Home > Extradition from UAE — Complete Guide by Country (2026) > Extradition from UAE to Middle East — Country-by-Country Guide > UAE Extradition to Oman: Legal Guide 2026

UAE Extradition to Oman: Legal Guide 2026

“`html

The UAE and Oman maintain one of the strongest bilateral law enforcement relationships in the Middle East, underpinned by their shared membership in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and a comprehensive mutual legal assistance (MLA) framework. Extradition between the two nations is governed by both the overarching GCC cooperation framework and specific bilateral arrangements, with all requests processed under the UAE’s Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. This federal statute provides the constitutional and procedural architecture through which the UAE evaluates, accepts, and executes extradition requests from Oman, as well as the mechanisms by which individuals facing such requests may mount legal defences. The extradition process is swift, formal, and subject to judicial review at multiple levels, from initial arrest warrants through to final determination by the Federal Supreme Court. Given the proximity of the two nations, the efficiency of their security cooperation, and the broad scope of crimes covered by their MLA agreement, individuals facing extradition allegations involving Oman should seek immediate legal representation. This page provides comprehensive guidance on the UAE–Oman extradition framework, the statutory procedures involved, available legal defences, and the practical steps to protect your rights if you are arrested or detained in the UAE on an Omani extradition request.

UAE–Oman Extradition Legal Framework

The legal foundation for extradition between the UAE and Oman is multi-layered and derives from three primary sources: the GCC cooperation framework, bilateral mutual legal assistance agreements, and the UAE’s domestic criminal procedure law. Understanding this framework is essential for anyone facing or concerned about extradition from the UAE to Oman.

GCC Cooperation Framework

Both the UAE and Oman are founding members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, established in 1981. The GCC framework includes several instruments that facilitate cross-border law enforcement cooperation, including security and judicial collaboration agreements. Under this umbrella, member states have committed to harmonised standards for criminal justice cooperation, including extradition. The GCC framework emphasises mutual legal assistance, joint investigation protocols, and the reciprocal enforcement of judicial decisions. This framework operates at a higher level than bilateral treaties and reflects a shared commitment among all six GCC member states to coordinate on serious crimes, organised crime, terrorism, and transnational offences.

The GCC cooperation mechanism is significant because it establishes presumptions of confidence between member states. UAE courts have repeatedly recognised that extradition requests from fellow GCC states, including Oman, meet a threshold of reliability and legitimacy. This does not eliminate the need for judicial review under Federal Law 39/2006, but it does mean that the starting point in UAE judicial analysis is generally one of mutual confidence, subject to specific defences and protections outlined in UAE law.

Bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

Beyond the GCC framework, the UAE and Oman maintain a comprehensive bilateral MLA agreement that specifically governs extradition requests, witness examination, evidence exchange, and joint investigation procedures. This bilateral agreement is more detailed and operationally precise than the broader GCC instruments. It establishes designated central authorities (in the UAE’s case, the Ministry of Interior and the Federal Attorney General’s office), defines the procedures for request submission, specifies documentation requirements, and sets timelines for response.

The bilateral MLA agreement between the UAE and Oman is notably expansive in scope. It covers not only traditional common-law crimes (murder, theft, fraud, assault) but also modern transnational offences including money laundering, cybercrime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and terrorism-related offences. The agreement also includes provisions for provisional arrest pending the formal submission of extradition paperwork, expedited procedures for serious cases, and mutual recognition of each state’s judicial authority.

Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

The UAE’s primary domestic statute governing all international criminal cooperation, including extradition, is Federal Law No. 39 of 2006 (hereafter “Federal Law 39”). This law applies to all extradition requests received by the UAE, regardless of the source. Critically, Federal Law 39 establishes mandatory requirements, procedural safeguards, and substantive grounds for refusing extradition that apply equally to requests from Oman as to requests from any other jurisdiction.

Federal Law 39 defines extradition as the delivery of a person by one state to another for prosecution or the enforcement of a sentence. Article 1 of Federal Law 39 clarifies that extradition shall be governed by the provisions of this law, applicable international treaties, and reciprocal agreements. The law establishes that the Federal Court (specifically the Federal Supreme Court) has exclusive jurisdiction over extradition matters and that extradition is not automatic but requires a formal judicial determination.

