New INTERPOL data offers some hope of protection against Red Notice abuse

In an encouraging step towards improving transparency around Red Notices and diffusions, INTERPOL has published important data showing the number of alerts that were issued each year between 2017 and 2021 and how many INTERPOL deleted or refused to issue during the same period.

What does the data show?

During this period, an average of 26,980 Red Notices and wanted persons diffusions were issued each year, although the numbers fell from a peak of 29,279 in 2018 to 23,716 in 2021.

INTERPOL deleted or refused to issue an average of approximately 1,200 per year during the same period. This equates to just under 4.5% of the average number issued each year. Although this may appear to be a low figure, the percentage increased year-on-year between 2017 (2.8%) and 2020 (6.1%), dropping slightly in 2021 to 5.3%.

The data provides some insight into the reasons for deletion or refusal, with a breakdown of figures for those found not to be compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution. Article 2 requires INTERPOL to act in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereas Article 3 forbids the organisation from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. These are the grounds on which applications for deletion are most commonly based in cases where the Red Notice mechanism has been abused by a member state, for example by targeting a political opponent. Despite a fall in the number of Red Notices and diffusions issued between 2017 and 2021, there was an increase in the number deleted or cancelled on the basis of violations of Article 2 (from 26 in 2017 to 150 in 2021) and Article 3 (187 in 2017 to 353 in 2021, with a peak of 609 in 2020).

What does the data not show?

This data only relates to decisions made by the Notices and Diffusions Task Force that sits within INTERPOL’s General Secretariat. This is the team responsible for reviewing requests for Red Notices made by member states before they are published and, so INTERPOL claims, re-examining Red Notices for compliance after they have been issued if new and relevant information is brought to the General Secretariat’s attention. It does not include decisions made by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), which is responsible for determining applications for deletion or correction of data recorded in INTERPOL’s files, including Red Notices and diffusions. If a person has a Red Notice or diffusion issued against them, it is to the CCF that they must direct an application for its deletion.

What does the data mean?

At the very least, this is a welcome step towards greater transparency around how INTERPOL deals with Red Notices and diffusions. INTERPOL is a notoriously opaque organisation and has attracted a great deal of criticism and concern in recent years as a result. By publishing these sorts of figures, we are able to obtain a better understanding of how the organisation operates. It also indicates that INTERPOL is aware of the concerns that have been expressed by lawyers, interest groups and politicians alike and that it is taking active steps to address these.

In addition, it shows that there is some scrutiny applied to the thousands of requests for Red Notices that it receives from member states each year. Although INTERPOL’s own rules require it to review every request it receives before publication, there have long been doubts about the extent to which this happens in practice and whether INTERPOL has the resources required to carry out this exercise. These concerns remain despite the publication of the data, but we can take some comfort from the fact that a not insignificant number of Red Notices and diffusions are refused or cancelled each year and that the proportion appears to be growing, indicating perhaps a greater level of scrutiny. The fact that many of these decisions have been based on non-compliance with Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution is also encouraging since these offer vital protections against the abuse of Red Notices by certain member states.

Ultimately, however, whilst publication of this data is to be welcomed, there is still much to be done to improve transparency. More importantly, we continue to see among our own clients examples of Red Notices issued for improper purposes and which are clearly not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules. Even with some level of scrutiny applied before publication, Red Notices are relatively easy to issue and the minimum criteria are not difficult to satisfy. The impact is substantial and the process for seeking deletion once issued is flawed. It takes far too long and results in a decision which, if unfavourable, cannot be challenged or subjected to independent external scrutiny. Only once these issues have been addressed will we begin to see meaningful improvements with the Red Notice system.

Red Notice reform will go a significant way towards addressing the abuse of INTERPOL’s data sharing network by certain member states, but it will not solve the problem completely. Increasingly, we are seeing examples of malign states finding ways around the Red Notice system to target individuals by issuing Blue Notices or reporting their passports as lost or stolen, possibly in light of INTERPOL’s greater scrutiny of Red Notices. Blue Notices are used to collect additional information about a person’s identity, location or activities in relation to a criminal investigation and are far easier to issue than a Red Notice (an arrest warrant is not required, for example). If this trend continues, INTERPOL will need to ensure that its systems are sufficiently robust to prevent Blue Notices becoming the new tool for targeting political opponents, dissidents, business rivals and the many others who have been on the receiving end of improperly issued Red Notices.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information on the issues raised in this blog, please contact Will Hayes, or a member of our International Crime and Extradition team.

You can also find out more about the work our International Crime and Extradition team cover by clicking here or further information on Interpol, by clicking here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Will Hayes is a senior associate in the criminal litigation team with a practice focussing predominantly on serious and complex crime, extradition and INTERPOL. Will helps clients with the removal of INTERPOL Red Notices and applications for access to information held by INTERPOL. He has a comprehensive understanding of INTERPOL’s rules, principles and practices, allowing highly effective applications to be submitted on behalf of clients. His cases often involve highly sensitive political issues, complex questions of law and high profile clients.

Alice Trotter is a trainee solicitor at Kingsley Napley and is currently in her third seat with the Criminal Litigation team, having completed her second seat with the Corporate, Commercial and Finance team and her first seat in the Regulatory team.