Getting Ukrainian suspects back from abroad: is extradition realistic?

A common misconception is that being placed on a wanted list or being a suspect automatically leads to extradition. In reality, returning a person from abroad is a complex process under international law, and Ukrainian authorities’ decision is only one part of it. 

Returning a suspect to Ukraine always depends on the decisions of the competent authorities and courts of the foreign state. Even where international extradition treaties exist, each request undergoes a separate review to ensure it complies with national law and international human rights standards. In practice, these procedures can take anywhere from several months to several years and, in some cases, may result in a refusal to extradite. 

Understanding the mechanisms of international search, extradition, and procedures for returning individuals to Ukraine is crucial to developing an effective defence strategy, even before the relevant processes begin or enter an active phase. 

In this article, we examine the legal instruments Ukrainian law enforcement agencies use to repatriate individuals from abroad, the procedural stages involved, and the legal defence options available at each stage. 

The regulation of the process for returning Ukrainian citizens suspected of crimes from abroad is shaped at the intersection of at least three levels: a) the national level in Ukraine: domestic legislation (the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter also referred to as the CPC), Chapter 44 ¹ ); b) the international level, which includes multilateral international treaties (the 1933 Convention on Extradition², the 1957 European Convention on the Extradition of Offenders³, the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture⁴, and the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms⁵ ) as well as bilateral international agreements. In the absence of an international treaty, international cooperation may be carried out based on the principle of reciprocity in accordance with Article 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; c) the domestic legislation of the requested state, which may vary significantly depending on the legal system, constitutional prohibitions, and established judicial practice. Accordingly, what constitutes sufficient grounds for extradition in one country may prove insufficient or even unacceptable in another. 

How the Procedure Works: From Investigation to Actual Extradition 

Any “extradition” process begins long before the official extradition request. The first step is to place the suspect on an international wanted list. Without this, it is impossible to try a person in absentia—that is, without their presence (this is called special proceedings, or in absentia)—or to impose a pretrial measure in absentia—that is, a coercive measure such as arrest or bail, which remains in effect until the verdict. Next, the investigator or prosecutor issues a ruling (Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and sends a request to the Ukrainian Interpol bureau (the Department of International Police Cooperation of the National Police fulfils this role). Once Ukraine’s central authority (the Office of the Prosecutor General) knows the wanted person’s whereabouts, it formally submits an extradition request to that country. 

The Interpol Mechanism. Interpol is often portrayed as a global police force that “catches” and extradites criminals on its own. In reality, it neither detains nor extradites anyone; rather, it is a vast information network connecting the police forces of 196 countries⁶ , operating independently of politics: Article 3 of its Constitution (adopted in Vienna in 1956) prohibits any activity of a political, military, religious, or racial nature. As a result, the Interpol General Secretariat will reject any request from law enforcement authorities that appears to be motivated by any of the aforementioned grounds for persecution. 

Interpol operates through a system of “notice” cards. A blue notice requests that a person be located. A red notice requests temporary detention for subsequent extradition. There is also a faster route—the so-called Diffusion⁷ : a direct appeal by the Ukrainian Interpol bureau to select countries, without official publication through the General Secretariat. 

“International wanted status” is a problematic issue in practice. Paradoxically, Ukrainian law does not clearly define what constitutes “international wanted status.” As a result, courts disagree on what constitutes sufficient grounds to recognise a person as being subject to such a search. There are at least three approaches: the investigator’s order alone is sufficient; the investigator’s order, combined with the entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations and the submission of a request to Interpol; or only a red notice that has already been published. This is not a theoretical debate—how to resolve the next, much larger procedural conflict depends on these procedural details. 

