According to Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, Red Notices are not permissible if the request is predominantly political, military, religious or racial in nature. However, consistent legal practice shows that the Interpol system is susceptible to abuse and is often used by totalitarian regimes to deprive dissidents and undesirable persons of their freedom.
To support clients who are threatened by an abusive Interpol Red Notice, Schlun & Elseven offers experienced legal assistance. Our extradition law attorneys have the necessary expertise and many years of experience in dealing with Interpol and the extradition authorities to represent you optimally in such a situation. We examine whether the Interpol Red Notice was issued for abusive reasons and use all our expertise to obtain the immediate deletion of Interpol Red Notices – regardless of which country initiated them. We are also happy to travel abroad for personal client meetings and to review files and evidence. We are committed to helping you!
How Interpol Red Notices Work: The System Explained
Interpol stands for “International Criminal Police Organisation” and, with 194 member states, is the second-largest international organisation after the United Nations (UN). It aims to improve and intensify international police cooperation by providing a global communication system. This communication system is used to transmit data and information to the member states to facilitate the international exchange of information.
Each member state can apply to Interpol for the registration of a notice. Depending on the purpose of the request, these notices are categorised and colour coded. The Red Notice is issued following a request for the arrest of a person with the objective of subsequent extradition. When a Member State requests a Red Notice, the request is reviewed by the Interpol General Secretariat solely to determine whether it violates Interpol’s statutes. However, no comprehensive review of the content is carried out. If the request is not obviously inadmissible, the alert is issued, with the result that every member state is informed of the arrest request.
In addition to the notices, there is also the possibility of a “diffusion order.” These are less formal requests that are not sent by a member state to Interpol but directly to one or more other member states. Accordingly, Interpol does not examine them. However, the diffusion content is identical to that of the notices. Therefore, such diffusion is only permissible if the request is only sent to selected member states, not to all. It is intended to enable even faster and more effective prosecution.
Such a request contains information on the person, the underlying facts, the alleged offences, and the probable sentence to be expected. In addition, a red notice must be accompanied by a national arrest warrant or an equivalent decision (e.g. judgment).
Suppose Interpol issues an Interpol Red Notice or a member state receives a diffusion. The respective National Central Bureau (in Germany: the BKA) has to check whether the request is admissible at the national level. Only then is the information in question entered into the national database (in Germany INPOL). Especially in the case of a Red Notice, there is already the problem that the National Central Bureau often relies on the merely rudimentary check by the General Secretariat of Interpol. A more extensive review of the content is therefore not carried out.
Interpol Red Notice Abuse: Legal Solutions
In the past, Interpol and the instrument of the Red Notice have been abused for political purposes to harass and silence undesirable persons such as opposition politicians, regime critics and human rights defenders. What is striking here is that the same member states often use these abusive uses.
Abusive practices are used because a registered Interpol Red Notice leads to private restrictions for the person concerned and professional impairments since the work of these persons is often connected with foreign travel. Such travel is accompanied by the considerable risk of arrest, detention and later extradition due to an Interpol Red Notice. Interpol does not keep statistics on refused or abusively requested Red Notices, so no concrete figures on this are available. In practice, two main abuse strategies have emerged based on these structures.
On the one hand, there are cases where the member state requesting an Interpol Red Notice describes false facts in the request. In particular, facts are concealed that indicate a political, military, religious or racial nature of underlying criminal proceedings, contrary to the Interpol Statues (Article 3), and would therefore be inadmissible.
In addition, diffusions are used as a second variant of abuse. Instead of applying for an Interpol Red Notice, which would have to be examined by the General Secretariat, the Member State sends a request for arrest in the form of diffusion directly to all other states, contrary to Interpol regulations, to circumvent the Interpol examination. This practice has been observed repeatedly and with increasing frequency by Russian authorities. This action makes it considerably more difficult for Interpol to detect the abuse and stop the request.
At Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, our extradition experts are ready to examine your case and determine a suitable solution.
