Extradition lies at the intersection of international cooperation and fundamental human rights. Armenia is no exception. In fact, extradition proceedings reveal one of the most serious systemic problems of Armenian criminal procedure: the near-automatic deprivation of liberty with no real alternatives.
Detention Without Accusation
A person subject to extradition is neither charged nor convicted in Armenia. Nevertheless, one of the most severe forms of state interference — deprivation of liberty — is applied.
Formally, this is justified by the need to ensure compliance with international obligations. In practice, extradition detention in Armenia often becomes the default and virtually unavoidable measure, regardless of the individual circumstances of the person concerned.
The issue of the RA Law on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings
The root of the issue lies in the regulations of the currently effective RA Law on Legal Aid in Criminal Proceedings (see Articles 35, 40, and 43–46 of the said law), which, unlike the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,…
- maintains a special and closed list of preventive measures for extradition proceedings;
- does not allow for house arrest or other modern alternatives to detention;
- effectively deprives courts of discretion.
As a result, courts frequently limit their reasoning to a single formula:
“the law does not provide for other measures.”
Formal Legality vs. Constitutional Principles
The Constitution of Armenia guarantees the right to personal liberty and requires that any restriction of fundamental rights be necessary, proportionate, and individualized.
The current extradition detention regime often fails to meet these standards. Courts do not assess whether the aim of extradition could be achieved through less intrusive measures. Detention becomes the rule rather than the exception.
European Human Rights Standards
The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is clear:
even under Article 5 §1(f) of the European Convention, extradition detention must not be automatic.
National authorities must:
- verify that extradition is realistically achievable,
- justify the necessity of continued detention,
- consider alternatives to deprivation of liberty.
Legislative shortcomings do not absolve the state from responsibility under the Convention.
A Structural, Not Individual, Problem
This is not about isolated judicial errors. It is a systemic defect. When the law itself eliminates alternatives and removes judicial discretion, judicial review becomes merely formal.
Extradition is a tool of international cooperation, not a justification for lowering human rights standards.
Today, Armenia’s extradition practice requires a constitutional, proportionate, and human-centered reassessment.
