An extradition request has been filed against you

An extradition request has been filed against you. The words carry enormous weight, and the first hours after you learn of it are the most consequential. Panic is natural. Acting without a clear picture of what you are facing is dangerous. As of mid-2025, we see a sustained rise in cross-border extradition proceedings that originate from commercially or politically motivated prosecutions, and the procedural windows in those cases are narrow. This page sets out the immediate steps, what to avoid, and the honest parameters of what can be done.

An extradition request is a formal demand from one state to another, asking that a named person be surrendered for prosecution or sentencing. It is not a conviction. It is not self-executing. Every requested state evaluates the demand under its own extradition law, its treaty obligations and, where applicable, human-rights principles drawn from instruments such as INTERPOL's Constitution and general international law. Where a Red Notice accompanies the request, that notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain – it is not an arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. Both the notice and the extradition request can be challenged.

The sections below follow the order in which matters typically need to be addressed: what the request actually is, what to do immediately, how the legal assessment works, the grounds that matter, the CCF dimension if a Red Notice is involved, common mistakes that close options permanently, and what a realistic path forward looks like.

What does an extradition request actually mean for you?

The filing of an extradition request means a foreign state has formally asked the country where you are present – or where it believes you may be – to take you into custody and eventually deliver you to its jurisdiction. The requested state is under no automatic obligation to comply. Its courts and executive authorities must examine the request against the extradition law of that state, any applicable bilateral or multilateral treaty, and general legal principles including dual criminality, the rule of specialty, and human-rights protections.

Dual criminality means the conduct alleged must constitute a criminal offence in both states. Where dual criminality is absent, surrender can be refused. That is a concrete and frequently overlooked ground. In our practice, we have seen requests where the underlying allegation – often framed as fraud or embezzlement – describes conduct that, properly characterised under the law of the requested state, does not reach the threshold of a criminal offence at all.

A Red Notice often runs alongside an extradition request, though not always. The two are separate instruments. The notice circulates through INTERPOL's system and asks member states to locate and provisionally detain the subject. The extradition request is a state-to-state channel, typically routed through diplomatic or designated central authorities. Each must be addressed on its own terms, often in parallel.

One further point that is frequently misunderstood: provisional arrest – the detention that follows a Red Notice or an extradition pre-arrest – is not the same as surrender. It initiates a process. The courts of the requested state then examine whether surrender is lawful. There are recognised grounds to resist that examination, and they carry real weight before properly constituted courts.

What should you do immediately?

The immediate priority is to secure specialist legal advice before making any statement, signing any document or taking any procedural step. That principle is not a formality. Anything said in an early interview – even informally, even in an apparent attempt to cooperate – can narrow the arguments available later. In extradition proceedings, the procedural clock often starts at arrest or first hearing, and the window for certain applications can be short under the law of the requested state.

Step one: do not travel to any country that has a treaty with the requesting state, or to any country where a Red Notice is likely to produce provisional arrest, until you have a clear picture of your exposure. A pre-travel data check with the CCF – an access request to establish whether INTERPOL holds data about you – can be filed before you move. An access request is, under INTERPOL's rules, to be answered within four months. That is a concrete verified timeline you can plan around.

Step two: retain counsel – ideally simultaneously – in two jurisdictions: the country where you are currently present, and the country from which the request originates (or where you may face detention). In our practice, we co-ordinate with allied counsel in the country of detention for every extradition matter we handle. The domestic hearing requires domestic expertise. The INTERPOL dimension requires separate, specialist CCF work.

Step three: gather every document relevant to the underlying prosecution. Court documents from the requesting state, correspondence with that state's authorities, evidence of the commercial or political context of the allegation, and any prior communications with law enforcement all matter. The legal assessment cannot be done from a blank sheet.

Step four: do not attempt to negotiate directly with the requesting state's authorities without legal cover. It seems obvious stated plainly. In practice, we have seen it happen, and it has invariably reduced the options available.

In a recent matter (a MENA-origin extradition request, autumn 2024), we identified at the first assessment that the underlying prosecution was time-barred under the law of both states. The extradition proceedings were resisted on that basis from the outset. Acting before a first hearing was held was what made the difference.

How is the legal merits assessed?

