Countries without extradition to Poland - it's not as easy as you think
- Damian Brzeski
- Sep 16
- 13 min read
Does "countries without extradition to Poland" sound like an escape map? A myth. The lack of an agreement isn't immunity, but a game of tensions between law and politics—from backdoor deportations to years-long battles like in the US.
Want to know where the "blank spaces" really end and where the EAW, the principle of reciprocity, and the human rights brake begin? Read on before you buy into the legend of safe haven.
Introduction to the topic of extradition
Before delving into the intricacies of international law, let's start with an absolutely crucial disclaimer. This article is for informational and analytical purposes only.
This is by no means legal advice, nor, more importantly, an invitation to avoid criminal liability. The foundation upon which our society is based is the principle that anyone who breaks the law should face the consequences. It's a simple social contract.
Nevertheless, life writes scenarios more complicated than many action movies. Sometimes situations arise in which verdicts raise legitimate doubts, and international cooperation in criminal matters becomes a fascinating playing field.
That is why it is worth taking a close look at how this powerful tool of extradition works.
Think of extradition as the long arm of international justice . Legally, it's a formal act by which one country (called the requested country) surrenders a person found on its territory to another (the requesting country).
The goal? A very specific one: to bring her to trial or to carry out a sentence already imposed.
This entire process is an expression of sovereign will and is based on mutual trust in legal systems, and its rules of the game are defined by international agreements.
Countries without extradition to Poland
The analysis of countries that are commonly considered "safe havens" for people prosecuted by the Polish justice system requires considerable precision.
It's crucial to distinguish between the lack of a formal extradition treaty and the actual impossibility of extraditing a person . These are two completely different worlds.
Countries without an extradition treaty with Poland
Although Poland has a dense network of international treaties regulating extradition, there are still blank spots on the world map – countries with which we have not concluded such formal agreements. Does this mean that a person prosecuted there enjoys impunity? Absolutely not! Thinking that the absence of a treaty guarantees impunity is a fundamental mistake.
The lack of an agreement significantly complicates and prolongs the entire procedure . It makes it more dependent on current diplomatic relations and political will, but it doesn't rule it out. Many countries allow extradition based on the principle of reciprocity —that is, an unwritten agreement: "we will extradite your fugitive today, and you will extradite your fugitive tomorrow."
In practice, the lack of an agreement shifts the burden of decision-making from the purely legal plane to the shaky political and diplomatic ground.
Below you will find a sample list of countries with which Poland does not have formal extradition treaties.
Geographical Region | Country | Comments |
Latin America | Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela | A region often chosen due to distance, language barriers and, in some cases, political instability or tense relations with Europe. |
Asia | Iran, North Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan | Countries with different legal and political systems, which significantly complicates cooperation. |
Africa | Eritrea, Mauritania, Somalia, South Sudan, Zimbabwe | These are often countries with an unstable internal situation or limited capacity for effective international cooperation. |
North America and the Caribbean | Belize, Jamaica, Costa Rica | Destinations perceived as attractive due to their tourist attractions and relatively stable living conditions. |
What are the most common countries chosen by people being prosecuted?
Choosing a safe haven is a game of chess, not a roll of the dice. The lack of an extradition treaty is just one of many factors. Those fleeing justice consider a whole range of factors:
Quality of life and social conditions: There is no denying that countries like Costa Rica, politically stable and popular with tourists, are a much more tempting option than failed states like Somalia.
Cultural and linguistic barriers: The greater the geographic and cultural distance, the more difficult it is for Polish law enforcement agencies to conduct effective operational activities.
Business opportunities: For those with significant capital, the ability to operate legally (or quasi-legally) and grow wealth in a new location is crucial.
Existing connections: Friends, family, business partners – any network of contacts makes it easier to acclimatize and hide.
Exotic destinations as a refuge from extradition
The decision to flee is often a compromise between the illusion of legal security and the reality of personal safety. On the one hand, we have countries that could be described as the "Wild West," such as Somalia and South Sudan.
A dysfunctional state apparatus may seem like the perfect shield against formal legal cooperation. However, the price of this illusion is enormous risk, a lack of basic services, and the constant threat of local warlords and criminal groups.
