Overview
The Syrian Arab Republic (الجمهورية العربية السورية, al-Jumhūriyya al-ʿArabiyya as-Sūriyya) has no bilateral extradition treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany. Syria 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-free basis under Sections 1 ff. IRG and require a formal assurance of reciprocity from the Syrian side (Section 5 IRG).
Since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has been undergoing a profound political upheaval. Following the end of decades of rule by the Assad family, a transitional government is in office under Ahmed al-Sharaa (which emerged from the militia Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, HTS); a constitutional declaration provides for a transitional phase of several years leading to a permanent constitution and elections. The development of rule-of-law structures, of an orderly judicial and prison system, and the reckoning with the crimes of the past are only at the beginning and their outcome is open. For an extradition case this means that the situation must be assessed on a case-by-case and as-of-date basis and must be based on reliable, current sources.
Formal Syrian extradition requests to Germany are, in practice, hardly to be expected in this phase; relations are currently being reordered. More relevant in practice are Interpol alerts (Red Notices and diffusions) still dating from the time of the old regime, whose continued existence and lawfulness must be reviewed separately, as well as the fundamental human-rights questions raised by any return to Syria: the death penalty that remains in force in Syria (Section 8 IRG), the torture documented over decades, and the still fragile detention and security framework (Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR), as well as the risk of politically or denominationally motivated persecution (Section 6 IRG). A careful distinction must be drawn between the extradition proceedings dealt with here (surrender to a requesting state for prosecution or for the enforcement of a sentence) and the immigration-law deportation law, which follows its own standards; the human-rights limits of Article 3 ECHR apply, however, in both proceedings.
Legal basis
In the absence of any treaty under international law, the 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 punishable by a maximum custodial sentence of more than one year, and in the case of enforcement, at least four months of remaining sentence). Political offenses, military offenses and purely fiscal offenses are subject to Sections 6, 7 IRG. In a state undergoing upheaval, the very reliability of such an assurance, and the existence of a functioning central authority bound by law, must be critically scrutinized — declarations that are not backed by a consolidated, accountable state body are unsuitable as the basis for a surrender.
For German citizens, extradition to Syria is excluded under Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG; the relaxation in Section 80 IRG applies only to extraditions to EU member states. This barring effect also applies to German-Syrian dual nationals (cf. BVerfGE 113, 273 — European Arrest Warrant I). For consular protection in the event of detention in Syria, by contrast, dual nationality is of considerable practical significance, since Syria may give precedence to the sole Syrian nationality.
On the Syrian side, substantive criminal law is based on the Syrian Criminal Code of 1949 (as amended many times) and on numerous special statutes. The exceptional and counter-terrorism jurisdiction that was central under the old regime — in particular the notorious Counter-Terrorism Court and the field courts — was declared dissolved by the transitional government in 2025; according to reports, hundreds of thousands of judgments of those courts were also declared void and judges placed under review. Which judicial and administrative structures will support extradition relations in future is the subject of the ongoing transitional process. On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts continue to 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 significance for foreign policy by the Federal Office of Justice in agreement with the Federal Foreign Office.
Country-specific issues in Syria
Death penalty — still provided for by law in Syria: The death penalty has not been abolished in Syrian law following the change of regime; human-rights organizations are calling for its abolition as part of the necessary legal reforms. Under the Assad regime it was used for decades as an instrument of political repression, including through mass executions at the Saydnaya military prison. How the transitional government will deal with the death penalty, and whether a moratorium is in force, cannot be reliably assessed at the current state of affairs. Where the charge is relevant, extradition is admissible under Section 8 IRG only subject to an effective, verifiable assurance — given the unstable situation and the absence of robust monitoring mechanisms, such an assurance is in practice barely obtainable, so that extradition is regularly inadmissible.
The documented torture system of the Assad regime (historical background): Over more than a decade, a pervasive system of torture, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killing in the detention facilities and intelligence branches of the Assad regime has been documented. The symbol of this system is the Saydnaya military prison near Damascus; the so-called "Caesar" photos evidence thousands of deaths in custody. The Syrian Network for Human Rights estimates that, over the years, more than 100,000 people were detained and forcibly disappeared. After the fall of the regime in December 2024, the facilities were opened and numerous prisoners freed; the files found there are a central item of evidence for the process of reckoning. This documented past remains of considerable weight for the human-rights review of any return.
Political, denominational and ethnic persecution: Despite the change of power, the security and human-rights situation remains fragile. Documented since the upheaval are, among other things, violent assaults and massacres with a denominational background (in particular against Alawites and Druze in 2025) and summary killings of suspected members of the former regime. Constellations connected to the former regime as well as those critical of the regime, membership of a religious or ethnic group (e.g. Kurds, Alawites, Christians, Druze), and the accusation of conversion from Islam (apostasy) can give rise to a threat of persecution within the meaning of Section 6(2) IRG.
