How to Stop Extradition from Russia: Grounds for Refusal, Appeals and Deadlines

What should you do as soon as an extradition decision arrives?

Ask immediately for the written decision, its date, the date and proof of delivery, and an understandable translation. Article 462(5) requires written notice and advice about judicial review. Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 11 (Постановление Пленума Верховного Суда РФ от 14.06.2012 № 11), paragraph 24, explains that a copy must be delivered with the notice and translated for a person who does not sufficiently understand Russian. Keep the envelope, receipt, detention-facility register entry and correspondence: they may determine when the 10-day period began.

Under Article 463(1), the requested person or defence counsel files in the supreme court of a republic, territorial or regional court, federal-city court, or equivalent court at the person's location, not automatically in Moscow merely because the Prosecutor General signed the decision. Someone held in Moscow may challenge in Moscow City Court; the competent court elsewhere depends on the place of detention. Article 463(2) requires the detention facility to send a complaint addressed to the court immediately and notify the prosecutor. Give the facility a dated copy and ask for confirmation it was received. Relatives can collect evidence and instruct counsel but should not assume they can lodge this special complaint in their own name.

The prosecutor must forward materials justifying the decision within 10 days, and the judge is to check the complaint within one month after the court receives it (Article 463(3)–(4)). These are different clocks from the person's initial filing deadline. A timely challenge engages the suspension provided by Article 462(6); merely asking the prosecutor to reconsider or writing to an embassy is not a substitute.

Which grounds make extradition impermissible, and which allow refusal?

Article 464 divides the grounds into mandatory exclusions (part 1: surrender is not permitted) and discretionary grounds (part 2: refusal is possible). Evidence must be tied to the actual charges, citizenship and requested state. A defence should also compare the applicable treaty, which can impose additional protections or conditions.

The 2026 military-service clause is narrow and should not be turned into a general bar for any foreign national claiming past service. Similarly, a pending Russian investigation falls under discretionary part 2 rather than the mandatory final-disposition ground in part 1. The table does not replace a comparison with the specific treaty and any relevant reservations.

Can the foreign charges be challenged for double criminality or time limits?

Articles 462(1) and 462(3) require conduct criminal in both countries, with Russian statutory punishment thresholds: for prosecution the relevant offence ordinarily carries more than one year of imprisonment, and for sentence enforcement the imposed custodial sentence is at least six months; treaty-specific thresholds must also be checked. Article 462(3)(3) calls for speciality and onward-transfer assurances. Supreme Court Plenum No. 11, paragraphs 5–6, warns that differences in names or elements of an offence alone do not defeat dual criminality. Prepare a two-column factual comparison, rather than arguing that the foreign statute has no identically named Russian counterpart.

Limitation periods are more fact-sensitive. Under Plenum No. 11, paragraphs 7–8, an applicable European Extradition Convention case can be barred when prosecution or punishment is time-barred under the applicable rules of either country, but alleged evasion may interrupt or suspend calculation. The prosecutor bears the burden of substantiating evasion; a person's move abroad does not justify an automatic conclusion that they deliberately absconded. Obtain the dated arrest order, notice of the foreign proceedings, records of travel and address registration, and copies of laws in force at the relevant dates. The court examines legal obstacles to surrender, not whether the accused is factually guilty.

How does the requesting country's treaty change the defence?

Russia remains listed as a party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 024), effective for Russia from 9 March 2000, notwithstanding its separate departure from the European Convention on Human Rights in 2022. Check whether the requesting country too is a party, and verify Russia's reservations and the relevant Protocols. Articles 3, 10, 11 and 16 concern political-offence issues, limitation, death-penalty assurances and provisional arrest; the precise text and reservations matter. The Council of Europe Treaty Office records Russia's instruments, including the Fourth Additional Protocol effective from 1 September 2017.

For some Commonwealth of Independent States requests, the 1993 Minsk Convention or 2002 Chisinau Convention, when in force between the two states, changes the provisional-arrest deadline. Plenum No. 11, paragraph 19, describes a one-month pre-request limit under Minsk, 40 days where its 1997 Protocol applies, and 40 days under Chisinau. These are conditional limits before a formal request is received, not a universal 40-day maximum for all extradition cases. Without a treaty, Article 462 permits reciprocity in the prescribed circumstances. Russia is not in the EU, so a European Arrest Warrant is not the procedure for extradition from Russia.

What evidence establishes a risk of torture or the death penalty?

Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and Plenum No. 11, paragraphs 11–14, matter where credible information suggests a real personal risk of torture or severe ill-treatment. The Supreme Court instructs courts to examine both current country conditions and the individual's circumstances, using testimony, medical records, expert assessments, credible reports and the foreign state's assurances. Where a relevant extradition treaty contains a death-penalty clause, consider whether legally sufficient assurances have been supplied. Assertions about a country's general reputation without proof tied to the person may be inadequate; equally, generic diplomatic assurances need examination in context.

Give counsel coherent evidence: previously documented threats, medical and detention records, public statements naming the person, criminal allegations linked to protected activity, and recent reports by UN monitoring bodies. Distinguish material that supports political persecution from that which supports the separate absolute prohibition on return to torture. Plenum No. 11, paragraph 14, places on Russian prosecutors the obligation to substantiate the absence of serious grounds for these risks when the extradition decision is challenged; the applicant should still supply the evidence they possess.

Does claiming asylum stop the extradition appeal?

Do not confuse three stages: applying for protection, receiving a formal protected status, and challenging the extradition order. A grant qualifying under Article 464(1)(2) can bar surrender. A pending asylum claim is not the same as an already granted asylum status and should be substantiated with its receipt, case number and evidence. Plenum No. 11, paragraph 26, is particularly important: if asylum is sought after the prosecutor's decision, the extradition-review court normally assesses the facts as they stood at the date of that decision and does not postpone the Article 463 appeal simply because the new protection application exists. But actual handover is not to occur before that asylum request and any available review of its refusal are resolved. Counsel must therefore keep both proceedings active and notify the authorities of their status.

This is why a family's question, “We applied for refugee status yesterday: is tomorrow's extradition appeal cancelled?” has no simple yes/no answer. The judicial review can continue, while the separate protection process may prevent actual surrender. Obtain proof of filing and ask for the specific legal decision on the protection claim rather than assuming that any informal statement freezes everything. Extradition and administrative removal are separate procedures; assess any removal decision separately and see the guide to extradition versus deportation.

Can extradition detention be challenged before the final decision?

Yes, but use the correct remedy. Article 466(2) permits the prosecutor, if a requesting-state judicial detention decision accompanies the extradition request, initially to order custody without separate Russian judicial confirmation. Plenum No. 11, paragraph 21, limits that prosecutor-imposed custody to two months from detention and points to judicial review under CPC Article 125. Further custody extensions require a Russian court. Where the foreign judicial decision is absent, the detention measure must be obtained through the Russian judicial mechanism under Articles 108 and 466(1). Plenum paragraphs 15–17, 20–23 distinguish these situations and require an assessment of alternatives and statutory custody limits.

A detention challenge ordinarily goes to the district-level court with jurisdiction over the challenged act or detention; it is not the Article 463 merits challenge decided by the regional-level court. Review the custody order's author, date, legal basis, expiry and supporting foreign order. Show stable residence, family commitments, medical conditions, willingness to attend, and less restrictive alternatives where evidenced. Plenum paragraph 17 rejects automatic reliance on the complexity of the foreign case, the mere existence of an extradition appeal or a prolonged asylum inquiry as sufficient reasons for detention. Release from extradition custody does not by itself cancel the prosecution authority's surrender decision. The Supreme Court Plenum’s Resolution No. 1 of 10 February 2009, as amended on 9 December 2025 (paragraphs 6 and 19), confirms Article 125 review of a prosecutor’s extradition-custody order; however, its general territorial rules do not make the district where a person is detained automatically competent in every extradition-only case, so counsel should confirm venue with the court registry immediately.

Which appeal deadline applies after the regional court rules?

Article 463(9) now directs appeals to a court of appeal of general jurisdiction, not automatically to the Supreme Court of Russia as older web pages and superseded procedural descriptions say. Ordinary appellate rules, including Article 389.4's 15-day rule, must be assessed against the precise judicial ruling and date of service. If time is close, file a reasoned complaint promptly and have counsel verify the registry and any applicable restoration application; never plan around the outer limit without confirming when it began. The appeal itself concerns the extradition court's legal determination, not a second foreign criminal trial.

Cassation after the appeal: Article 463 expressly provides for an appeal but does not set a separate cassation deadline. After the appellate decision, ask counsel to check whether this type of order qualifies for cassation under Chapter 47.1, Articles 401.1 and 401.3 of the current CPC. Article 401.3 was amended by Federal Law No. 78-FZ of 9 April 2026. The available court and filing period depend on the classification of the decision. Do not assume a cassation complaint automatically suspends surrender.

Is a constitutional complaint or international urgent measure available?

