Red Notice  Law Journal

Red Notice Law Journal

Red Notices, International Extradition, and Perspective

INTERPOL’s Red Notices for Iranian terror suspects and the connection to the case of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman

Posted in Collateral Effects of Red Notices, INTERPOL's Tools and Practices, Member Country Activity, Red Notice Challenges, Uncategorized

A reader recently sent in an inquiry about the case of Argentina’s scandal involving the death of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was shot just one day prior to his scheduled appearance at Argentina’s Congress.  As reported here, Mr. Nisman had filed a criminal complaint that accused Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and others of conspiring to cover up a probe into Iran’s alleged involvement in the attack on a Jewish community center here that killed 85 people, the worst attack targeting Jews since World War II.

INTERPOL issued Red Notices for several individuals in connection with the attack, as was requested by Argentina’s National Central Bureau.  INTERPOL later issued a statement regarding its efforts to facilitate talks between the two countries to resolve the growing dispute surrounding the notices.

The reader’s inquiry focuses on the agreement that Argentina and Iran later reached:

 Dear Ms. Estlund,

I would very much appreciate your comments on the situation that arose in connection with the red notices requested by Argentina over Iranian nationals under investigation for bombing a Community center in Buenos Aires.

Several years after the red notices were accepted by Interpol, both countries signed a Memorandum of understanding (details here: http://www.viviendoutopias.com/wp-content/2013/03/anexo_II.pdf).

Recently, a prosecutor (who later appeared dead in yet to be determined circumstances) denounced that the Memorandum was actually a plot to exonerate the Iranian nationals through the lifting of the red notices.

The truth is the red notices were never lifted and Argentina never requested it, as Interpol itself declared.

Nonetheless, I read a piece in the news claiming that the communication to Interpol stated in item 7 of the Memorandum can be construed as a basis to allow Iran to request the red notices to be lifted (or suspended or softened in any way), even when no express instructions were given by Argentina.

What’s your opinion on this? Could the communication included in item 7 of the Memorandum have reasonably been intended to allow Iran to attempt to lift the red notices?

The information in item 7 states:

“This agreement, upon its signature, will be jointly sent by both ministers to the Secretary General of Interpol as a fullfillment of Interpol requirements regarding this case.”

Even without an agreement, Iranian officials were free to seek the removal of any Red Notice directly through INTERPOL. Whether INTERPOL agreed to remove the notices or not would depend upon INTERPOL’s view of the case, specifically whether the Red Notices were requested in violation of any of INTERPOL’s governing rules or texts.  Such a direct approach would not at all guarantee the removal of the notices.

The agreement, however, appears to have been directed more toward the two countries’ efforts to resolve the matter in a fashion that awarded each party something of value: Iran presumably wanted the Red Notices lifted, and Argentina wanted something from Iran.  Multiple media outlets have reported that Mr. Nisman said President Kirchner was working behind the scenes to protect the Iranians in return for oil, at a time when the South American country was in the midst of an energy crisis.

In the end, INTERPOL seems to have maintained its position of neutrality, as its constitution mandates.  The question of a resolution to the issues between Argentina and Iran appears to have been put off, at least in the short term, because of the Argentinan public’s outrage about the Kirchner administration’s handling of this case.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

INTERPOL denies Russia’s Red Notice request for William Browder

Posted in INTERPOL's Tools and Practices, Member Country Activity, Politically Based Red Notices

The CCF’s Decision

According to a press release issued by the William Browder camp today, INTERPOL has decided -again- to reject Russia’s request to list him as a wanted suspect in INTERPOL’s databases.   This means that the CCF (Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’S Files) considered Russia’s request to have Mr. Browder listed as an internationally wanted fugitive in INTERPOL’s databases, and the CCF said no.  This is the third denial of a Browder-based request by Russia, and is hopefully the last.

INTERPOL has not yet published a statement about its decision, but given the high level of publicity of this case and INTERPOL’s decision to speak publicly in the past regarding the case, a forthcoming statement seems likely.

Mr. Browder’s Case

Mr. Browder’s case is by now very well-known in the international community and has been the subject of extensive media coverage as well as national legisltation in both the United States, which passed the Sergei Magnitsky Act, and in Russia, which passed the retaliatory Dima Yakovlev law.

The case has all the makings of a best-selling thriller: international politics, money, power, intimidation, corruption, and violence. If only  it were just a novel.  Tragically, Mr. Browder and his former attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, personally suffered through every detail of this case, with Mr. Magnisky paying the ultimate price for his role: his life.  Mr. Magnistky’s involvement began when he acted as a whistleblower and reported a tax scam to Russian authorities.  He was later arrested, detained, and charged with fraud; he died under mysterious circumstances nine months later.

