Why extradition requests are denied: grounds for refusal in treaties and U.S. practice
The grounds on which an extradition request is refused, compared across the 1979 U.S.-Turkey treaty and the 1957 European Convention, and why a refusal does not always end the matter.
The short answer
A treaty does not make extradition automatic. Treaties list grounds on which the requested country must or may refuse: a political offense, a purely military offense, time bars, a prior final judgment, an amnesty, the nationality of the person, a competing local prosecution, and requests that fail on documents or identity. Some instruments add capital punishment, and human-rights rules add torture. In the 1979 U.S.-Turkey treaty, the requested country alone decides whether an offense is political (Article 5). In the U.S., torture concerns go to the Secretary of State under 22 CFR Part 95.
At a glance
- The U.S.-Turkey treaty makes six grounds mandatory (Article 3(1)) and three discretionary (Article 3(2)); the requested state alone decides whether an offense falls within the political or military grounds (Article 5).
- Neither country must extradite its own nationals under the U.S.-Turkey treaty (Article 4). The requested state that refuses must, on request, submit the case to its own authorities for prosecution if its law allows.
- Insufficient papers are a ground, but not always a final one: the requested state can ask for more evidence, and a release for lack of it does not prevent a new request (Article 8).
- The 1957 European Convention on Extradition lets a state refuse in a capital case unless the requesting state gives sufficient assurance that the death penalty will not be carried out (Article 11). The U.S.-Turkey treaty text has no capital-punishment article.
- A ground must be raised and supported with evidence at the right stage. A refusal can lead to prosecution at home or to another lawful route, such as deportation.
A treaty is a starting point, not a result
Extradition rests on a treaty between two states and on each state's own law. In the U.S., extradition generally requires a treaty (18 U.S.C. 3184), and a judge decides whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge under that treaty. The refusal grounds below come from the treaty text and from the rules that sit around it. How extradition works sets out the sequence of an extradition case, and your rights and the main defenses covers the treaty defenses that the person sought can raise in a U.S. case. This guide takes a different cut: why requests fail, and where the refusal grounds come from.
The treaty and the European Convention both give the decision on political character to the requested state. Under the U.S.-Turkey treaty, only the requested state may decide whether an offense has a character that requires refusal under Article 3 (Article 5). Under the European Convention, extradition shall not be granted if the offense is "regarded by the requested Party" as a political offense (Article 3(1)).
Mandatory and discretionary grounds compared
The two instruments overlap but are not identical. The table compares them.
| Ground | U.S.-Turkey treaty (1979) | European Convention on Extradition (1957) |
|---|---|---|
| Political offense; request made to punish political opinion | Mandatory refusal (Art. 3(1)(a)); an offense against a head of state or government or family member is not political | Mandatory (Art. 3(1)-(2)); the same rule where there are substantial grounds to believe the request is made to punish on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion; attempts on a head of state's life are not political (Art. 3(3)) |
| Purely military offense | Mandatory (Art. 3(1)(b)) | Excluded from the Convention (Art. 4) |
| Time bar | Mandatory if prosecution or punishment is time-barred under the law of either state (Art. 3(1)(c)) | Mandatory if immune from prosecution or punishment by lapse of time under the law of either state (Art. 10) |
| Prior final judgment | Mandatory if finally acquitted or convicted in the requested state (Art. 3(1)(d)); discretionary if tried in a third state (Art. 3(2)(c)) or if the requested state decided not to prosecute or to stop (Art. 3(2)(b)) | Mandatory if final judgment was passed by the requested state (Art. 9); discretionary if it decided not to prosecute or ended proceedings |
| Amnesty | Mandatory (Art. 3(1)(f)) | Not listed in the articles read for this guide |
| Offense within the requested state | Mandatory if the offense belongs to the requested state's jurisdiction and was or will be referred for prosecution (Art. 3(1)(e)); discretionary if a prosecution is pending there (Art. 3(2)(a)) | Discretionary if the offense was committed in whole or in part on the requested state's territory (Art. 7) |
| Nationality | No duty to extradite nationals (Art. 4(1)); the U.S. executive may do so at its discretion | Right to refuse extradition of nationals, with nationality fixed at the time of the extradition decision (Art. 6) |
| Capital punishment | No article on capital punishment in the Turkish text of the treaty | May refuse unless the requesting state gives assurance the requested state considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out (Art. 11) |
Nationality and the duty to prosecute instead
A refusal on grounds of nationality does not mean the conduct goes unaddressed. Under Article 4(2) of the U.S.-Turkey treaty, a state that does not extradite its own national must, if its law provides, submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution when the requesting state asks, and the requesting state sends the documents and evidence free of charge. The European Convention has a matching rule (Article 6(2)).
The Justice Manual reflects the same idea from the U.S. side. When a country will not extradite its nationals, the U.S. may ask that country to prosecute the person itself (JM 9-15.650).
