Global Legal Grounds for the Refusal of Extradition Requests Originating from Türkiye

An Analysis in Light of International Reports and High Court Judgments

General Framework of Extradition Law and the Legal Obligations of the Republic of Türkiye

The legal validity of an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Türkiye must be assessed in light of international conventions, the European Convention on Extradition and the requesting state’s own domestic legal regulations, including circulars of the Ministry of Justice. Extradition is not merely a diplomatic procedure; it is a judicial and political process that directly affects personal liberty and is subject to strict formal requirements.

Definition and Legal Basis of Extradition

Under Turkish law, extradition refers to the surrender of a person present in one state to another state for the purpose of investigation or prosecution where that person is suspected or accused of having committed an offence in the requesting state, or for the enforcement of a sentence where the person has already been convicted. This process is not an arbitrary request mechanism; it is based on a hierarchy of legal norms.

Multilateral conventions: Türkiye is a party to the European Convention on Extradition and its First, Second, Third and Fourth Additional Protocols.

Bilateral agreements: In relation to countries that are not parties to the European Convention on Extradition, such as the United States, Morocco, Iraq and Iran, bilateral agreements apply.

Domestic law: In Türkiye, the process is governed by Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.

Minimum Requirements for a Valid Extradition Request

International law and Circular No. 184 of the Turkish Ministry of Justice, dated 20 November 2024, set out the minimum evidentiary standards that a valid extradition request must meet. Requests that fail to comply with these standards should be rejected on procedural grounds.

Requirement of causal link and concrete evidence:
Pursuant to Article 12 of the European Convention on Extradition and the circular of the Turkish Ministry of Justice, the request must indicate, as far as possible in detail, the place, time and legal characterisation of the alleged offence. More importantly, the Turkish circular expressly requires that “the causal link between the acts of the person whose extradition is requested and the evidence must be clearly indicated.”

Minimum penalty threshold:
For Türkiye to request extradition, the alleged offence in respect of suspects or accused persons must be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least one year. In the case of convicted persons, the sentence imposed must be at least four months. Article 2 of the European Convention on Extradition similarly provides for a seriousness threshold of at least one year.

Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Extradition

International conventions to which Türkiye is a party absolutely prohibit extradition in certain situations.

Political offences:
Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition, if the requested state considers that the offence is a political offence or that the request has been made for the purpose of punishing a person on account of their political opinions, it must refuse extradition.

Conviction in absentia and the rights of the defence:
Under Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, to which Türkiye is a party, extradition may be refused where the person was tried and convicted in absentia and the rights of the defence were not fully guaranteed. In such cases, Türkiye must provide a guarantee of retrial.

Human rights and refugee status:
Documents of the Turkish Ministry of Justice acknowledge that extradition requests must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This shows that, where a person has refugee status or has applied for asylum, this situation must be taken into account in the extradition process.

The Rule of Law Crisis and Structural Human Rights Problems in Türkiye

The current judicial system in the Republic of Türkiye, the situation in prisons and fundamental human rights violations must be analysed in light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the findings of United Nations committees and the official reports of international observers. The available data show that the problems are not isolated incidents, but have acquired a systematic and widespread character affecting the institutional structure of the judiciary.

Institutional Collapse of Judicial Independence and Impartiality

An independent judiciary is a prerequisite for a fair extradition process. However, international mechanisms confirm that the judiciary in Türkiye has come under the direct control of the executive branch and that the principle of separation of powers has, in practice, been eliminated.

Serious regression and executive control over the judiciary:
In its most recent 2024 report, the UN Committee against Torture recorded that there has been a severe regression in judicial independence and impartiality in Türkiye and that members of the judiciary are under political pressure.

Dismissal of judges and prosecutors:
The mass dismissal and arrest of thousands of judges and prosecutors after 15 July 2016, without respect for legal safeguards and without sufficient evidence, created a lasting climate of fear within the judicial system. The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasised that this situation undermined the impartiality of the judiciary and raised concerns that newly appointed judges were selected on the basis of political loyalty rather than merit.