A detention order is a necessary basis for extradition. And there lies the conflict. To issue a Red Notice, Interpol requires a valid court order to arrest the suspect. This requirement does not stem from the text of the convention (Article 12 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition uses the broader term “arrest warrant”), but from Interpol’s regulatory documents, specifically Article 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data (IRPD)⁸ , which requires a decision by a “judicial authority.” In contrast, a Ukrainian court may consider an arrest motion in absentia only if there is evidence of an international wanted notice—which, in the view of part of the legal community, is precisely what the red notice confirms. This creates a vicious cycle: a ruling is required for the red notice, and the red notice is required for the ruling. A practical solution has been the court’s recognition of the investigator’s ruling as sufficient confirmation that a person is subject to an international arrest warrant (the first approach outlined above), which is consistent with the position of the High Anti-Corruption Court (hereinafter “HACC”) No. 991/640/26 (ruling dated February 10, 2026)⁹ .  

At the same time, the Appeals Chamber of the HACC in Case No. 991/3010/19 (ruling dated February 4, 2020)¹⁰ confirms that, in accordance with Order No. 2599/5 of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated August 19, 2019¹¹ , it is precisely the ruling of a competent court on pretrial detention that serves as the legal basis for extradition and remains in effect indefinitely; therefore, obtaining such a ruling is not an “option” but a necessary element of this procedure. 

Official extradition request. Depending on the stage of the case, the official request is sent either by the Office of the Prosecutor General (while the investigation is ongoing) or by the Ministry of Justice (when the case is already in court or involves enforcing a sentence). The requirements vary by country, but the essence is the same everywhere: it must convince the foreign authorities that the prosecution is justified and that there are no grounds for refusal. If the request lacks even one mandatory element, it may be returned without even being considered on its merits. 

And here’s what’s important not to confuse: an Interpol Red Notice is not the same as an extradition request. It does not oblige anyone to extradite a person; each country decides for itself what to do with it, in accordance with its own laws and treaties (Articles 82 and 87 of the IRPD). Its true role is much more modest—to locate a person quickly and, if necessary, temporarily restrict their freedom until an official request is received (or while it is being considered). Simply put, although an Interpol Red Notice is often perceived as a signal of imminent extradition, it does not, by itself, mean automatic extradition. 

Temporary Detention and Extradition Detention. A person wanted for extradition may be detained abroad—and here it is important to distinguish between two types of “detention.” The first, provisional arrest, is applied immediately after detention, even before an official extradition request is received. It is indeed provisional: a maximum of 40 days (or another period specified in the treaty). If no request is received during this time, the person must be released. As soon as the request arrives, this detention automatically “expires” and is replaced by the second type—extradition detention—based on the extradition request itself. It can last significantly longer, until the issue of the person’s extradition is resolved and they are actually handed over (for example, under Ukrainian law—up to 12 months). 

Consideration of the request in a foreign country and the actual transfer. When a request is received, a court or other authorised body in that country considers it under its own rules. No convention sets uniform time limits: in some cases, it takes a few weeks; in others, over a year. The person has the right to challenge the extradition decision in the courts of the requested state, which can significantly prolong the proceedings. 

At this stage, the main mechanisms for defending against extradition are implemented. At the same time, practice shows that the outcome of such a defence often depends not only on actions taken after arrest or the service of documents, but also on preparatory work done in advance. A timely analysis of the materials of the criminal proceedings in Ukraine, an assessment of extradition risks, the formulation of a legal position, and the coordination of attorneys’ work across different jurisdictions often determine the further course of the extradition procedure and the procedural options available to defend the individual. This stage resolves a key question: whether the individual will be transferred to Ukraine or whether extradition will be denied. 

When can extradition be denied? 

Here’s what matters for understanding the full picture. Both international law and the laws of most countries provide numerous grounds for refusing extradition. These fall into two broad groups. Absolute grounds are those under which extradition is prohibited under any circumstances. Discretionary grounds are those under which a state may refuse extradition but is not obligated to do so. 