On the other hand, there are tourist havens like Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. While they may not have an agreement, they are much more willing to cooperate informally with Europe.
Why? To maintain its image and avoid being labeled a "safe haven for criminals." In such cases, even without a treaty, a country can resort to deportation under immigration laws . This is a backdoor measure that ultimately amounts to extradition.
A perfect example is the high-profile case of Paweł Szopa, a suspect in the Government Agency for Strategic Reserves scandal, who was extradited to Poland by the Dominican authorities.
This shows that the safe haven status is extremely fluid and can change overnight due to diplomatic pressure or a change of government.
What is extradition in international practice?
To understand why extradition is such a complicated and lengthy process, we need to look into its legal machinery.
How extradition proceedings work
In Polish law, the procedure for surrendering a wanted person (so-called passive extradition) is a two-stage procedure , which perfectly reflects its dual legal and political nature.
The jurisdictional (judicial) stage: It all begins with a request from a foreign state. It reaches our Ministry of Justice through diplomatic channels, and from there, it reaches the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor refers the case to the district court, whose role is absolutely crucial. The court examines solely the legal admissibility of extradition. It is not concerned with whether the person is guilty or not. It only checks whether the request meets formal requirements and whether there are no so-called absolute obstacles to extradition.
Ministerial (decision-making) stage: If the court deems extradition legally permissible, the entire file lands on the desk of the Minister of Justice. He or she makes the final, discretionary decision. Importantly, if the court rules inadmissibility, the minister's hands are tied – the case is closed. However, if the court's opinion is positive, the minister is not obligated to consent to extradition. He or she may refuse based on Polish interests or humanitarian considerations.
Provisions governing the extradition of a fugitive person
The legal basis for extradition is a specific pyramid of legal acts:
International treaties: They take absolute precedence over national law. In Europe, the foundation is the 1957 European Convention on Extradition .
National law: The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) , specifically Chapters 64 and 65, apply as an auxiliary measure when the contract does not regulate something or does not contain any provisions at all.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland: At the very top is Article 55 of the Constitution, which introduces a general ban on the extradition of Polish citizens, allowing for very precisely defined exceptions.
In practice, the entire procedure is based on two ironclad rules:
The principle of double criminality: Extradition is possible only if the act in question is a crime under the laws of both countries – Poland and the country requesting extradition.
Specialty rule: An extradited person cannot be prosecuted for any offense committed prior to extradition other than the one that gave rise to extradition. To expand the charges, the state must obtain the consent of the extraditing country.
The role of the prosecutor and the court in the extradition procedure
The prosecutor initiates legal proceedings. His or her role is to question the person concerned and bring the case to court.
The District Court is the body that rules on the legal admissibility of extradition. During the proceedings, it can order pretrial detention to prevent the fugitive from simply disappearing. This separation of powers is crucial: the court is the guardian of legality , and the minister is the guardian of state sovereignty .
Extradition from the USA to Poland
Cooperation with the United States, based on the 1996 agreement, is an example of an extremely complex and time-consuming procedure. It is a veritable legal marathon.
The case of Dariusz Przywieczerski
The high-profile case of Dariusz Przywieczerski, convicted in the FOZZ scandal, is a textbook example of these challenges. Sentenced in 2005 to 3.5 years in prison, he disappeared from the country before his sentencing. When he was traced to the US in 2006,
Poland filed an extradition request. The process of bringing him back to the country took over 12 years . He was finally handed over to Polish authorities in late 2018.
Why does extradition from the US take so long?
This lengthy process isn't a result of bureaucracy, but of fundamental procedural safeguards that are sacrosanct in the American legal system. The entire process is a multi-stage obstacle course:
Submitting an application: Poland submits a formal application with extensive documentary evidence.
Arrest and Proceedings: A federal prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant. A federal judge does not investigate guilt, but rather examines whether the evidence meets the standard of probable cause (reasonable basis to believe) that the person committed the crime.
The habeas corpus petition : This is a crucial moment. The judge's decision on extradition admissibility is not subject to regular appeal. However, the defendant has the right to file a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his or her detention. This triggers a separate, multi-level appeal process that can drag on for years.