A constitutional complaint challenges a normative rule applied in the person's concluded case, not the facts of a foreign accusation and not simply the prosecutor's opinion. Constitutional Court Law Articles 96–97 require exhaustion of domestic judicial remedies and generally a one-year filing window; Article 98 does not make filing an automatic suspension of handover. In limited situations a court may stay execution after acceptance, or the Constitutional Court may issue a binding direction on suspension. Counsel should not substitute that path for the timely Article 463 complaint or ordinary appeal.

Russia ceased to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights on 16 September 2022. The European Court of Human Rights retained jurisdiction over certain earlier events, not post-September-2022 Russian extradition decisions; Rule 39 cannot be promised as a current stay for new facts.

Urgent measures from a UN treaty body are separate from Strasbourg. Russia remains listed as a party to the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, so an individual communication to the UN Human Rights Committee may be considered if admissibility requirements are met; this does not guarantee interim measures or a domestic stay. Whether an individual communication and an interim request are available depends on the particular treaty's complaint mechanism, the requesting state, admissibility, evidence of imminent irreparable harm, and the body's procedures. Filing does not itself establish a domestic suspension under Article 462. A lawyer should independently verify acceptance and any communicated protective request; there is no universal UN emergency order that automatically replaces the Russian judicial appeal.

A conditional example: an extradition request concerning a relative in Moscow

Hypothetical: A Tajik citizen is held in Moscow on a request arising from alleged conduct several years earlier. Her daughter receives a copy of the Prosecutor General's surrender decision and asks if the court can determine innocence. Counsel checks when the detainee received the decision, files an Article 463 complaint in Moscow City Court within 10 days, and requests the evidence underlying any claim that limitation periods were suspended by evasion. The daughter supplies old address-registration and travel records. If there is credible individualized risk of ill-treatment, counsel presents medical and relevant country material too. If detention itself is unsupported, counsel challenges that measure by the appropriate separate route. The court tests the legality and substantiation of extradition, not the truth of the foreign charges. The outcome depends on the documents and applicable treaty, not the example.

Which remedy should be filed first?

Choose the route by the document you are challenging; parallel proceedings do not replace one another:

1. You have the Prosecutor General’s written surrender decision: the requested person or defence counsel should prepare the Article 463 complaint to the regional-level court where the person is located, counting 10 days from receipt of notice. Preserve proof of filing and ask the detention facility to transmit the complaint immediately if the person is held.
2. You have a prosecutor’s custody order made with a foreign judicial detention decision: examine an Article 125 complaint to the competent district court, the date detention began and the two-month limit in Plenum paragraph 21. If a Russian court ordered or extended custody, challenge that judicial order through its own appeal route under Articles 108–109 and the applicable procedural deadline.
3. You have a pending asylum or refugee application: keep that protection case active and provide proof of filing, but do not postpone the Article 463 complaint. The extradition review may proceed even though physical handover must await the protection decision and any available appeal after refusal.
4. You rely on torture, death-penalty or persecution risk: submit individualized evidence and current country material in the Article 463 case, and check the exact treaty and reservations. A later constitutional complaint or an international communication is not a substitute for the timely domestic challenge.

What if an INTERPOL notice is involved?

A Red Notice or diffusion may prompt a location request or provisional arrest, but it is not the Prosecutor General’s extradition decision and does not itself authorize handover. A challenge to data through INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is a separate review process; it does not replace the 10-day Article 463 challenge or automatically suspend Russian proceedings. Preserve the notice details and use the separate INTERPOL guide to Red Notices, diffusions and CCF requests if that track is relevant.

Mistakes that can defeat an otherwise arguable defence

• Counting 10 days from the date the Prosecutor General signed the decision, rather than receipt of notification, without preserving service records.
• Sending only a letter to the Prosecutor General, consulate or international organisation and assuming it replaces a court complaint.
• Using a complaint about custody as if it automatically appealed the extradition order, or the reverse.
• Arguing solely about factual innocence rather than a bar, the required treaty conditions, or proven transfer risk (Article 463(6)).
• Treating a pending asylum application as though it were an existing grant, or waiting for that application before meeting the extradition appeal deadline.
• Treating a historical ECHR judgment, Interpol notice or informal diplomatic statement as a self-executing order preventing handover.

For a fuller explanation of arrest, treaty requests and the stages before the decision, see the related guide to extradition from Russia. This page concerns stopping or challenging surrender, not general procedure.

For case-specific coordination between jurisdictions, the site's team can work with independent local counsel; you can request a consultation.