Absolute grounds include: 

• The risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A person will not be extradited if there are substantial grounds to believe that, upon transfer, they would be at risk of torture or cruel treatment. This is expressly prohibited by both Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture. 
• Expiration of statutes of limitations. Extradition will not take place if the crime can no longer be prosecuted or punished due to the passage of time—the so-called statutes of limitations. Moreover, both states check the statutes of limitations at the same time. 
• The ne bis in idem principle. Literally translated, this means “not twice for the same thing.” A person cannot be extradited to be tried again for an act for which they have already been definitively convicted or acquitted. 
• Classification of a crime as political or military. Such crimes are not subject to extradition. However, there is an important exception: modern conventions do not classify terrorism and war crimes as “political” offences. 
• Possession of refugee status or another form of international protection. The principle of non-refoulement applies here—the prohibition against returning a person to a place where their life, liberty, or safety may be at risk. 

Discretionary grounds may include: 

• Citizenship of the requested state: Almost all countries in the world, including virtually all EU member states, do not extradite their own citizens under their constitutions or laws. However, a refusal on this ground usually has a consequence: if the treaty so provides, the state must try the person itself (this is the “aut dedere aut judicare” rule—“extradite or try them yourself”). 
• The risk of the death penalty. If the crime is punishable by death and the requested state does not impose the death penalty, the person may be extradited only if reliable guarantees are provided that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. 
• Committing a crime on the territory of the requested state: a country may refuse if the crime—in whole or in part—occurred on its own territory. 
• Domestic criminal prosecution for the same offence: Extradition may also be refused if the state is already prosecuting the person for that crime. 
• Termination or failure to initiate criminal proceedings in the requested state: if local authorities have decided not to open a case or have already closed it, extradition may also be refused. 

One ground for refusing extradition deserves special attention, as it has become particularly relevant for Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. This concerns the risk of violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. In practice, courts in some foreign countries have refused extradition to Ukraine due to concerns about safety and conditions of detention amid an armed conflict. For a long time, this position was effectively regarded as an unconditional ground for refusing extradition. At the same time, this practice is gradually changing. Today, in many jurisdictions, courts are increasingly assessing the specific circumstances of the case rather than the general situation in the country. In particular, individual guarantees provided by Ukraine regarding the conditions of a person’s detention may be significant: designating a specific facility capable of ensuring an adequate level of security, access to independent monitoring, and other verifiable assurances. 

Therefore, the approach that, in early 2022, often led to an automatic refusal of extradition is gradually giving way to a more individualised assessment of risks in each specific case. 

There is also a purely technical ground for refusing extradition—when the request itself is drafted incorrectly. The courts and authorities of the requested state meticulously verify whether it meets the requirements of the conventions and local law: whether all personal information is included, whether the crime is correctly classified, whether the full text of the relevant articles of criminal law is provided, and whether the statute of limitations has been confirmed. Such formal deficiencies provide grounds for returning the request without considering its merits. 

Conclusions 

The existence of criminal proceedings in Ukraine and the person’s presence abroad do not, by themselves, mean that their return to Ukraine is inevitable. Extradition is a complex, multi-stage procedure that involves an international search, cooperation among the competent authorities of several states, judicial oversight, and verification of compliance with fundamental human rights. 

Each stage of this procedure has its own procedural characteristics, and the competent authorities of the requested state always make the extradition decision, considering both international obligations and the circumstances of the specific case. That is why a timely assessment of extradition risks, an analysis of the materials of the criminal proceedings, and the development of a coordinated defence strategy in Ukraine and abroad are fundamental to protecting a person’s rights and interests. 

Practice shows that in extradition cases, actions taken even before a person’s arrest or the receipt of an official extradition request are often decisive. Therefore, if there is information about criminal proceedings, a notice of suspicion, or the risk of an international wanted notice, it is advisable to assess the possible legal consequences and available defence mechanisms in advance. 

The article is written by Igor Glusko, Partner at GOLAW, Head of Criminal Law and White Collar Defence practice, Attorney at law