Exception for political crimes

Extradition is a formalized interstate process through which one state (requested) transfers an individual to another state (requesting) for criminal prosecution or execution of a sentence. This mechanism serves as the foundation for international cooperation in combating transnational crime. However, extradition is neither automatic nor absolute. International law and domestic legislation of states establish a number of barriers to protect the individual, with the central one being the political offense exception.

This legal doctrinal shield prohibits the extradition of a person if the crime they are accused of is of a political nature. Its purpose is to protect individuals accused of actions against the state system (dissidents, revolutionaries, opposition members) from persecution under the guise of criminal justice. In the realities of 2025, when authoritarian regimes increasingly abuse international arrest warrants and the line between terrorism and political struggle remains a subject of heated debate, non-extradition for political crimes remains a critically important, though increasingly complex, field of legal battle.

Nevertheless, the sovereignty of the state allows it to refuse extradition. The requested state (the country where the individual is located) conducts its own legal assessment of the request. The courts of this country analyze the request for compliance with the treaty and national legislation. Refusal of extradition may occur for numerous reasons: expiration of the statute of limitations, threat of the death penalty, the principle of ne bis in idem (not twice for the same).

But the most historically entrenched and complex basis for refusal is the political nature of the crime. This exception recognizes that the judicial system of the requesting state may be used not for justice, but for political reprisal.

The principle of non-extradition of political offenders was not a given. It originated in the 19th century, especially after the wave of revolutions in Europe. Belgium in 1833 and Switzerland became pioneers by incorporating this principle into their legislation to provide asylum to those who fought against tyranny. It was an era of romanticizing political struggle.

The situation changed drastically in the second half of the 20th century. The emergence and growth of international terrorism called this principle into question. Terrorist groups such as the IRA in Ireland, ETA in Spain, or the “Red Army Faction” (RAF) in Germany carried out bombings, murders, and kidnappings, and then, hiding in other countries, demanded the application of the political offense exception, claiming that their actions were politically motivated.

This led to the erosion of the classical exception. The international community reached a consensus that certain acts are so monstrous that they cannot be justified by any political objectives.

Attentat Clause

The first step was the amendment on assassination, which appeared back in the 19th century after the attempt on Napoleon III. It established that the murder (or attempted murder) of the head of state or a member of their family is not considered a political crime.

Exceptions from the Exception

Starting from the 1970s, a number of international conventions were adopted that explicitly exclude certain categories of crimes from the scope of the political exception. The key principle of such treaties is aut dedere aut judicare (extradite or prosecute). States are obligated either to extradite the accused or to prosecute them on their own territory, regardless of political motives.

Included here are:

Thus, today a person accused of genocide or hijacking an aircraft cannot successfully invoke political motives to prevent extradition.

Despite these conventions, the core of the problem remains: in international law, there is no single, universal definition of a political crime. The decision always rests with the court of the requested state. Lawyers and courts traditionally divide political crimes into two categories.

These are acts directed directly against the political system or the security of the state, lacking the characteristics of common criminal offenses. By their nature, they are political.

Classic examples:

Espionage and extradition represent a special case. Most bilateral extradition treaties either explicitly exclude espionage from the list of extraditable offenses or it does not fall under the dual criminality requirement, as laws on state secrets vary too greatly between countries. Requests for extradition on charges of espionage are almost always rejected as purely political. Complications arise in cases (such as the case of Julian Assange), where the requesting party attempts to reclassify actions related to the publication of classified documents as common criminal offenses (for example, conspiracy to commit hacking or violation of the Espionage Act, which is equated to theft).

This is the most difficult category. A relative crime is a common criminal act (murder, robbery, arson, assault) that is closely connected with a political goal or committed in the context of a political conflict.

Example: A member of a rebel group robs a bank to finance the purchase of weapons for overthrowing a dictatorship. Robbery is a common criminal offense. The motive is political. Should he be extradited?

It is here that courts apply various legal tests to analyze the connection between the crime and policy.

Often, seeking asylum to stop extradition is the most effective defense strategy. These two processes — extradition and asylum — run in parallel but are closely connected.

When a person is detained in country B at the request for extradition from country A, they immediately submit an application for asylum (refugee status) in country B.

The basis for asylum is a well-founded fear of persecution in the native country on one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

The extradition process is usually suspended until a decision is made on the asylum case.

If the immigration authorities of country B recognize that the extradition request from country A (for example, on charges of fraud) is actually a pretext for persecuting this person for their opposition political activity, they will be granted asylum.

The recognition of a person as a refugee activates the main principle of international law — the principle of non-refoulement. Article 33 of the 1951 Convention prohibits expelling or returning a refugee to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened on one of five grounds.
Since granting asylum is de facto recognition that the persecution is of a political nature, extradition to this country becomes impossible.

Even if the court rejects the argument of a political crime (for example, recognizing that it concerns common criminal fraud or even terrorism), extradition can still be stopped.

Modern law in the field of extradition is increasingly subordinated to human rights norms (human rights arguments). These norms have supreme authority in relation to obligations under extradition treaties.

The most powerful argument is a reference to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or similar articles in other international treaties (for example, the UN Convention Against Torture).

Article 3 states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This prohibition is absolute. It allows no exceptions.

In the landmark case Soering v. United Kingdom (1989), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the United Kingdom could not extradite Jens Soering to the United States (Virginia), where he faced the death penalty. The court determined that prolonged waiting for execution on death row in itself constitutes inhuman treatment, violating Article 3.

Since then, extradition lawyers have successfully been blocking the extradition, proving that in the requesting country their client faces:

The second most significant argument is Article 6 of the ECHR (the right to a fair trial).

To refuse extradition solely on the grounds that the judicial system in the requesting country is less fair is not permissible. However, the ECHR introduced the doctrine of flagrant denial of a fair trial.

If the defense proves that in the requesting state the person faces a trial that is merely a facade, fully controlled by the executive branch, or where evidence obtained under torture is taken for granted, extradition may be recognized as a violation of Article 6. This is especially relevant when the request comes from countries with known issues in the rule of law.

A confrontation with an extradition request is one of the most complex legal situations, threatening your freedom and safety. Politically motivated requests, often disguised as common criminal offenses, require immediate and highly qualified intervention.

Our team of lawyers specializes in international law, extradition procedures, and obtaining political asylum. We have experience handling the most complex cases, including challenging Interpol red notices and applying the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights to block extradition.

Do not wait until the situation becomes irreversible. Contact us today for an urgent and confidential consultation to assess your risks and develop a protection strategy.