Home > Extradition from UAE — Complete Guide by Country (2026) > Extradition from UAE to Europe — Country-by-Country Guide > UAE Extradition to Georgia: Legal Guide 2026

UAE Extradition to Georgia: Legal Guide 2026

“`html

The United Arab Emirates does not maintain a bilateral extradition treaty with Georgia, yet extradition between the two jurisdictions remains possible through Interpol cooperation and application of UAE Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Georgia, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and an EU-associated state, has developed a sophisticated legal framework governing extradition requests. When Georgian authorities seek the extradition of an individual present in the UAE, the process unfolds through UAE federal courts, beginning with provisional arrest and culminating in a decision by the Federal Supreme Court. The absence of a formal treaty does not preclude extradition; instead, it places greater emphasis on reciprocal assurances, human rights compliance, and adherence to principles of international law. Individuals facing extradition requests to Georgia from the UAE have substantial grounds to challenge such requests, including violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, risks of torture or ill-treatment, absence of dual criminality, and political offence exceptions. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal mechanisms, procedural safeguards, and strategic defences available under UAE law when confronting Georgian extradition demands. Understanding these principles is critical for anyone in the UAE facing potential extradition to Georgia, as the outcome depends on sophisticated legal arguments and timely intervention at each stage of the process.

UAE–Georgia Extradition Legal Framework

The extradition relationship between the UAE and Georgia operates outside the traditional bilateral treaty framework. Unlike numerous European states that maintain formal extradition treaties with one another, the UAE and Georgia have not concluded a dedicated bilateral extradition agreement. This absence, however, does not prevent extradition from occurring. Instead, the legal foundation rests upon three pillars: Interpol cooperation mechanisms, reciprocal assurances between the two states, and the application of UAE Federal Law No. 39 of 2006.

Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters serves as the primary governing statute for all extradition matters in the UAE. This law establishes the procedural and substantive requirements that must be satisfied before a person may be extradited from UAE territory. Critically, Article 1 of Federal Law 39/2006 defines the law’s scope to encompass judicial cooperation including extradition, and Article 2 establishes that extradition may be granted even in the absence of a bilateral treaty, provided that reciprocity exists and the conditions set forth in the law are met. This provision creates a framework for treaty-less extradition based on reciprocal commitment to judicial cooperation.

Interpol’s role is substantial in UAE–Georgia extradition cases. When Georgian authorities identify a fugitive believed to be in the UAE, they typically lodge a Red Notice through Interpol’s international diffusion system. This Red Notice alerts UAE law enforcement agencies to the person’s location and the outstanding charges. The Red Notice serves as a trigger for provisional arrest under Article 17 of Federal Law 39/2006, which permits detention pending formal receipt of an extradition request. However, a Red Notice is not itself a formal extradition request; Georgia must separately submit an official request through diplomatic channels to the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which then forwards the request to the competent federal courts.

Georgia’s legal position within the European framework affects the extradition analysis. Georgia is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and although it is not an EU member state, it maintains an EU Association Agreement, which includes commitments to democratic governance, rule of law, and human rights protection. These international commitments are relevant considerations in UAE extradition proceedings, as Article 7 of Federal Law 39/2006 requires that extradition not violate fundamental human rights principles. The ECHR obligations Georgia has assumed become relevant evidence of the state’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights and thus the reliability of Peruvian assurances regarding the treatment of an extradited person.

Georgia also maintains a comprehensive asylum and refugee protection regime, which demonstrates a commitment to international humanitarian law. This framework is pertinent because it suggests Georgia’s judicial system respects principles of international protection and due process. However, the mere existence of such frameworks does not automatically render extradition safe; specific circumstances regarding the requesting state’s treatment of the individual must be evaluated.

The absence of a bilateral treaty means that UAE courts exercise greater discretion in evaluating extradition requests from Georgia compared to requests from treaty partners. Articles 3 through 16 of Federal Law 39/2006 establish substantive conditions for extradition that apply regardless of treaty status. These conditions include dual criminality (the conduct must be criminal under both UAE and Georgian law), the gravity threshold (the offense typically must carry a sentence of at least one year imprisonment), and procedural safeguards including the political offence exception and the rule against extradition for religious or political persecution.