Weak papers: the evidence and identity grounds
A request must come with documents. For a person not yet tried, the U.S.-Turkey treaty requires an arrest warrant, a statement of the facts, evidence that would justify arrest and committal for trial under the requested state's law, evidence of identity, and the text of the applicable laws (Article 7(1)). A request that fails these requirements can be refused, but the treaty gives the requested state a way to cure the defect first. Under Article 8, the requested state asks for the missing evidence and may set a time limit. If the person is detained and the added evidence is insufficient or does not arrive in time, the person is released. The release does not prevent a later request for the same offense, and the later request may refer back to the documents already supplied.
The Justice Manual warns prosecutors that people may contest extradition on the basis of inconsistencies in the documents (JM 9-15.240). A time limit also runs in the U.S. after commitment: if the person is not delivered within two calendar months, a judge may order release unless sufficient cause is shown (18 U.S.C. 3188).
Human-rights grounds
Several refusals come from human-rights rules that sit outside the treaty text. In the U.S., the State Department considers whether a person facing extradition is more likely than not to be tortured in the requesting state, applying Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (22 CFR 95.2). The Secretary may surrender, deny surrender or surrender subject to conditions (22 CFR 95.3), and the regulation states these decisions are matters of executive discretion not subject to judicial review (22 CFR 95.4).
In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights decided in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989) that extraditing the applicant to the United States would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because of the "death row phenomenon." The Court's factsheet on the death penalty summarizes the case. The case shows why capital charges often lead to requests for assurances before surrender.
A ground does not apply itself
Having a ground is different from winning on it. Each ground has to be raised at the right stage and supported by evidence. The Justice Manual lists the common reasons a fugitive may not be extraditable: nationality of a state that does not extradite its nationals, an offense that is not extraditable, a statute of limitations that has run, or a prior prosecution for the same conduct (JM 9-15.600). It also tells prosecutors that alternatives may exist, such as deportation or other lawful returns (JM 9-15.610).
A refusal may therefore end one route and leave others. After a nationality refusal, the case may go to local prosecution. After a release for weak papers, a new request may follow. Evidence for torture or political-offense arguments takes time to gather, so the person's lawyers usually begin collecting it at the start of the case.
Who handles this
Nora Busra Turan
Partner · Attorney
Murat Akkoç
Partner · Lawyer, Istanbul Bar (Turkey)
Why extradition requests are denied: questions people ask
why do extradition requests get denied
Common grounds are a political offense, a purely military offense, a time bar, a prior final judgment, an amnesty, the nationality of the person, and papers that do not meet the treaty. Some instruments also allow refusal in capital cases without assurances, and torture risk is a separate ground in U.S. practice.
can a country refuse to extradite its own citizens
Often yes. Under the 1979 U.S.-Turkey treaty neither country must extradite its nationals (Article 4), though the U.S. executive may do so at its discretion. The 1957 European Convention gives each party the right to refuse (Article 6).
does a denied extradition request end the case
Not always. A state that refuses on nationality may have to submit the case to its own prosecutors if the other state asks, and a release for weak papers does not prevent a new request. Merit Law LLP in Houston can review which route a particular case may take.
what is the political offense exception to extradition
It bars extradition for a political offense, or where the request is in fact made to prosecute or punish political opinions. In the U.S.-Turkey treaty the requested state alone decides this question (Articles 3(1)(a) and 5), and an offense against a head of state is not treated as political.
Sources and review date
Treaty texts, regulations and Justice Manual checked 3 Nov 2026. Sources below.
- U.S.-Türkiye Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1979), Turkish text, Türkiye Ministry of Justice
- European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 24, 13 December 1957), English text, Türkiye Ministry of Justice
- U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual 9-15.000, International Extradition and Related Matters
- 22 CFR Part 95, Implementation of Torture Convention in Extradition Cases (Cornell LII)
- 18 U.S.C. 3184, Fugitives from foreign country to United States (Cornell LII)
- 18 U.S.C. 3188, Time of commitment pending extradition (Cornell LII)
- European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet: Death penalty abolition (March 2024), on Soering v. the United Kingdom
What changed: moved from the firm's earlier blog. Checked on 3 November 2026: replaced the general list with grounds taken from the 1979 U.S.-Turkey treaty and the 1957 European Convention, article by article. Corrected the earlier statement that many countries refuse extradition in capital or inhumane-treatment cases unless binding assurances are given: that rule appears in Article 11 of the European Convention, and the U.S.-Turkey treaty text has no capital-punishment article; torture concerns in the U.S. go to the Secretary of State (22 CFR Part 95). Corrected "dual criminality" placement (it is a condition of extraditable offenses in Article 2 of the U.S.-Turkey treaty rather than a refusal ground). Added the discretionary grounds, the nationality and prosecute-instead rule, the additional-evidence mechanism and Soering. Removed the contact line and references to other posts.
More in Extradition and INTERPOL
Named in an extradition request or arrested on one?
Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). We reply in English, Turkish and Chinese.
Notes
- The European Convention text is the English version published by the Turkish Ministry of Justice. The U.S.-Turkey column is based on the Turkish text on the same site; check the treaty in force before relying on a clause. ↑