Executive decision: After the final conclusion of the legal battle, the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, who may refuse for political reasons.
The habeas corpus procedure is a historic pillar of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, protecting individuals from arbitrary arrest. Its application in extradition cases forces Poland to be patient and wait until all legal avenues in the US have been exhausted.
The specificity of the American justice system
This probable cause standard of proof is much stricter than in Europe. It requires solid evidence from the outset.
An additional challenge is the fundamental differences between the common law system (based on precedents) and continental civil law (based on codes), which often leads to problems with the interpretation of documents.
Other examples of successful extraditions to Poland from other countries
Despite the difficulties, Poland regularly succeeds in bringing back fugitives. Successful extraditions have been widely reported:
Sebastian M. , suspected of causing a fatal accident on the A1, from the United Arab Emirates.
Dawid M. , suspected of murder on Nowy Świat in Warsaw, from Turkey.
A man wanted for 14 years from Great Britain.
Łukasz Ż. , suspected of causing an accident on the Łazienkowska Route, from Germany (this is an example of the use of a much faster procedure within the EU).
European Arrest Warrant as an alternative
A real revolution has taken place within the borders of the European Union, replacing the slow extradition with the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
How does the EAW work in European Union countries?
In simple terms, an EAW is a judicial decision issued in one EU country for the purpose of arresting and surrendering a person from another Member State.
The entire mechanism is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments , which can be translated as the principle of mutual trust. Courts in Spain trust courts in Poland, and vice versa, implementing each other's decisions almost automatically.
What is the difference between EAW and classic extradition?
The contrast between these two procedures is a clash of two worlds.
Characteristic | Classic extradition | European Arrest Warrant (EAW) |
Decision-making body | Court (admissibility) + Minister (decision) | Only a judicial authority |
The role of the political factor | The significant, final decision is political. | Eliminated , decisions are purely legal. |
Deadlines | Long-lasting (average 314 days ). | Strict and unextendable (max. 60 days ). |
The principle of double criminality | Basically mandatory. | Abolished for 32 categories of serious crimes. |
Extraditing one's own citizens | Often restricted or prohibited. | Compulsory , citizenship does not matter. |
What is Interpol?
Forget movies where Interpol agents burst into criminal hideouts, guns in hand. The reality is different. Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) is not a supranational police force . Rather, it's a global early warning system and an international bulletin board for police forces from 196 member countries.
Its most well-known tool is the Red Notice . And note: it 's not an international arrest warrant . It's merely a request to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and temporarily arrest a wanted person while awaiting a formal extradition request (or EAW).
The Red Notice is therefore a powerful information and location tool that only triggers the proper procedure.
The role of Polish institutions in the extradition process
Several key institutions are involved in the entire procedure.
Tasks of the Ministry of Justice
The Ministry of Justice acts as the main dispatcher for international legal transactions. It is here that applications from abroad arrive, and from here that Polish applications go out into the world.
However, the most important competence of the minister is, as we already know, to make the final, discretionary decision to extradite (or not extradite) a person.
No changes planned in the extradition procedure
Although classic extradition seems anachronistic compared to the EAW, there are currently no plans to fundamentally reform it. Instead, there are attempts to address very practical issues.
The government's agenda includes a project that aims to solve a prosaic but real problem: who should pay for the plane tickets for a deported person and the police officers escorting them when Poland does not have an agreement with a given country?
Currently, the lack of a legal basis for financing such operations can effectively block the arrest of the perpetrator.
Extradition Statistics and Trends
The numbers perfectly show how this institution works in practice.
What is the average duration of an extradition procedure?
Dr. Marta Mozgawa-Saj's research, conducted on files from 2005 to 2008, is merciless. The average duration of extradition proceedings was 314 days .
The longest recorded proceedings lasted a staggering 1,576 days —over four years! This data contrasts starkly with the maximum 60-day period under the EAW.
Decrease in the number of extradition requests in Poland
Does this mean that Poland is prosecuting criminals abroad less often? Quite the opposite. On the one hand, the number of extradition requests coming to Poland from non-EU countries is increasing.
