What a court decision may clarify
An extradition judgment may record evidence, assess alleged procedural defects, explain the legal basis for refusal or make findings on particular risks. The question is not only the result, extradition refused, but which facts the court established and when they became available.
How we analyse relevance
Obtain the decision
The full, final or current reasoned decision, through lawful channels.
Identify findings
The court's actual factual findings and the limits of their scope.
Compare
Those findings against what the CCF already knew.
Date and authenticate
When the new facts were discovered and how the documents can be authenticated.
Evaluate
Whether any finding is relevant enough to the CCF's data-processing rules to warrant an Article 42 assessment.
Why separate counsel may be needed
Outcomes we can and cannot promise
We can prepare a document-led assessment of relevance and organise qualified legal review. We cannot guarantee deletion of a Red Notice, cancellation of a national warrant, travel clearance or an extradition result.
FAQs
Does the CCF decide whether a person should be extradited?
No. INTERPOL states that the CCF is not competent for national extradition proceedings and is not a substitute for the judicial authorities that assess extradition.
What if the extradition refusal came before my CCF decision?
Whether a fact was known during the earlier CCF examination needs precise analysis. The date of a document alone does not decide it.
Does a court's human-rights assessment matter?
Potentially. Its role depends on what the judgment says, the CCF rules and whether new material facts have emerged.
Independent summary. These institutions do not endorse this service. Check the live official guidance before filing.