Extradition from Russia: How the Procedure Works and What an Extradition Lawyer Does

If someone has been detained in Moscow, Kazan or another Russian city following a foreign request, Russian counsel can identify the legal basis of custody, obtain the case documents, check the applicable treaty and preserve the route to judicial review. There is no single reliable number of days for the entire extradition procedure: the timetable depends on the requesting state, when a complete request arrives, custody litigation and any judicial complaint.

Who decides: the Prosecutor General or a Russian court?

Article 462(4) of Russia’s Criminal Procedure Code (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации, or UPK RF) assigns the extradition decision to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (Генеральный прокурор РФ) or a deputy. Local prosecutors carry out preparatory checks and act in detention proceedings; they are not a substitute for the authority named in Article 462(4). A person can therefore be in custody long before the central prosecutor has approved any surrender.

Under Article 463(1), the decision may be challenged in the court of the constituent entity of Russia, determined by the person's location: for example an oblast or krai court, a republic’s supreme court or the court of a federal city. For a person located in Moscow, this is the Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд); for a person in Kazan, it is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (Верховный суд Республики Татарстан). The challenge is filed after the Prosecutor General’s decision; it is not a request for a district court to pre-approve surrender. The Article 463 hearing is conducted by a single judge; the court examines whether the extradition decision complies with Russian law and relevant treaties, not whether the person committed the foreign offence (Article 463(6)). Under Article 463(9), an appeal from this judicial ruling goes to the criminal panel of the competent appellate court of general jurisdiction. The general appeal period under Article 389.4 is 15 days from the date the ruling is issued. The statute shifts the starting point to service of a copy expressly for a convicted person held in custody; do not assume that exception automatically covers every person detained for extradition. Counsel should calculate from the ruling date unless the person’s procedural status makes the exception applicable. Do not confuse this appeal with the first Article 463 complaint against the Prosecutor General’s decision.

The court handling an initial detention application is a different institution. Where Russian judicial authorisation is required, the usual district-level court deals with custody under Articles 108, 109 and 466. A complaint about a prosecutor’s detention order may follow Article 125. The regional-level Article 463 court reviews the surrender decision, while the relevant appellate court reviews its judicial ruling. Mixing these routes can mean sending the right arguments to the wrong court.

Which Russian legal instruments govern extradition?

Chapter 54 UPK RF, Articles 460–468, governs the outbound and inbound extradition framework. For extradition from Russia the core provisions are Articles 462–467, together with the relevant custody rules and the specific treaty between Russia and the requesting state. Article 462(1) permits surrender under an international treaty or on the basis of reciprocity, provided the alleged conduct is punishable under the criminal laws of both countries. Reciprocity means an expectation, supported by the requesting state’s assurances, of equivalent cooperation if Russia makes a comparable request.

The 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 024) may govern some Russia-related requests: the Council of Europe Treaty Office maintains the treaty’s status and declarations record, and the Russian Supreme Court’s current Plenum explains how the Convention’s priority rule operates where its conditions are met. Check whether the Convention and any relevant protocols bind both Russia and the requesting state, and review the applicable reservations and declarations before relying on it. This extradition treaty is separate from the European Convention on Human Rights. Russia ceased to be a party to the latter on 16 September 2022; that does not automatically terminate every other Council of Europe criminal-law treaty. Russia is not an EU Member State and does not operate the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system; an EAW issued within the EU does not itself replace an extradition request made under a legal basis applicable in Russia.

Under Article 462(3)(1)–(2), the domestic threshold for surrender for prosecution is normally an offence punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or a more severe penalty; enforcement of a foreign sentence normally requires a sentence of at least six months. Article 462(1) separately requires dual criminality and an applicable treaty or reciprocity basis; Article 462(2) explains reciprocity. An applicable treaty may set different thresholds. Article 462(3)(3) also addresses assurances that the person will be prosecuted only for the offence specified in the request, will be able to leave after the proceedings and any sentence, and will not be expelled, transferred or extradited to a third state without Russia’s consent. The exact assurances and any speciality or onward-surrender restrictions must be checked against the treaty governing the case. Under the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Article 14 addresses speciality and its exceptions, while Article 15 separately restricts onward extradition to a third state without the requested state’s consent. Other treaties may use different wording or exceptions. Counsel should compare the actual alleged conduct, criminal provisions and governing treaty rather than relying on the offence label alone.