The problem of the independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors:
The structure of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors is criticised because its members are appointed directly by the President and by a parliamentary majority controlled by the ruling party. This structure creates the basis for investigations, appointments and dismissals of judges to be carried out on political grounds.

Finding of an international court:
The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil described the collapse of judicial independence in Türkiye and the detention of political opponents as a “notorious fact” and held that, under these circumstances, there were justified doubts as to whether a person extradited to Türkiye would be brought before an independent court.

Vagueness of the Definition of “Terrorism” and Violation of the Principle of Legality

One of the most fundamental legal problems in Türkiye is that the definition of “terrorism” is far broader and more vague than international standards allow. This leads even non-violent lawful activities to be treated as “terrorist offences.”

Overly broad and unforeseeable definition:
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the definition of terrorism in Anti-Terror Law No. 3713, particularly Articles 1 and 2, is excessively broad and vague, and that this is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The Committee concluded that these laws are used arbitrarily to silence journalists, human rights defenders and political opponents.

ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment and violation of Article 7:
In Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkish courts had interpreted the Criminal Code against the accused in an unforeseeable and extensive manner. The Court held that treating lawful activities or digital materials automatically as evidence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation, without examining whether the person had criminal intent, violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Systemic problem:
The ECtHR emphasised that this violation did not arise from an isolated error, but from the uniform and categorical approach adopted by the Turkish judiciary, and that it constituted a systemic problem affecting thousands of cases.

Confirmation of the violation and mass trials: Demirhan, Karslı and other judgments:
In a series of judgments delivered in 2025, the ECtHR confirmed the principles established in the Grand Chamber’s Yalçınkaya judgment and recognised, through thousands of applications, that trials in Türkiye were based on an assumption of automatic guilt.

Uniform and global approach:
In Demirhan and Others, concerning 239 applications, the Court stated that the Turkish judiciary’s approach to ByLock evidence had a uniform and global character, independent of individual circumstances. The Court considered that treating the mere use of the application as sufficient to establish all elements of the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation violated Article 7 and Article 6 of the Convention.

Finding of mass violations:
In Karslı and Others, involving 1,436 applications, and Bozyokuş and Others, involving 132 applications, the ECtHR joined thousands of cases and delivered group judgments finding violations. In these cases, the Court rejected the Turkish Government’s argument that each case was unique and emphasised that the problem stemmed not from isolated incidents, but from the categorical approach and systemic problem adopted by Turkish courts.

Violation of the principle of legality:
These judgments conclusively established that ByLock use was treated as exclusively organisational, thereby imposing objective liability on defendants, meaning that individuals were punished without an examination of whether they had criminal intent.

Restrictions on the Right to a Fair Trial and the Rights of the Defence

In criminal proceedings in Türkiye, particularly in terrorism-related cases, there are legal and practical obstacles that restrict the rights of the defence and undermine the principle of equality of arms.

Restriction of access to a lawyer:
The 2024 Human Rights Report of the U.S. Department of State and UN reports document that persons taken into custody face restrictions on access to a lawyer during the first 24 hours, that the confidentiality of lawyer-client meetings is violated through monitoring and recording, and that defence lawyers’ access to investigation files is obstructed through confidentiality orders.

Secret witnesses and restricted evidence:
Secret witness statements are frequently used in trials, while the defence’s right to question those witnesses is restricted. The ECtHR has also found that the integrity of digital evidence is not ensured and that defendants are not given an effective opportunity to mount a technical defence against such evidence.

Torture, Ill-Treatment and Impunity

In the context of the non-refoulement principle in extradition law, the most critical risk is the possibility that the person will be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. International institutions have confirmed that this risk in Türkiye is real and foreseeable.

Systematic torture and impunity:
The UN Committee against Torture has stated that there is a culture of impunity in Türkiye regarding acts of torture committed by law enforcement officers and intelligence units. It has been reported that allegations of torture are not effectively investigated and that those who complain of torture are instead threatened with counter-proceedings.

Detention centres and the National Intelligence Organisation:
The U.S. Department of State report notes an increase in credible reports of torture, beatings, sexual harassment and threats in police detention centres and unofficial places of detention. It is particularly emphasised that, in operations carried out by the National Intelligence Organisation, individuals are interrogated without legal safeguards and face a risk of torture.

Concrete methods:
International reports describe methods such as reverse handcuffing, prolonged sleep deprivation, denial of water and food, threats of sexual violence and beatings during detention.

Prison Conditions and Violations of the Right to Health

Prisons in Türkiye are characterised by overcrowding, problems in access to healthcare and arbitrary disciplinary sanctions.

Overcrowding and poor conditions:
UN reports state that prisons are operating far beyond their capacity, leading to hygiene and health problems. It has been recorded that prisoners’ access to healthcare is delayed or obstructed, sick prisoners are not released and deaths occur in prisons.

Aggravated life imprisonment regime:
The UN Committee against Torture has called for legislative amendments, stating that the aggravated life imprisonment regime in Türkiye deprives prisoners of the right to hope and that conditions of isolation are incompatible with human dignity.

International Status of the Accusations Against the Gülen Movement and Rejection of the “Terrorism” Designation

The Government of the Republic of Türkiye refers to the Gülen movement, also known as the Hizmet Movement, which it holds responsible for the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, as the “Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation” and bases its extradition requests on this designation. However, the international reports and court decisions examined below show that this designation has not been accepted by the international community. On the contrary, actions taken against the movement are regarded as political persecution and human rights violations.

International Consensus: Rejection of the “Terrorist Organisation” Designation

Türkiye’s “FETÖ” designation has not acquired legal validity before the United Nations or Western democracies.

Finding of the UN Special Rapporteur:
UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Saul, has stated that states restrict civic space by using broad and vague definitions of terrorism and extremism, and has pointed to the persecution of the Gülen movement in Türkiye as one of the clearest examples.

Findings of UN Special Rapporteurs:
United Nations human rights experts have expressed deep concern that Türkiye systematically uses broad counter-terrorism laws to target political opponents, journalists and persons associated with the Gülen Movement. The experts argued that Anti-Terror Law No. 3713 and the Turkish Criminal Code are drafted in vague terms that facilitate misuse and may violate international human rights obligations. They specifically stated that the designation of the Gülen Movement as a terrorist organisation is incompatible with the principle of fair trial and does not meet the international legal criteria for the definition of terrorism.

U.S. Department of State report:
The 2024 Human Rights Report of the U.S. Department of State noted that the Turkish Government routinely uses terrorism charges against journalists and opponents reporting on sensitive issues, particularly the Gülen movement and the PKK, and that even possession of legal books may be treated as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation.

Freedom House analysis:
Freedom House found that Türkiye’s designation of the Gülen movement as a terrorist organisation began after the political split in 2013 and that the incorporation of this designation into Turkish law forms part of a long-standing practice of misusing the terrorism label. The report emphasises that the state has used this designation to launch a global manhunt.

ECtHR Judgments: The Illegality of Treating Lawful Activities as “Terrorism”

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the accusations directed by Türkiye against members of the Gülen movement, such as ByLock use, Bank Asya accounts and trade union membership, violate the principle of no crime without law.

Yalçınkaya judgment of the Grand Chamber:
In Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that automatically treating the use of the ByLock messaging application as membership of an armed terrorist organisation, without examining the accused person’s criminal intent or knowledge of the organisation’s ultimate aim, violated Article 7 of the Convention. The Court stated that this interpretation by the Turkish judiciary expanded the law against the accused in an unforeseeable manner.

Systematic violation: Demirhan, Bozyokuş, Seyhan and Karslı judgments:
In the Demirhan, Karslı, Bozyokuş and Seyhan judgments delivered in 2025, the ECtHR confirmed, across thousands of files, that the Turkish judiciary’s approach to ByLock was uniform and global, that individuals were convicted according to the same template without regard to their individual circumstances, and that this constituted a systemic problem.

