Strategic defense against extradition requests from Ukraine, under the European Convention on Extradition, in the context of armed conflict.

Few legal situations combine so many levels at once as an extradition request linked to Ukraine. There is a technical level—which treaty applies, which crimes permit extradition—but there is also a human and geopolitical level that no file can ignore: a country at war, under martial law, with a judicial system operating under exceptional conditions.

For a businessperson, investor, or executive with operations in Eastern Europe, this is not abstract. Commercial disputes, investigations into economic crimes, or corporate conflicts can lead to a formal extradition request. And when that request arrives, the question that governs everything is not just «is extradition permissible?» but «what guarantees must the requesting state offer for Spain to agree to it?».

That word —warranties— is the key to this article. In the Ukrainian context, sufficient guarantee is not a formality: it is frequently the line separating a legitimate delivery from a violation of fundamental rights. It is worth understanding why.

Yes, there is a legal framework for extradition between Spain and Ukraine.

Yes, and it's important to clarify this precisely because a frequent mistake is made here. There is no specific bilateral extradition treaty between Spain and Ukraine, but yes, there is a conventional frameworkboth countries are part of European Convention on Extradition, done at Paris on December 13, 1957, in the framework of the Council of Europe. Spain ratified it by Instrument of April 21, 1982 (BOE-A-1982-13611) and it entered into force for Spain on August 5, 1982; Ukraine is also a party state.

That agreement is supplemented, subsidiarily, by the Law 4/1985, of March 21, on Passive Extradition, which covers the procedural gaps of the convention, and with the constitutional framework of Article 13.3 of the Spanish Constitution. The practical consequence is important: the defense has both the guarantees of the convention and the additional guarantees of Spanish law.

The general rule: what happens when there is no treaty?

It's worth pausing here because it's a principle that reappears in many international scenarios. When there is no bilateral treaty or applicable multilateral convention, Spain is neither automatically obligated nor prevented from extraditing: it can do so on the basis of principle of reciprocity (art. 13.3 CE and Law 4/1985). But in that scenario, the requesting State must offer sufficient guarantees, and Spain values them by a demanding standard.

In Ukraine's case, the European Convention on Extradition provides that framework, so we are not dealing with a pure case of the absence of a treaty. However, the context of the conflict raises the bar for the guarantees required within the convention itself. And it is important to keep this in mind because, in other scenarios —let's consider states without a convention or treaty with Spain—, sufficient guarantee ceases to be a complement and becomes the true axis of the procedure.

Extradition can be requested for crimes.

The European Convention on Extradition is based, as is customary, on the principle of dual criminalitythe act must be criminal in both states and reach a threshold of seriousness. In practice, requests linked to Ukraine affecting international profiles usually relate to economic crimes: fraud, embezzlement, corporate or financial offenses.

As always, the first task of the defense is to ascertain whether the specific act truly fits within the Spanish Penal Code, beyond the classification made by foreign authorities.

The guarantees that the agreement already imposes

The European Extradition Convention itself contains a system of safeguards that the defense can invoke:

• No extradition for political offenses (Article 3), with the exception of cases expressly excluded from that category.
• Non-discrimination clauseextradition is not granted when there are reasons to believe that the request seeks to prosecute or punish the person for their race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, or that their situation could be aggravated for those reasons. It is the door against the political instrumentalization of criminal proceedings — the lawfare—.
• Safeguards against the death penalty (Article 11): Extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides sufficient assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. This is the paradigmatic example of a «sufficient assurance.» (In the case of Ukraine, this scenario does not arise, as it has abolished the death penalty and is party to European protocols that prohibit it; however, the mechanism of assurance is the model that is transferred to other risks.)
• Principle of specialty (Article 14): The person handed over cannot be tried for acts other than those that motivated the extradition.
• No delivery of nationals (Article 6): Each State may reserve the right not to extradite its own nationals.

The Game-Changer: War and the Repeal of the European Convention on Human Rights

Here's the uniqueness of the Ukrainian case. Following the full-scale invasion of February 2022, Ukraine declared Martial law and notified the Council of Europe of a derogation of several obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, invoking Article 15 (communication of February 28, 2022). That repeal affected, among others, particularly sensitive rights for those facing extradition: the Right to freedom (Article 5) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6). On April 4, 2024, Ukraine significantly narrowed the scope of that repeal.

What does this mean for the defense? That some of the most relevant rights in criminal proceedings are formally subject to emergency restrictions in the requesting State. The consequence is not that extradition is impossible—Ukraine remains a member of the Council of Europe and subject to the control of the European Court of Human Rights—but that The demand for concrete and verifiable guarantees becomes indispensableguarantees regarding detention conditions, access to a fair trial with all safeguards, and effective protection of the claimant.

The limit that no war can surpass

Above any state of emergency, there is a core of rights that It is not eligible for repeal.. Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights itself clearly states that not even in wartime can a State suspend the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3), nor the prohibition of the death penalty provided for in the European protocols.

This connects with the doctrine that the European Court of Human Rights enshrined in Soering v. United Kingdom (1989): a European state cannot extradite a person if there is a real risk that they will suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. That threshold, absolute and non-derogable, is the strongest wall of defense. And in a scenario of armed conflict, proving or disproving that risk requires a serious, documented, and specific analysis—not a generic invocation.

