How Extradition Works: From Request to Final Decision

1. The process in one view

A useful way to read an extradition file is to separate seven legal events. They often occur in this order, but the exact sequence is controlled by the applicable instrument and domestic law. Under the European Convention on Extradition, procedure is generally governed by the requested Party’s law unless the Convention provides otherwise; Canada publicly describes a three-phase model; UK Part 2 has its own statutory route. ^{[E1] [E2] [E4]}

2. Stage 1 — the formal request and supporting material

In the 1957 Convention text, Article 12 requires a written request and uses the diplomatic channel unless the Parties arrange another method. For Parties bound by the Fourth Additional Protocol, Article 2 replaces Article 12: the written request is transmitted between the Ministries of Justice or other designated competent authorities, while Article 6 permits electronic or other means affording evidence in writing and does not exclude INTERPOL or diplomatic channels. The supporting-document framework covers the enforceable conviction/sentence or arrest warrant (or equivalent order), the offences with time, place and legal description, relevant law, and identifying information; Article 13 allows supplementary information where the material is insufficient. ^{[E1] [E8]}

This treaty framework is an illustration, not a universal filing checklist. A live case must first identify the legal basis between the two states; whether the Fourth Additional Protocol or another protocol is in force between them and applies to the request in time; any reservations, declarations or bilateral modifications; and the receiving authority designated by the requested state. ^{[E1] [E8]}

3. Stage 2 — initial screening, certification or authority to proceed

Some systems place an executive gate before the court stage. Canada describes an “Authority to Proceed” issued by Department of Justice officials as the first of three phases; the Extradition Act then governs the court hearing and ministerial surrender decision. ^{[E2] [E3]}

For UK Part 2 cases, the GOV.UK process describes certification of a qualifying request before the court route. Its England/Wales/Northern Ireland description must not be read as a UK-wide rule that every later executive decision is made by the Secretary of State: where the relevant Part 2 function is exercised only in relation to Scotland, section 141 generally substitutes the Scottish Ministers, subject to the Act’s exceptions; GOV.UK also states that Scottish Ministers certify where the person is believed to be in Scotland. ^{[E4] [E5]}

4. Stage 3 — arrest and first appearance

Arrest may follow the formal request, while some regimes also permit provisional arrest before the complete papers arrive. What authorizes arrest, the time to first appearance, bail/remand, and any document-delivery clock are questions of the specific regime. The European Convention expressly leaves the provisional-arrest decision to the requested Party’s law and contains its own Article 16 framework. This overview therefore does not transplant provisional-arrest deadlines from one system to another. ^[E1]

5. Stage 4 — what the court decides

The judicial phase in extradition is a distinct proceeding whose scope is defined by the requested state’s law and the applicable instrument. In Canada, the official overview describes the extradition hearing before a superior court judge as the judicial phase; the Act provides for committal where the statutory test is met. ^{[E2] [E3]}

In UK Part 2, official guidance describes the judge examining statutory bars, human-rights issues and other requirements before the case moves, where applicable, to the executive stage. The exact issues depend on territory classification and the statutory route. ^[E4]

6. Stage 5 — the final executive decision where the law requires one

A court decision is not always the last domestic decision. Canada has a separate ministerial phase: the Minister of Justice personally decides surrender, and the Act contains mandatory and discretionary refusal grounds as well as mechanisms for assurances or conditions. ^{[E2] [E3]}

Within the ECHR framework, human-rights risk can also constrain surrender. In Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that extradition can engage Article 3 where substantial grounds show a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country. The Court’s current extradition-and-life-imprisonment factsheet is a non-binding, non-exhaustive summary and must be read with the case law rather than treated as a rulebook. ^{[E6] [E7]}

7. Stage 6 — appeals, judicial review and finality

Finality is regime-specific. Canada’s official overview identifies appeal from the committal decision and judicial review of the Minister’s surrender decision; the Act coordinates those routes. GOV.UK also describes appeal routes within the page’s stated territorial scope; Scottish routes and deadlines must be checked under the applicable statutory framework. A live file must calculate deadlines from the governing statute and actual decision date rather than from a generic guide. ^{[E2] [E3] [E4]}

