Extradition and the need to apply the principle of non-refoulement

[chandonar0]

The most problematic provision of the MoU is the third bullet point of point 8, which sets out the grounds for judicial cooperation with regard to pending deportation or extradition requests of terror suspects. These will be considered “expeditiously and thoroughly” by the Nordic countries, which will “tak[e] into account information, evidence and industry email list intelligence provided by Turkiye, and establish necessary bilateral legal frameworks to facilitate extradition and security cooperation with Turkiye, in accordance with the European Convention on Extradition.” The silence of this provision on human rights and refugee law protection is particularly concerning.

It is first worth reiterating that most cases potentially falling within the loose terminology of the MoU are highly political in nature. As per Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition, extradition shall not be granted for political offences (c. 1) or when “a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons” (c. 2). Since precedents are not lacking to put into question the potential fairness and impartiality of criminal proceedings against Kurds in Turkey, Finland and Sweden should carefully evaluate the opportunity to exercise their aut dedere aut iudicare power before agreeing to extradition requests in cases of alleged Kurdish terrorists. Moreover, in applying the principle of double criminality, they should carefully consider whether the case should be assessed as a political offence, for which extradition is precluded, rather than a terrorist one.