In response to his lawyer’s death, Mr. Browder brought the full and considerable weight of his influence down against Russian authorities and individuals in every possible way, chief among which was his effective lobbying of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation condemnig the acts of those believed to have been assiociated with Mr. Magnistky’s death. The effect of the Act was to prohibit those individuals from entering the United States and from using the U.S. banking system.

Mr. Browder was then charged with tax evasion and fraud by Russian officials; shortly thereafter, Russia began a relentless campaign to use INTERPOL in its efforts to capture Mr. Browder.

What the decision says about the CCF’s process and independence

Russian officials, including President Putin, reportedly went to great lengths to obtain a Red Notice against Mr. Browder. After the CCF accepted the case for consideration for a third time, President Putin met with past Secretary General Ronald Noble this past October.  INTERPOL characterized the meeting as an effort to focus on areas where collaboration must continue between INTERPOL and its member countries, though it seemed impossible to resist speculating that Putin would attempt to engage in lobbying efforts about Mr. Browder’s case.  Additionally, the Browder press release alleges that Russia attempted to influence the CCF’s position by lobbying for sympathetic INTERPOL member countries to be appointed to the Executive Committee, as well as by appealing to INTERPOL to have re-opened the case in the first place.

 The CCF is publicly represented as the independent review body of INTERPOL.  From my experience, the CCF does jealously guard its independence.  Clients who have come to me with stories of well-connected and influential contacts who have attempted to intervene in Red Notice cases generally, and politely, have been told by the CCF to follow the CCF’s rules when seeking relief.  This has been true for ambassadors, former heads of state, current legislators, and the like.  Nonetheless, INTERPOL’s decision to re-consider this case did give one pause.

On the issue of influence, any observers of President Putin and his efforts to achieve his goals must recognize that Russia’s efforts to obtain a Red Notice against Mr. Browder had to have been formidable.

And the CCF did not capitulate.  Congratulations to the CCF for a job well done; and to Mr. Browder and his legal team for their perseverance.

Going forward: William Browder and other victims of corrupt INTERPOL member countries 

In the next post, I’ll address the collateral toll taken on individuals who have been persecuted by corrupt INTERPOL member countries, and how a “regular Joe” might fare in circumstances that Mr. Browder has endured.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

INTERPOL’s CCF increases its sessions for 2015- an encouraging sign

Posted in INTERPOL's Infrastructure, INTERPOL's Tools and Practices

 

It appears that one of the first orders of business upon Nina Vajić‘s assuming her post as Chair of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) was to increase the number of scheduled sessions for the year.

The scheduled sessions for this year will be as follows:

25th – 27th February 2015

27th -29th May 2015

25th September 2015

16th -18th December 2015

INTERPOL observers will note that this is an increase from the thrice-yearly sessions that are normally scheduled.  The addition of a session will allow for more cases to be considered, and for cases to be considered sooner than they would under the previous schedules.

Adding more sessions to the yearly schedule is a solution to the CCF’s backlog of cases that I publicly wished for over two years ago, here.  It is encouraging to see that the CCF’s new chair is implementing this change, and it will be interesting to see what other changes her leadership will bring.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

INTERPOL abuse highlighed at Fair Trials International Event at European Parliament

Posted in Uncategorized

Last month I had the opportunity to attend an event organized by Fair Trials International at the European Parliament.  The event was hosted by Judith Sargentini, MEP, and featured speakers who have been victims of abusive INTERPOL wanted alerts. The event was designed to be an opportunity to consider how EU institutions can work to prevent political abuses of INTERPOL.

The event was led by Fair Trials’ Alex Tinsley, and attended by Libby McVeigh, Fair Trials’ head of Law Reform, along with other attorneys, human rights supporters, and reporters.

Two of the speakers were Bhar Kimyongur and Nicolai Koblyakov, who shared their experiences as Red Notice subjects.  Fair Trials’ full story about the event is here.

Many thanks to Fair Trials for their continued and tireless efforts toward the protection of basic due process rights, and to the European Parliament for providing a venue for such important issues to be addressed.

As always, comments and questions are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

INTERPOL’s review of William Browder’s case

Posted in INTERPOL's Tools and Practices, Member Country Activity, Politically Based Red Notices

It would seem to all observers of the William Browder case that INTERPOL’s most recent consideration of Russia’s request to issue a Red Notice against Mr. Browder would result in a swift denial, that has not happened.

Instead, INTERPOL is taking its time in issuing a decision on the matter, and has not issued any indication of what its decision might be, as reported here.  INTERPOL’s reconsideration of the case was previously discussed in this blog;  and INTERPOL has previously issued public statements on the matter not just once, but twice. The organization found that Russia’s request was predominantly political in nature and therefore INTERPOL was prohibited from being involved in the case.

Given INTERPOL’s former statements on the case and Russia’s colossal judicial corruption problems, it is difficult to imagine that INTERPOL would change course at this point.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

Final session of the year for INTERPOL’s CCF

Posted in INTERPOL's Tools and Practices, Red Notice Challenges

Last week, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) met for its final session of the year. Each year, the CCF meets three times a year, which is the minimum number of times it is required to meet according to INTERPOL’s rules.

