Overview
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية, al-Mamlaka al-Urdunniyya al-Hāschimiyya) has no bilateral extradition treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany. Jordan is neither a party to the European Convention on Extradition (EuAlÜbk) nor an EU member state; the European Arrest Warrant does not apply. Extradition relations are therefore governed exclusively on a treaty-free basis under Sections 1 ff. IRG and require a formal assurance of reciprocity from Jordan (Section 5 IRG). Regionally, Jordan is bound by the Arab (Riyadh) Convention on Judicial Cooperation of 1983; this convention does not, however, concern the Germany–Jordan relationship.
In practice, extradition traffic between Germany and Jordan is small in number but highly sensitive in human-rights terms. Jordan is a central host country for refugees from Syria, Iraq and the Palestinian territories and at the same time a close security-policy partner of Western states — a constellation in which requests with a terrorism, security or political dimension regularly end before the State Security Court. Added to this are ordinary criminal allegations (economic, fraud, drug and narcotics offenses), where, however, the same structural fundamental questions take center stage.
It is precisely Jordan's geopolitical role as a regional hub that makes the defense demanding: a Jordanian request may relate to a third-country national who, after surrender, faces not only the Jordanian proceedings but onward removal to his country of origin. From the outset, therefore, the lawyer's task is to expose the true character of the request, to reconstruct the legal consequences threatened in the destination state, and to prepare the human-rights bars to extradition before the Higher Regional Court in such a way that they stand in the way of the granting decision from the start.
The defense in Jordan constellations follows a multi-stage review grid: the treaty-free conditions for extradition under the IRG, reciprocity (Section 5 IRG), the death-penalty reservation (Section 8 IRG), the prohibition of political persecution (Section 6 IRG) and — as a regularly load-bearing argument — Article 3 ECHR / Section 73 sentence 1 IRG concerning torture, administrative detention and the detention conditions in Jordanian facilities.
Legal basis
In the absence of an instrument of international law, the German Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) of 23 Dec 1982 applies directly on the German side. Treaty-free extradition requires an assurance of reciprocity under Section 5 IRG; under Section 3 IRG, dual criminality is required (the offense must be punishable at its maximum by more than one year's imprisonment, and in the case of enforcement at least four months of the sentence must remain to be served). Political, military and exclusively fiscal offenses are subject to Sections 6, 7 IRG.
For German citizens, extradition to Jordan is precluded under Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG; the relaxation provided by Section 80 IRG applies only to extraditions to EU member states. This barring effect also persists for dual German-Jordanian nationals (cf. BVerfGE 113, 273 — European Arrest Warrant I). Since many affected persons living in Germany also hold Jordanian or another Arab nationality, consular protection after any surrender must additionally be borne in mind, because Jordan regularly does not extradite its own nationals and treats dual nationals as exclusively Jordanian.
On the Jordanian side, substantive criminal law is based on the Penal Code (Qānūn al-ʿUqūbāt No. 16/1960) and a series of special statutes, including the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 55/2006 (tightened several times) and the Cybercrime Law No. 17/2023. Security-related and politically charged proceedings are conducted before the State Security Court (محكمة أمن الدولة), a special court with a military and civilian bench. 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 fundamental and foreign-policy-sensitive cases by the Federal Office of Justice in agreement with the Federal Foreign Office.
In procedural terms, the requirement of dual criminality under Section 3 IRG is central: the offense must also be punishable under German law and carry a maximum penalty of more than one year's imprisonment; in the case of extradition for the enforcement of a sentence, at least four months of the sentence must remain to be enforced (Section 3(2) IRG). Particularly in the case of Jordanian special offenses with a political or ideological slant, a careful mirror-image review is required, because a German counterpart is often lacking. In addition, the request must not be a mere pretext for what is in truth a political, military or fiscal prosecution (Sections 6, 7 IRG); otherwise the extradition is inadmissible from the outset.
Country-specific issues in Jordan
Death penalty — retained, the 2006–2014 moratorium ended: Jordan is a retentionist state. After a de facto execution halt between 2006 and 2014, eleven convicts were executed at Swaqa prison in December 2014 — the first executions in eight years. Further executions followed, including a mass execution of 15 persons in March 2017 (predominantly for terrorism offenses); Amnesty International also documents continuing executions in the following years (executions again for 2024). The death penalty threatens, among other things, for murder, serious drug offenses, terrorism and certain state-security offenses. Where the allegation is of this kind, extradition under Section 8 IRG is permissible only subject to an effective, verifiable assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, at any rate, not carried out — otherwise the extradition is inadmissible.
State Security Court and the fair trial: The Jordanian State Security Court is a special court staffed with military and civilian judges, before which terrorism, drug and state-security proceedings — in part also against civilians — are heard. Human-rights organizations and the US human rights report document structural deficiencies: the routine use of "confessions" obtained under torture or ill-treatment despite a constitutional prohibition, restricted access to defense counsel, a lack of information about the allegations, and convictions on broadly drafted offenses. Thus, in 2024 the activist Ayman Sanduka was charged before the State Security Court with "incitement to resist the political system" (Art. 149 Jordanian Penal Code) — the trigger was an open letter to the King in which he had criticized diplomatic relations with Israel. Proceedings with such a political slant are barring under Section 6(1) IRG (political offense) and Section 6(2) IRG (threatened persecution on grounds of political conviction); at the same time, the documented procedural defects warrant a review against the standard of Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR (fair trial).
