The Commission for the Control of Interpol’s files (CCF) publishes decision excerpts online, providing useful insight into the matters that the CCF considers when being asked to delete INTERPOL Red Notices.
This article explores two such cases that were decided in 2023, where INTERPOL assesses a range of factors including extradition, refugee policy, description of criminal activities, due process, validity of proceedings, and cooperation of National Central Bureaus (NCBs), in determining whether Red Notices are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules and should be deleted from its files.
Case 1
The facts
The Applicant, a national of EEE, was the subject of a Red Notice published at the request of the NCB of CCC for “Swindling, committed in particularly large amount” on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by CCC.
The Applicant’s request
The Applicant requested the deletion of the data concerning him, contending, in essence, that:
a) the data lacked a clear description of criminal involvement and was of a private nature;
b) the purpose of the Notice was reached as his extradition was denied from DDD;
c) there was a risk of his basic rights being violated if he were returned to CCC; and
d) he holds a protective status.
The Commission’s findings
- The Applicant was allegedly involved in a criminal offence (“swindling, committed in particularly large amount”), which is defined under the relevant criminal law provisions submitted by the NCB of CCC, and appeared a priori to be of a common law nature and coherent with the case summary submitted by the same NCB.
- However, due to the absence of clear elements from the NCB regarding the nature of the offence and the extent of the Applicant’s involvement, there were remaining uncertainties.
- CCC authorities took steps to request the Applicant’s extradition from DDD. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt that CCC authorities intended to fulfil the purpose of the Red Notice and that it still had a valid purpose in compliance with the said applicable rules.
- The Applicant holds a protective status in DDD, which raised the possibility that the purpose of the Red Notice could not be achieved because of non refoulement obligations, which prevent such a protected individual’s extradition to his country of origin.
- There were reasons to believe that if the applicant were extradited to CCC, their fundamental human rights and the right to a fair trial would be violated.
The result
The Commission decided that the data concerning the Applicant were not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files.
Case 2
The facts
The Applicant, a national of CCC, is the subject of a Red Notice issued at the request of the NCB of CCC on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by CCC.
The Applicant’s request
The Applicant requested the deletion of the data concerning him, contending, in essence, that:
a) the proceedings are no longer valid;
b) the purpose of the Notice cannot be achieved; and
c) the data lack a clear description of criminal involvement.
The Commission’s findings
- According to the Applicant, the proceedings forming the basis of the Red Notice were no longer valid, because he was acquitted by the CCC courts. According to the information provided by the NCB of CCC, the arrest warrant and proceedings against the Applicant remained valid.
- As a general practice, the Commission highlighted that it does not enter into an inquiry designed to take decision on the application of national procedural law, and it is not its role to assess a country’s law enforcement or judicial system in abstracto. Instead, it must make its determinations based on specific information that sheds light on whether or not INTERPOL’s legal framework has been complied with in a particular case.
- The Commission also emphasised that further to Article 5(2) of its Statute, INTERPOL’s member countries shall “respond diligently to requests from the Commission in accordance with their national laws.” Although the NCB indicated that the Applicant was not acquitted, it informed the Commission that it would share the acquittal decision with its judicial authority for assessment and provide the Commission with the results. However, although it was reminded to provide this information, and informed that the data would be blocked or deleted if it did not respond to the Commission’s queries, no further information was provided by the NCB.
- Therefore, the Commission considered that the NCB of CCC had not demonstrated sufficient cooperation, and as the Commission could conclusively dispose of the matter in favour of the Applicant on the above basis, it determined that it was not necessary to further examine his other claims.
The result
The Commission decided that the data concerning the Applicant were not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files.