The diplomatic dimension of UAE–Georgia extradition must not be underestimated. While Federal Law 39/2006 provides the legal mechanism, the decision to proceed with extradition ultimately reflects foreign policy considerations and bilateral relations between the two states. The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs plays a coordinating role, and political factors may influence whether a request is prioritized or pursued vigorously. This diplomatic element creates potential avenues for negotiation and intervention that do not appear explicitly in the statutory framework.

The Extradition Process: UAE to Georgia

The extradition process from the UAE to Georgia unfolds through a clearly defined procedural pathway established by Federal Law 39/2006 and UAE case law. Understanding each stage is essential for mounting an effective defence and ensuring that all procedural safeguards are invoked at the appropriate moment.

Stage One: Provisional Arrest

The process typically commences when a Red Notice is circulated through Interpol or when Georgian authorities submit an urgent extradition request to UAE authorities. Article 17 of Federal Law 39/2006 authorizes provisional arrest when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an extraditable offence and is present in the UAE territory. This arrest does not require a formal extradition request at the outset; the Red Notice or an urgent communication suffices. Provisional arrest may be ordered by a federal court judge or, in urgent circumstances, by the Public Prosecution authorities pending judicial confirmation.

The person arrested must be informed of the extradition request and the charges within a specified period, typically 30 days as outlined in Article 18 of Federal Law 39/2006. This notice requirement is critical because it initiates the person’s right to be heard and to instruct legal counsel. The detained person may seek immediate release through an application to the federal court, arguing that the provisional arrest is unlawful or that no reasonable grounds exist. This stage represents the first opportunity to challenge the extradition process, and any procedural irregularities at this point may invalidate the entire proceeding.

Stage Two: Formal Extradition Request and Court Examination

Once provisional arrest has been effected, Georgian authorities must submit a formal extradition request through diplomatic channels to the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which forwards it to the competent federal court. This request must comply with Article 10 of Federal Law 39/2006, which specifies the required documentation: a certified copy of the conviction judgment or arrest warrant, a detailed description of the offence and the applicable legal provisions, particulars of the person sought, information regarding the sentence imposed or sought, and confirmation that the offence meets the dual criminality requirement and the gravity threshold.

Upon receipt of a formal extradition request, the federal court of first instance (typically the federal court in the emirate where the person is detained) examines the request and the supporting documents. This examination is not a trial; rather, it is a preliminary judicial review to determine whether the formal requirements of Federal Law 39/2006 have been satisfied. The court verifies that the request complies with Article 10 documentation requirements, that dual criminality exists, that the offence is not a political offence, and that the person’s fundamental rights would not be violated by extradition.

The person sought has the right to appear before the court, to be represented by legal counsel, and to present arguments in opposition to extradition. This hearing, sometimes referred to as the extradition hearing or examination hearing, is the primary opportunity to present substantive defences. The court must hear the person’s arguments regarding violations of the ECHR, torture risks, lack of dual criminality, political motivation, and any other grounds for refusal enumerated in Federal Law 39/2006.

The federal court issues a judgment either approving the extradition or refusing it. If the court approves extradition, it submits its decision and the case file to the Federal Supreme Court. If the court refuses extradition, Georgia may not typically appeal, and the person is released from the extradition process (though may remain subject to local criminal proceedings if applicable).

Stage Three: Federal Supreme Court Review

All cases in which a federal court of first instance approves extradition must be submitted to the Federal Supreme Court for final review and decision. Article 19 of Federal Law 39/2006 establishes this appellate safeguard. The Federal Supreme Court conducts a comprehensive review of both the legal compliance of the lower court’s decision and the substantive lawfulness of the extradition under international law principles. This is not merely a rubber-stamp approval; the Federal Supreme Court has the authority to reverse a lower court’s decision and refuse extradition if it finds grounds for refusal exist.

Both the person sought and Georgia (through the Public Prosecution or Ministry of Foreign Affairs) may present written arguments to the Federal Supreme Court. The person’s legal team must prepare comprehensive legal briefs addressing all grounds for refusal, supported by documentary evidence, expert testimony regarding conditions in Georgia, and detailed analysis of the applicable law. The Federal Supreme Court’s decision is final and binding; no further appeal is available.