The legal assessment of an extradition request follows a clear structure, though it requires real facts rather than assumptions. The first question is whether a treaty or statutory basis for extradition exists between the two states. The second is whether the conduct alleged constitutes a criminal offence in both jurisdictions – the dual-criminality requirement. The third is whether any applicable exception applies: political offence, risk of persecution, flagrantly unfair trial, non-refoulement, prior acquittal or conviction (ne bis in idem), or procedural defect in the request itself.

The political-offence exception is the one most relevant to the client profile we regularly act for: entrepreneurs, executives and investors from jurisdictions where prosecutions are used as instruments of commercial or political pressure. Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution bars the organisation from processing data connected to offences of a political, military, religious or racial character. That constitutional bar applies equally to any Red Notice associated with the extradition request. Its existence does not automatically invalidate the extradition request at the domestic level, but it is a powerful parallel argument and the two proceedings reinforce each other when properly sequenced.

Human-rights grounds also carry weight in courts that apply the European Convention on Human Rights or equivalent standards. The argument is that surrender would expose the individual to treatment that violates fundamental rights – in particular where the requesting state's penal conditions, fair-trial guarantees or prosecutorial independence are demonstrably deficient. These arguments require country-conditions evidence, and they need to be assembled from verifiable sources, not asserted. A well-documented file on country conditions has succeeded before extradition courts where a bare assertion would have failed.

The RPD – INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data – also matters here. The data-accuracy and data-quality requirements in the RPD mean that if the information underlying a Red Notice is factually inaccurate, outdated, or based on a characterisation of the offence that does not survive scrutiny, that is a separate and concurrent ground before the CCF. In our experience, a CCF deletion running in parallel with extradition proceedings strengthens the overall position significantly.

What is the CCF dimension and does it affect extradition?

The CCF – the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files – is the independent body that reviews the data INTERPOL processes about individuals. It is entirely separate from the extradition proceedings in the requested state. A CCF deletion request is, under the applicable rules, to be decided within nine months of the request being found admissible. A deletion by the CCF does not legally bind the courts of the requested state, but its practical effect is substantial: a notice removed from the INTERPOL system can no longer circulate through member-state channels, and the deletion constitutes evidence that INTERPOL itself found the underlying data non-compliant.

There is no appeal against a CCF decision. That rule cuts both ways. If the CCF refuses a deletion request, a further request requires new elements – a weak first file leaves you in a significantly worse position for any review. This is the single most important structural fact of CCF procedure, and it is why the quality of the initial submission matters so much.

In our CCF practice, the submissions that succeed are those where the political character of the prosecution, or a concrete data defect, is evidenced – not merely asserted. Country reports, domestic court documents showing the collapse of a parallel civil claim, evidence of the requestor's commercial interest in the prosecution: these are the kinds of material that move a CCF file from arguable to strong. The CCF and extradition proceedings should be conceived as a single, co-ordinated strategy wherever possible.

In a related matter (a CIS-origin notice accompanying an extradition request, spring 2025), deletion at the CCF was obtained after the file documented that the requesting state had issued the notice following the breakdown of a business dispute, not a genuine criminal investigation. The domestic extradition proceedings in the requested state subsequently stalled for want of a current notice.

What mistakes close options permanently?

Several steps that people take in the early stages of an extradition matter cannot be undone. Each deserves to be stated plainly, because in our practice we see them with troubling regularity.

Making voluntary statements to the requesting state's authorities or its diplomatic representatives – even to explain your side – can constitute admissions or trigger the jurisdiction of that state's courts in ways that are difficult to undo. Do not do it without specific legal advice on the consequences under both states' laws.

Travelling without a clear picture of your exposure is the most common and most damaging error. A Red Notice in an active state means provisional arrest is a real possibility at any border. The practical consequences of an arrest – even a brief detention – include detention conditions that affect health and business, and the activation of extradition proceedings in a jurisdiction where you may have no legal representation in place.

Filing a CCF request without proper legal preparation is a structural mistake with lasting consequences. There is no appeal against a CCF decision. A poorly reasoned first submission leaves the reviewers with a weak record and makes any subsequent review harder to build. The CCF's decision is final unless new elements can be shown. Filing quickly and filing well are both necessary; filing quickly and badly is worse than waiting to file well.

Conflating the notice with the extradition request, and assuming that resisting the extradition automatically resolves the notice, is another error. They are separate proceedings and require separate steps. Winning in a domestic extradition court does not remove the notice from the INTERPOL system. Only a CCF deletion or a voluntary withdrawal by the issuing National Central Bureau achieves that.