• Yasak Judgment (Grand Chamber): The ECtHR Grand Chamber further developed and reinforced this approach in Yasak v. Turkey. Unlike Yalçınkaya, which focused primarily on the automatic treatment of ByLock use as decisive evidence of terrorist organisation membership, Yasak concerned the retrospective criminalisation of activities that had appeared lawful at the material time, including involvement in educational structures linked to the Gülen movement, employment records, telephone contacts, witness statements, alleged use of a code name, and banking transactions with Bank Asya. The Court held that the domestic courts had failed to conduct an individualised assessment of the applicant’s criminal intent. In particular, they had not explained how activities carried out within the organisation’s educational branch, before its official designation as a terrorist organisation, demonstrated that the applicant was aware of its alleged terrorist nature and objectives, intended to be part of it, and actively and continuously contributed to it. The Grand Chamber therefore found a violation of Article 7, stressing that criminal liability for membership of a terrorist organisation cannot be based on collective guilt, guilt by association, or a retrospective inference of mens rea from otherwise lawful civil, educational or financial activities.[1]

[1] Yasak v. Turkey [GC], no. 17389/20, 5 May 2026, especially §§ 204–213; see also ECtHR Press Release, “The applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the conditions of his detention entailed violations of Article 7 and Article 3 of the Convention”, ECHR 114 (2026), 5 May 2026.

Transnational Repression and Unlawful Operations

Türkiye’s extradition requests are regarded by international institutions not as calls for legal cooperation, but as part of a global campaign of repression.

PACE resolution:
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that Türkiye’s policy of pursuing persons associated with the Gülen movement includes the misuse of extradition procedures, abuse of INTERPOL Red Notices and unlawful rendition practices, and defined these actions as transnational repression.

Global purge campaign:
According to Freedom House, since 2016 Türkiye has targeted opponents through abductions and unlawful transfers from 31 different countries. The report stresses that Türkiye is one of the world’s most aggressive states in this field, alongside China and Russia.

UN Committee against Torture decision: the Kosovo example:
In X and Y v. Switzerland, No. 1081/2021, the UN Committee against Torture considered Türkiye’s abduction of six Turkish teachers in Kosovo by means of an operation carried out by the National Intelligence Organisation, bypassing local law, as exposing those persons to a risk of torture. The Committee also prohibited deportation to third countries where Türkiye has influence, due to the risk of chain refoulement.

Current Targets: Women, Students and the “Girls’ Trial”

Letters of UN Special Rapporteurs dated 2024 and 2025 document that Türkiye’s operations conducted under the name of counter-terrorism now target university students and women who have no connection with violence.

Operations against young people and women:
UN Special Rapporteurs reported that in operations carried out on 7 May 2024 and 6 May 2025, persons, mostly women and students, were detained on the grounds of alleged links to the Gülen movement. The accusations against these persons included entirely lawful and peaceful activities such as studying together, being housemates and organising iftar meals.

Allegations of torture against children:
In UN communication AL TUR 5/2024, it was stated that 16 children detained in Istanbul were interrogated without a lawyer for 16 hours, were not given food and were threatened by police officers with physical beatings that would “make them vomit blood.”

The “Girls’ Trial”:
In the case heard in Istanbul and publicly known as the “Girls’ Trial,” high school and university students were reportedly convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation on grounds such as attending religious discussions. This has been recorded as one of the most extreme examples of the instrumentalisation of law.

Global Precedents: International Case-Law on the Refusal of Extradition Requests

The global extradition campaign launched by the Republic of Türkiye against members of the Gülen movement after 15 July 2016 has been systematically rejected by the courts of democratic states governed by the rule of law and by international human rights mechanisms as political and unlawful. The precedents summarised below show that a universal legal consensus has emerged in favour of refusing extradition.

United Kingdom Judiciary: Collapse of the Rule of Law and Political Motivation

United Kingdom courts have issued some of the most comprehensive decisions examining Türkiye’s extradition requests and have confirmed that the Turkish judicial system has lost its independence.