Case Studies: Political Persecution Through Red Notices
As mentioned earlier, authoritarian and totalitarian states mainly known for human rights violations and corruption exploit structural vulnerabilities for abusive purposes. First and foremost are Russia and Ukraine, closely followed by China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt.
In connection with Interpol Red Notices requested by the United Arab Emirates, cases are repeatedly reported in which simple credit debts to banks are to be recovered by criminal law means. For this purpose, the debt, which in principle would have to be recovered by civil law means, or the corresponding facts in the arrest request are changed in such a way that the debtor is falsely accused of fraud, based on which the Red Notice is to be issued (first strategy of abuse).
In this context, it should also be noted that the UAE is one of Interpol´s largest donors. Interpol is generally funded by contributions from member states but regularly appeals for additional donations. In recent years, the UAE alone has paid more than $ 50 million to Interpol, the total contribution of all the remaining member states.
Since the most recent election in November 2021, the UAE has also provided the new president of Interpol in the person of Major General Ahmed Naser al-Raisi, a fact that has been viewed internationally, in part, highly critically. He is currently being tried in five different countries for allegations of torture and other human rights violations.
The case of Bill Browder is unprecedented for Russia’s misuse of a Red Notice. The Russian authorities targeted Browder because he pushed the so-called Magnitsky legislation in the US, which created sanitation possibilities against Russia for ongoing human rights violations. The name “Magnitsky” comes from Browder´s formal lawyer, murdered by the Russian authorities. Russia has applied for the registration of a Red Notice against Browder a total of seven times.
Against this background, it is evident that the desired criminal proceedings primarily serve political persecution, which the General Secretariat of Interpol assessed in the same way and therefore rejected the alerts. This seems positive at first, but it also raises the question of how it is possible at all, without new findings or newly added criminal charges, to apply for a Red Notice as often as one likes.
Russia realised that requesting a Red Notice was probably futile and resorted to the second possibility of abuse: the Russian authorities used the instrument of diffusion and sent these themselves to the other member states to circumvent the internal Interpol review. When Interpol discovered this, it deleted this entry as well.
However, it remains the case that the possibility of abuse still exists and is mercilessly exploited by authoritarian states such as Russia or China. Furthermore, it is ultimately up to the member states that have received the diffusion notification to delete the corresponding alert by Interpol or keep it in their national systems. Also, Interpol cannot take binding action and ensure a complete deletion in the national databases.
Interpol Red Notice Abuse: Sanctions and Legal Protection Options
In addition to the fact that these opportunities for abuse and circumvention continue to exist, states that use these avenues do not end up facing severe sanctions. In most cases, the abuses remain inconsequential, primarily when the state uses an abusive diffusion to circumvent the Interpol check.
Otherwise, all that remains is the possibility of temporary exclusion of the respective member state from the data pool with the consequence that it cannot apply for new notices with Interpol during this time. It is evident that this is not much of a deterrent. De facto, there is no reason for a member state not to try out an abusive request.
The person concerned can appeal against an inadmissible Interpol Red Notice or diffusion by filing a request for deletion with Interpol. This request must be submitted to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF). The CCF then checks whether the alert complies with the Interpol statutes and internal guidelines. It obtains further information from the member state that requested the alert if necessary.
If there is a violation, for example, because the criminal proceedings sought are politically motivated, it will delete the entry. However, as noted above, this does not automatically mean that the alert will be removed from the national databases – this is left to the discretion of each member state. Particularly in the case of corrupt states and states not organised under the rule of law, it should not be relied upon that the alert has been deleted.
At Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, our lawyers are experts in extradition law, and you can rely on us in such cases.
Practice Group: German Extradition & Interpol Law
Practice Group:
Extradition & Interpol Law
Contact Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte
Please use our online form to outline your request to us. After receiving your request, we will make a brief initial assessment based on the facts described and provide you with a cost offer. You can then decide whether you would like to engage our services.
