Introduction
Extradition requests in the United Arab Emirates are subject to scrutiny in accordance with the provisions of Federal Law No. (39) of 2006 concerning International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, as well as the agreement between the United Arab Emirates and a foreign European country on the extradition of offenders.
In the case under review, a request was submitted by the foreign country for the extradition of one of its nationals, accused of committing acts outside its territory. This raised the issue of whether, or not, the conditions for extradition and the grounds for refusal were met.
Case Study
In a recent matter handled by our litigation team, the United Arab Emirates received a formal extradition request from a foreign country through the duly established diplomatic channels. The request was accompanied by a comprehensive extradition file, duly certified by the competent foreign country’s authorities.
The individual sought was accused of committing offences within the territory of the requesting state being the foreign country; specifically, as a fraud for obtaining benefits in return for acting to the detriment of an economic entity, and failing to fulfil contractual or statutory obligations. The foreign country’s judicial authorities had issued a formal arrest warrant in respect of these charges, and an Interpol Red Notice had been circulated internationally to facilitate his location and apprehension.
The extradition file contained detailed personal information about the requested person, including a precise physical description and a recent photograph. It further enclosed certified copies of the relevant provisions of the foreign country’s law applicable to the alleged offences, together with the prescribed penalties and applicable limitation periods. The file also incorporated a comprehensive evidentiary file prepared by the investigating judge in the foreign country, as well as the official arrest warrant issued by the foreign country judicial authorities for the offences forming the subject of the request.
The Defence Strategy
The defence argued that all acts attributed to the requested person took place outside the territory of the requesting state, and that all the contracts and transactions forming the subject of the accusation were carried out within the territory of third-party foreign.
It was further pointed out that the file contained no evidence whatsoever indicating that any part of the constituent acts of the offence occurred in the foreign country, The file also lacked any proof or legal evidence that such offences are criminalized in the third foreign country in whose territory the offence occurred. nor did the file contain any provisions granting the requesting state jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed outside its territory.
The defence also argued that the extradition request had a political character, which constitutes a ground for refusal of extradition under the law, in accordance with Article 9(5) of Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, which provides that extradition shall be refused if there are serious reasons to believe that the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, or that any of these reasons may prejudice the position of such person.
The Court’s Interpretation
Whereas it is clear from the particulars of the extradition request that the person whose extradition is sought holds the nationality of the foreign country, and that the offence attributed to him occurred while he was outside the foreign country’s territory, specifically a third-party foreign country, the extradition file contains no indication that any part of the constituent acts of the offence occurred within under the third-party foreign territory, or that its result was intended to occur there, nor that any of his alleged accomplices in the offence were within the foreign country’s territory at the time of its commission.
The file is also devoid of any legal provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the requesting state over offences committed partly outside foreign country territory and lacks any evidence that the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable under the third-party foreign country’s laws to vest the requesting state with jurisdiction. This is in accordance with Article (20) of the UAE Penal Code, which grants UAE court’s jurisdiction to try its citizens for offences committed abroad, provided that the act is punishable under the law of the country where it occurred.
For the court to apply the provisions of the applicable treaty, it must be satisfied that the requesting state has territorial jurisdiction to prosecute the requested person for the offence attributed to him, which occurred outside its territory. The lack of such jurisdiction leads the court to conclude that extradition to the competent authorities of the requesting state is not possible.
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of verifying the fulfilment of the legal conditions for extradition, whether set out in international treaties or in national laws, particularly in relation to territorial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, this judgment emphasises the pivotal role of defence counsel in complex international cases, especially those involving the intersection of multiple legal systems and international agreements and confirms that the success of the defence depends on the ability to dismantle the extradition file and identify substantive gaps in the legal requirements for extradition.
In extradition matters, profile or pressure, extradition cannot proceed without conformity to UAE law and treaty terms, as the requesting state must still prove it has clear territorial jurisdiction and meet all legal conditions under both international agreements and the domestic law of the requested state i.e. UAE law.
To sum this case shows that:
- The UAE courts will scrutinise every detail of the request, from jurisdiction to evidentiary sufficiency.
- The failure of the requesting state to provide required legal documentation can defeat what appears to be a valid extradition on its face.
- Defence strategy matters; identifying legal gaps, such as acts committed entirely outside the requesting state’s territory, can dismantle an otherwise complete-looking file.
- Political motives or lack of dual criminality remain strong grounds for refusal.
In short, international legal cooperation stops at the border of sovereign legal safeguards especially without proper jurisdiction and compliance, even high-profile extradition requests will fail. Extradition succeeds only when all treaty conditions, domestic law requirements, and jurisdictional tests are fully satisfied.
Disclaimer
This publication does not provide any legal advice, and it is for information purposes only. You should not rely upon the material or information in this publication as a basis for making any business, legal, or other decisions. Therefore, any reliance on such material is strictly at your own risk.
Prepared by: Dr. Salman Al Tuweel, Ahmed Fawzy, Mohamed HASSAN & Abdulkadir Cetinkaya
