished by its closeness in the way of conducting international relations, this country does not meddle in the affairs of other countries. Until the 70s of the 20th century, this country was completely closed to the public. Nevertheless, the country opens its borders to wealthy tourists - so you will only be welcome there.

But when choosing this country, you should take into account that there is no Internet, television and tobacco, or rather, they are prohibited.

Israel​

The peculiarity of this country is that according to its legislation, the possibility of extradition must be provided for by an existing bilateral treaty or convention (in particular, Israel has ratified the European Convention on Extradition).

Israel was an example of States that could extradite their nationals, in particular on charges of murder or terrorism. However, there is also a general rule according to which Israel does not extradite its citizens, as well as persons with Jewish roots.

Israel often refuses extradition, largely due to the complexity of the process. The extradition request is translated into Hebrew by local law enforcement agencies, after which a comparison of legal systems is made. If there are grounds, the Prosecutor General's Office opens a criminal case and sends it to the court, where the judge decides whether to extradite or refuse extradition. For Israeli citizens, even with an extradition decision, there is a condition for returning to Israel to serve their sentence in a local prison.

United Arab Emirates​

In recent years, relations between different countries on the issue of extradition have improved. However, some countries still accuse the UAE of harboring and not extraditing persons against whom there are court decisions from the state of citizenship or other countries.

Extradition to the UAE is unique in that it is regulated by both international and domestic legislation. The decision on extradition is made by a local court, which may refuse extradition on the grounds of political persecution or the threat of the death penalty in the home country.

In addition, in the UAE, there are various ways to circumvent extradition: for example, there were cases when a person was overdue on a significant loan, and went to prison for several months (in the UAE, this is a criminal offense). As a result, the country sent a refusal on the request for extradition.

United Kingdom​

If finances are limited, it is better to avoid this country, but for wealthy refugees, it is ideal. It is not only one of the leading countries in the world, but also allows delaying the judicial process for many years, allowing refugees to legally reside on its territory and obtain refugee status.

Despite its economic leadership, this country rarely agrees to the extradition of refugees, becoming the leader in the number of refusals of extradition requests, even though it is a party to many extradition agreements. This has led to the spread of opinion among world businessmen and politicians that extradition is not done from London.

Solomon Islands​

This is a state located in the southwestern part of the Pacific Ocean. There are many islands and very few people. The country is a member of the UN, but it has established diplomatic relations with a small number of countries. In total, the country consists of 992 islands - so extradition is complicated by the search for a refugee. In addition, there is no army and police in the country. There are practically no tourists on the islands, which will only have a positive effect on the stay of refugees here.

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic​

Western Sahara is 266,000 square kilometers. desert (sand dunes surrounded by rocks) on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. As such, there has never been statehood here. Most countries still refuse to recognize Morocco's ownership of this territory. But they do not dare to recognize the independence of the self-proclaimed state. At present, this territory is an ungoverned space, where hostilities ended more than 25 years ago.

Therefore, in this huge ungoverned space, there is a place not only for the local population, but also for numerous tourists and travelers in need of anonymity and the necessary conditions.

Free Kashmir​

The area has long been used by Indian rajas as a summer holiday destination. The state was created during the confrontation between Pakistan and India. Despite the fact that the Kashmir problem has been the main problem of the region for several decades. In fact, Free Kashmir is the territory of Pakistan. However, officially it is a separate state, Pakistan itself promotes precisely this theory of a free and independent state. As for diplomats, there are simply none in this territory: diplomatic relations have not been established with other countries.

However, this country has an extraordinary nature: here snowy peaks are combined with green meadows and the purest mountain rivers. Prices on the territory of the state are also pleasantly surprising. However, the negative aspects include the lack of knowledge of English by the local population.

Republic of Kosovo​

Kosovo's independence from Serbia is not recognized by 85 UN member states. There are no international organizations in the country, and accordingly, extradition is impossible. Life in the country is not easy, especially against the backdrop of the escalation of the conflict recently. In addition, this is a country with high crime, rallies are constantly held. It is conditionally divided into territories where it is better for Ukrainians not to go and where Russians will not be welcome.

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus​

There are 3 countries on the island - the Republic of Cyprus, Great Britain and Northern Cyprus. There are no extraditions in Northern Cyprus. This is because official diplomatic relations have not been established with any state except Turkey.

International organizations, including Interpol, do not operate on the territory of this state. To obtain a residence permit, it is enough to purchase some real estate. At the same time, the origin of the means in a person does not matter.

Accommodation here is quite comfortable - prices are not high, the crime rate is low, it is summer for eight months.

Cook Islands and Niue​

These countries, in which there is no extradition, are endowed with an interesting status. As for the constitutional component, these states are in free association with New Zealand, they have a common head of state, and citizenship is also the same. According to the international charter, these countries are endowed with absolute independence: in any issues of international politics, they act as separate subjects of international law. That is, they act as separate states and have the right to establish diplomatic relations with any other countries. The Cook Islands now has diplomatic relations with 42 countries and the European Union. Niue has diplomatic relations with 13 countries and the European Union. At the same time, English is the second official language on these islands, and such a concept as extradition is not known on the islands at all.

Which country to choose?​

Only a person seeking asylum can answer this question. When making a decision, it is important to consider which countries do not extradite criminals to a particular country. Economically developed countries often carry out extradition following strict international agreements and legal obligations.

Less developed countries may have a more flexible approach to extradition, especially if the asylum seeker makes a significant contribution to their economy. Many of these states provide a residence permit when buying real estate or making a significant investment. This is especially true for island states and countries of Southeast Asia, where the economic contribution of foreign citizens is especially appreciated.

In addition, factors such as political stability, security, quality of life, and local human rights laws are worth paying attention to.

What criminals are not extradited by countries where there is extradition?​

As a general rule, countries that have extradition do not extradite criminals under the following conditions:

• the offence for which extradition is requested shall be treated by the requested party as a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence;
• the request for the extradition of an offender for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or the situation of such a person may be aggravated for any of these reasons;
• the offender whose extradition is requested is a national of the State receiving the request;
• for an offence which, according to the legislation of the receiving State, is deemed to have been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place which is considered to be its territory;
• the offence is not punishable by imprisonment in the territory of the receiving State or is not criminalized at all;
• the statute of limitations for bringing a person to criminal responsibility or executing a sentence for the crime for which extradition is requested provided for by the legislation of the requesting State has expired;
• the competent authority of the foreign state has not provided the data without which it is impossible to make a decision on extradition (extradition);
• the extradition of a person (extradition) is contrary to the obligations of the state receiving the request under international treaties;
• there are reasons to believe that the extradition of a person (extradition) is contrary to the interests of the national security of the state receiving the request;
• a request for the extradition of a person who has been granted refugee status, the status of a person in need of complementary protection, or has been granted temporary protection, has been received from the state from which he or she has been recognized as a refugee (or the person has just submitted a request for refugee status);
• The competent authorities of the requested party have pronounced a final decision in respect of the person concerned in respect of the offence for which extradition is sought. In this situation, the principle of non bis in idem (prohibition of dual jurisdiction) applies – the prohibition of prosecution twice for the same offense;
• if there is a threat of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The grounds for extradition may differ from country to country, but some are set out in international instruments binding on States parties. However, countries where there is no extradition can also extradite criminals in certain cases, because this list does not guarantee that a person accused of a crime will necessarily be extradited to the requesting state. Each case is considered individually, with a detailed analysis of the documentation provided by the requesting party.

Source