On the other hand, after the introduction of the EAW, Poland became the absolute leader in its use. Between 2005 and 2013, Polish courts issued over 31,000 EAWs, representing 31% of all warrants in the EU! The conclusion?
The overall number of cases is enormous, but most of them are handled under the ultra-fast EAW procedure. Classic extradition has become a tool for special operations in relations with the rest of the world.
What are the factors influencing the effectiveness of extradition to Poland?
The final decision on extradition depends on many factors. The Polish Code of Criminal Procedure precisely defines when an extradition request can or must be refused.
The issue of admissibility of transferring a person
Article 604 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a whole list of "emergency brakes", dividing them into those that must be applied by the court and those that may be applied by the minister.
Absolute (obligatory) grounds - Article 604 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure | Relative (optional) grounds - Article 604 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure |
Applicable authority: District Court | Applicable authority: Minister of Justice |
The court must rule on the inadmissibility of extradition if: | The Minister may refuse extradition, even if the court has found it admissible, if: |
1. The person is a Polish citizen or has asylum in Poland. | 1. The person has a permanent place of residence in Poland. |
2. The act is not a crime in Poland. | 2. The crime was committed on the territory of the Republic of Poland. |
3. The statute of limitations for criminal liability has expired. | 3. Proceedings are pending in Poland for the same act. |
4. The case has already been finally judged. | 4. The crime is prosecuted at the private indictment. |
5. Extradition would be contrary to Polish law. | 5. The act is punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment. |
6. It is punishable by death. | 6. The crime is of a military, fiscal or political nature. |
7. There is a fear of violation of human rights and freedoms. | 7. The requesting state does not provide reciprocity. |
8. The application concerns a political crime. |
This distinction is fundamental. The court only examines legal barriers. It cannot refuse an application because someone has a home and family in Poland. Such an assessment, based on equity and the state's interests, rests solely with the minister.
Refusals by third countries and their reasons
The most common reasons for refusal are:
Citizenship: Many countries have a constitutional prohibition against extraditing their own citizens.
Political nature of the crime: A classic, though often controversial, obstacle.
Threat of death penalty or inhumane treatment.
No guarantee of a fair trial.
Applying for political asylum and health
Obtaining asylum status in Poland, as the table shows, is an absolute obstacle to extradition . Poor health, on the other hand, is not explicitly mentioned in the regulations.
However, it may become a basis for refusal based on the human rights clause (Article 604 § 1 item 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) if extradition would constitute inhuman treatment.
Extradition agreement between Poland and Russia
On paper, the 1996 agreement with Russia is still in force. In practice, after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and in the face of systemic human rights violations in Russia, cooperation in this area simply died.
According to media reports, Poland refused to extradite individuals to Russia at least eleven times in 2024. These refusals are almost certainly based on Article 604 § 1 item 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code – a justified fear that human rights and freedoms may be violated in Russia.
The Russian case is a prime example of how human rights clauses act as a " safety valve ." It's worth noting that, on a reciprocal basis, Russia has similarly responded to Polish extradition requests.
They allow a state to disregard an international agreement when the fundamental trust between countries, which is the basis for extradition, has been shattered. This is a triumph of protecting individual rights over the formality of treaties.
A few final thoughts
What follows from this journey through the world of extradition?
First, the myth of "safe harbor" is largely an illusion . The absence of an agreement doesn't guarantee impunity, "and that's all good." It merely changes the rules of the game from legal to more political and unpredictable ones.
The world is shrinking, and cooperation in crime prevention is growing stronger.
Secondly, classic extradition is a fascinating dance of law and politics, in which the court looks after the regulations and the executive branch looks after the interests of the state.
Third, the European Arrest Warrant is a true game-changer , demonstrating what cooperation based on trust can look like. It's a fast highway alongside the slow, winding road of classic extradition.
Finally, the growing importance of human rights places an effective barrier against extradition to authoritarian states.
Modern law strives to find a balance between two goals: the need to effectively prosecute criminals and the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of each of us. And this is perhaps the most important lesson from this entire story.
