Kazakhstan

The Seoul High Court (20th Criminal Division) dismissed Kazakhstan's extradition request on procedural grounds, without reaching the merits. Kazakhstan had submitted its extradition request to the Korean Ministry of Justice in October 2019, but the Minister did not issue a formal instruction to the prosecutor to file the application with the court until March 2025, and the prosecutor did not file until June 2025 — nearly six years after the original request.By the time the application was filed, the whereabouts of the fugitive (identified only as "A") were unknown. The court held that under the proviso to Article 13(1) of the Extradition Act, a prosecutor may not file an extradition review application where the fugitive's location is unknown. Multiple attempts to serve documents on the fugitive at his last known address failed (returned undelivered), and two rounds of location inquiries to the competent district prosecutors' office (Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, Ansan Branch) confirmed that the fugitive could not be found. The court reasoned that where a fugitive's whereabouts are unknown: service of the application is impossible; the review proceedings cannot meaningfully proceed; and even if the court granted the application, the fundamental purpose of extradition — securing the person and surrendering them to the requesting state — could not be achieved. The application was therefore dismissed as inadmissible. The court noted that the prosecutor may re-file once the fugitive's location is confirmed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Kazakhstan against G.K. for alleged embezzlement offences committed between 2014 and 2016.The Bakırköy 20th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- insufficient time had been provided for defence preparation;- the requested person had already been convicted in absentia in Kazakhstan in 2024;- the extradition file was outdated because it relied on a 2019 extradition request;- additional documents concerning the alleged conviction should have been obtained;- the prosecution was politically motivated;- extradition would expose the requested person to torture and ill-treatment;- specialty guarantees had not been properly addressed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether:- in absentia proceedings had occurred;- a conviction had become final;- defence rights had been respected in the requesting State.The Court emphasized that under:- Article 4(1)(ç) of Law No. 6706;- Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706;- and the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and Kazakhstan,supplementary information and updated documentation should have been requested before assessing extradition admissibility.The Court therefore quashed the judgment.

The Regional Court in Wrocław denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Kazakhstan for the criminal proceedings. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to the justified risk that the requested person will be subject to breach of human rights under Article 3 ECHR. The Court reasoned that the fact that the Republic of Kazakhstan assures freedom from violence is not enough, the real conditions in the Kazakh prisons and its justice system must be examined independently. According to the Court, the Republic of Kazakhstan does not cooperate sufficiently with international organizations. Its prison system, typically for Central Asia, does not satisfy Mandela Rules, insufficiently prevents violence, sexual abuse and does not provide adequate hygiene conditions, especially for the disabled. Moreover, the Republic of Kazakhstan does not prosecute the people responsible for felonies efficiently. Eventually, the Court recognized the methods used by the Kazakh authorities to be contrary to the principles of fair trial. The requested person was, namely, examined only as a witness and has never been notified about any proceedings pending against him.