1st Myth: Extradition is automatic
This is the most dangerous and most common misunderstanding. Extradition is not a favour between states. It is not a request that compels surrender, but only invites scrutiny. Extradition is a structured legal procedure governed by Bilateral/Multi-National Treaties [if any], domestic legislation, and constitutional principles.
There is always a legality assessment, usually judicial, and often a further executive decision. If the legal conditions are not met, extradition simply does not happen.
2nd Myth: Extradition determines guilt or innocence
Extradition proceedings are not concerned with whether the requested person committed the offence. That question belongs entirely to the courts of the requesting state. The requested state asks a different question: “Is this a lawful request for surrender?”
That involves whether the offence is extraditable, whether double criminality is satisfied, and whether any bars to extradition apply.
3rd Myth: Any offence can give rise to Extradition
Extradition is reserved for serious criminality. Petty offences do not warrant international pursuit. Generally, extradition is limited to offences which satisfy the double criminality requirement (the offence is criminalised in the legal orders of both countries involved) and meet a minimum level of seriousness, often expressed in terms of a custodial sentence.
Under the European Arrest Warrant regime, double criminality is waived only for a defined list of 32 serious offences, but is still subject to a minimum penalty threshold in the issuing country [3 years].
4th Myth: Human rights rarely block Extradition
Human rights are often decisive in extradition proceedings. A requested state is obliged to refuse extradition where there exists a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, imposition of the death penalty, or a flagrant denial of the right to a fair trial.
5th Myth: Once extradited, the requesting state may prosecute freely
The extradition process does not end at surrender. The rule of speciality ensures that the requesting state is strictly confined to: (a) prosecuting the offences established in the extradition request, and (b) nothing beyond that without consent. This preserves the sovereignty of the requested state and the procedural rights of the individual.
Conclusion
Extradition proceedings are sui generis and not comparable to any others. All real issues reduce to three questions:
- Is the extradition request lawful?
- Are the individual’s rights protected?
- Are the limits of surrender respected?
