The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Criminal Law 0

Interpol red notices – another small step towards transparency?

A recent change to Interpol's Statute gives us a glimpse into its handling of the many politically sensitive international cases which come before it: Andrew Smith considers what we have learned so far

By Andrew Smith · On May 22, 2017


Interpol and transparency are not words that tend to appear in the same sentence. But over the course of the past decade, Interpol has been inching, slowly and painfully, towards greater transparency.

One of the most recent positive steps is the publication of decisions of the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (“CCIF”) as to whether a red notice or diffusion notice should be deleted. This has been achieved as a result of an amendment to the Statute of the CCIF. Article 44 of this Statute, which came into force on 17 March 2017, provides that: “subject to the confidentiality requirements, restrictions and other conditions set forth in the present Statute, the Commission shall endeavour to make its decisions, opinions, recommendations and reports public in all working languages of the Organization.” To date, nine such decisions have been published on Interpol’s website (see here). It is envisaged that future decisions will be published on a rolling basis.

These decisions are encouraging: they restore some faith in Interpol’s willingness not to accept at face value the allegations made by some of its member states

The decisions are described as “excerpts”. This is a polite way of saying that they contain no identifying details about the individual who challenged the notice, where the criminal investigation occurred, the nature of the evidence relied upon against the individual, or the nature of any rebuttal evidence supplied by the individual. Without these important details, the decisions do not have the status of a body of case law, because a person challenging a notice cannot argue by parity of reasoning that a published decision is binding or persuasive authority in relation to his or her case. Nonetheless, the decisions identify the legal arguments advanced in support of removing the notice (i.e. the Articles of Interpol’s Constitution or Rules on the Processing of Data he or she relied upon) and provide an insight into how the CCIF analysed the arguments.

What can be gleaned from these carefully redacted decisions?

The decisions tell us certain things which any experienced lawyer liaising with Interpol should already know: for example, that the CCIF places little weight on generic reports that describe problems with a country’s criminal justice system. Instead, there must be specific information that sheds light on whether Interpol’s legal framework has been complied with in a particular case. To take another example: a decision barring extradition is not itself determinative of whether the CCIF will recommend the removal of the notice. Thus if a court bars extradition on the basis that the criminal proceedings are politically motivated, the CCIF is at liberty to take a different view as to whether, according to its own test, the “offence is of a predominantly political character”.

But the decisions also disclose points which are perhaps less widely understood, and which provide those challenging a red or diffusion notice with a better steer as to how their arguments should be formulated.

  1. First, a fertile line of attack may be to challenge whether the notice has been issued with a view to extradition (as required by Article 84(2) of Interpol’s Rules for the Processing of Data). This will be relevant where: (a) the individual has not been charged, (b) the country is, in fact, seeking the cross-border transfer of the individual so that he or she may assist in an investigation or give evidence in proceedings under an MLAT, or (c) there is evidence that the country knows where the individual is but has not sought extradition. Running this argument is double-edged, however, because nearly all information communicated to Interpol on behalf of the individual will be shared with the country that requested the notice. In some cases, therefore, making representations to Interpol would be to poke the sleeping dog – it might precipitate a charging decision and/or extradition request when neither would have been forthcoming.
  2. Second, there is nothing to be lost from making multiple attempts at removing the notice. Article 19 of the Operating Rules of the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files provides that the party seeking re-examination must establish: “the discovery of a fact which would have probably led to a different conclusion if that fact had been known at the time the request was processed.” The “new fact” presented in one of the published decisions led the CCIF to conclude that a different conclusion could have been reached when the individual first requested the removal of the notice. In response to the “new fact”, the CCIF sought additional information from the country that had requested the notice, so that it could make an informed decision having examined the reconfigured positions of both sides. (Regrettably, the excerpt of the decision does not record what this informed decision ultimately was).
  3. Third, the CCIF examines carefully the evidence adduced by a country in support of a notice, in order to determine the merits of a defence argument to the effect that the notice has been issued in response to a civil rather than a criminal dispute (Article 83(1)(a)(i) of Interpol’s Rules for the Processing of Data provides that: “Red notices may not be published for offences relating to private matters and for offense originating from a violation of laws or regulations of an administrative nature…”). In one of the published decisions – which concerned an allegation of fraud arising from a bounced cheque – this was the sole argument relied upon by the individual. The argument was successful because the CCIF was not satisfied that the country had given a clear explanation of the “circumstances and signing of the cheque and its cashing”, nor a detailed explanation as to how the individual could have “committed fraud or any other criminal offence as a result of signing the cheque.” It is notable that this individual did not have the benefit of a positive immigration or extradition decision, nor any expert evidence, which might have lent independent weight to his argument. Rather, his argument appears to have been a matter of pure legal submission – an argument Interpol resolved entirely in his favour by reference to deficiencies in the prosecution evidence which indicated an absence of criminality. It is sometimes said that Interpol will not examine the evidential merits of a prosecution case, but that is precisely what happened here.

individuals are still fighting a one-sided battle in making representations to Interpol to remove a red or diffusion notice

These decisions are encouraging: they restore some faith in Interpol’s willingness not to accept at face value the allegations made by some of its member states. They suggest that the CCIF exercises independent scrutiny in appropriate cases. As more decisions are published on Interpol’s website, defence lawyers will benefit from an ever greater understanding of how the CCIF analyses and applies Interpol’s legal texts.

But the reality is that individuals are still fighting a one-sided battle in making representations to Interpol to remove a red or diffusion notice. The countries where they are being investigated will be provided with nearly all information the individuals supply to Interpol, but the individuals will see only glimpses of what the countries supply to Interpol. This imbalance of power permits Interpol’s continued exploitation.

One way to redress this imbalance would be as follows. Just as Interpol agreed in 2015 that it would delete a notice if the individual had been granted refugee status, it should delete a notice if an extradition court has issued a final and reasoned decision to the effect that the criminal proceedings giving rise to the notice are politically motivated (or improperly motivated by any other considerations arising under the Refugee Convention) or that they are an abuse of process. This would restore the purposive connection between red notices and extradition, and ensure that individuals cannot become a virtual prisoner in the state where they have successfully contested extradition.

Similar (but not identical) recommendations were made on 29 March 2017 by the Committee for Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe (see here). Their report welcomed the small steps taken by Interpol towards transparency. But overall, the report was highly critical of how much more needs to be done to ensure that Interpol is not abused – and is not seen to be abused – by its less scrupulous member states.

Editors’ note: This post first appeared on the Corker Binning blog, and is reproduced with permission and thanks.

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith is a partner at Corker Binning. He is an experienced litigator who has advised on a range of white collar criminal and regulatory matters, many of them international in nature. Andrew is recognised as a Band 2 practitioner for ‘Crime: Extradition’ and a Band 3 practitioner for ‘Financial Crime: Individuals’ by Chambers UK 2017. He is recognised by Legal 500 UK 2016 in the fields of White Collar Crime, Financial Services and Professional Discipline. He is included in the Who’s Who of Business Crime Defence Lawyers 2015, and recognised in the 2015 UK edition of Super Lawyers. He was named “Lawyer of the Week” by The Times (London) for successfully defending the first extradition request received by the UK from the UAE.




You Might Also Like

  • Arbitration

    Podcast 12: Crossovers between criminal and arbitration law

  • Brexit

    The impact of Brexit on the UK’s extradition arrangements – The Final Countdown?

  • Brexit

    UK-EU security cooperation post Brexit: are we running out of time?

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy