Human Rights Lawyer

Extradition requests and Interpol Red Notices are not automatically legitimate. When a state misuses international legal mechanisms to persecute political opponents, business rivals, or dissidents, human rights law provides a powerful shield. Our team of specialist human rights lawyers challenges extradition proceedings and Interpol notices by demonstrating that surrender or continued circulation of a notice would violate the individual’s fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and related international instruments. A well-founded human rights submission can result in a court refusing extradition, a domestic court granting injunctive relief, or Interpol’s Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) deleting the notice entirely.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes an absolute prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most Convention rights, it admits no exceptions — not even in a national emergency. In extradition proceedings, Article 3 applies in its “expulsion” dimension: a state may not transfer an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Our lawyers compile country-specific evidence — prison condition reports, documented patterns of ill-treatment, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch findings, judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against the requesting state — to build a compelling Article 3 case. We have successfully relied on Article 3 arguments in cases involving Russia, where politically motivated prosecutions are frequently accompanied by detention in facilities that fall far below Council of Europe standards, and in UAE cases where detention in Emirati custody raises serious concerns documented by UN Special Rapporteurs.

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. In extradition and Interpol proceedings, we invoke the “flagrant denial of justice” standard established by the European Court of Human Rights: even where the requesting state is not an ECHR signatory, extradition will be barred if there is a real risk that the individual would face a trial so unfair as to amount to a flagrant breach of Article 6. This standard is particularly relevant in cases involving Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Russia, where courts have been documented acting under executive influence, where defence counsel have been denied adequate time to prepare, and where confessions obtained under duress are admitted as evidence. We gather judgments, bar association reports, and NGO documentation to demonstrate systemic judicial dysfunction in the requesting state, grounding an Article 6 objection that can block extradition or support a CCF complaint arguing political abuse of Interpol’s systems.

Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. In the extradition context, courts weigh the impact of removal on established family life in the host country — particularly where the individual has a spouse or partner, dependent children, or other deep-rooted private life connections. An active Interpol Red Notice also constitutes an ongoing interference with private life: it restricts freedom of movement, disrupts professional activities, and causes serious reputational harm. Our human rights lawyers present detailed Article 8 proportionality arguments, demonstrating that extradition or the continued existence of a Red Notice is disproportionate to any legitimate aim pursued by the requesting state. These submissions are particularly effective where the individual has lived in Europe for several years, has integrated into the community, and has dependants whose interests must be weighed.

Our practice focuses on cases originating from states with documented records of misusing international legal cooperation mechanisms. Russia remains the largest single source of abusive extradition requests and Interpol notices in Europe, with politically motivated prosecutions routinely disguised as ordinary criminal cases. The UAE presents distinct challenges: a legal system influenced by executive authority, restrictions on defence rights, and a track record of pursuing business disputes through the criminal courts. Turkey has been the subject of repeated criticism by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights for post-coup prosecutions targeting journalists, academics, and Kurdish political figures. Kazakhstan’s requests frequently involve businesspeople and opposition figures facing trumped-up fraud or embezzlement charges. In each jurisdiction, our lawyers maintain detailed knowledge of the legal landscape, enabling us to rapidly assemble evidence-based human rights submissions tailored to the specific requesting state.

Where domestic remedies have been exhausted, we file applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg alleging violations of the Convention. Critically, in urgent extradition cases we apply for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requesting the Court to indicate to the respondent government that extradition should be suspended pending the outcome of the application. Rule 39 measures are binding on Council of Europe member states and have proved decisive in halting extraditions at the last moment. Our lawyers draft detailed admissibility submissions, factual chronologies, and legal memoranda complying with the Court’s procedural requirements. We also monitor the Court’s case law on extraterritorial expulsion, ensuring that our submissions reflect the most current standards on the assessment of country conditions, diplomatic assurances, and the burden of proof in Article 3 cases.

For clients whose cases involve states party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), we prepare individual communications to the UN Human Rights Committee. The Committee can request interim measures (interim protection) preventing a state from proceeding with extradition while the communication is under review, and its Views carry significant weight in domestic judicial proceedings and before the CCF. UN Human Rights Committee communications are particularly valuable in cases where ECHR procedures are unavailable — for example, where the potential surrendering state is not an ECHR signatory or has derogated from relevant provisions. Our submissions address violations of ICCPR Articles 7 (torture prohibition), 9 (liberty and security), and 14 (fair trial), paralleling the ECHR arguments while adapting them to the Committee’s distinct procedural and substantive framework.

Our team provides end-to-end human rights representation in extradition and Interpol-related proceedings. We begin with a confidential assessment of your case, identifying the strongest human rights arguments available on the facts. We then prepare comprehensive legal submissions for extradition courts, CCF complaints, and international human rights bodies as appropriate. Where emergency relief is needed, we act swiftly to apply for Rule 39 interim measures or equivalent protections. Throughout the process, we coordinate with local counsel in the country where proceedings are pending, ensuring that human rights arguments are advanced consistently at every level. If you are facing an extradition request or are subject to an Interpol Red Notice originating from Russia, the UAE, Turkey, Kazakhstan, or another state with a documented record of misusing international legal cooperation, contact our Interpol Defence Lawyers today for a confidential consultation.