• News

What factors are considered in reviewing requests to delete an Interpol Red Notice?

Published: 19 Feb 2018

The Commission for the Control of Interpol’s files (CCF) has commenced publishing its decision excerpts online.

Whilst the decisions appear somewhat cryptic due to the names of the individuals and countries being omitted, the facts upon which the decisions were made are clear and provide some useful insight into the matters that the CCF considers when being asked to delete Interpol Red Notices.

We provide a summary of two such cases that were decided in 2017.

Case 1

The Facts

·        The Requesting Party (RP) was a national of country A, residing in country B

·        He was wanted by Country A on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the judicial authorities of Country A

·        Country A issued a Red Notice request concerning the RP, for his arrest in view of extradition

The RP’s request

The RP requested a removal of the Interpol Red Notice, stating that:

·         There was no evidentiary basis;

·         There was no offence;

·         No extradition had yet been requested by country A;

·         There were procedural issues

The Commission’s findings

The CCF found that the issuance of a Red Notice appeared to be premature because:

·        Sufficient judicial data had not been provided

·        The information provided by the National Centre Bureau (NCB) of Country A demonstrated that enquiries were still in progress concerning existence of any direct evidence

·        Country A was not yet in a position seek extradition of the RP from Country B, but rather was still in the process of invoking the MLAT between the countries

·        The NCB of country A confirmed that the RP was required for the purpose of assisting in an investigation. The Commission noted, however, that the purpose of a Red Notice is not to obtain the transfer of a person in order to assist in an investigation or give evidence in proceedings. Its purpose rather is to facilitate the seeking of a person’s extradition.

The Result

The CCF:

·        Concluded that the data challenged was not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data

·        Recommended that the data provided by the NCB of Country A concerning the RP be deleted from INTERPOL’s files

Case 2

The Facts

·        The RP was a national of Country A and Country B, residing in Country B

·        He was wanted by Country A on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the judicial authorities of Country A

·        The request for his extradition to Country A was denied by the authorities of Country B

·        The CCF informed the RP that he was wanted through INTERPOL’s channels by Country A

The RP’s request

The RP requested a removal of the Interpol Red Notice, stating that:

·       The case was politically motivated, and based on the fact that he was a business associate of Mr X

·        He would not receive a fair trial if extradited

The Commission’s findings

The Commission found that:

·        There were political elements surrounding the case, but they were not able to establish that they were predominant over the common law crime elements of the case

·        The actions undertaken by the authorities of Country A highlighted its willingness to respect its obligations under applicable law and to request extradition of the RP from Country B

The Result

The CCF:

·        Concluded that the data challenged was compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data subject to the following recommendations:

·        that the following information be added to the RP’s file: “This case was studied by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files in …. The Commission considered that there are political elements surrounding the case, but was not able to establish that they are predominant over the common law crime elements of the case.”

·        that should extradition be denied by the authorities of Country B, it is reported in INTERPOL’s files

Conclusion

There are many factors taken into consideration by the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s files (CCF) when being asked to delete Interpol Red Notices. These factors include examining whether sufficient judicial data exists, whether this is compliant with Interpol’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and whether the Interpol Red Notice has been genuinely issued to seek a person’s extradition as opposed to some other unrelated purpose.

Phillip Gibson

Firm: Nyman Gibson Miralis
Country: Australia

Practice Area: Criminal

  • Level 9, 299 Elizabeth Street
    Sydney
    NSW 2000





Find a Global Law Expert

Awards

Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.

Sign up for the latest legal briefing and news within Global Law Experts community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.

Naturally you can unsubscribe at anytime.