Turkey-US Extradition: What You Need to Know

Does Turkey have an extradition treaty with the United States? Yes, it does, but that doesn’t make extradition automatic; the process is far more complex, and understanding these nuances can mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment, which is why Interpol Lawyers focus on challenging or validating every legal condition in each individual case.

Legal Foundation: The 1979 Treaty in 2026 Realities

Turkey and the United States are parties to the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed in 1979. From a formal legal perspective, this treaty establishes the framework for extradition cooperation between the two states.

However, the existence of the treaty does not make extradition automatic. As of 2026, Turkey applies a particularly strict approach to issues of state sovereignty, which has a direct impact on the handling of foreign extradition requests. The treaty itself enables cooperation but does not impose an obligation on Turkish authorities to approve requests submitted by the United States.

A central role in this process is played by Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, which serves as Turkey’s primary domestic legislation in this area. This law grants Turkish courts broad discretionary powers when assessing extradition requests, including those originating from the United States.

In practice, each request is examined on a case-by-case basis. Courts evaluate not only formal treaty compliance but also a range of substantive factors, such as the legal sufficiency of the charges, potential political considerations, human rights implications, and compatibility with Turkey’s domestic legal order and public policy.

Data published by the Turkish Ministry of Justice indicate that the approval rate for extradition requests has declined significantly since 2020, with this trend continuing into 2026. This confirms that extradition proceedings in Turkey are evaluative rather than mechanical.

Accordingly, the extradition treaty should be understood as a procedural framework for review, not as a guarantee of surrender. The discretionary authority vested in Turkish courts leaves room for legal challenge and for the development of a defense against extradition within the Turkish judicial system.

Main Shield: Protection of Turkish Citizens (Article 38 of the Constitution)

A bilateral Extradition and Mutual Assistance Treaty between Turkey and the United States (1979) is indeed in force. Formally, it remains valid and is applied by the courts of both countries. However, the mere existence of the treaty does not imply automatic approval of an extradition request.

A defining feature of Turkey’s modern extradition practice is its strong emphasis on state sovereignty. As of 2026, Turkey evaluates each request individually, assessing not only its formal compliance with the treaty but also its potential implications for the Turkish legal system. Extradition is not a technical or automatic procedure — the final decision always rests with Turkish courts.

A crucial constitutional limitation must be emphasized. Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (anayasa.gov.tr in Bing) explicitly prohibits the extradition of Turkish citizens to foreign states, including the United States. This is not a recommendation or a political stance but a directly applicable constitutional rule. If a person holds Turkish citizenship, extradition to the U.S. is excluded regardless of the nature of the allegations.

A refusal to extradite does not imply immunity from prosecution. Turkey adheres to the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (“either extradite or prosecute”). When the U.S. requests the extradition of a Turkish citizen, the request is typically denied, but the case materials may be transferred to Turkish authorities. Any investigation or prosecution then proceeds under Turkish jurisdiction.

The legal mechanism for this process is established in Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (mevzuat.gov.tr in Bing). This law grants Turkish courts broad authority to evaluate foreign requests, including the sufficiency of evidence, procedural safeguards, and compatibility with fundamental principles of Turkish law. Decisions to deny extradition, initiate domestic proceedings, or refuse cooperation entirely are made on the basis of Law No. 6706.

In cases involving dual citizenship, Turkey applies the principle of prioritizing Turkish nationality. However, this rule is effective only if Turkish citizenship can be confirmed promptly and officially. Missing documentation or an incomplete naturalization process significantly weakens the legal position of the individual subject to the request.

Main Barriers to Extradition in 2026

Turkey’s primary line of defense in extradition matters is rooted in Article 38 of its Constitution, which categorically prohibits the extradition of Turkish citizens. Courts treat this provision as an absolute shield, and it consistently overrides any foreign request, regardless of the nature of the allegations. This constitutional protection also shapes Turkey’s broader stance toward the United States: Turkish authorities do not surrender their citizens to U.S. jurisdiction, and this position has remained firm across different political climates.

When a Turkish citizen is accused of committing an offense on U.S. soil, the case is typically redirected into the Turkish legal system under the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. Instead of extradition, Turkish prosecutors open their own investigation and apply domestic criminal law, often using evidence supplied by the United States but maintaining full control over the proceedings. This approach is especially common in cases involving financial misconduct, cyber‑related offenses, or sanctions‑linked allegations, where Turkey prefers to assert its own jurisdiction rather than transfer a citizen abroad.

For individuals with dual citizenship, Turkey still prioritizes their status as Turkish nationals. Dual citizens generally receive the same constitutional protection against extradition, and Turkish courts treat them as fully covered by Article 38. Only in rare situations—typically involving disputes over the validity or recognition of Turkish citizenship—might this protection be questioned, but in ordinary circumstances dual nationals benefit from the same refusal to extradite and the same preference for domestic prosecution.

I created this table to show you how dual criminality plays out in common case types:

Procedural Path: From Request to Airplane

Understanding the process is crucial because there are multiple points where you can fight back. Let me break down exactly what happens when the US requests someone’s extradition from Turkey.

