Національна Асоціація Адвокатів УкраЇни - Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations

In recent years, extradition, as one of the forms of international cooperation, became quite relevant. On one hand, the number of requests from law enforcement for the extradition of citizens within the framework of criminal proceedings is growing, on the other hand, a large number of violations by law enforcement are reported, both at the stage of issuing an Interpol notice and during the preparation of an extradition request.

Official data shows that the number of extradition requests has more than quadrupled. This trend was also noted in foreign courts, where annual increase in extradition requests became known. For example, according to the response of the Oberlandesgericht Dresden dated 26.01.2026 (Higher Regional Court of Dresden), 141 extradition cases were considered in 2024, and 163 considered in 2025. The increase in this number of cases is due to forced emigration as a result of the war in Ukraine, as well as the fact that law enforcement in many cases resorts to violations of both procedural and substantive law in order to achieve their primary goal – to enter information on the international wanted list and initiate extradition proceedings against a person.

Extradition as an international legal tool of cooperation in criminal matters is not linear, but rather a multi-level interactive structure between the elements of various legislative frameworks. This structure of international cooperation has the following aspects:

This multi-level structure is based on international treaties, agreements, and conventions; compliance therewith caused a lot of discussion on the part of law enforcement agencies, especially recently.

Presently, Ukraine formally supported the pan-European approach and approximated the national legislation to EU standards. On the one hand, in October 2022, Ukraine officially acceded to the Convention on Extradition, which entered into force on 04.02.2023. On the other hand, analysis of the grounds for initiating international investigations and justifications for extradition requests allows us to assert that law enforcement authorities continue to violate domestic and international legal norms by submitting data and materials for the publication of a Red Notice for the sole purpose of initiating extradition proceedings.

Based on the latest analyzed cases on the extradition of citizens of Ukraine, there’s basis to allude systemic violations by law enforcement agencies at the following stages:

Serving a notice of suspicion and submission of request for international wanted person notice

Service of suspicion notice and submission of request for an international wanted-person notice constitute one of the key stages in the formation of the architecture of systemic violations by law enforcement; at this stage, the legal grounds for further instrumentalization of the mechanisms of international tracing and extradition are laid. The violations committed at this stage are not merely procedural or accidental, but rather structural since they directly affect the legitimacy of the entire subsequent extradition procedure.

In accordance with the provisions of Art. 278 of the CPC of Ukraine, the service of suspicion notice provides for clearly defined procedural tracks for implementation: direct service to a person or service in the manner established for notification (summons) in accordance with the requirements of Art. 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Thus, the legislator fixes the imperative nature of personal or proper procedural communication with a person as a prerequisite for the legitimacy of further procedural decisions.

In particularly high-profile criminal proceedings, law enforcement quite often ignores the legal requirements in this regard, transforming the procedure for suspicion notification into a hollow mechanism of procedural action. In particular, if there is information and data on the person's location, including his/her place of stay abroad, reports on the "alleged delivery" of suspicion notices at the address of the last known registration are drawn up, and subsequently formal procedural documents compiled to confirm the impossibility of establishing the location of the person.

It is this fugazi procedural construct that is used as a formal basis for request for international wanted-person notice, and subsequently for initiating an international search and activating the extradition mechanism. This model neutralizes the conventional guarantees of human rights in terms of legality and fairness of criminal proceedings and further serves to legitimize systemic procedural violations on the part of law enforcement. It is our firm belief that such systematic violations of fundamental rights and guarantees make it impossible to further implement the Art. 13 of the Convention (the right to effective remedy), which is in a subsidiary relationship with Art. 6 of the Convention, which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial.

It is one of the most important stages in the execution of an extradition request. At this very stage, the Prosecutor General's Office often resorts to information manipulation, which destroys the principles and safeguards ensuring legality of this procedure.

The analysis of "guarantees of security and observance of rights", where they assure the authorities of the State(s) considering the issue of extradition, unravels their bogus nature, which is in no way consistent with the guarantees enshrined in Art. 2 and 3 of the Convention. In every request, the Prosecutor General's Office tries to make sure that in case of extradition, they guarantee security, since the pre-trial investigation and trial of the case against the person will be carried in the territory significantly removed from the zone of active hostilities, and detention will occur at an institution located "in the western part of Ukraine", adding that these institutions are equipped with shelter from possible shelling.

