Human Rights and Extradition: ECHR Limits, Critical Issues, and the Albanian Perspective

Abstract

This article examines extradition as a central mechanism of international judicial cooperation through the perspective of contemporary human rights law. It analyses the extent to which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), particularly under Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), has transformed extradition from a sovereignty-oriented instrument into a legally constrained process governed by fundamental rights standards. Through doctrinal, jurisprudential, and comparative analysis, the study evaluates leading ECtHR decisions, including Soering v. United Kingdom, Chahal v. United Kingdom, Saadi v. Italy, and Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, while also addressing persistent legal and institutional challenges such as politicization, diplomatic assurances, procedural inefficiency, and tensions between extradition and asylum law. Particular attention is devoted to Albania’s extradition framework as a transitional legal system formally harmonized with European standards but still affected by implementation difficulties. The article argues that extradition increasingly reflects the constitutionalization of international judicial cooperation, where effective criminal law enforcement must remain subordinate to the protection of fundamental rights.