During its session meetings, the Commission members consider the requests of individuals who seek some form of relief from the the Commission.  Frequently, those individuals are the subjects of Red Notices and they or their attorneys are requesting to have the Red Notices removed or modified.

Decisions for cases pending from earlier this year and last year  seem to be coming particularly slow in coming out of the CCF.  We’ll soon find out whether the new composition of the Commission will have any bearing on the timeliness of its decisions.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Will INTERPOL Issue a Red Notice Against an Innocent Person?

Posted in Red Notice Challenges

“But I’m innocent!”  Clients who are the subjects of Red Notices frequently and understandably feel a sense of outrage over the fact that a Red Notice has been issued against them when they are in fact innocent of the charges in the underlying arrest warrant.

When clients ask if INTERPOL will withdraw a Red Notice based on innocence, the unfortunate answer is, no.  In fact, INTERPOL clearly states that the persons who are subjects of Red Notices are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  INTERPOL is not a trier of fact.  It acts as a communicator of information between law enforcement agencies, and aids in bringing the subjects of Red Notices before the proper authority for trial or sentencing.

So when a person offers only innocence as a challenge to a Red Notice, INTERPOL’s response will be the same as Tommy Lee Jones’ U.S. Marshall character in the movie, The Fugitive, when a sentenced fugitive tells him, “I didn’t kill my wife!”  Just as INTERPOL does not determine innocence or guilt, neither does the U.S. Marshall.  Of course, his response is:  “I don’t care.”  INTERPOL is only compelled to remove a Red Notice when a wanted person or her attorney presents the organization with compelling evidence that maintaining the Red Notice would violate its rules.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

(This post was originally published on in June of 2011 by Red Notice Law Journal and is published here with additional information.)

INTERPOL thanks outgoing Secretary General Ronald Noble and welcomes incoming Secretary General Jürgen Stock

Posted in INTERPOL's Infrastructure, INTERPOL's Tools and Practices

INTERPOL’s next Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, was officially elected this past Friday at the organization’s annual General Assembly.  Back in June of this year, INTERPOL’s Executive Committee chose Mr. Stock as its candidate to succeed Ronald Noble in INTERPOL’s “CEO” position.

INTERPOL’s President Mireille  Ballestrazzi welcomed the election of the new Secretary General, and said: “The high-level responsibilities Mr Stock has discharged at national police level, combined with his extensive international experience, will serve as major assets to successfully lead the Organization in the years to come.”  In his speech to the General Assembly, Mr. Stock expressed his long-standing passion for INTERPOL and discussed his previous involvement with the organization.  His bio confirms that he has the law enforcement-focused practical and academic background expected of a Secretary General.  His speech and his public statements in the past also provide insight into his beliefs about the role of business and the private sector in relation to INTERPOL’s goals.  In 2012, Mr. Stock emphasized a need for international collaboration on crime fighting with both public and private sector involvement.  He included those points in his speech to the General Assembly as well.  In the next five years and possibly longer, INTERPOL and the international policing community will witness how Mr. Stock’s vision for INTERPOL materializes.

Mr. Stock’s predecessor, Ronald Noble, received a tribute for his ‘outstanding work’  from President Ballestrazzi:  “Thanks to Mr. Noble, INTERPOL has been transformed through modernization, technological development and innovation, setting a benchmark in the history of the Organization.”  As Secretary General for the past three terms, Mr. Noble oversaw numerous changes to the organization.  Among my personal favorites of the improvements made during Mr. Noble’s leadership period were the greatly needed changes to the rules governing INTERPOL (the Rules on the Processing of Data) and the modification and modernization of INTERPOL’s website to make it more clear, thorough, and user-friendly.  Law enforcement types likely favored improvements such as the implementation of INTERPOL’s Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore; the I-Link system, and the Global Security Initiative.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A new leader for the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files

Posted in INTERPOL's Infrastructure, INTERPOL's Tools and Practices

INTERPOL has a new Chairperson for the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, which is the quasi-appellate arm of the organization.  Nina Vajić  assumed her new post as Chairperson in September.

INTERPOL’s announcement regarding Ms.Vajić’s new term is found here.  In her primary profession, she is a professor of Human Rights Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia.  She is a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.  Her bio, here, boasts an impressive background in international and human rights law.

Ms. Vajić’s assignment to the CCF is clearly a strong statement in support of the CCF’s desire to be regcognized as a protector of individual human rights.  As such, observers both from within the organization and in the international human rights community will watch with interest to see how she manifests the CCF’s often-stated goal of securing the rights of those individuals seeking relief from the CCF.

In the next post, more on personnel changes at INTERPOL: a new Secretary General is elected.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.