Abuse and continuing effect of Interpol alerts: Alerts from the time of the Assad regime may have been politically motivated and yet still technically persist. Under Article 3 of Interpol's 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 a Syria connection, the continued existence, originator and background of a Red Notice or diffusion must be clarified early and, where necessary, defended against by means of a CCF application, a protective brief lodged with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice, and consular precautions.
German connection — universal jurisdiction and the Koblenz judgment: Germany prosecutes crimes against humanity arising from the Syrian context under the principle of universal jurisdiction (Section 1 Code of Crimes against International Law), which allows adjudication regardless of the place of the offense and of nationality. On 13 Jan 2022, the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz sentenced the former Syrian intelligence officer Anwar R. to life imprisonment for a crime against humanity (case no. 1 StE 9/19); he was held responsible for the torture of at least 4,000 people in Branch 251 (al-Khatib) of the General Intelligence Directorate in Damascus. A co-defendant had previously been convicted of aiding and abetting. With judicial authority, the judgment documents the extent of state torture and is of considerable weight for the human-rights argument in extradition proceedings. For the defense it also means that facts concerning the Syrian detention and intelligence system have already been established in a manner that will withstand scrutiny in the German judiciary and can be relied upon in the admissibility proceedings.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions under the Assad regime are documented by numerous independent sources (the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, and the "Caesar" documentation) as seriously contrary to human rights: systematic torture to extract confessions, enforced disappearance, death in custody, and catastrophic hygienic and medical conditions. At the center stood the Saydnaya military prison, which Amnesty International has described as a "human slaughterhouse". To what extent the prison system has structurally changed under the transitional government cannot be reliably assessed at the current state of affairs; a reliable, independent monitoring system is not yet established.
From German case law it follows that, in the case of an extradition to Syria, 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 — to be applied as the standard even outside the European Arrest Warrant) is regularly decisive. By means of a current risk assessment, it must be determined whether the requested person faces torture or inhuman treatment after a surrender. A mere diplomatic assurance does not suffice in the absence of a robust monitoring mechanism; in a state undergoing upheaval, a facility-specific, monitorable assurance is in practice not obtainable.
Added to this is the generally fragile security situation. The Federal Foreign Office warns against travel to Syria; Germany itself only resumed returns to Syria at the end of 2025 — and initially limited to offenders and persons deemed a threat, on the basis of a bilateral understanding with the transitional government — while the Syrian side describes the country's capacity to receive people as not yet given. An effective monitoring of treatment after a surrender — as provided for by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) — would thus not be guaranteed, precisely in the most endangered constellations.
Lines of defense
The defense in Syria extradition cases is regularly promising where there is early structuring by counsel and careful, up-to-date preparation of the facts. Review framework:
- Section 73 sentence 1 IRG in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR (torture/detention conditions): Regularly a decisive argument. Systematically introduce into the admissibility proceedings the documented history of torture (Saydnaya, the "Caesar" photos, Branch 251) and the fragile present that can only be monitored in part; a current risk assessment rather than blanket assertions.
- Section 8 IRG (death penalty): The death penalty is still provided for by law in Syria; where the charge is relevant, extradition only subject to an effective, monitorable assurance — in practice not obtainable given the situation, and therefore regularly inadmissible.
- Section 6(2) IRG (threat of political/religious persecution): To be reviewed without fail where there is a connection to proximity to or distance from the regime, opposition, minority or denominational affiliation (Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Christians), or accusations of apostasy — regularly barring. Also covers a request that is ostensibly "criminal" but behind which a purpose of persecution lies.
- Section 6(1) IRG (political offense): Applicable where the charges relate to security and conflict matters arising from the Syrian civil war.
- Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG: Where there is German citizenship — including for German-Syrian dual nationals — extradition is excluded.
- Section 3 IRG (dual criminality): Syrian special offenses (e.g. apostasy, broadly framed "terrorism" or state-security offenses) without a German counterpart must be carefully reviewed on a mirror-image basis — extradition inadmissible to that extent.
- Section 5 IRG (reciprocity): Treaty-free — a formal, robust assurance of reciprocity is required; in the transitional phase its reliability and the capacity to act of the issuing body must be reviewed with particular care.
- Section 11 IRG (rule of specialty): To be secured separately in treaty-free extradition; a concrete enumeration of the offenses granted, supplementary requests only with renewed consent.
- Interpol/CCF: Clarify the continued existence, originator and background of a Red Notice or diffusion still dating from the Assad era and, where appropriate, challenge it under Article 3 of Interpol's Constitution; a CCF deletion request, a protective brief lodged with the BKA and the Federal Office of Justice.
- Section 9 IRG (double jeopardy / ne bis in idem): Where there are parallel investigations in Germany or third states, review the barring effect.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): The standard remedy after the OLG has declared the extradition admissible, where there are violations of fundamental rights (Article 1(1), Article 2(2), Article 25 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 3 ECHR); with a carefully prepared challenge to detention conditions and persecution, the prospects are not slight.
Legal representation in Syrian 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 alert, 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.