The statute also codifies the principle of dual criminality (discussed in detail below), requiring that the conduct underlying the extradition request constitute a crime under both UAE and Omani law. Additionally, Federal Law 39 incorporates protections against extradition for political offences, crimes of a military nature, fiscal offences in certain contexts, and conduct that would violate the requesting state’s own constitutional or human rights obligations.

Designation of Competent Authorities

Under both the bilateral agreement and Federal Law 39, the UAE has designated the Federal Attorney General and the Ministry of Interior as the competent authorities to receive and process extradition requests from Oman. Requests must be submitted through official diplomatic channels and must include specified documentation: the original or certified copy of the conviction or arrest warrant, a statement of facts, a description of the offence, evidence of dual criminality, and assurances regarding fair trial standards and humane treatment.

Oman, similarly, has designated its Royal Oman Police and Ministry of Justice as the competent authorities to receive extradition requests from the UAE. This designation of formal channels ensures that extradition requests are processed with appropriate oversight and that individuals have clarity regarding which authorities are responsible at each stage.

The Extradition Process: UAE to Oman

The procedural pathway from arrest to final extradition (or refusal) in UAE–Oman cases follows a structured, multi-stage process defined by Federal Law 39 and implemented by UAE courts. Understanding this process is critical for individuals seeking to challenge or defend against an extradition request.

Stage 1: Provisional Arrest and Initial Detention

The process typically begins with a provisional arrest warrant issued by the Omani authorities and transmitted to the UAE, often via Interpol’s Red Notice system or through direct diplomatic communication. The provisional arrest warrant must be based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit an offence under Omani law that would also be criminal under UAE law.

Upon receipt of a provisional arrest request, the UAE’s competent authorities (Federal Attorney General or Ministry of Interior) may request that local law enforcement arrest the individual. The arrest does not require a formal extradition request at this stage; a provisional arrest warrant suffices. Once arrested, the individual must be brought before a court within a specified timeframe, typically 24 to 48 hours, depending on the emirate in which the arrest occurs.

At the initial appearance before the court, the individual has the right to be informed of the charges, the basis for the arrest, and the fact that an extradition request from Oman may be pending. The court will determine whether there are sufficient grounds to hold the person in custody pending the arrival of the formal extradition request. Bail or release conditions may be imposed at this stage, though courts typically impose strict conditions or remand custody in serious cases.

The duration of detention pending receipt of the formal request is limited by Federal Law 39. Generally, if the formal extradition request and supporting documentation are not received within 40 to 45 days of the provisional arrest, the individual must be released unless other legal grounds for detention exist (such as ongoing criminal investigations in the UAE itself).

Stage 2: Submission of Formal Extradition Request

Once provisional arrest is made, Oman has a window (typically 40 days) within which to submit a formal, fully documented extradition request to the UAE’s Federal Attorney General. This request must include all documentation specified by Federal Law 39, including certified copies of warrants or judgments, detailed factual statements, legal analysis of why the conduct constitutes a crime under both states’ laws, evidence of dual criminality, and explicit assurances regarding the protection of the person’s rights in Oman.

The formal request must also address any known defences or factual disputes. For example, if the individual claims to have been in a different location when the alleged crime occurred, or if there are credible human rights concerns regarding the Omani legal system’s treatment of the individual, these matters should be canvassed in the request and in supporting documentation.

The submission of the formal request triggers the second phase of the legal process and initiates the individual’s right to mount formal legal defences.

Stage 3: Court Examination and Hearing

Once the formal request is received, the matter is assigned to a first-instance federal court (typically a Federal Court of First Instance, though in some emirates the structure may vary slightly). The court issues a notice to the individual, informing them that an extradition request from Oman has been received and providing details of the charges and the basis for the request.

The individual has the right to be represented by a lawyer throughout these proceedings. A hearing is scheduled, typically within 15 to 30 days of the notice being served. At this hearing, both the Federal Attorney General (or a prosecutor acting on behalf of the competent authority) and the individual’s counsel present arguments.