Timeline and Detention

The entire process typically requires between 3 and 12 months, depending on the complexity of the case, the quality of Georgian documentation, and the number of adjournments granted. During this period, the person sought remains in detention unless the court grants bail. Bail in extradition cases is discretionary and granted rarely in the UAE; courts typically maintain that extradition cases warrant continued detention due to flight risk. However, applications for interim release based on health grounds, humanitarian circumstances, or procedural delays should be pursued aggressively.

Grounds to Challenge Extradition to Georgia

Federal Law 39/2006 and principles of international law recognized by the UAE provide multiple grounds upon which an extradition request to Georgia may be challenged. A successful defence typically rests on demonstrating that at least one ground for refusal applies and that the court’s discretion should be exercised in favour of refusing extradition.

Dual Criminality

Article 2 of Federal Law 39/2006 requires that the conduct for which extradition is sought be criminal under the laws of both the UAE and Georgia. This is known as the dual criminality requirement. If the alleged conduct does not constitute an offence under UAE law, extradition is prohibited. The requirement applies to the essential elements of the offence; the specific legal denomination or classification need not be identical, but the underlying criminal conduct must be recognized as unlawful in both jurisdictions.

Challenges based on dual criminality are particularly valuable when the Georgian offence involves conduct that, while criminal in Georgia, may not be recognized as criminal in the UAE or may be subject to different legal standards. For example, certain regulatory offences, offences dependent on specific intent that differs between jurisdictions, or offences criminalizing conduct that the UAE considers protected speech or political activity may fail the dual criminality test.

Political Offence Exception

Article 3 of Federal Law 39/2006 provides that extradition shall not be granted for political offences. This exception has deep roots in international extradition law and reflects the principle that states should not serve as enforcement mechanisms for the political persecution of individuals. Georgia, as a state with recent political history and ongoing regional tensions, is a jurisdiction where political offence characterization may be relevant.

The political offence exception encompasses two categories: purely political offences (such as sedition, treason, or offences against the state security where the motivation is purely political) and relative political offences (ordinary crimes, such as violence or property damage, committed in the context of political activity). The test typically examines the nature of the offence, the motive for committing it, and the surrounding political circumstances. If an offence is nominally characterized as a common crime in Georgia but is actually prosecuted due to the person’s political opposition, criticism of the government, or involvement in opposition activities, the political offence exception may apply.

Given Georgia’s EU Association Agreement and its commitment to democratic principles, the government is theoretically bound to respect political freedoms. However, allegations of political motivation in prosecutions may still arise, particularly in cases involving regional disputes, minority rights issues, or opposition activism. Demonstrating that a Georgian prosecution has political motivation requires detailed evidence regarding the prosecution’s selective application, the person’s political activities, statements by Georgian officials concerning political objectives, and comparative treatment of similarly situated individuals.

European Convention on Human Rights Violations and Fundamental Rights

Article 7 of Federal Law 39/2006 establishes that extradition shall not be granted if it would constitute a violation of fundamental human rights. This provision incorporates international human rights law, including the ECHR, into the extradition analysis. Because Georgia is an ECHR signatory, the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on extradition is highly relevant.

The primary human rights grounds for refusing extradition relate to the fair trial guarantees in Article 6 of the ECHR and the prohibition on torture in Article 3. If the person can demonstrate that Georgian judicial proceedings would violate fair trial rights—through evidence of bias, lack of independence, denial of legal representation, or systematic defects in Georgia’s criminal justice system—extradition may be refused. Similarly, if there is a substantial risk that the person would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in Georgia, Article 3 extradition bars apply.

Establishing a violation of Article 3 requires demonstrating more than poor prison conditions or ordinary hardship; the treatment must reach the threshold of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment as defined by the European Court of Human Rights. However, evidence of endemic problems in Georgian prisons, specific risks faced by political prisoners, LGBTQ+ individuals, or other vulnerable groups may support such claims. Similarly, if the person has been previously detained in Georgia and subjected to mistreatment, this evidence is particularly persuasive.

Additionally, Article 8 of the ECHR (respect for private and family life) may be engaged in cases where extradition would result in separation from family members, particularly dependent children, in the UAE. However, this ground is rarely decisive in extradition cases, as states generally accord little weight to such considerations.

Ne Bis in Idem (Double Jeopardy)

Article 4 of Federal Law 39/2006 provides that extradition shall not be granted if the person has previously been finally acquitted or convicted for the same conduct by a court of competent jurisdiction. This principle, known as ne bis in idem, is deeply embedded in international criminal law and is protected by Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the ECHR, to which Georgia is a signatory.