The Akın İpek, Ali Çelik and Talip Büyük decision of Westminster Magistrates’ Court:
In its decision of 28 November 2018, the Court refused the extradition requests. District Judge John Zani expressed serious concerns about the current state of the rule of law in Türkiye and made the following findings:

Political motivation:
The Court was satisfied that there was substantial evidence that the extradition request had been made because of the defendants’ political opinions and was politically motivated.

Risk to the right to a fair trial under Article 6:
Taking into account the defence argument that the rule of law in Türkiye had disintegrated, the judge held that there was a real risk that the defendants would suffer a flagrant denial of justice if extradited.

Risk of torture and ill-treatment under Article 3:
The Court concluded that there was a real risk that the defendants would be subjected to ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if extradited to Türkiye.

Özcan Keleş case:
The United Kingdom has continued its policy of refusing the extradition of journalists and activists associated with the Gülen movement on the grounds of the political nature of the requests and prison conditions in Türkiye.

United Nations Decisions: Insufficiency of Diplomatic Assurances

The UN Committee against Torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have intervened even in cases where domestic courts approved extradition, finding extraditions to Türkiye to be violations of international law.

Morocco decisions: İsmet Bakay, Elmas Ayden, Mustafa Önder and Ferhat Erdoğan:
The UN Committee against Torture issued landmark decisions halting the extradition of these individuals, even though Moroccan courts had accepted Türkiye’s extradition requests.

Rejection of diplomatic assurances:
Despite Türkiye’s assurances that no torture would take place, the Committee found that the applicants continued to face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture because of their political profile and alleged links to the Gülen movement.

Finding of political persecution:
The Committee emphasised that the applicants were being pursued because of their political opinions or affiliations and that, due to systematic human rights violations in Türkiye, extradition would violate Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.

Mustafa Ceyhan decision of the WGAD:
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention characterised Mustafa Ceyhan’s abduction from Azerbaijan and subsequent detention in Türkiye as arbitrary detention. The decision stated that Türkiye based its terrorism accusations on vague membership allegations and that the offence lacked a legal basis.

Ç. and M.E.Ç. decision concerning Georgia:
The UN Committee against Torture halted, through interim measures, the extradition to Türkiye of a teacher associated with the Gülen movement because of the risk of torture.

European Courts: Double Criminality and Political Offence Barriers

Courts in European Union member states and candidate countries have held that the evidence submitted by Türkiye, such as ByLock and Bank Asya, does not constitute a crime and that the requests are political.

Romania, F.G. decision:
The Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected Türkiye’s extradition request. The Court found that the allegation of membership of a terrorist organisation was based solely on the use of ByLock and held that this act did not constitute an offence under Romanian law, due to lack of dual criminality. The Court also rejected the request on the grounds that there were solid reasons to believe that extradition was sought because of the person’s political opinions or membership of a social group.

Montenegro, Harun Ayvaz decision:
The Constitutional Court of Montenegro quashed the extradition decision of the lower courts and ordered that Harun Ayvaz’s extradition to Türkiye be halted because of the risk of torture. This decision was recorded as a landmark ruling confirming the principle that a person seeking political asylum should not be extradited.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Fatih Keskin decision:
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina annulled the decision revoking Fatih Keskin’s residence permit and ordering his deportation, on the grounds that Türkiye’s request amounted to political persecution and that the person’s rights would be violated.

Judiciary in the Americas: Case-Law of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil

The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil refuses Türkiye’s extradition requests by treating them under the political offence exception.

Ali Sipahi and Yakup Sağar decisions:
The Court rejected the extradition requests concerning businesspeople Ali Sipahi and Yakup Sağar. The decisions emphasised the following points:

Absence of fair trial guarantees:
The Court stated that there was no judicial independence in Türkiye and that there was a risk of exceptional courts, giving rise to justified doubt as to whether the extradited person would be tried before an impartial court.

