Interpol Red Notice Removal & Protection

Interpol enables all member states to submit a request for extradition – a so-called Interpol Red Notice – to all member states to locate and provisionally arrest a wanted person for the purpose of extradition. The offence the suspect is wanted for, must be a serious crime and meet a minimum sentence requirement and must not be excluded by a designated set of offences outlined by Interpol. An Interpol Red Notice can therefore not be issued for minor offences.

The Interpol General Secretariat reviews the requests for the issuance of a Red Notice and decides whether the Notice is approved. Red Notices are generally approved as long as they comply with Interpol’s Rules. This can be an avenue for abuse, as Interpol does not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the requests at this stage. For this reason, there are frequent instances in which a Red Notice is published even though it actually violates Interpol’s rules, for example because it is politically motivated or based on a suspicion of an offence that does not qualify for the issuance of a Red Notice. However, once a Red Notice is published, it informs police authorities in all member states about the suspect and their charges, putting the person in question at immediate risk of arrest.

The consequences of an Interpol Red Notice are far-reaching beyond arrest and extradition and where possible, must be prevented. Acting decisively in challenging a Red Notice is critical.

As a democratic organisation, Interpol is subject to strict rules within the Interpol Constitution and Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data concerning the issuing of Interpol Red Notices. Per these documents, there needs to be clarity in the allegations of criminal activity, the offence concerned must meet the specified requirements, and sufficient information about the suspect must be given. Therefore, the requesting country must include a defined set of identifiers of the person concerned and judicial data, such as a summary of facts of the case, the charges, the laws covering the offences, penalties or sentence involved, and a reference to a valid arrest warrant or judicial decision.

The Rules on Processing of Data also specifies that an Interpol Red Notice must be compliant with Article 2 and 3 of the Interpol Constitution. Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution states that Interpol Red Notices may not be issued for political, racial or religious reasons. Article 2 states that the international cooperation between police authorities must take place within the framework of human rights.

If an Interpol Red Notice is not compliant with the regulations, it can be contested. As your attorney, we will thoroughly examine the data submitted by the alleging party. Inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the data are often substantial grounds to challenge the Red Notice. Inability to provide the minimum data sought by Interpol is often an avenue of success when seeking the removal of an Interpol Red Notice. With our deep knowledge of the requirements of Interpol Red Notices, we will support you with the removal of the Red Notice.

It is not unusual for the ordered Interpol Red Notice removals to be incomplete on a national level. Even if Interpol has confirmed the cancellation of the alert, the national state may not delete the data of the person concerned completely. This can lead to individuals facing arrest at airports or denial of entry. At Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, we will examine your case thoroughly and outline the options available. Our team will work with you to provide legal solutions on a national and international level based on legal provisions such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Through the GDPR, we can often seek information in national police files in EU member states and ask to remove such data. Efficient removal of this data on national police records is often as important as having the Red Notice deleted by Interpol itself.

Furthermore, Interpol Red Notices are valid for five years unless removed by Interpol or the issuing country. However, those who have had Red Notices issued against them should not assume that the Red Notice has been automatically deleted after this five-year period as the duration of validity can be extended.

Interpol’s notice system has several different colour-coded categories, each serving a different purpose.

• A Blue Notice serves a similar purpose as a Red Notice but is used to obtain additional information about a suspect. An Interpol Blue Notice relates to the movements of a suspect or a witness but does not provide for arrest. Therefore, the person the alert refers to may not be wanted for a crime committed. Instead, the Notice may be issued because that person may have further information on criminal proceedings.
• A Green Notice can be provided if police forces want to warn each other about people suspected of being a danger to the public. This applies to offenders who have committed several criminal offences and are deemed likely to engage in them again. Interpol Green Notices are used regularly for warnings about serial sex offenders.
• The Yellow Notice is used to locate missing persons, especially those unable to identify themselves. These cases can often involve minors and those who may not be of sound mind. Such notices are given in cases of child abduction, kidnappings and in times of unexplained disappearances.
• Orange Notices warn of an event, person, object, or process that poses a severe and immediate threat to the public. They often refer to illegal items, parcel bombs, and other dangerous and explosive materials to be tracked down.
• A Black Notice is given when Interpol needs information about unidentified bodies. Interpol will circulate photographs of the body and, when possible, fingerprints and information about the body to help with the identification process.
• The Purple Notice is issued to search for or provide information on the modus operandi (specific pattern of committing the crime), objects, devices and concealment methods used by criminals. Often, these refer to criminal groups or organised gangs.

Diffusion orders are also issued regularly. They are less formal types of alerts than Notices, but are also used to forward requests for arrest or ascertain the defendant’s whereabouts to Interpol member states. A Diffusion Order is communicated directly by a state’s relevant Interpol National Centre Bureau (NCB) (in Germany, the “Bundeskriminalamt“) to any member state or the entire Interpol network. Like Interpol Notices, Diffusions are categorised according to the type of request and marked with colours. In particular, the Interpol Statute’s requirements and the data processing rules must also be observed here.

Germany’s extradition proceedings start when another country seeks legal assistance from Germany. The Schengen Information System (SIS) can then be implemented for an international search for persons, as can Notice orders through Interpol. In the European Union, issuing a European arrest warrant is another option. However, there are several grounds upon which Germany will refuse to extradite someone. Per Section 12 IRG, the extradition order can only be executed if a German court considers the extradition legitimate. Some of the grounds for declaring the extradition order to be illegitimate include:

• The threat of torture or inhumane treatment/conditions of detention in the requesting state (Section 73 IRG, Article 16a (3) German Constitution (GG); Art. 3 Convention against Torture […] (CAT), Art. 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR))
• If in the requesting state, the relevant offence is punishable by death and there is no assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed (Section 8 IRG)
• The defendant cannot be moved due to serious illness, or extradition would entail a risk to their life (Higher Regional Court Hamm, 19 January 2006 – (2) 4 Ausl. A 34/05 (17 and 18/06))
• The proceedings are solely politically motivated (Section 6 IRG)
• It cannot be expected that the defendant receives a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR)
• There is a risk that the defendant may be extradited further without German consent (Section 11 (1) Nr. 2 IRG)