If the person was previously prosecuted in any jurisdiction (including Georgia itself, the UAE, or a third country) and was acquitted or convicted of the same offence or substantially the same conduct, extradition should be refused. This ground requires careful analysis of the definitions of “same conduct” and “competent jurisdiction.” If the person was previously acquitted in Georgia but Georgia now seeks to retry him for the same offence, this would clearly violate ne bis in idem. However, if the person was acquitted of a lesser included offence and is now sought for a more serious offence based on the same facts, the analysis is more nuanced and may turn on whether the new charge constitutes an impermissible retrial for the same conduct.

Risk of Torture or Ill-Treatment

As noted above, Article 3 of the ECHR prohibition on torture is incorporated into UAE extradition law. Establishing a substantial risk of torture requires detailed evidence regarding Georgia’s treatment of prisoners, particularly in contexts where the person has specific vulnerabilities. Evidence relevant to this analysis includes: reports by international human rights organizations regarding Georgian prisons and law enforcement practices; expert testimony from individuals familiar with Georgian detention conditions; documentation of previous mistreatment of the person in Georgian custody; testimony from other persons who have been detained in Georgia regarding conditions and treatment; and Georgia’s record of compliance with international human rights standards.

The threshold for establishing a substantial risk is “a real and tangible risk” rather than a mere possibility. However, the person need not prove that torture is certain; rather, demonstrated patterns of abuse, combined with the person’s particular circumstances, may suffice. For example, if the person belongs to a group subjected to systematic mistreatment in Georgian prisons (such as political prisoners, religious minorities, or LGBTQ+ individuals), this evidence may combine with other factors to establish substantial risk.

UAE Federal Law 39/2006 and Georgia Requests

Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters is the comprehensive statutory framework governing how UAE courts evaluate extradition requests from all states, including Georgia. Understanding its provisions and how UAE courts apply them is essential for developing effective extradition defences.

Substantive Conditions for Extradition

Article 2 of Federal Law 39/2006 establishes the threshold dual criminality requirement: the conduct must be criminalized under both UAE and Georgian law, and the offence must carry a penalty of imprisonment for at least one year under both jurisdictions. This provision serves as a filter, ensuring that only serious offences are subject to extradition. When challenging a Georgian extradition request, careful analysis of the precise allegations and comparison with UAE criminal law is necessary. If the Georgian charge relies on provisions that have no UAE equivalent or if the conduct is decriminalized in the UAE, the dual criminality requirement is not satisfied.

Articles 3 through 7 enumerate grounds for mandatory refusal of extradition. Article 3 addresses political offences; Article 4 addresses ne bis in idem; Article 5 addresses the nationality of the person (the UAE may refuse extradition of its nationals, though this is discretionary); Article 6 addresses the lapse of time, permitting refusal if the statute of limitations has expired under either UAE or Georgian law; and Article 7 addresses human rights violations. These provisions create mandatory refusal grounds that, if demonstrated, require the court to refuse extradition. This differs from discretionary grounds, where the court may refuse extradition but is not required to do so.

Procedural Requirements for Requests

Article 10 of Federal Law 39/2006 specifies the documentation that must accompany a Georgian extradition request. If Georgia’s request is deficient in any required element, the UAE court may reject the request as non-compliant. Required documents include: a certified copy of the judgment of conviction or the arrest warrant or other authority for detention in Georgia; a statement of the facts and circumstances of the offence and relevant Georgian law; description of the person sought; information regarding the sentence imposed or the penalty sought; confirmation that the offence meets the dual criminality requirement and the gravity threshold; and confirmation regarding any previous proceedings or trials related to the same conduct.

Practitioners should meticulously examine the Georgian request to identify any deficiencies. Incomplete or inaccurate documentation may provide grounds for challenging the request’s admissibility. For example, if Georgian documents are not properly certified, if the description of the person is inaccurate or fails to identify the correct individual, or if the Georgian authorities fail to address the dual criminality requirement, these deficiencies should be vigorously argued before the court.