And the risks inherent to armed conflict?

Beyond the strictly legal aspects, extradition to a country at war raises questions that the National Court must consider: the requesting State's actual capacity to fulfill the guarantees offered, the material conditions of detention centers, the continuity and predictability of judicial proceedings under martial law, and the security situation of the requested person. These elements are not peripheral: they are part of the judgment on whether extradition is compatible with fundamental rights and humanitarian considerations.

How does this affect a foreigner residing in Spain?

Directly. The nationality of the claimant modifies the defense map: a Spanish or Ukrainian national has different arguments than a national of a third country residing in Spain. In international profiles - with interests in various jurisdictions and, sometimes, dual nationality - the strategy requires coordinating Spanish law, European convention law, and, where applicable, the law of the country of nationality. That early coordination is often what makes the difference.

Preventive Strategy: Anticipate Before Arrest

As with any international criminal cooperation procedure, the most effective defense is designed before an arrest occurs. This involves assessing the real exposure to a claim, mapping the risk of cross-border movement, preparing exculpatory evidence and documentation on risks in the requesting state in advance, and monitoring international police cooperation channels early on, including INTERPOL diffusions.

Prevention is not evading justice. It is ensuring that, if proceedings are initiated, the person faces them from a position of control and with all guarantees in their favor.

Is there a way out? Yes, and it almost always involves guarantees.

Experience shows that in matters related to Ukraine, there are real margins of defense: requests stalled due to insufficient guarantees compared to the requesting state's conditions, deliveries conditioned on concrete and verifiable commitments, non-discrimination clauses that neutralize covert persecutions, and the unshakeable wall of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights when there is an accredited risk.

What these outcomes have in common is not luck. It's having identified the exact point—the missing guarantee, the inalienable right that is compromised, the applicable reason for denial—where the case is won. By discretion, these matters are always handled with confidentiality.

A defense designed for complex scenarios in Europe

In extradition and criminal cooperation procedures with Eastern European jurisdictions, simultaneous coordination between Spanish law, European law, and the requesting state's law is often crucial for building an effective strategy from day one. A single case may require action before the National High Court in Madrid, negotiation of diplomatic assurances, and real-time understanding of a judicial system operating under exceptional conditions.

Addressing this complexity requires a structure capable of operating in coordination across multiple locations. Through a network of correspondents and allied offices present in approximately fifteen jurisdictions across Europe, the Americas, and Asia, it is possible to articulate a unified legal response where the case demands it, without losing strategic coherence or discretion.

Conclusion: Sufficient guarantee as the axis of the defense

An extradition request linked to Ukraine is one of the most demanding scenarios a person with international exposure can face, precisely because it crosses law with the reality of a country at war. But it is, above all, a procedure with rules and guarantees.

The decisive variable is not the apparent gravity of the accusation: it is the quality of the guarantees required and the solidity with which the risks are proven. Who claims, under what agreement, with what verifiable commitments, and with what respect for non-derogable rights are the questions that decide the outcome. And they are almost always answered better before detention than after.

VENFORT Lawyers | International Defense Against Extradition and Criminal Cooperation

In matters involving Ukraine and other Eastern European jurisdictions, demanding and negotiating adequate guarantees—and rigorously assessing risks to fundamental rights—is as crucial as mastering Spanish legal procedure. VENFORT Lawyres crafts defense strategies by coordinating Spanish and European law with an understanding of the requesting state's environment, through a network of correspondents and allied firms in strategic locations across Europe, the Americas, and Asia.

From our offices at Madrid and Caracas, we offer entrepreneurs, executives, family offices, and individuals with international exposure a unified, technical, and discreet response.

If you need a confidential assessment of your situation, you can request one private consultation. Discretion and anticipation are, almost always, the best defense.

Frequently asked questions

• Yes, there is an extradition treaty between Spain and Ukraine. There is no specific bilateral treaty, but both countries are parties to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, which constitutes the applicable framework, supplemented subsidiarily by Law 4/1985 on Passive Extradition.

• Can Spain extradite someone to a country at war? It is not ruled out in principle, but the conflict situation requires reinforced scrutiny of the guarantees: conditions of detention, access to a fair trial, and above all, the absence of a risk of torture or inhuman treatment, which is an absolute and non-derogable limit.

• What does it mean that Ukraine has «repealed» part of the European Convention on Human Rights? Which, by martial law, notified the temporary suspension of certain rights—including those related to freedom and a fair trial—significantly reduced in April 2024. It does not affect non-derogable rights, such as the prohibition of torture, and proportionality remains enforceable.

• What is sufficient assurance in an extradition? It is the concrete and verifiable commitment that the requesting State must offer for Spain to agree to extradition when there are risks to the rights of the requested person. When there is no treaty, moreover, reciprocity and guarantees become the focus of the procedure.

• Are you a foreign resident in Spain? Does a request from Ukraine affect you? Yes. A defense that coordinates Spanish law, European conventional law, and the law of your country of nationality is advisable, as nationality decisively influences the available options.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case. Each situation requires an individualized and confidential analysis.