Nicaragua's Attorney General to decide on Russian extraditions
Translated from Spanish, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Nicaragua's Attorney General's Office will decide on extraditions to Russia under a new treaty.
- This shifts authority from the Supreme Court of Justice, consolidating power within the executive branch.
- The treaty, signed by Laureano Ortega Murillo and Sergey Lavrov, allows for retroactive application, raising concerns about its constitutionality.
Nicaragua's Attorney General's Office will now be the deciding body for extraditions to Russia, a significant shift in judicial authority. This change comes as the extradition treaty between the two nations is set for ratification on July 14, 2026, by the National Assembly.
The treaty, signed on June 5, 2026, by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Laureano Ortega Murillo, son of Nicaraguan leaders Daniel and Rosario Murillo, grants the Attorney General's Office the power to execute extraditions. Previously, this authority rested with the Supreme Court of Justice's Criminal Chamber.
The Central Authorities authorized to execute this Treaty: For the Republic of Nicaragua: Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Nicaragua; For the Russian Federation: the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation.
Legal experts, like Nicaraguan lawyer Juan Diego Barberena, argue that assigning extradition execution powers to the Attorney General's Office is unconstitutional. He states the office's role should be to process requests, not to be the final authority on execution, which he believes encroaches on judicial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the treaty includes a clause allowing for retroactive application to crimes committed before its enactment, a provision that critics argue violates the principle of non-retroactivity of laws. The treaty's broad discretion in defining extraditable offenses, punishable by a minimum of one year's imprisonment or a more severe penalty, has also drawn scrutiny.
The treaty is very discretionary, therefore, it is open to interpretation for its application. In such a way that the PGJ would be granted an exclusive function of jurisdiction which is openly unconstitutional.
Originally published by Confidencial in Spanish. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.