When the country requesting you is outside the European Union, the rules change completely compared with an EAW. There is no longer a more or less automatic procedure between judges, but an extradition system that depends on treaties, on reciprocity and on the safeguards that country offers. And being requested by the United States is not the same as being requested by Morocco, China or Venezuela. This guide explains how it works in each case and where the room for defence lies.
How does extradition from Spain to a non-EU country work?
Classic extradition is the mechanism that applies when the requesting country does not belong to the European Union. It is governed by the bilateral or multilateral conventions Spain has with that country and, if there is no treaty, by Law 4/1985 on Passive Extradition or by the principle of reciprocity.
The procedure in Spain unfolds in three stages: a first governmental stage, in which the Government decides whether the request goes to the courts at all; a judicial stage, before the Audiencia Nacional, which decides whether the surrender is legally admissible; and a final political stage, in which the Council of Ministers can refuse the surrender even if the court has approved it. That double key is the big difference from the EAW, which runs from judge to judge. If you want to see the full comparison, I explain it in the article on the difference between extradition and the EAW.
Extradition to Morocco
Spain and Morocco maintain intense judicial cooperation and have a bilateral extradition treaty (the Extradition Convention done at Rabat on 24 June 2009, which replaced the 1997 one). Geographical proximity and the volume of drug trafficking and organised crime cases make Morocco one of the countries that generates the most requests.
In these cases, the defence usually revolves around procedural safeguards and dual criminality. Proving that the act is not an offence in Spain, or that the proceedings in the country of origin do not offer sufficient safeguards, opens up real avenues of opposition.
Extradition to the United States
The United States has an extradition treaty with Spain (the Treaty of 29 May 1970, with three later supplementary treaties), complemented by the 2003 Agreement on Extradition between the European Union and the United States. So if you are asking whether Spain extradites to the US, the answer is yes, it can, although a treaty alone never makes surrender automatic. American requests tend to be thoroughly documented and technically solid.
The defence in these cases often centres on dual criminality and on the safeguards of the process. They are demanding proceedings that require a good understanding of how the American system works.
Extradition to Albania
Albania is a party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, to which Spain is also a party. That means that, even though it is not in the EU, there is a multilateral framework ordering cooperation. On top of that framework sits a bilateral agreement between Spain and Albania, in force since 2022, which supplements the 1957 Convention and also allows the reciprocal extradition of nationals.
The analysis of safeguards remains central: prison conditions, the impartiality of the proceedings and respect for fundamental rights are factors the Spanish court must weigh before authorising a surrender.
Extradition to China
Spain has an extradition treaty with China (the Treaty done at Madrid on 14 November 2005), which has produced particularly sensitive cases because of doubts about the safeguards of the Chinese judicial system. Some of these cases have drawn wide attention and put the spotlight on the risk of rights violations.
Here, the defence based on the risk of inhuman treatment or of proceedings without safeguards carries decisive weight. Producing solid reports on the human rights situation can be determinative.
Extradition to Venezuela
Requests from Venezuela raise particular questions because of the country’s political and institutional situation. There is a bilateral extradition treaty (the Treaty of Caracas of 4 January 1989, in force since 1990), but the analysis of safeguards is especially delicate.
In these cases, the risk of political persecution and the lack of procedural safeguards tend to be the backbone of the opposition to surrender.
The strategy is built case by case
In extradition there are no two identical cases, not even when the same country makes the request: two people wanted by the same State, for similar offences, can end up with opposite outcomes depending on the details of each file. The underlying pattern does repeat itself: treaty or reciprocity, dual criminality, the principle of speciality and fundamental rights safeguards in the requesting country, but those pillars are only the starting point.
Winning the specific case requires knowing two planes in depth at the same time: the legal framework governing the surrender (the applicable convention, the Passive Extradition Law, the case law) and the real political, judicial and prison context of the requesting State, which, well documented, is usually the strongest argument for the defence. To that you add the particulars of each matter, such as the offence alleged, the documentation provided, the procedural moment or the nationality of the person sought, which are what end up shaping the strategy. That is why these cases are best handled with a specialist extradition defence from the very first moment, gathering all the documentation from the proceedings of origin as early as possible.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case has specific circumstances that can completely change the analysis. If you need concrete guidance on your situation, consult a criminal defence lawyer.
