Introduction with a Case Example
What are Interpol Red Notices, and how can they be challenged or removed? Consider the case of Bill Browder, a businessman and vocal critic of the Russian government, which highlights the complexities and controversies surrounding the Interpol system. Browder, a British citizen and financier, was targeted by multiple Red Notices issued by Russia following his advocacy for the Magnitsky Act, legislation aimed at penalizing human rights violators. The notices accused him of financial crimes, which Browder and many international observers argue were politically motivated.
Despite Interpol’s rules against issuing Red Notices for politically driven cases, Browder faced repeated detentions and disruptions, including a high-profile arrest in Spain in 2018, based on one of these notices. Each time, Interpol reviewed and ultimately removed the notices, citing violations of its own guidelines. Browder’s case underscores not only the misuse of Interpol’s Red Notice system by certain states but also the challenges individuals face in contesting such notices and the impact these notices can have on their freedom and safety.
This example raises critical questions about the transparency, accountability, and reform needed within Interpol to prevent the misuse of its mechanisms for political persecution.
What is an Interpol Red Notice?
A common misunderstanding about Interpol Red Notices is that they are equivalent to arrest warrants. In reality, they are not. Interpol, an international organization with 194 member states, was created to foster global police cooperation. However, it lacks the authority to arrest or detain individuals on its own. Instead, Interpol facilitates an International Notice System to help law enforcement agencies in member countries share crucial information about individuals.
A Red Notice is essentially a request from one member state to others to help locate and provisionally detain a suspect or convicted individual. It acts as a call for cooperation, usually leading to extradition proceedings. Importantly, a Red Notice is not legally binding, and member states are not obligated to act on it. Each country retains the discretion to decide how much legal weight to give a Red Notice within its jurisdiction.
In practice, Red Notices can significantly impact an individual’s freedom of movement. They often lead to travel restrictions, as individuals flagged by a Red Notice risk being stopped at international borders. If detained, the requesting member state is notified of the individual’s location, often prompting an extradition request.
Currently, there are around 62,000 valid Red Notices globally, but only about 7,000 are publicly accessible. Public notices are issued in cases where Interpol seeks assistance from the public to locate a suspect. These can be found on Interpol’s official website. This system, while vital for international law enforcement, has raised concerns about potential misuse for political purposes or personal vendettas.
How do you challenge a Red Notice?
There are currently two steps on how to challenge a Red Notice.
- Pre-Emptive Letter
In the circumstance that an individual gets tipped when a member state will approach Interpol to request a publication of a Red Notice, it is possible to send a pre-emptive letter to Interpol ahead of the member state requesting it – and they can set out reasons why the publication of the Red Notice would violate Interpol’s rules.
- Request for deletion with full representations
In a different circumstance, an individual may not have an advanced warning and may not have knowledge about a member state’s intention to publish a Red Notice until after it has been published. In cases like these, a request for deletion may be submitted to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF). The CCF is considered an independent body within Interpol’s organization and it ensures that all personal data that is processed by the organization complies with the rules that Interpol set. Requests for deletion are usually much more detailed than a Pre-Emptive letter and they may be supported by evidence, such as a report produced by NGOs. The CCF request chamber meets every three months and will usually consider the representations at one of its meetings.
Arguments to Challenge a Red Notice
Challenging a Red Notice can rely on two critical documents:
- Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) and Constitution
The RPD outlines the minimum requirements for issuing a Red Notice. It mandates a clear description of the alleged criminal activities of the individual in question, supported by credible evidence. If the Red Notice lacks a foundation or is based on unsubstantiated claims, it can be challenged and dismissed. Since Interpol typically does not verify the detailed credibility of allegations, proving that the case lacks legitimacy can lead to the removal of the notice. - Non-Compliance with Interpol’s Constitution
A violation of Interpol’s constitution is another solid ground for challenging a Red Notice. According to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Interpol must align its activities with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This includes protecting the individual’s right to life and prohibiting extradition to countries where they may face torture, inhumane treatment, or an unfair trial.
Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits Interpol from engaging in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial nature. This clause is especially relevant for individuals targeted for their political or religious beliefs. In such cases, demonstrating that the allegations are politically motivated, coupled with evidence of persecution or lack of participation in the alleged crimes, strengthens the argument for deleting the Red Notice.
Reforms to Address Misuse
The misuse of Red Notices to target refugees has raised significant concerns. The case of Hakeem Al-Araibi is not unique. Other high-profile examples include Russian activist Petr Silaev’s arrest in Spain, Indian refugee Paramjeet Singh’s detention in Portugal, Algerian human rights lawyer Rachid Mesli’s apprehension in Italy, and the case of Bill Browder, a prominent critic of the Russian government. Browder has been the subject of multiple Red Notices issued by Russia, following his campaign against corruption and his role in exposing the Magnitsky case. These instances highlight the growing misuse of the Red Notice system to target individuals for political reasons.
To address these issues, Interpol introduced its Refugee Policy in 2015. According to this policy, Red Notices should not be issued against refugees if requested by the country they fled from. In Al-Araibi’s case, his confirmed refugee status in Australia meant that Bahrain’s request for a Red Notice should have been rejected outright. Similarly, Bill Browder’s status as a critic of the Russian government should have been considered in the light of this policy, ensuring that the Red Notices against him were not misused for political purposes.