Political nature:
The Court held that the charges were inseparable from political persecution and reflected the political conflict between the Turkish state and its opponents.

Mustafa Göktepe decision of 2025:
In its most recent decision in 2025, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil lifted Mustafa Göktepe’s detention and once again confirmed that it would not allow Türkiye’s campaign of labelling political rivals as terrorists.

Analysis: The Impossibility of Extradition Under International Law

When the factual material, judicial decisions and international reports presented in this report are assessed as a whole, it becomes clear that the extradition requests of the Republic of Türkiye do not pursue a genuine judicial purpose, but form part of a politically motivated campaign of transnational repression. The following analysis demonstrates that the refusal of such requests is a legal necessity.

Presumption of Political Offence and Political Persecution

Under the universal principles of extradition law, accusations of a political nature cannot be the subject of extradition. Türkiye’s requests pursue, under a legal appearance, the aim of political purge.

Political motive:
As established by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in the Akın İpek and Others decision, Türkiye’s extradition requests are made because of the defendants’ political opinions and membership of a social group, namely the Gülen movement, and therefore constitute a politically motivated process.

Inseparability from political persecution:
As emphasised in the Ali Sipahi, Yakup Sağar and Mustafa Göktepe decisions of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, the charges reflect the political conflict between the Turkish state and its opponents and are inseparable from political persecution.

Analytical conclusion:
The acts forming the basis of the extradition request, such as holding a bank account, membership of an association or use of a communication application, are non-violent acts that should be assessed within the scope of political opposition. Therefore, the request must be refused under the political offence exception pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition and customary international law.

Flagrant Denial of the Right to a Fair Trial

The judicial system in Türkiye has lost its independence and impartiality. A fair trial for an extradited person is not merely risky; it is impossible.

Systemic problem:
The ECtHR Grand Chamber’s Yalçınkaya judgment and the 2025 Demirhan and Karslı judgments confirm that trials in Türkiye are based on a uniform and global template, resulting in automatic convictions without examination of individual culpability.

Violation of the principle of legality:
Turkish courts violate the principle of no crime without law under Article 7 of the Convention by retroactively and unforeseeably criminalising acts such as the use of ByLock.

Analytical conclusion:
In light of the English court’s finding that the rule of law has disintegrated and the Brazilian court’s finding that there is no impartial court, extradition would amount to a flagrant denial of the person’s right to a fair trial.

Risk of Torture and Ill-Treatment: The Principle of Non-Refoulement

The risk of systematic torture and ill-treatment in Türkiye requires the absolute application of the principle of non-refoulement.

Risk analysis:
In the Elmas Ayden, Mustafa Önder and other decisions, the UN Committee against Torture held that persons associated with the Gülen movement face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in Türkiye.

Invalidity of diplomatic assurances:
The UN Committee has repeatedly emphasised that Türkiye’s diplomatic assurances that torture will not occur are insufficient and unreliable in the face of systematic violations and a policy of impunity on the ground.

Analytical conclusion:
Acceptance of the extradition request would mean surrendering the person to an environment where the risk of torture and ill-treatment is high. This would constitute a direct violation of Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Transnational Repression and Abuse of Process

Türkiye’s extradition request is not being used as a tool of legal cooperation, but, as indicated in Freedom House and PACE reports, as part of a global manhunt and a tool of transnational repression aimed at silencing opponents.

Unlawful methods:
The cases detailed in Freedom House reports demonstrate that Türkiye resorts to abduction and unlawful transfer methods by bypassing legal procedures.

Analytical conclusion:
A state must not be permitted to misuse international legal mechanisms, including INTERPOL and extradition requests, as tools of political pressure.

General Conclusion

For the reasons set out above and supported by documentary material, it is established that the extradition request is made because of political opinions and affiliation, that the alleged acts do not constitute offences under universal legal standards due to the absence of double criminality, and that, in the event of extradition, the person would face a clear and concrete risk of torture and denial of a fair trial.

Accordingly, the refusal of extradition requests submitted by the Republic of Türkiye is required by international law and human rights conventions.