Role of Turkey’s Ministry of Justice

An extradition case begins long before it reaches a courtroom. When the United States submits a request through diplomatic channels, it first arrives at Turkey’s Ministry of Justice. This stage functions as a substantive filter, even though формально it is only a preliminary review.

The Ministry examines whether the request has a valid treaty basis, whether all required documents and translations are included, whether formal requirements are met, and whether the case carries any political sensitivities. Many requests are stopped here due to incomplete documentation or concerns about political motivation. If the case has not yet passed this stage, it is often the most effective moment to engage diplomatic or political avenues.

Judicial Stage

If the Ministry forwards the request, the case moves to the Heavy Penal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). This is the central arena where the legal battle unfolds.

The court evaluates:

• whether the person detained is the same individual named in the request
• whether dual criminality exists
• whether grounds for refusal apply (citizenship, political offense, human rights risks)
• whether the evidence is sufficient to support extradition

Turkish criminal procedure differs significantly from U.S. practice — from evidentiary rules to the judge’s role. Because of this, securing experienced Turkish counsel immediately is essential. Lawyers familiar with local criminal courts and with prior extradition experience can influence the trajectory of the case. Delays in hiring counsel often leave the defense reacting rather than shaping the process.

Appeal

Even if the Heavy Penal Court approves extradition, the process does not end there. The decision can be appealed to Turkey’s Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court examines whether the lower court’s ruling violates constitutional rights, with particular attention to citizenship protections, political motivation, and human rights concerns. It is not uncommon for extraditions to be halted at this stage, even after judicial approval.

The review process may take months, and during this period extradition is typically suspended. This pause creates space for additional legal strategies as well as potential diplomatic or political interventions.

Practical Advice from a Lawyer (2026 Cases)

In 2026, I increasingly see situations where a person is simultaneously fighting an extradition request in Turkey and appearing in Interpol’s database under a Red Notice. Many people mistakenly believe they must wait for the Turkish court’s decision before challenging the Interpol listing. In practice, that delay can be damaging.

A Red Notice operates independently of the extradition process. As long as it remains active, international travel becomes dangerous: any country cooperating with the United States may detain you at the border. Even if Turkey refuses extradition, the Red Notice can effectively trap you inside the country.

The solution is to act in parallel. Interpol’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) accepts applications regardless of the status of your extradition case.

Official CCF information: 

In several 2026 cases, we succeeded in removing the Red Notice before the Turkish court issued its ruling. Once the notice was deleted, the client’s position improved dramatically: the international risk disappeared, and the defense strategy in Turkey became far stronger.

Timing is critical. The longer a Red Notice remains in circulation, the more deeply it becomes embedded in law‑enforcement systems worldwide. A challenge to the CCF should be filed as soon as it becomes clear that the United States has initiated proceedings.

Temporary Arrest: How to Avoid Spending 60 Days in Custody

One of the most difficult aspects of U.S. extradition cases in Turkey is the provisional arrest. Under Turkish law, a person may be held for up to 60 days while the United States prepares and transmits the full extradition file.

Legal basis: Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

Two months in detention is not a formality — it creates enormous psychological pressure and often pushes defendants toward poor decisions.

Avoiding this requires preparation:

• consult an attorney experienced in Interpol and extradition matters
• gather all documents supporting your defense in advance
• if you have a basis to claim Turkish citizenship, prepare the evidence early
• consider whether a voluntary appearance with pre‑negotiated bail conditions is possible

If provisional arrest does occur, the defense must immediately challenge the detention. Turkish courts can grant release pending extradition proceedings, but only when the request is filed quickly and supported by strong arguments.

Financial Crimes: Why Turkey Became a “Safe Harbor” — and How That Shapes Defense Strategy

In cases involving financial crimes and U.S. sanctions violations, Turkey occupies a unique position in 2026. The country has not aligned itself with unilateral U.S. sanctions, particularly those targeting Iran and certain Russian entities.

This creates a crucial legal consequence: conduct that is criminal in the United States may not be criminal in Turkey. Without dual criminality, extradition cannot proceed.

In one recent case, the United States accused a client of facilitating transactions with Iranian companies, labeling it “sanctions evasion” and “money laundering.” Under Turkish law, however, trade with Iran — unless it violates UN sanctions — is lawful. We argued the absence of dual criminality, and the Turkish court rejected the U.S. request.

Still, no one should assume Turkey will remain a permanent safe haven. Political pressure from the U.S. and EU continues to grow, and Ankara’s sanctions policy may shift. A defense strategy that works in 2026 may not work in 2027.

Another point often overlooked: even if you avoid extradition, your assets may remain vulnerable. The United States aggressively uses civil forfeiture and asset‑freezing mechanisms in third countries.

Extradition from the United States to Turkey

Now let’s flip the script and talk about the reverse situation: Turkey requesting extradition from the United States. This is where things get even more politically charged, and frankly, where Turkey faces its biggest frustrations.