Administrative detention under the Crime Prevention Law: The Crime Prevention Law No. 7/1954 empowers provincial governors to place persons in administrative detention without charge, court proceedings or effective judicial control if they are regarded as a "danger." Human Rights Watch and the Jordanian National Center for Human Rights document orders of magnitude of several tens of thousands of administrative detention orders per year. This practice means that an extradited person can be deprived of liberty even outside the formal criminal proceedings and without judicial review — a weighty consideration in the context of Section 73 sentence 1 IRG.
Political persecution, freedom of expression and the refugee situation: Jordan has recently expanded the criminal prosecution of expressions of opinion considerably — on the basis of the Cybercrime Law No. 17/2023 and the state-security offenses, criticism of the authorities and pro-Palestinian statements are prosecuted. For affected persons with a Syrian, Iraqi or Palestinian background, there is also the risk of chain deportation to the country of origin (risk of refoulement). Where a request in truth serves the persecution of a person on grounds of political conviction, religion or membership of a particular social group, it is barring under Section 6(2) IRG; an ostensibly "criminal" framing of the request does not change this.
Abuse of Interpol: In relation to Jordan as well, attention must be paid to the possibility of politically motivated Interpol alerts. Under Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, any activity of a political, military, religious or racial character is prohibited; corresponding Red Notices and diffusions can be challenged through the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF). Where there is a risk of arrest at home or in transit abroad, a CCF application, a protective brief with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice, and consular precautions should be arranged at an early stage.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in the Jordanian prison system are documented by independent sources (US State Department Human Rights Report, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Committee against Torture) as structurally deficient. Reported are considerable overcrowding (most recently around 19,000 detainees in facilities designed for about 13,300 persons), torture and ill-treatment in police and security custody, the absence of independent investigation — abuses by members of the police and the Preventive Security Directorate are tried before police courts under the Ministry of the Interior — as well as documented deaths in custody. Emblematic is the case of a detainee tortured to death at Marka prison, in which eight members of the security service were sentenced to only one month's detention — evidence of the far-reaching impunity. The torture offense under Jordanian law does not meet international-law standards: it is classified as a mere misdemeanor and does not distinguish between private perpetrators and public officials.
From German case law it follows that, in the case of extradition to Jordan, the standard of review developed for Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 of the EU Charter (Aranyosi/Căldăraru, ECJ C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU — to be applied as the standard even outside the European Arrest Warrant) must regularly be brought to bear in the admissibility review. A mere diplomatic assurance ("humane treatment") is not sufficient; what is required is a concrete, verifiable, facility-specific assurance that names the facility and provides a monitoring mechanism actually enabling a check on the treatment after surrender — for instance through the German Embassy in Amman. Because of the practice of administrative detention, it must additionally be secured that the affected person will not, following any acquittal or after serving the sentence, be further held by way of administrative detention or removed to a third state.
Consular assistance is provided through the German Embassy in Amman on the basis of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 Apr 1963 (VCCR). With dual nationals it must be borne in mind that Jordan gives priority to Jordanian nationality and may in practice impede consular access — precisely in the security-law-charged constellations in which it is needed most urgently.
Lines of defense
The defense in Jordan extradition proceedings is, with early structuring by counsel, regularly promising. Review grid:
- Section 8 IRG (death penalty): Where the allegations carry a Jordanian threat of the death penalty (murder, serious drug offenses, terrorism, state security), extradition only subject to an effective, verifiable and monitorable assurance that imposition or enforcement will be waived — to be examined carefully and critically in view of the practice of executions resumed since 2014, otherwise inadmissible.
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR (torture / detention conditions): Regularly the load-bearing argument. Systematically introduce the reports of the US State Department, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on torture in security custody, overcrowding and administrative detention into the admissibility proceedings; where an assurance cannot be monitored, it remains barring.
- Section 6(2) IRG (threatened political/religious persecution): Mandatory to examine where there is a connection to the opposition, to freedom of expression, to the Cybercrime Law or to pro-Palestinian activity — regularly barring. Also covers an ostensibly "criminal" request with a concealed persecutory purpose.
- Section 6(1) IRG (political offense): Applicable in proceedings before the State Security Court and in the case of state-security-related offenses.
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG (administrative detention / refoulement): Work out the risk of administrative detention under the Crime Prevention Law 1954 and of the onward removal of refugees to their country of origin as a separate ground for refusal.
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG: Where there is German nationality — including for dual German-Jordanian nationals — extradition is precluded.
- Section 3 IRG (dual criminality): In the case of Jordanian special offenses (broadly drafted state-security and cybercrime offenses, "incitement to resist the system"), a careful subsumption and mirror-image review; without a German counterpart, inadmissible to that extent.
- Section 5 IRG (reciprocity): Treaty-free — a formal, reliable assurance of reciprocity is required.
- Section 11 IRG (rule of specialty): In the case of treaty-free extradition, to be secured separately; a concrete enumeration of the offenses granted, with a supplementary request only with renewed consent.
- Interpol/CCF: Challenge a politically motivated Red Notice or diffusion through Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution; an early CCF deletion request, a protective brief with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): After the OLG declares the extradition admissible, the standard remedy where fundamental rights are violated (Article 1(1), Article 2(2), Article 25 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR); where the detention-conditions and persecution challenge has been carefully prepared, the prospects are not slight.
Legal representation in Jordanian 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.