His first request had already failed. Then a court refused his extradition outright, making detailed findings about the risk he would face on return. He came back within six months, and the Commission did something rare: it reopened its own earlier conclusion and reversed it.
The two-step test for reopening a closed case
Article 42 of the Statute allows revision only where a fact discovered afterward could have led to a different conclusion had it been known at the time, and only if raised within six months of its discovery. The Commission held that this test — written for “decisions of the Requests Chamber” — applies equally to conclusions reached before the Statute itself came into force, closing off an argument that older cases fall outside the revision mechanism altogether.
- A reasoned extradition refusal, issued after full judicial hearings and evidence, was found to be exactly the kind of fact capable of changing the original outcome.
- The refusal rested specifically on the risk of serious human-rights violations if the applicant were extradited — engaging Article 2 directly, not a peripheral point.
- The six-month deadline was calculated from the date of the refusal decision itself, and the application was filed within it.
- Meeting the Article 42 threshold does not decide the case — it only opens the door to studying the merits afresh, alongside whatever material had already been on file.
What re-examination actually found
Once revision was granted, the Commission examined the accumulated human-rights material: extremely concerning documented conditions in the requesting state, particularly given the applicant’s background, and a criminal case he said was built on fabricated evidence supplied by disgruntled business associates. The extradition refusal — from an independent judicial body that had heard the evidence directly — corroborated concerns the Commission could not itself have investigated on the same footing.
What this decision teaches
- A closed case is not necessarily a permanently closed case. A properly reasoned extradition refusal, obtained afterward, can meet the revision threshold even where an earlier complaint on similar themes already failed.
- Calendar the deadline the moment the new fact exists. Six months from discovery is strict, and the date of the extradition court’s decision is what starts the clock.
- The revision mechanism applies retroactively to older conclusions. An applicant whose case predates the current Statute is not shut out of this route.
- This is the mirror image of the more common outcome in this catalogue. Where an earlier decision found a refusal came mid-process and changed nothing, here a full, reasoned, final refusal reopened and reversed the case entirely.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2018-15 · 2018 · Red Notice · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your extradition has since been refused after a full hearing, and your original CCF request already failed, the six-month window to bring that refusal back to the Commission may still be open. Tell us the date of the refusal decision and we will tell you whether you are still in time.
Reopening a case after a new extradition refusal
My CCF request already failed once. Can a later extradition refusal change that?
Yes, where the refusal is reasoned, based on genuine risk findings, and raised within six months of the decision — the Commission has reopened and reversed conclusions on exactly this basis.
Does the revision mechanism apply to old decisions from before the current Statute existed?
Yes. The Commission has held that the revision test applies equally to earlier conclusions and recommendations, not only to decisions made after the Statute’s current form took effect.
Is meeting the revision threshold the same as winning the case?
No — it only reopens the file for a fresh look at the merits. The actual outcome still depends on weighing the new material together with everything already on record.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.