Extradition between the United States and Turkey is governed by the 1979 Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance. In principle, the treaty obliges both countries to surrender individuals accused of serious offenses such as murder, major property crimes, and drug trafficking.

In practice, however, U.S. courts approach Turkish extradition requests with considerable caution, especially given the current political climate.

The Main Obstacle: The “Political Offense” Exception

U.S. law contains a strict rule: extradition is prohibited if the prosecution appears to be political in nature. This principle is embedded in the treaty and reinforced by decades of American case law.

This is where Turkey encounters the greatest resistance. By 2026, hundreds of requests related to FETÖ, the Gülen movement, and opposition politicians remain pending or have been rejected. U.S. courts consistently conclude that:

• the evidence provided does not meet U.S. legal standards, or
• the prosecution appears politically motivated.

For American judges, this distinction is fundamental. Conduct that Turkey classifies as terrorism or threats to state security is often viewed in the United States as political activity protected by the First Amendment.

Standard of Proof

U.S. courts require Turkey to demonstrate probable cause — reasonable grounds to believe the person committed the alleged offense. A Turkish prosecutor’s indictment alone is insufficient. American judges expect concrete, admissible evidence: witness statements, documents, technical data, and properly documented investigative procedures.

Turkish submissions often reflect a different legal tradition, where indictments carry greater weight. In the U.S., only evidence that meets American evidentiary standards will be considered.

Why the United States Most Often Refuses Extradition

U.S. courts closely examine reports from international organizations regarding the treatment of detainees in Turkey. Documented concerns about ill‑treatment, prolonged pre‑trial detention, and conditions for political prisoners frequently lead to refusals. Under U.S. law, extradition cannot proceed if there is a substantial risk of torture or inhumane treatment.

Lack of Dual Criminality

Many acts criminalized in Turkey — particularly those labeled as terrorism — are not crimes under U.S. law. Examples include:

• using certain messaging apps (such as ByLock);
• criticizing the government;
• participating in political or religious movements;
• journalistic activities that Turkey interprets as supporting terrorism.

If the conduct is not a criminal offense in the United States, extradition is legally impossible.

Humanitarian Grounds

Courts also consider:

• the individual’s health and access to adequate medical care;
• family ties in the United States, especially U.S.‑citizen children;
• length of residence in the country;
• risk of political persecution.

In several cases, these factors have been sufficient to block extradition even when serious charges were involved.

Final Thoughts: The Reality of Turkey-US Extradition in 2026

Looking at how these cases actually unfold in 2026, the picture is far more complicated than simply saying “there’s a treaty, so extradition is possible.” Formally, the mechanism exists. In practice, everything turns on the details: who is being requested, what the charges are, what citizenship they hold, and what the political climate looks like at that moment.

If you’re a Turkish citizen facing a U.S. extradition request

Turkey’s constitutional protections are genuinely strong, but they don’t operate automatically. They have to be invoked properly, supported with documentation, and handled by lawyers who understand how to turn those protections into an effective shield. A common mistake is assuming that citizenship alone solves the problem. It doesn’t.

If you’re not a Turkish citizen and the U.S. is seeking your extradition

Your position is more vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean you’re without defenses. The political offense exception, dual criminality, and human rights concerns are all real arguments — if used correctly. In these cases, the quality of your legal team makes an enormous difference.

If you’re in the U.S. and Turkey is requesting your extradition

American courts tend to approach Turkish requests cautiously, sometimes even skeptically. But that’s not a reason to relax. Every request needs to be taken seriously from day one, or you risk missing critical deadlines and opportunities.

What’s genuinely frustrating is how often people wait too long. They convince themselves that “nothing will happen,” that “it’s a mistake,” or that “it will blow over.” And then they find themselves detained at an airport or sitting in a holding facility, asking the same question: why didn’t I deal with this earlier?

International law is becoming increasingly instrumental. States are using Interpol, extradition treaties, and diplomatic channels more aggressively. At the same time, political tensions make governments more selective about whom they’re willing to hand over. Individuals caught in the middle often become collateral to larger geopolitical interests.

The key takeaway

Treat potential extradition as a real threat, not a theoretical possibility. The earlier you involve specialists, the better your chances of preserving your freedom and avoiding long-term consequences. This isn’t an exaggeration — I’ve seen early action save people, and I’ve seen delays ruin lives.

One more point deserves to be emphasized at the end of all this: if your situation involves Interpol in any way — a diffusion, a Red Notice, or even early signs that one might be issued — you need a lawyer who actually works with these mechanisms in practice. Not a general criminal lawyer, not a corporate attorney who is “willing to try,” but someone who deals with Interpol, extradition, and cross‑border cases on a regular basis.

Iryna Berenstein

Associate Partner

Mrs. Berenstein is a distinguished and outstanding lawyer with profound experience and exceptional legal knowledge in the field of International Private Law, Financial Law, Corporate Law, investment regulation, Compliance, Data Protection, and Reputation Management.

Phone:

+35796447475

Email:

[email protected]

Book a call