This statement is a blatant insinuation for several reasons; first, today there is no multilateral instrument on the non-implementation of missile and bomb strikes on a certain part(s) of the territory of Ukraine; second, the statement about the "detention of an extradited person in the western part of the country" completely undermines the requirements of the criminal procedure law on territorial jurisdiction (Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine); third, no state institution of the pre-trial detention is equipped with dedicated shelters to protect detainees from missile and bomb strikes. Thus, such manipulation of facts and norms of law intended to form an erroneous imagination in the Member State considering the issue of extradition that Ukraine indeed provides assurances under Article 2 of the Convention.

According to the Convention doctrine, the obligation of the Member States has a dual character - negative (prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of life) and positive (obliging the State to take active measures to protect it) - (ECtHR judgment McCann v United Kingdom, No. 18984/91 of 27.09.1995).

In practical application, the right to life interpreted as duty of the state to prevent any foreseeable and serious encroachment, when it comes from other people, or from structures under the control of the State. According to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the State is obligated not only to refrain from arbitrary deprivation of life, but also to take effective preventive measures if there is a real and foreseeable risk of threat to life (ECtHR judgment Osman v United Kingdom, No. 23452/94 of 28.10.1998).

Thus, the main task of the defense at each stage, including international search and the extradition itself, is to control and assure strict observance of the conventional rights and guarantees in order to prevent insinuations on the part of the State and preclude the use of extradition as a systemic form of violation of rights.