The Russian sequence from request to physical handover

Foreign authorities may first seek to locate a person or request provisional arrest; a formal request for extradition and its supporting papers then have to satisfy the applicable treaty or reciprocity rules. An INTERPOL Red Notice is an international alert, not a Russian court detention order or an extradition decision. The operative basis for arrest and custody in Russia still needs to be identified separately. For the notice mechanism itself, see the separate Red Notice guide.

Two often-confused 10-day periods concern different events: Article 462(6) measures when the prosecutor decision takes effect from notification, while Article 463(1) measures time to complain from receiving the notice. If the complaint is brought, Article 462(6) bars extradition until the court decision has entered into legal force. Article 463 also requires the prosecutor to transmit supporting material to the court within 10 days and the judge to complete review within one month from the complaint’s arrival there. If competing states request the same person, Article 462(7) gives the choice to the Prosecutor General/deputy, with written notification to the person within 24 hours of that choice.

Detention is not the extradition decision

Custody to secure potential extradition is dealt with in Article 466 and the general safeguards in Articles 108–109 UPK RF. Whether a foreign judicial custody order accompanied the request matters. Under Article 466(1), where it did not, the prosecutor must seek a restraint measure through Russian criminal-procedure channels, and Supreme Court Plenum No. 11, paragraph 20, requires a Russian court order for detention. Under Article 466(2), if a foreign judicial detention order is attached, the Russian prosecutor can initially order custody or house arrest without a Russian court confirming that foreign order; paragraph 21 of the Plenum says such prosecutor-ordered detention cannot exceed two months from apprehension without judicial extension. The prosecutor’s order can be challenged in court under Article 125.

Before a full extradition request arrives, provisional detention is permissible only where the applicable treaty specifically provides for it and the required request for provisional arrest has been made with any documents the treaty requires at that stage; an INTERPOL notice alone does not create a general power to detain. The Supreme Court’s current Plenum distinguishes these treaty routes. Under Article 75(b) of the 2002 Chisinau Convention, the extradition request and accompanying documents must arrive within 40 days from the person’s detention and placement in custody. Under Article 62(1) of the 1993 Minsk Convention, the period is one month from detention, or 40 days from detention if the requesting state is bound by the 1997 Protocol. If the properly prepared request and required documents do not arrive before the applicable treaty deadline, the person must be released. These pre-request limits are distinct from detention after formal papers arrive.

For longer detention, extension is judicial and subject to statutory conditions, not a prosecutor’s indefinite discretion. Under Article 109, the ordinary pre-trial custody framework starts at two months and may be extended by a judge to six months; for serious or especially serious offences, further extensions may reach 12 months, and only in exceptional cases involving especially serious offences may detention extend to 18 months. These are not automatic extradition-custody allowances: the court must make an individual order, and the specific Article 466 route, applicable treaty deadline and current ruling still matter. A Constitutional Court determination of 1 March 2007, No. 333-O-P (Seidenfeld), established that detention under Article 466(1) cannot escape domestic procedure or time limits, and provisional detention based on a foreign request cannot go beyond 48 hours without the required judicial decision. The later, still operative Supreme Court Plenum clarifies the distinct Article 466(2) foreign-court-order route. Counsel must therefore identify which route actually applies before advancing a blanket 48-hour or two-month argument.

Release from custody does not necessarily end the foreign extradition request. A less restrictive measure can be considered if the legal conditions permit it; neither bail nor house arrest should be assumed automatic. For a person in detention, the lawyer should obtain the detention order, review each extension, document residence and health information relevant to the measure, and calculate treaty and UPK RF clocks on separate lines.

Can a Russian citizen or dual national be extradited?

No: Article 61(1) of the Russian Constitution prohibits expelling a Russian citizen from Russia or extraditing that citizen to another state. Article 62 recognises that a Russian citizen can also have another citizenship; possessing a second passport does not, by itself, remove Russian citizenship or its constitutional protection. The decisive task is proving whether Russian citizenship legally exists, not merely showing a travel document or residence permit. Conversely, residence in Russia, marriage to a Russian citizen or being born in the former USSR does not, without more, establish current Russian nationality.

Citizenship records may be contradictory or incomplete, especially after changes of citizenship or different transliterations. Counsel should collect existing Russian passports, citizenship decisions, civil-registration records and any official confirmation. A refusal to surrender a citizen is different from immunity from prosecution in Russia: domestic proceedings, if legally available, are a separate matter. Other bars to extradition and any refugee-protection question are case-specific and addressed in the guide to challenging extradition from Russia.

