Overview
The Republic of Iraq (جمهورية العراق, Jumhūriyyat al-ʿIrāq) has no bilateral extradition treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany. Iraq is neither a contracting state to the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) nor an EU member; the European Arrest Warrant does not apply. Extradition relations are therefore assessed exclusively on a treaty-less basis under Sections 1 ff. IRG and require a formal assurance of reciprocity from Iraq (Section 5 IRG).
Formal Iraqi extradition requests to Germany are rare in number. In practice, Iraq becomes relevant above all through terrorism and security allegations — in particular the blanket attribution to the so-called "Islamic State" (IS) —, through Interpol alerts (Red Notices and diffusions), and through the risk of arrest when travelling to third or transit states. Added to this are ordinary crime, economic-crime and corruption allegations, in which, however, the same fundamental human-rights questions are at the forefront.
The defense in Iraq constellations is shaped by several structural features that regularly make an extradition appear inadmissible from the outset: the excessive practice of executions on the basis of a vague Anti-Terrorism Law (Section 8 IRG), the documented torture and extortion of confessions, dismal detention conditions (Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR), and persecution on political, religious or ethnic grounds before a judiciary regarded as not independent (Section 6(2) IRG).
Legal basis
In the absence of any treaty under international law, on the German side the Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) of 23 Dec 1982 applies directly. Treaty-less extradition requires an assurance of reciprocity under Section 5 IRG; under Section 3 IRG, dual criminality is required (the offense must carry a maximum sentence of more than one year's imprisonment, and at least four months of the sentence must remain to be served in the case of enforcement).
For German nationals, extradition to Iraq is excluded under Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG; the facilitation in Section 80 IRG applies only to extraditions to EU member states. For German–Iraqi dual nationals, this bar continues to apply (cf. BVerfGE 113, 273 — European Arrest Warrant I). Multiple nationality has been permitted without a retention permit since the Citizenship Modernization Act of 27 June 2024.
On the Iraqi side, substantive criminal law rests on Penal Code No. 111 of 1969 and the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005, whose Article 4 provides for the death penalty for a large number of offense variants. The central authority in extradition relations on the Iraqi side is the Ministry of Justice in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Higher Judicial Council. On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts decide on admissibility (Sections 13 ff. IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Offices, and in cases of fundamental importance or of foreign-policy significance by the Federal Office of Justice in agreement with the Federal Foreign Office.
Country-specific issues in Iraq
Death penalty — mass executions on a vague anti-terrorism basis: Iraq is among the states with the highest execution figures worldwide. Human-rights organizations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) and UN special rapporteurs document, for the years 2024–2025, a sharply increased practice of executions, including unannounced mass executions at Al-Hut prison in Nasiriya (around 13 people executed on 22 April 2024, with further groups over the course of the year). It is estimated that some 8,000 people, overwhelmingly on terrorism allegations, are on death row. The death penalty is threatened in particular under Article 4 of the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Law, which defines the concept of terrorism extraordinarily broadly and vaguely and requires no proof of terrorist intent. UN experts have described the scale of these executions as a possible crime against humanity. Where the allegation is of this kind, extradition under Section 8 IRG is admissible only subject to an effective, verifiable assurance — and in view of Iraqi execution practice and the absence of any monitoring mechanism, a reliable assurance is practically impossible to obtain, so that extradition is regularly inadmissible.
Torture and coerced confessions: In terrorism and security proceedings, convictions — and thus death sentences — are regularly based on confessions obtained under torture; in numerous IS proceedings such a confession was the only piece of evidence. Documented practices include beatings with metal bars, electric shocks, suspension in stress positions and the extortion of statements during pre-trial detention. Proceedings are frequently conducted in summary fashion, sometimes lasting only minutes, and lack effective defense. Such proceedings violate Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR; proceedings based on torture are incompatible with German and European ordre public.
Lack of judicial independence and militia influence: The Iraqi judiciary is regarded as not independent according to consistent reporting (US State Department Human Rights Report, Human Rights Watch); judges, lawyers and their relatives are exposed to threats and assaults. Iran-aligned militias, some attributed to the state-recognized popular mobilization (Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF), operate largely outside the formal legal framework and with near-total impunity; they are involved in arbitrary arrests, abductions and extortion. These structures give grounds to expect neither a fair trial nor reliable state guarantees.