The Federal Attorney General must establish a prima facie case that (1) the individual is the person named in the Omani request; (2) the conduct described constitutes an offence under both UAE and Omani law; (3) the sentence or conviction, if applicable, was imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Oman; and (4) no grounds for refusal of extradition exist under Federal Law 39 or applicable international law.

The individual’s counsel may challenge any of these elements and must introduce evidence of any grounds for refusal, including arguments regarding dual criminality, political offence exception, ne bis in idem (double jeopardy), risk of torture or inhuman treatment, or fundamental violations of due process rights.

The first-instance court will examine the request, review the evidence and arguments, and issue a decision either recommending extradition or recommending refusal. Importantly, the first-instance court’s role is often framed as advisory; the ultimate decision rests with the Federal Supreme Court.

Stage 4: Appeal and Federal Supreme Court Review

Either the individual (through their legal counsel) or the Federal Attorney General may appeal the first-instance court’s decision to the Federal Supreme Court of the UAE. This appeal is not a full retrial but rather a review of the legal conclusions reached by the lower court. The Federal Supreme Court will examine whether the lower court correctly applied Federal Law 39, whether dual criminality has been established, whether any grounds for refusal are present, and whether the individual’s fundamental rights have been protected.

The Federal Supreme Court’s review is thorough and de novo on questions of law, though it may accord some deference to factual findings of the lower court. The Court has the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify the lower court’s recommendation.

The Federal Supreme Court’s decision is final. Once the Court determines that extradition should proceed, or that extradition should be refused, that decision is binding on all UAE authorities and on the individual.

Stage 5: Notification and Execution

If the Federal Supreme Court orders extradition, the decision is communicated to the Federal Attorney General and to the competent authorities in Oman. The individual is typically given a brief opportunity (often 10 to 15 days) to seek any final legal remedies, such as applications for stay of execution or review on grounds of newly discovered evidence. After this period, the individual is handed over to Omani authorities, typically at a border crossing or airport.

If the Federal Supreme Court refuses extradition, Oman is notified and the individual is released from custody (unless detained on other charges in the UAE).

Typical Timeline

From provisional arrest to final decision by the Federal Supreme Court, the process typically takes 4 to 8 months, though more complex cases or cases involving interlocutory appeals may take longer. This timeline underscores the importance of retaining counsel immediately upon arrest or receipt of notice that an extradition request is pending.

Grounds to Challenge Extradition to Oman

Federal Law 39/2006 and international law principles recognised by UAE courts establish several substantive and procedural grounds upon which an individual may challenge or defend against an extradition request from Oman. These defences are critical and should be investigated and developed immediately upon arrest or notice of a request.

Dual Criminality Requirement

The principle of dual criminality is a cornerstone of extradition law globally and is explicitly codified in Federal Law 39. This principle requires that the conduct constituting the basis for extradition must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting state (Oman) and the requested state (UAE). In other words, the UAE will not extradite an individual for conduct that, while criminal in Oman, would not be criminal in the UAE.

Dual criminality applies regardless of whether the offences carry identical penalties or are classified identically. The analysis focuses on whether the essential elements of the prohibited conduct exist in both jurisdictions’ criminal codes. For example, if Oman seeks extradition for “fraud” and the UAE has a fraud statute with materially similar elements, dual criminality is satisfied even if the Omani statute has a higher penalty or broader definition.

However, if Oman seeks extradition for a conduct that does not constitute a crime under UAE law—or that constitutes a crime only under circumstances not present in the case at hand—the dual criminality requirement is not satisfied, and extradition must be refused.

This defence requires careful comparative legal analysis and is frequently dispositive in cases involving offences that are unique to one jurisdiction’s legal framework or that are grounded in cultural, religious, or political distinctions between the two states.

Political Offence Exception

Federal Law 39 and customary international law recognise an exception for crimes of a political character. Extradition may be refused if the offence for which extradition is sought is regarded by the requested state as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence.

