Extradition Lawyers Worldwide.

The lawyer’s primary role in an extradition hearing is to challenge the legal validity of the request, rather than to argue the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the underlying crime. They scrutinize the prosecutor’s evidence to ensure it meets the strict “Probable Cause” (US) or “Prima Facie” (UK/Canada) standard required to detain the person. Furthermore, they protect the defendant’s procedural rights by verifying that the identity matches the warrant, that the paperwork is technically flawless, and that the alleged crime meets the “Dual Criminality” requirement—meaning it must be a crime in both the requesting country and the country where the fugitive was found.

Generally, no, as most common law countries (like the US and UK) strictly require a valid bilateral treaty to surrender a citizen to a foreign power. However, exceptions exist under the principle of “comity” or specific domestic statutes that allow for ad-hoc extradition if the Foreign Minister or Secretary of State deems it diplomatically necessary. In contrast, many civil law countries may extradite without a treaty based on the principle of reciprocity, provided they receive assurances that the favor would be returned in the future.

A lawyer defends against extradition by attacking the legal prerequisites of the surrender, most notably “Dual Criminality,” arguing that the act committed is not a crime in the country where the defendant was arrested. They also frequently argue the “Human Rights” defense (Non-Refoulement), proving that the defendant would face torture, the death penalty, or an unfair trial if returned. Other common defenses include the “Statute of Limitations” (if the crime is too old to be prosecuted) and “Double Jeopardy” (Ne Bis In Idem), which prevents a person from being extradited if they have already been tried for the same offense elsewhere.

An Interpol Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant but a global “alert” requesting that police worldwide locate and provisionally arrest a fugitive pending extradition. A lawyer can petition the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) to delete a Red Notice by proving it violates Interpol’s Constitution—typically Article 3, which forbids intervention in “political, military, religious or racial” matters. If the lawyer successfully demonstrates that the notice is politically motivated or abusive, Interpol will delete the file from its database, effectively lifting the international travel ban.

Obtaining bail in extradition cases is significantly harder than in domestic criminal cases because the defendant is legally presumed to be a “flight risk” by virtue of being a fugitive. In the United States, for example, there is a “presumption against bail,” and a lawyer must prove “Special Circumstances”—such as a severe health condition that cannot be managed in prison or a high likelihood of winning the case—to secure release. In other jurisdictions like the UK, bail is possible but requires a substantial security deposit, surrender of passports, and often an electronic ankle monitor.

The “Political Offense Exception” is a standard clause in extradition treaties that prevents countries from surrendering fugitives who are sought for crimes of a political nature, such as treason, espionage, or sedition. Its legal purpose is to protect political dissidents from being persecuted by their home government under the guise of criminal law. However, this exception has narrowed significantly in recent decades; modern courts almost never apply it to violent crimes like terrorism or assassination, regardless of the perpetrator’s political motivation.

Yes, negotiating a “Voluntary Surrender” is a highly effective strategy that allows the defendant to avoid the public embarrassment of a surprise arrest at their home or workplace. A lawyer contacts federal agents or local police to arrange a specific time and place for the defendant to turn themselves in, often accompanied by counsel. This cooperation is a powerful argument during the subsequent bail hearing, as it demonstrates to the judge that the defendant is respecting the legal process and is less likely to flee.