Sectarian and political persecution: In practice, the blanket terrorism allegation disproportionately affects Sunni Arabs as well as members of minorities; behind an ostensibly "criminal" request there may lie a sectarian or political purpose of persecution. Proceedings connected to the opposition, the protest movement (such as the Tishreen protests from 2019 onward), or religious or ethnic minorities are a bar under Section 6(1) IRG (political offense) and Section 6(2) IRG (threatened persecution on grounds of political conviction, religion or membership of a social group).
Abuse of Interpol: Iraq, too, uses Red Notices and diffusions. Under Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, any activity of a political, military, religious or racial character is prohibited; politically motivated alerts can be challenged through the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF). Where there is an Iraq connection, an arrest at home or in a transit country abroad must be averted early through a CCF application, a protective brief with the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Federal Office of Justice, and consular precautions.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in the Iraqi prison system are documented by numerous independent sources (US State Department, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN reporting) as seriously contrary to human rights. Reports describe massive overcrowding, inadequate hygiene and medical care, torture and ill-treatment to extort confessions, prolonged pre-trial detention without contact with the outside world (incommunicado detention), deaths in custody, and detention in facilities not officially designated as such, some under the control of security services or militias. Facilities such as Al-Hut prison in Nasiriya simultaneously serve as central execution sites.
From German case law it follows that, in the case of an extradition to Iraq, the standard of review developed in relation to Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 of the EU Charter (Aranyosi/Căldăraru, ECJ C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU — also to be applied as the standard outside the European Arrest Warrant) regularly weighs decisively against admissibility. A mere diplomatic assurance ("humane treatment") does not suffice in the absence of any monitoring mechanism; in view of the documented situation and militia influence, a reliable, facility-specific and monitorable assurance is practically unattainable.
Consular assistance is provided through the German Embassy in Baghdad on the basis of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (VCCR). It is an aggravating factor that Iraq can effectively deny consular access to German–Iraqi dual nationals, because it does not always recognize German nationality — meaning that effective monitoring of treatment after a surrender would not be guaranteed precisely in the most endangered constellations.
Lines of defense
The defense in Iraq extradition proceedings is regularly promising where it is structured by a lawyer at an early stage. Review grid:
- Section 8 IRG (death penalty): Where the allegations carry the threat of the Iraqi death penalty (terrorism under Article 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, murder, certain drug and security offenses), extradition only subject to an effective, monitorable assurance — practically unobtainable in view of the mass-execution practice, and therefore regularly inadmissible.
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR (torture/coerced confessions): Regularly a decisive argument. The documented practice of torture and the use of coerced confessions as often the only piece of evidence must be introduced systematically into the admissibility proceedings; proceedings tainted by torture are incompatible with ordre public.
- Section 6(2) IRG (threatened political/sectarian persecution): Where there is a connection to the opposition, the protest movement, or Sunni or other sectarian or ethnic affiliation, this must be reviewed without exception — regularly a bar. It also covers an ostensibly "criminal" request behind which lies a purpose of persecution.
- Section 6(1) IRG (political offense): Applicable in the case of security- and terrorism-related offenses and politically connoted proceedings.
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG: In the case of German nationality — including for German–Iraqi dual nationals — extradition is excluded.
- Section 3 IRG (dual criminality): The boundless terrorism definition in Article 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Law captures conduct that has no German counterpart; a careful mirror-image and subsumption review is required, with extradition inadmissible to that extent.
- Section 5 IRG (reciprocity): Treaty-less — a formal, reliable assurance of reciprocity is required; in view of the lack of judicial independence, it must be assessed critically.
- Section 11 IRG (rule of specialty): In treaty-less extradition this must be secured separately; a concrete enumeration of the offenses granted, with supplementary requests only upon renewed consent.
- Section 9 IRG (double jeopardy / ne bis in idem): Where there are parallel investigations in Germany or third states, review the bar.
- Interpol/CCF: Challenge a politically motivated Red Notice or diffusion through Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution; an early CCF deletion application, a protective brief with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): After the OLG has declared the extradition admissible, the standard remedy in the case of violations of fundamental rights (Article 1(1), Article 2(2), Article 25 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR); where the detention-conditions and persecution objections have been carefully worked up, the prospects are not slight.
Legal representation in Iraqi extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.