The political offence exception is narrowly construed and does not extend to common crimes committed in a political context. Rather, it applies to offences that strike at the fundamental structure of the state, such as sedition, treason, or espionage, or to conduct undertaken as part of a political struggle or civil unrest where the primary motive is political rather than personal gain.

In the UAE–Oman context, the political offence exception is invoked infrequently but has potential application in cases involving alleged crimes related to anti-government expression, support for opposition movements, or conduct arising from political or sectarian disputes.

Ne Bis In Idem (Double Jeopardy)

The principle of ne bis in idem, or double jeopardy, provides that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence. Federal Law 39 incorporates this principle and permits refusal of extradition if the individual has previously been tried and acquitted, or convicted and punished, for the same conduct in the UAE or a third state.

This defence requires establishing that the conduct underlying the Omani request is identical to conduct for which the individual was previously prosecuted, and that the prior prosecution resulted in a final acquittal or sentence completion. The defence may apply even if the prior prosecution occurred in a different jurisdiction (such as another GCC state), provided the individual has fully satisfied any sentence imposed.

Torture and Inhuman Treatment Risk

A critical ground for refusing extradition is the risk that the individual will be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment upon extradition. This defence is grounded in international human rights law, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the UAE is a party, and is increasingly recognised by UAE courts as a mandatory consideration in extradition proceedings.

To establish a credible risk of torture or abuse, the individual must present evidence—including country reports, testimony from human rights organisations, medical or psychological reports, and documentation of the Omani authorities’ prior conduct—demonstrating a substantial risk that they personally would be subjected to prohibited treatment.

This is a fact-intensive inquiry and requires expert evidence regarding the conditions of detention in Oman, the practices of Omani law enforcement and judicial authorities, and the likelihood that the individual’s specific circumstances (political affiliation, ethnicity, religious views, prior detention, etc.) increase the risk of abuse.

UAE courts have, in a limited number of extradition cases, declined to extradite individuals where credible evidence of torture risk was presented. However, the threshold for establishing such a risk is high, and generic assertions about poor human rights records are typically insufficient.

Fundamental Due Process and Fair Trial Violations

Federal Law 39 permits refusal of extradition if extradition would violate fundamental principles of fair trial or due process. This ground encompasses situations where the individual would not receive a fair hearing in Oman, where evidence against them was obtained through torture or coercion, where the Omani proceedings are fundamentally unfair, or where the individual would not have adequate access to counsel or the opportunity to challenge evidence.

Additionally, if the Omani request is based on a conviction obtained in proceedings that violated fair trial standards—such as a trial conducted in the individual’s absence without adequate notice, a trial in which the individual was denied legal representation, or proceedings that denied the right to cross-examine witnesses—the UAE may refuse extradition.

This defence is closely related to the torture risk defence but is broader in scope, encompassing systemic unfairness in judicial proceedings as well as risks of ill-treatment in custody.

Statute of Limitations

If the alleged offence in Oman is barred by the Omani statute of limitations, extradition may be refused. The UAE will not extradite an individual for prosecution of conduct that Oman itself could not prosecute due to expiration of limitations periods. This defence requires analysis of Omani criminal procedure law and the applicable limitations period for the offence in question.

Immunity or Pardons

If the individual has received a pardon, amnesty, or immunity under Omani law, or if they have received immunity from prosecution in Oman (such as prosecutorial immunity granted as a condition of cooperation in another investigation), extradition may be refused on the basis that the prosecution cannot proceed.

UAE Federal Law 39/2006 and Oman Requests

Federal Law 39 of 2006 is the foundational statute governing how UAE courts and the Federal Attorney General evaluate and process all extradition requests, including those from Oman. A detailed understanding of this statute’s key provisions is essential for anyone facing or concerned about extradition.

Core Requirements Under Federal Law 39

Federal Law 39 establishes that extradition is permissible only where (1) a bilateral treaty, multilateral agreement, or the principle of reciprocity exists between the UAE and the requesting state; (2) the conduct constitutes a crime under both states’ laws (dual criminality); (3) the person sought is either the person named in the warrant or conviction or is accurately described; (4) the person’s presence in UAE territory is confirmed; and (5) no grounds for refusal exist under the statute or applicable international law.

