Here’s an odd fact: sometimes an inquiry alone can lead to a Red Notice removal.
INTERPOL’s CCF (the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, discussed here) is an unusual venue in which to represent clients. Its purpose (human rights and due process observation in the context of a law enforcement support organization) is different from actual courts (fact-finding and deciding cases on their merits); it is governed by its own set of regulations, boundaries, and procedures.
The goal of almost every Red, Yellow, or Blue Notice (or diffusion) subject client is to achieve the removal of the notice by explaining and offering proof to the CCF of why the underlying case is improper for INTERPOL’s involvement. Typically, that showing of proof is the reason a notice is ultimately removed.
But not always.
Sometimes, it is the simple asking of a question that leads to the removal of the notice. The act of filing a request to access one’s data in INTERPOL’s files alone, in some instances, can reach the desired goal. This does not happen often, but frequently enough in my practice that it merits a mention.
Why do notices get removed after only an inquiry?
The actual reason for a notice removal following only an access request is usually unknown to the applicant or her attorney. We have learned over the years and through indirect channels that some notices are removed after the access request is filed because the government of the country that originally requested the notice is keen to avoid any international scrutiny about the case. In other instances, the government wishes to avoid any negative decision from INTERPOL and thus removes the notice before INTERPOL has an opportunity to consider the case on its merits. In still other cases, INTERPOL may have information at the time of the inquiry that it did not have at the time of the initial country request which renders the notice untenable.
In such instances, it is not the case that INTERPOL’s General Secretariat missed anything during its initial review of the matter. Deficiencies in notice requests are not always evident from an initial review.
Can the notice be re-published later?
When countries remove a notice without a finding of non-compliance from INTERPOL, notice subjects want to know whether the seeking country will simply put the notice back in place when there is no longer a threat of scrutiny. While this has not occured in my practice, it is not impossible. However, the CCF can review the history of notice requests against an individual and recognize when a repeat request from a member country is suspicious.
Does removal after only an inquiry indicate abuse of INTERPOL’s tools?
A country that removes a notice after receiving notice of an inquiry may be acting out of recognition that its original request was invalid, and a desire to avoid scrutiny of that act. An organization such as INTERPOL deals with 196 member countries, so abuse of its tools is inevitable. Countries that request invalid notices, only to remove them after an inquiry, still obtain the benefit of temporarily immobilizing a subject. By withdrawing a notice when questioned, countries can avoid examination of their use of INTERPOL and sidestep the risk of a negative finding by the CCF. This tactic can conceal patterns of misuse from INTERPOL as well as the individuals with outstanding notices. On the other hand, the country may remove the notice because it has since decided that it is no longer interested in pursuing the individual or paying for costly extradition proceedings.
Opportunities created by filing an access request with the CCF
As is true in all cases involving criminal accusations, a client does well when the attorney creates as many windows of opportunity for success as possible. Sometimes, the initial inquiry to the CCF is the only opportunity needed to obtain the desired result- the removal of a notice. Most other times, if a notice exists, the inquiry response by the CCF provides either confirmation of the notice or additional evidence of grounds for removal, or both.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.
[View source.]
