Interpol Red Notices Prevention and Deletion: Belarus

Interpol Red Notices are an essential communication tool of the International Criminal Organisation or Interpol. With its now 195 member states and headquarters in Lyon, Interpol aims to coordinate and improve international cooperation between police and authorities.

To achieve this goal, which makes sense in principle, member states can (based on Art. 82 of the Interpol Rules for Processing of Data) have an Interpol Red Notice entered in the Interpol database regarding a particular person to indicate to other member states that this person, as soon as they have been found, should be arrested provisionally to extradite them subsequently. This is not an international arrest warrant. Rather, Interpol can be seen as an information broker in this matter. Member states then decide for themselves how to deal with the Red Notice. In particular, there is no obligation to act based on Red Notices.

Interpol’s primary role is to facilitate international law enforcement cooperation, and it does not have the authority to conduct independent investigations or adjudicate cases. As a result, the review and oversight mechanisms for Red Notices may be limited.

But why can this tool, which serves the sensible and desirable goal of solving cross-border crimes more quickly, be so easily exploited by states like Belarus to exert pressure on disagreeable opposition members? The reason for this is the low level of control over the registration and exercise of Red Notices. In addition, the level of suspicion regarding a criminal offence to obtain a Red Notice is relatively low. States that act on a Red notice check irregularly whether the allegations are relevant. There is no other explanation for the arrests of Belarusian opposition members in, for example, Poland and Moldova.

Interpol Red Notices can be politically motivated, with some countries exploiting Interpol’s platform to target political opponents, activists, or individuals involved in controversial cases. The Notice system should be used for targeting criminal activity, but this does prevent abuse from occurring. In some cases, the lines between alleged illegal activity and the real political motivations behind the Notice can be blurred. By abusing the Red Notice system, governments may attempt to stifle dissent, extradite individuals for political purposes, or exert pressure on individuals to conform to their agenda.

Another issue related to Interpol Red Notices is the process of issuing and circulating them often lacks transparency, and the criteria for their issuance are not publicly disclosed. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for individuals targeted by Red Notices to assess the basis of the allegations against them or the motivations behind their issuance.

As mentioned, increasing calls for reform have been made to make Interpol’s database less susceptible to abuse. Some attempts at reform have also been realised in recent years. Nevertheless, incidents such as those described above still occur. Addressing the potential for abuse remains an ongoing challenge that requires continuous monitoring, reforms, and international cooperation to safeguard the system’s integrity and protect individuals from unjust targeting. However, international organisations with 195 member states are often not agile enough to react quickly and effectively to abuse tendencies from authoritarian regimes.

The Interpol system has another comparable communication tool besides Red Notices. Like the Red Notice, it is, in principle, suitable for Belarus to exploit. It can also be assumed that this is happening at present.

What is involved here are the so-called “Diffusions”. A Diffusion order is a more informal warning than the Red Notice. This may be one of the reasons why it is a more effective means of finding and arresting opposition members. However, it is not made to Interpol headquarters but is forwarded to the freely chosen National Central Bureau of Interpol (NCBs). In Germany, this would be the Federal Criminal Police Office. In this respect, Diffusions do not circulate via Interpol like Red Notices. Instead, they are passed on directly between member states.

Given these subtle differences, however, the Diffusion order must be treated the same as the Red Notices from a purely legal point of view. In particular, Interpol’s data processing requirements and other regulations must be complied with. If the same violations are present here as would be possible as an objection in the case of the Red Notice, Diffusions are to be removed from the Interpol database and the NCBs in the same way.

But what can you do if you fear Belarus will issue a Red Notice against you? From a lawyer’s point of view, several levers can be used.

First, an access request must be made to Interpol’s Data Protection Control Commission. This requires a proper application, the formal requirements of which are primarily derived from Rule 30 of the Data Protection Control Commission’s Operating Rules.

If the result is that there is no Red Notice, this may initially appear to be extremely reassuring. However, the all-clear cannot be given. There have already been cases in the past where it was only confirmed in the second enquiry that a Red Notice had been obtained two years after the first. Therefore, caution on the part of lawyers requires repeated checks of the Interpol database.

If, on the other hand, the research shows that Belarus obtained a Red Notice, legal action must be taken. A complaint must be filed immediately, detailing that the Belarusian registration of the Red Notice violates existing Interpol regulations. In the case of Belarus, the following lines of argument are considered particularly promising:

According to Art. 2a of the Interpol Statute, Interpol’s actions must be by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this respect, linking Belarus Red Notice request to human rights violations is particularly obvious.

Moreover, according to Art. 3 of the Interpol Statue, Interpol is strictly prohibited from acting on political, religious or racial grounds. This norm can often be convincingly demonstrated in a specific case that the Red Notice was applied for political grounds. Especially in the case of politically persecuted persons from Belarus, this can often be vividly illustrated and proven.

Finally, it may also be possible to invalidate the alleged offences to have the Red Notice deleted. Although Interpol does not carry out a substantive legal examination, there are specific requirements for the registration of a Red Notice. In particular, according to Art. 83 (2) (b) (i) of the Rules of the Processing of Data, the offence must be precisely defined and sufficiently supported by facts. Especially in the case of pretextual offences for the suppression of opposition members, a complaint is often successful.

If one of these lines of argumentation is successful, the Red Notice will be removed after the Commission has acted on the application. Therefore, expert legal advice can also help transform the former fear of unannounced arrest into satisfaction towards a repressive state like Belarus.

The prospect of human rights abuses is one avenue that may be pursued when facing an Interpol Red Notice, and Belarus has faced significant concerns and criticisms regarding human rights abuses in recent years.

Firstly, there have been widespread reports of violations of civil and political rights in Belarus, including restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, and association. Independent media outlets, human rights defenders, and opposition figures have faced intimidation, harassment, and arbitrary arrests. Such abuses can often point towards the real causes behind politically motivated Red Notices, especially in cases where authoritarian regime extend their suppression of opposition beyond their own borders.

Building on this, elections in Belarus have been marred by allegations of fraud, limited political competition, and lack of transparency. The Belorussian government has been criticised for suppressing political opposition, detaining and persecuting opposition candidates and activists, and restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their right to vote freely.

When facing trial in the country, it should be noted that the independence of the judiciary in Belarus has been a subject of concern. The judicial system is seen as lacking impartiality and subject to political influence, impacting fair trial rights and due process guarantees. Hearings in politically motivated cases were usually closed and allegedly fraught with irregularities.

Most pressingly for those facing arrest in Belarus, there have been numerous allegations of torture, ill-treatment, and abuse of detainees in Belarus. Reports suggest that individuals arrested for participating in protests or criticizing the government have been subjected to physical and psychological violence while in custody. Such allegations and reports cannot be taken lightly, and need to be expressed when seeking to challenge a Belorussian Red Notice.

Belarus retains and actively uses the death penalty. Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of transparency and fairness in capital punishment cases.

When facing an Interpol Red Notice issued by Belarus, it is vital to consult with legal professionals who are experienced with dealing with such cases. Please, do not hesitate to contact us directly. Our extradition lawyers are ready to defend your rights and fight for your freedom.