Finally: acting on advice that carries a promise of outcome. No honest practitioner before the CCF or in extradition proceedings guarantees a result. The law permits certain grounds; the facts either support them or they do not. Be wary of anyone who presents this differently.

Can a path forward be found?

In most matters that come to us, the honest answer is that a path forward exists – though what it looks like depends entirely on the facts. Some requests are withdrawn once the procedural cost becomes clear to the requesting state. Others are refused by the courts of the requested state on dual-criminality or human-rights grounds. Some result in CCF deletions that effectively strand the request without a live notice. A small number proceed to surrender, most often where the underlying prosecution has genuine merit by any standard.

The relevant question at the assessment stage is not "can this be resolved?" but "what are the actual grounds here, and how strongly does the available evidence support them?" That question requires a real file review, not a general opinion. Visas and residence permits may already be refused without explanation – a consequence that often drives people to seek advice before the extradition proceedings themselves become urgent. That secondary pressure is real, and it underscores the importance of addressing the notice and the underlying data as early as possible.

The decision matrix, in simplified form, runs as follows. Where there is strong evidence of political motive, the primary route is the CCF deletion on Article 3 grounds, run in parallel with the domestic extradition defence. Where the dual-criminality requirement is not met, the domestic extradition court is the primary forum, with the CCF as a concurrent track. Where human-rights or fair-trial concerns are the strongest argument, the domestic proceedings are central, supported by country-conditions evidence and, where applicable, an Article 2 argument before the CCF. Where the notice itself contains a factual inaccuracy or is based on outdated data, the RPD's data-accuracy requirements give a direct CCF ground that can be pursued independently.

A confidential first assessment, which does not require your real name, is the starting point for understanding which route applies in your situation.

The steps above are the general picture. Your situation turns on the specific file, the requesting state and the timing – which is exactly what a proper assessment addresses. To understand the realistic prospects before you act, reach us through our secure channel.

Related

• Red Notice removal – build the CCF file and argue for deletion at source
• Extradition defence – act at the first hearing and coordinate cross-border
• INTERPOL data check – file an access request before you travel

Frequently asked questions

What should I avoid saying or signing?

Do not make any voluntary statement to the requesting state's authorities, its diplomatic representatives, or to law enforcement in the country where you are present, without specific legal advice on the consequences in both jurisdictions. Do not sign any document described as a waiver, consent or voluntary surrender. Either step can narrow the grounds available in subsequent proceedings and, in some jurisdictions, triggers procedural consequences that cannot be reversed.

Who should I contact before I travel again?

Before travelling, it is essential to understand whether INTERPOL holds data about you and whether a Red Notice or diffusion is active. An access request to the CCF is, under INTERPOL's rules, to be answered within four months – though in practice the timeline can vary. You should also consult specialist counsel in every jurisdiction you plan to transit or enter, not only your destination. A single border crossing in a state where a Red Notice is active can result in provisional arrest.

Can this be resolved without a court hearing?

In some matters, yes. A CCF deletion removes the notice from INTERPOL's system, which can effectively strand an extradition request without requiring a domestic court hearing. In others, a diplomatic channel or a withdrawal by the requesting state resolves the matter. Whether those routes are available depends on the strength of the grounds and the conduct of the requesting state. Note that deleting the notice at source through the CCF is a distinct outcome from a national court refusing extradition: both matter, and neither automatically produces the other's result.

About NORTHLARK

NORTHLARK is an independent international boutique that acts exclusively for individuals facing INTERPOL Red Notices, diffusions and cross-border extradition proceedings. We act before the CCF, in co-ordination with allied counsel in countries of detention, and in the parallel legal proceedings that these matters require. We are fully independent – there is no parent network, no affiliated firm and no regional tie that could compromise the advice we give to clients whose notices originate from those same regions.

We act only on lawful mandates. We do not help anyone evade legitimate justice, and we take on a matter only where we see genuine grounds. No outcome can be guaranteed; any practitioner who suggests otherwise is not being straight with you.

The first assessment is confidential. Our enquiry form does not require your real name, and you can reach us through a secure channel – Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp. To discuss your situation honestly and without obligation, write to info@northlarkfirm.com or contact us through a secure channel.