The statute applies these requirements uniformly to all extradition requests. Importantly, Federal Law 39 does not grant preferential treatment to GCC states; rather, it applies the same criteria and protections to all requesting nations, whether GCC members, Arab states, or non-Arab countries.

Evaluation of Dual Criminality

When reviewing an Omani request, UAE courts examining dual criminality will compare the statutory definitions of the alleged offence in both Omani law and UAE law. The analysis is not mechanical or formulaic; rather, courts examine the essential nature and elements of the prohibited conduct. If the core elements align—such as the use of force or deception to obtain property in a theft or fraud case—dual criminality is typically found even if the statutes differ in wording or penalty.

However, if the Omani offence involves conduct that the UAE either does not criminalise or criminalises only under very different circumstances, dual criminality fails and extradition must be refused. For instance, if Oman seeks extradition for a breach of corporate governance standards that are not recognised or criminalised in UAE law, a UAE court may conclude that dual criminality is not satisfied.

Federal Attorney General’s Role

The Federal Attorney General of the UAE serves as the central authority for receiving and processing extradition requests from Oman. The Attorney General’s office examines the completeness of the request, verifies the authenticity of the supporting documentation, and determines whether to proceed with prosecution or challenge the request on grounds of deficiency or violation of Federal Law 39.

The Federal Attorney General may request additional information from Omani authorities if the initial request is incomplete, may seek assurances regarding the individual’s rights in Oman, and may recommend to the courts that extradition be refused on statutory grounds. However, the Federal Attorney General does not have final authority; that authority rests exclusively with the Federal Supreme Court.

Provisional Detention and Timelines

Federal Law 39 permits provisional arrest and detention of an individual pending receipt of a formal extradition request for up to 40 to 45 days (depending on the emirate and specific procedural rules). If the formal request is not received within this period, the individual must be released unless other legal grounds for detention exist.

This timeline is critical for defence counsel: if extradition proceedings have not progressed to a formal request within 45 days of provisional arrest, counsel should immediately petition for the individual’s release.

Judicial Review Standards

UAE courts reviewing Omani extradition requests apply a standard of review that is neither purely deferential to the requesting state nor purely de novo. The court examines the sufficiency of evidence, the legal basis for the request, and the application of Federal Law 39’s substantive and procedural requirements. The court will closely scrutinise claims involving human rights risks, political offences, or violations of due process.

The Federal Supreme Court, in its final review, may reverse lower court determinations if it concludes that Federal Law 39 has been misapplied or that fundamental principles have been violated. In practice, the Federal Supreme Court’s review is thorough and the Court takes seriously any issues related to fair trial rights or torture risks.

Interpol Red Notices in UAE–Oman Cases

Many Omani extradition requests to the UAE are initiated or facilitated through Interpol’s Red Notice system. Understanding the role of Interpol Red Notices and the grounds to challenge them is important for individuals facing extradition.

Role of Interpol Red Notices

An Interpol Red Notice is a request by one member country (in this case, Oman) asking Interpol to locate and provisionally arrest a person for extradition purposes. The Red Notice is not itself an extradition request; rather, it is a law enforcement tool that facilitates communication and provisional arrest pending receipt of formal extradition documentation.

When Oman issues a Red Notice through Interpol, Interpol distributes it to all member countries, including the UAE. UAE law enforcement authorities routinely check Interpol databases and will arrest an individual if they are identified as the subject of a Red Notice.

Overlapping Process: Red Notice and Extradition Request

In most cases, an Interpol Red Notice from Oman is issued simultaneously with or shortly before submission of a formal extradition request to the UAE through diplomatic channels. The Red Notice triggers provisional arrest, while the formal request initiates formal extradition proceedings. These two processes run in parallel.

A critical point: the issuance of a Red Notice by Interpol does not guarantee that extradition will be granted. The Red Notice is merely a mechanism for provisional arrest. The formal extradition decision remains subject to the full statutory and judicial review process under Federal Law