What can an extradition lawyer do in the first days?

For the detained person, the immediate priorities are understandable documents, meaningful legal access and a reliable custody timeline. Article 18 UPK RF permits a participant who lacks sufficient knowledge of the language of the proceedings to make applications and complaints in a language they understand and to use an interpreter free of charge. Do not sign an untranslated statement as though its legal effect were understood; ask counsel for the exact translation, document title and intended legal consequence first.

• Establish identity and location: full name as recorded, date of birth, nationality, place of detention and contact details of the appointed or retained lawyer.
• Collect the papers: arrest report, prosecutor’s decision, foreign judicial custody order if any, notices of a formal request, and each Russian detention ruling or extension.
• Track actual receipt: keep a dated copy of the written extradition decision and proof of when it was served; deadlines turn on notice, not social-media reports.
• Map the instruments: determine requesting country, exact bilateral or multilateral treaty, reservations, translated criminal charges, judgment if one exists and requested assurances.
• Prepare verified records: relevant citizenship and immigration documents, medical papers, translations and any official proof needed for a lawful submission.
• Coordinate roles: a lawyer in the requesting state can clarify the foreign warrant and criminal case, but the Russian defence must make filings in the correct Russian institution.

A hypothetical example: a Georgian national living in Kazan is detained on a foreign request. Their family initially hears only that a Red Notice exists. Counsel first asks for the Russian custody basis and whether a foreign judicial detention order was supplied; then checks which mutual-assistance treaty actually binds the two states, its provisional-custody period and whether complete extradition papers arrived. If the Prosecutor General later approves surrender, the complaint goes to the regional-level court competent for the detainee’s location, not automatically to the court that considered custody. Practical details of proceedings in Tatarstan belong in the Kazan court guide.

What happens after extradition is approved?

An unchallenged decision may become effective after the Article 462(6) notice period; a timely court challenge prevents surrender pending a final judicial ruling. Once transfer can legally occur, Article 467 provides for Russia to tell the requesting state the place, date and time of handover. If that state does not receive the person within 15 days of the scheduled date, release may follow; after 30 days from that date the person must be released under Article 467(3). The law also permits a new transfer date if either state faces circumstances beyond its control. These deadlines do not describe the maximum time for the whole extradition investigation.

Article 465 separately allows Russia to defer extradition while a person is being prosecuted or serving a sentence for another offence in Russia; limited temporary extradition can be possible under conditions set by the Prosecutor General/deputy. Transit through Russia is yet another mechanism: Article 462.1 provides for permission from that official when a state wishes to transport a person extradited by a third state across Russian territory, including air transit with an intermediate landing in Russia. Neither route should be confused with a decision to extradite a person currently living in Russia.

A person’s consent to cooperation, a purported waiver of objection and the speciality undertaking are not the same thing. Chapter 54 should not be read as creating a universal, automatic fast-track surrender merely because someone signs a consent form. Counsel needs to identify a specific applicable treaty rule and explain its consequences before any such document is signed. Likewise, administrative expulsion or deportation is not extradition and has a different legal basis; administrative steps should not be treated as a substitute for judicial scrutiny of a genuine extradition order.

Where treaty and international mechanisms differ

The source country changes the documents and applicable deadline, sometimes drastically. Russia’s Supreme Court emphasises that an extradition convention’s reservations and the other state’s membership must be checked, rather than assuming the 1957 European treaty, the Chisinau convention or an old bilateral agreement always controls. Plenum Resolution No. 11 was materially updated in May and December 2025. In particular, it requires attention to the current state of evidence about conditions in a requesting country; past findings do not necessarily settle a later case. This is a reason to check up-to-date primary records, not to assume approval or refusal.

Russia’s departure from the European Convention on Human Rights means the European Court of Human Rights cannot provide a new Rule 39 measure against Russia for acts occurring after 16 September 2022. Older cases and obligations may remain relevant to their own dates, but historical Strasbourg judgments cannot be presented as a present-day automatic stay. A Russian court’s current powers flow from Russian law and applicable treaties, including binding domestic constitutional and Supreme Court guidance. The detailed routes for objections and interim protection belong to the separate Russian challenges and deadlines page.

Questions families often need answered

For case-specific coordination, the site's team can help organise cross-border work with independently instructed local counsel; you may send the documents for an initial enquiry.