Court Discretion and Human Rights Assessment

Although Federal Law 39/2006 establishes clear substantive and procedural requirements, UAE courts retain discretion in applying these provisions. Article 7 provides that extradition shall not be granted if it would violate fundamental human rights. This discretionary provision allows courts to refuse extradition based on broader international law principles even when the technical requirements of Federal Law 39/2006 are satisfied.

UAE courts have increasingly recognized the importance of assessing human rights risks in extradition cases. In cases involving allegations of serious criminal conduct, courts have nonetheless refused extradition based on substantial risks of torture or unfair trial. This jurisprudence reflects the UAE’s incorporation of international human rights law into its domestic extradition framework. Legal teams should present comprehensive evidence regarding human rights risks, supported by expert testimony and international human rights monitoring reports, to invoke this discretionary ground effectively.

Reciprocity and Treaty-Less Extradition

Article 1 of Federal Law 39/2006 permits extradition in the absence of a bilateral treaty, provided reciprocity exists. Reciprocity means that Georgia would similarly extradite individuals to the UAE under comparable circumstances. While the statute does not explicitly define how reciprocity is established, it may be argued that an examination of Georgia’s extradition practices, its willingness to extradite to other states, and its commitment to international judicial cooperation informs the reciprocity analysis. If evidence suggests that Georgia is unwilling to reciprocate by extraditing individuals to the UAE, this factor may weigh against extradition.

Interpol Red Notices in UAE–Georgia Cases

Interpol Red Notices frequently serve as the initial basis for arrest in UAE extradition cases involving Georgia. Understanding the role and limitations of Red Notices is critical for defending against extradition.

Interpol’s Function and Red Notice Issuance

Interpol is an international organization facilitating law enforcement cooperation among member states. It does not conduct investigations or arrests itself; rather, it circulates notices based on requests from member states’ law enforcement agencies. When Georgian authorities believe that a person who has committed an extraditable offence is in another country, they may request that Interpol issue a Red Notice. A Red Notice requests that other member states’ law enforcement agencies locate, provisionally arrest, and detain the person pending extradition.

Red Notices are issued by Interpol’s General Secretariat based on requests from National Central Bureaus (NCBs), which are the authorized Interpol representatives in each member state. Georgia’s NCB submits the request, and Interpol’s system examines it to ensure that basic safeguards are satisfied—primarily that the person is sought for an offence that is not purely political and that the request complies with Interpol’s constitutional provisions.

Red Notice Limitations and Challenge Procedures

Critically, a Red Notice is not itself a judicial authorization for arrest or extradition. Under Interpol’s rules, Red Notices must be accompanied or followed by formal legal procedures in the country where the person is located. In the UAE context, a Red Notice may trigger provisional arrest under Article 17 of Federal Law 39/2006, but it does not substitute for the formal extradition request and court proceedings required by that law.

Interpol maintains a Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF), which receives complaints from individuals who believe they have been the subject of an abusive or improper Red Notice. If a person can demonstrate that a Georgian Red Notice was issued for a political purpose, in violation of Interpol’s constitutional prohibition on interference in political matters, or that the notice contains materially false information, the CCF may recommend that the notice be deleted or modified. A successful CCF challenge can result in cancellation of the Red Notice, which removes the basis for provisional arrest.

In UAE extradition proceedings, evidence that a Red Notice is abusive, politically motivated, or obtained through fraud should be presented to the court as grounds for questioning the reliability of the Georgian request and the propriety of continuing the extradition process. Additionally, if Interpol subsequently cancels or modifies a Red Notice based on a CCF determination, this fact should be brought to the attention of the UAE court as evidence that the underlying extradition request is flawed.

Distinction Between Red Notice and Extradition Request

A critical distinction that must be emphasized to UAE courts is that a Red Notice is not an extradition request. The Red Notice is an alert mechanism; the formal extradition request must come through diplomatic channels and must comply with Article 10 of Federal Law 39/2006. If Georgian authorities rely solely on a Red Notice and fail to submit a formal extradition request within the statutory timeframe (typically 40 days after provisional arrest), the person must be released. This procedural requirement should be tracked carefully by defence counsel, as failure of Georgia to comply may result in mandatory release.

Recent Legal Developments

The extradition jurisprudence of UAE federal courts has evolved significantly over the past decade, with increasing emphasis on human rights compliance and international law principles. While detailed case law is limited in publicly available sources due to the confidentiality of certain proceedings, several trends are evident.