A Red Notice asks for provisional arrest “for the purpose of extradition, surrender, or similar lawful action”. Whether that purpose can be carried out is decided by national courts and, where a Convention right is at stake, by the European Court of Human Rights. The strongest bar in the whole Convention system applies here: a State may not send anyone to a country where they face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, whatever they are accused of having done. This page sets out how that principle works in an extradition case and how an urgent interim measure is obtained when removal is days away.
The sending State answers for what happens next
The principle was established in Soering v. the United Kingdom, decided in 1989 in an extradition case. A State that surrenders a person to another country is responsible under Article 3 where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person faces a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision in the receiving country. The responsibility arises before anything has happened: it is the decision to remove that engages the Convention.
Two further judgments define how absolute that protection is. In Chahal v. the United Kingdom and again in Saadi v. Italy, the Court held that the conduct of the person concerned, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be weighed against the risk of ill-treatment. There is no balancing exercise, no national security exception and no proportionality test. The question is only whether the risk is real.
At a glance
| Extradition and the Convention | What is examined |
|---|---|
| Article 3 | Real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving country — absolute, no exceptions |
| Article 6 | Risk of a flagrant denial of justice, a far higher threshold than an unfair trial |
| Detention conditions | Whether conditions awaiting or following trial would themselves reach the Article 3 threshold |
| Sentence | Whether an irreducible life sentence or comparable penalty would be imposed |
| Health | Whether removal of a seriously ill person would expose them to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline resulting in intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy |
| Timing | The risk is assessed as at the time of the proposed removal, on the material then available |
What has to be shown
A general human rights situation in the receiving country is rarely enough on its own; nor is a personal fear without objective support. What persuades is the combination: reliable reports about the treatment of a defined group, together with evidence that you belong to that group and have come to the attention of the authorities. In an INTERPOL case the notice itself is often part of that evidence, because it documents the requesting State’s active interest in you.
- Treatment in detention. Findings of the Court about the receiving country, reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and material from United Nations bodies.
- Conditions of detention. The Court has examined whether the regime awaiting a person in the receiving State would itself breach Article 3, as in Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom.
- The sentence faced. Life imprisonment without a realistic prospect of release was the issue in Trabelsi v. Belgium. The threshold for extradition outside Europe is now higher: in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom the Grand Chamber adopted a two-stage approach under which the applicant must first show a real risk that such a sentence would be imposed, and found no violation on the facts of that case.
- Health. Paposhvili v. Belgium sets out when the removal of a seriously ill person engages Article 3.
- Trial. Where evidence obtained by torture would be used, or the proceedings would be a shell, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom shows that Article 6 can bar removal in its own right.
Removal inside Europe is not automatically safe either. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece concerned the transfer of an asylum seeker between two Council of Europe States under the Dublin system rather than an extradition, but the principle it illustrates holds: the question is always the conditions that await this individual, not the reputation of the destination.
Diplomatic assurances
Requesting States routinely offer assurances: that the person will not be ill-treated, that a particular prison will be used, that consular visits will be allowed. Assurances are not taken at face value. The Court looks at their quality and at whether they can be relied on in practice — who gave them and with what authority, whether they are specific, whether compliance can be verified by an independent monitor, and what the receiving State’s record of honouring such promises actually is. That analysis was worked out in detail in the Othman judgment, a deportation case whose criteria the Court applies to removals generally, and it is usually what decides a case in which assurances have been offered.
Rule 39: stopping a removal that is days away
Where removal would cause irreversible harm before the Court could examine the case, the remedy is an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court indicates to the respondent Government that the person should not be removed while the application is examined. These measures are granted exceptionally, and in extradition cases they are the difference between a case and a memory.
They are also binding. In Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey the Grand Chamber held that a State which extradites a person in disregard of an interim measure breaches Article 34 of the Convention, because it frustrates the effective exercise of the right of individual application.
- Exhaust what exists first. The Court expects domestic remedies with suspensive effect to have been used, or an explanation of why they were unavailable.
- Apply as early as possible, with the date and time of the planned removal, and do not wait for the final decision if the risk is already certain.
- Send a complete file: identity and case documents, the domestic decisions with their dates, and the evidence of risk. Requests that are not substantiated are refused, and although a fresh request with better material can be made, that takes time you may not have.
- Keep the Court informed of any change: a new removal date, a new decision, a transfer to another facility.
Our guide to interim measures sets out the practical requirements, and the admissibility conditions apply to the application that follows: the four-month rule, exhaustion of domestic remedies and victim status.
How this fits with the INTERPOL file
The two proceedings answer different questions and support each other. Material assembled for the Article 3 case — findings about the requesting country’s detention system, an interim measure already granted, a refusal of extradition by a national court — is exactly the kind of evidence that belongs in a request to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, where it speaks to Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution. Conversely, a deletion decision removes the mechanism that produces the next arrest, which is what makes travel possible again once the immediate danger has passed.
We are lawyers in INTERPOL-related cases. We have no affiliation with INTERPOL, which neither appoints nor accredits lawyers for or against individuals.
Facing extradition after a Red Notice?
Our Strasbourg team prepares Article 3 and Article 6 cases against removal, urgent Rule 39 requests, and the applications that follow. Read the judgments we analyse or ask for a free assessment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a country refuse extradition because of human rights risks?
Yes, and a State bound by the Convention is required to refuse where there are substantial grounds for believing in a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The protection is absolute: the seriousness of the accusation and any danger the person is said to pose cannot be weighed against it.
How quickly does the Court decide a Rule 39 request?
Requests of this kind are treated as urgent and, where removal is imminent, can be decided very quickly — provided the file is complete when it arrives. The Court decides on the material submitted; it does not investigate, and it does not gather the missing documents of its own motion. No timeframe is guaranteed, which is why the request should be lodged as soon as the risk is identifiable rather than on the eve of removal.
Does an interim measure decide my case?
No. It preserves the position while the application is examined, and it can be lifted if circumstances change. The merits of the complaint are decided later, in the ordinary way.
My extradition was refused. Does the Red Notice disappear?
Not by itself. A refusal by one country binds that country; the data remain in INTERPOL’s system and can lead to arrest elsewhere. The refusal is, however, strong material for a deletion request, particularly where it was reasoned by reference to the risk of ill-treatment or to the political character of the prosecution.