Volodymyr Matsko

member of UNBA Committee for criminal law and procedure

	16:12 Tue 03.02.26
Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations
Home quote «The main task of the defense at each stage, including international search and the extradition itself, is to control and assure strict observance of the conventional rights and guarantees in order to prevent insinuations on the part of the State and preclude the use of extradition as a systemic form of violation of rights», - advocate V. Matsko In recent years, extradition, as one of the forms of international cooperation, became quite relevant. On one hand, the number of requests from law enforcement for the extradition of citizens within the framework of criminal proceedings is growing, on the other hand, a large number of violations by law enforcement are reported, both at the stage of issuing an Interpol notice and during the preparation of an extradition request. Official data shows that the number of extradition requests has more than quadrupled. This trend was also noted in foreign courts, where annual increase in extradition requests became known. For example, according to the response of the Oberlandesgericht Dresden dated 26.01.2026 (Higher Regional Court of Dresden), 141 extradition cases were considered in 2024, and 163 considered in 2025. The increase in this number of cases is due to forced emigration as a result of the war in Ukraine, as well as the fact that law enforcement in many cases resorts to violations of both procedural and substantive law in order to achieve their primary goal – to enter information on the international wanted list and initiate extradition proceedings against a person. Extradition as an international legal tool of cooperation in criminal matters is not linear, but rather a multi-level interactive structure between the elements of various legislative frameworks. This structure of international cooperation has the following aspects: the requesting State and the structure that considers the request (Interpol); the requesting State and the State executing the request; the recipient State of the extradition request and the person who is the subject of the request. This multi-level structure is based on international treaties, agreements, and conventions; compliance therewith caused a lot of discussion on the part of law enforcement agencies, especially recently. Presently, Ukraine formally supported the pan-European approach and approximated the national legislation to EU standards. On the one hand, in October 2022, Ukraine officially acceded to the Convention on Extradition, which entered into force on 04.02.2023. On the other hand, analysis of the grounds for initiating international investigations and justifications for extradition requests allows us to assert that law enforcement authorities continue to violate domestic and international legal norms by submitting data and materials for the publication of a Red Notice for the sole purpose of initiating extradition proceedings. Based on the latest analyzed cases on the extradition of citizens of Ukraine, there’s basis to allude systemic violations by law enforcement agencies at the following stages: serving of notice of suspicion and submission of materials in support of a request for an international wanted person notice; execution of extradition and submission of assurances/guarantees. Serving a notice of suspicion and submission of request for international wanted person notice Service of suspicion notice and submission of request for an international wanted-person notice constitute one of the key stages in the formation of the architecture of systemic violations by law enforcement; at this stage, the legal grounds for further instrumentalization of the mechanisms of international tracing and extradition are laid. The violations committed at this stage are not merely procedural or accidental, but rather structural since they directly affect the legitimacy of the entire subsequent extradition procedure. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 278 of the CPC of Ukraine, the service of suspicion notice provides for clearly defined procedural tracks for implementation: direct service to a person or service in the manner established for notification (summons) in accordance with the requirements of Art. 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Thus, the legislator fixes the imperative nature of personal or proper procedural communication with a person as a prerequisite for the legitimacy of further procedural decisions. In particularly high-profile criminal proceedings, law enforcement quite often ignores the legal requirements in this regard, transforming the procedure for suspicion notification into a hollow mechanism of procedural action. In particular, if there is information and data on the person's location, including his/her place of stay abroad, reports on the "alleged delivery" of suspicion notices at the address of the last known registration are drawn up, and subsequently formal procedural documents compiled to confirm the impossibility of establishing the location of the person. It is this fugazi procedural construct that is used as a formal basis for request for international wanted-person notice, and subsequently for initiating an international search and activating the extradition mechanism. This model neutralizes the conventional guarantees of human rights in terms of legality and fairness of criminal proceedings and further serves to legitimize systemic procedural violations on the part of law enforcement. It is our firm belief that such systematic violations of fundamental rights and guarantees make it impossible to further implement the Art. 13 of the Convention (the right to effective remedy), which is in a subsidiary relationship with Art. 6 of the Convention, which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial. Extradition and submission of assurances/guarantees. It is one of the most important stages in the execution of an extradition request. At this very stage, the Prosecutor General's Office often resorts to information manipulation, which destroys the principles and safeguards ensuring legality of this procedure. The analysis of "guarantees of security and observance of rights", where they assure the authorities of the State(s) considering the issue of extradition, unravels their bogus nature, which is in no way consistent with the guarantees enshrined in Art. 2 and 3 of the Convention. In every request, the Prosecutor General's Office tries to make sure that in case of extradition, they guarantee security, since the pre-trial investigation and trial of the case against the person will be carried in the territory significantly removed from the zone of active hostilities, and detention will occur at an institution located "in the western part of Ukraine", adding that these institutions are equipped with shelter from possible shelling. This statement is a blatant insinuation for several reasons; first, today there is no multilateral instrument on the non-implementation of missile and bomb strikes on a certain part(s) of the territory of Ukraine; second, the statement about the "detention of an extradited person in the western part of the country" completely undermines the requirements of the criminal procedure law on territorial jurisdiction (Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine); third, no state institution of the pre-trial detention is equipped with dedicated shelters to protect detainees from missile and bomb strikes. Thus, such manipulation of facts and norms of law intended to form an erroneous imagination in the Member State considering the issue of extradition that Ukraine indeed provides assurances under Article 2 of the Convention. According to the Convention doctrine, the obligation of the Member States has a dual character - negative (prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of life) and positive (obliging the State to take active measures to protect it) - (ECtHR judgment McCann v United Kingdom, No. 18984/91 of 27.09.1995). In practical application, the right to life interpreted as duty of the state to prevent any foreseeable and serious encroachment, when it comes from other people, or from structures under the control of the State. According to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the State is obligated not only to refrain from arbitrary deprivation of life, but also to take effective preventive measures if there is a real and foreseeable risk of threat to life (ECtHR judgment Osman v United Kingdom, No. 23452/94 of 28.10.1998). Thus, the main task of the defense at each stage, including international search and the extradition itself, is to control and assure strict observance of the conventional rights and guarantees in order to prevent insinuations on the part of the State and preclude the use of extradition as a systemic form of violation of rights. Автор публікації: Volodymyr Matsko Volodymyr Matsko member of UNBA Committee for criminal law and procedure
© 2026 Unba.org.ua Всі права захищені "Національна Асоціація Адвокатів України". Передрук та інше використання матеріалів, що розміщені на даному веб-сайті дозволяється за умови посилання на джерело. Інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації можуть використовувати матеріали сайту, розміщувати відео з офіційного веб-сайту Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України на власних веб-сторінках, за умови гіперпосилання на офіційний веб-сайт Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України. Заборонено передрук та використання матеріалів, у яких міститься посилання на інші інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації. Матеріали позначені міткою "Реклама", публікуються на правах реклами.

Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations

Home quote