→ 🇹🇷 Turkey

The requested person, a Dutch national of Kurdish origin, opposed extradition to Türkiye for prosecution for a drug-trafficking offence, arguing that his political activities exposed him to a flagrant denial of justice and that the criminal charge was a pretext for political persecution. The District Court acknowledged serious concerns regarding judicial independence and the rule of law in Türkiye but found no sufficiently concrete indication that the proceedings against the requested person were politically motivated or that his surrender would expose him to a flagrant breach of Article 6 ECHR. Extradition was therefore declared admissible. The Court nevertheless advised the Minister to obtain assurances concerning detention conditions, taking account of the requested person’s Kurdish background and public activities, and to require a specific and unconditional guarantee that, if convicted, he could return to the Netherlands to serve his sentence.

Where the 1957 European Convention on Extradition applies — which does not provide for an autonomous assessment of the evidentiary material by the authority of the requested State in cases of extradition for prosecution — the Italian judicial authority, on the one hand, must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the surrender request and, on the other hand, is required to ascertain that the request sets out the reasons why, from the perspective of the requesting State, the commission of the offence attributed to the accused person was considered probable, without any possibility of directly examining the sources of evidence. Accordingly, even within the limits of a summary assessment as to the seriousness of the evidentiary indications, the requested authority must nevertheless assess, on the basis of the documents produced and the content of the request, the specificity of the charges and of the sources of evidence. That being clarified, where the evidentiary framework is sparse, Italian courts cannot rely on unsatisfactory and merely apparent reasoning, without specifying the allegations and the sources of evidence or investigative findings capable of linking the facts to the charges.

In matters of flight risk, neither prior convictions nor the severity of the sentence can, in themselves, establish proof of a risk of absconding, as they are abstract considerations from which it is not possible to infer a genuine intention to evade the decision that the Court of Appeal will ultimately take at the end of the proceedings. In particular, while the severity of the sentence is an element of undeniable relevance, it cannot be regarded as the sole benchmark; rather, it must be assessed in conjunction with other specific factors capable of demonstrating a concrete likelihood that the requested person may clandestinely abscond.

With reference to extradition requests submitted by Turkey, in light of the situation—ascertained by various international institutions—of systematic violations by that State of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of detainees, particularly those belonging to the Kurdish ethnic group or to opposition parties, which persist notwithstanding the lifting of the suspension of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in that State following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, it is necessary for the judicial authority to obtain unequivocal elements in order to verify, in concreto, that the person sought does not face a risk of being subjected, within Turkish detention facilities, to inhuman or degrading treatment.

The United States, acting on behalf of the Republic of Türkiye, sought the extradition of Eylem Tok, a Turkish national, on charges of destroying, concealing or altering evidence under Article 281 of the Turkish Criminal Code and protecting an offender under Article 283 of the same code. The charges arose not from the underlying fatal traffic accident — which the record attributes entirely to her minor son, T.C. — but from her conduct in the hours immediately following it: taking a victim’s cell phone from security officers under a false pretext and concealing it, removing her son and two other minors from the accident scene before police could observe or question them, and flying with her son out of Türkiye on one-way tickets within three hours of the collision.Following an extradition hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, Chief Magistrate Judge Cabell denied the relator’s motion to dismiss, denied her motion for release from custody, and certified her extraditability to the Secretary of State on both offences. The decision is a companion to In re Extradition of T.C., 740 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D. Mass. 2024), concerning the relator’s son, and it addresses in detail several recurring questions of U.S. extradition law: the minimum-gravity (one-year punishability) requirement and its interaction with treaty accessory clauses, the treatment of foreign-law expert evidence that contradicts the requesting State’s position, the dual criminality doctrine, the meaning of “charged with an offense” in a treaty that does not require a charging document, the probable cause standard, and the “special circumstances” test for bail pending extradition.

Extradition to turkey and risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: in cases of passive extradition to turkey, the detention conditions to be afforded to the requested person must be assessed in concreto, given that, since july 2016, the application of the european convention on human rights has been formally suspended in that state, and that instances of arbitrary detention and widespread practices of torture within penitentiary facilities have been documented, giving rise to a high level of risk of inhuman or degrading treatment not limited to political detainees.