The extradition of individuals evading justice

With the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the extradition of individuals evading justice has gained heightened significance. Despite the challenges posed by active hostilities, Ukraine continues to seek the return of suspects and convicted persons, reaffirming its commitment to justice. Simultaneously, these efforts face obstacles related to ensuring human rights and compliance with international standards. The legal team at LIGRO analyzed these issues using case data and their expertise.

As of February 24, 2022, at least 50 individuals have been extradited to Ukraine, primarily from Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Lithuania. Courts in these countries emphasized the absence of direct threats to the extradited persons' lives and health, and underscored the need to fulfill obligations under the European Convention on Extradition. In some cases, extradition was approved following assurances from Ukraine about compliance with human rights and a fair judicial process.

In September 2024, the Italian Supreme Court allowed extradition to Ukraine, as the country provided guarantees of safe detention in regions with conditions meeting international standards. However, earlier in February 2024, Italian courts twice rejected extradition requests due to concerns over inadequate detention conditions and violations of the right to a fair trial.

Not all nations are prepared to cooperatewith Ukraine. Austria and the Netherlands, for instance, refused extradition requests citing risks of human rights violations. Their courts highlighted concerns over Ukraine’s detention facilities, possible inhumane treatment, and limited judicial resources during wartime.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) plays a key role in such cases, stating that each case must be assessed individually. The court considers both the general context of the war and the specifics of each case, such as whether a country can ensure the extradited individual's safety and rights. In some cases, the ECHR applied interim measures, prohibiting extradition to Ukraine due to risks of torture or inhumane treatment. However, the court clarified that the war alone is not sufficient grounds for denial if basic rights can be guaranteed.

The Ukrainian Ombudsman has repeatedly raised concerns about the conditions in pre-trial detention facilities, citing overcrowding, inadequate hygiene, and delays in judicial proceedings due to overloaded courts. Wartime constraints exacerbate these issues. The Ombudsman urged immediate reforms of the penitentiary system to prevent violations that could attract international criticism.

Despite these challenges, LIGRO lawyers continue to defend the rights of suspects in extradition cases. They file applications to the ECHR, contest detention conditions in Ukrainian courts, and involve international experts and human rights advocates. Additionally, they collaborate with international organizations to monitor penitentiary facilities.

In conclusion, extradition during wartime poses challenges not only for Ukraine but also for the international community. It requires a delicate balance between the interests of justice and Ukraine’s international obligations to uphold human rights. Ensuring transparency, fairness in judicial processes, and improving detention conditions are essential to fostering trust in Ukraine’s legal system and strengthening international cooperation on extradition matters.