8. Stage 7 — physical surrender and the post-surrender boundary

After legal challenges are exhausted or otherwise resolved, the competent authorities coordinate physical transfer. Under the European Convention, Article 18 addresses surrender and the requested Party informs the requesting Party of the place and date. In the 1957 text, Article 14 establishes the specialty rule and its exceptions; for Parties bound by the Fourth Additional Protocol, Article 3 of that Protocol replaces Article 14 with the Protocol’s specialty regime. This article flags specialty only as a post-surrender boundary, leaving its full analysis to LS-0017. ^{[E1] [E8]}

9. Decision tree for a live file

1. Identify the requesting state, requested state and legal basis: treaty, multilateral instrument, domestic designation or other lawful arrangement.
2. Determine whether the file is at formal request, certification/authority-to-proceed, arrest, judicial hearing, executive surrender, appeal/review or physical surrender.
3. Identify the competent decision-maker for that stage and jurisdiction; do not assume that a court or minister has the same role everywhere.
4. Map every live objection or requirement to the stage where the law allows it to be decided, and link it to an authoritative source.
5. Calculate any deadline only from the applicable instrument/statute and the actual triggering event; then record the next procedural consequence.

10. File-audit checklist

• Exact identity of the person sought and all name/transliteration variants.
• Requesting state, requested state, and current physical location.
• Legal basis for extradition and whether it is in force between the states.
• Offences, dates, alleged conduct, conviction/sentence status and warrant/order relied on.
• Formal transmission route and receiving authority.
• Current procedural stage, arrest status, bail/remand status and next hearing.
• Court tests and statutory bars actually applicable in the requested state.
• Any executive/ministerial stage and the correct decision-maker, including territorial distinctions.
• Human-rights evidence, assurances or detention/sentence conditions relied on by either side.
• Appeal/review route, live deadlines, stays, finality and practical surrender arrangements.

11. What this page deliberately leaves to neighbouring topics

This page is the lifecycle map for LS-0014. It does not try to become the specialist page for provisional arrest, dual criminality, specialty, treaty interpretation, nationality, or European Arrest Warrant surrender. That separation matters because each of those questions can change the outcome at a particular stage without replacing the overall process map.

• LS-0015: provisional arrest and provisional warrants — urgency, arrest authority and provisional-arrest clocks.
• LS-0016: dual criminality — whether the conduct satisfies the required cross-system offence test.
• LS-0017: specialty — limits on prosecution or punishment after surrender.
• LS-0018: treaty-based extradition — how treaty text, protocols, reservations and bilateral rules alter the case.
• LS-0020 / LS-0022: extradition compared with European Arrest Warrant surrender, and the EAW-specific procedure.
• LS-0021: extradition and dual citizenship — nationality-specific issues rather than the general lifecycle.

12. Practical conclusion

For a real case, start with the legal basis and requested state, then identify the current procedural stage and the decision-maker at that stage. Only after that should you calculate deadlines, test bars or human-rights objections, and decide what evidence must be filed. The recurring sequence is useful; the controlling law is decisive.

Authoritative sources used

• [E1] Council of Europe — European Convention on Extradition, ETS No. 24
• [E2] Department of Justice Canada — General Overview of the Canadian Extradition Process
• [E3] Justice Laws Website — Extradition Act (Canada)
• [E4] GOV.UK — Extradition: processes and review
• [E5] UK legislation — Extradition Act 2003, section 141
• [E6] European Court of Human Rights — Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989
• [E7] European Court of Human Rights — Factsheet: Extradition and life imprisonment (April 2024)
• [E8] Council of Europe — Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, CETS No. 212

Sources were checked on 18 September 2026. Case-specific treaty status, protocol status and temporal scope, reservations, designations, amendments and procedural deadlines must be checked again for the states and stage involved.