Red Notice Law Journal - Red Notices, International Extradition, and Perspective

In dealing with INTERPOL-related matters, attorneys and Red Notice subjects often naturally seek assistance from their countries' National Central Bureau (NCB) in an effort to resolve their cases.  To understand why those efforts may not yield the desired results, consider the purpose of the U.S. NCB.

On its "Who We Serve" page, the U.S. NCB addresses its role as an INTERPOL liaison agency, and explains the services it offers.  More importantly, it explains to whom its services are offered:

"The USNCB offers these services to the law enforcement community exclusively."

If the requesting party is not a member of law enforcement, the U.S. NCB is not the place to go seek assistance.  Recall that all Red Notices have underlying charges or convictions, and if the original charge/conviction is within the United States, any errors regarding those charges must be directed to the originating court or law enforcement agency for correction.  

When do we go to INTERPOL for relief?  Have a look here for our previous discussion on that issue.

 As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The following post was originally published in March of 2011.  What a disappointment to see how Egypt has come to view its INTERPOL-related obligations. 

For those of us who are proponents of democracy, it has been mesmerizing to watch from afar the developments in Egypt recently. Like everyone, I wonder how the fledgling democracy will work for the people of Egypt, and whether they will be better off, as we all hope.

Perhaps unlike everyone except for other INTERPOL-philes, I also wonder what this means for the future of Egypt-originated Red Notices. Egypt was one of the founding member countries of INTERPOL and has a long history of both requesting and offering assistance with Red Notice subjects. How will the altered Egyptian government handle future requests for Red Notices? Will it be more or less observant of the rules designed to prevent political abuses of the judicial system?

Although the requirements for a Red Notice are inflexible and consistent, the individuals who request the Red Notices are still human, with all the biases that accompany the human condition. When we consider the information publicized by INTERPOL, we may not always consider its veracity, its reliability, or its very legality.

We should. The information publicized by INTERPOL is presumed to be accurate primarily due to the rigorous prerequisites to which the information is supposed to be subject prior to publication. When a national central bureau of any given participating country submits information to INTERPOL, the organization relies upon its General Secretariat to verify that the information is correct, but also that it was obtained legally. For the information to be gained legally, it must be obtained not only in compliance with INTERPOL’s various governing documents, but also with the requesting country’s laws.

But what happens if the requesting country doesn’t comply with its own laws when, say, issuing an arrest warrant? If an arrest warrant is issued illegally in Egypt, and Egypt’s National Central Bureau (NCB) accepts the information and forwards it to the General Secretariat of INTERPOL, that arrest warrant can be published internationally. The General Secretariat relies upon each member country’s representation that the information it submits is validly and legally obtained.

Even though the subject of the Red Notice has the ability to challenge the notice, the proper issuance of the notice is of critical significance because of the presumption of correctness which accompanies its issuance. A defensive challenge to a Red Notice begins with the presumption that the Notice has been properly issued, and that hurdle must be overcome by the challenging party. As noted by Mark Leon Goldberg of the UN Dispatch, INTERPOL is concerned with more than Julian Assange.  Most of the subjects of its Red Notices lack Assange’s considerable resources with which to challenge their Notices. If a Red Notice is issued without being truly subject to the rigors of INTERPOL’s prerequisites, not only is the integrity of INTERPOL damaged, but the person named in the Notice is substantially prejudiced before his attack on the notice ever begins.

My hope, like that of many others, is that Egypt’s people ultimately experience a democratic form of government, and one that is observant of its international, as well as domestic responsibilities to justice. Given the level of civility, respect, and civic responsibility shown by the citizens of Egypt during their protests, I’m guessing that any government that is truly reflective of the wishes of the Egyptian people will handle its international policing activities in true accordance with INTERPOL’s constitution and governing documents. 

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

Egypt's recent diffusion action against NGO staffers is not exactly the start we hoped to see a year ago.

In last week's post on the Egyptian (since failed) effort to obtain Red Notices against NGO staff members, the focus was on the Red Notice aspect of the issue.  One of the readers, however, sent in this comment:

Great article and thanks.  But you did not mention how diffusion notices bypass any oversight or appeal and how these are completely nontransparent even to the point that the individuals put on these lists may not know their status.

The issue of diffusions was the topic of a post last year, here.  One of the reader's points not addressed then is that of the subjects not knowing their status as subjects of diffusions.  Actually, the subjects of Red Notices frequently also do not know their status as Red Notice subjects until they or their attorneys investigate the matter, or until they travel and are detained as a result of the Red Notice.

Under certain circumstances, INTERPOL will acknowledge the existence of an item of information (such as a Red Notice) regarding a given subject in its files.  Its rules do allow, though, for a refusal to respond to a request for information if the request is deemed "inadmissible." 

Given that a diffusion is often a precursor to a Red Notice, time would often dictate that an appeal for relief from INTERPOL would be against the Red Notice rather than the diffusion.  Nonetheless, as we learned this week, once information is unacceptable under INTERPOL's rules, the form of the information does not matter.  Whether the item takes the form of a Red Notice or a diffusion, the underlying basis for the request must be legitimate under INTERPOL's rules.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Chances are, if you're reading this blog, you have an interest in international politics, crime, persecution, or all of the above.  For the information you have accessed thus far in your life regarding such issues, you can likely thank an international journalist or an NGO employee or volunteer.  In the last post, we discussed the fact that Egypt is taking steps to prosecute those professionals based on recent activities in Egypt, and to obtain Red Notices in their names. Today seems like a good time to give some thought to the work that goes into an NGO report or a reliable news article. 

In order for us to recieve the information about other countries that we rely upon for our professional and personal pursuits, real people must travel to the countries that are to be studied.  They engage in difficult, and often dangerous, activities as necessary to obtain information, check the validity of the information, and export it from the country.  

A day in the life of such an investigative journalist often includes the following:

• Deciding whether to brave a certain area of town in an effort to speak with residents, who may be too afraid of their government to even be seen with a journalist.
• Weighing the benefit of conducting interviews with political dissidents against the risk of arrest in a country known for its human rights abuses.
• Researching an interview subject's background to determine whether any unseen agenda exists.
• Attending journalist training programs to learn the skill of fair and balanced reporting.

An NGO worker's day might look like this:

• Monitoring elections for signs of irregularity while risking arrest on charges of interfering with an election.
• Attempting to convince people who live in countries ruled by particularly oppressive regimes that it's safe to speak out.
• Avoiding physical danger while moving from place to place and collecting information in post-conflict regions.
• Hoping against hope for the safety of the people he just interviewed before he was ordered out of a country by its government.

Any professional who works in this field encounters the unavoidable fact that we do not live in a perfect world, where people would feel free to speak about injustices and harsh governmental treatment.  We live in a world where some countries are so oppressive that, as a journalist recently told me,

"People are terrified . . . people just want to get through their

daily lives and are wary of talking to journalists."

 Despite that reluctance to speak, and despite the danger involved, some people do tell the truth.  Some NGO's do get information out of countries and into country reports.  Some journalists do take the risks that result in real and balanced information getting out to the rest of the world.  

While we don't all pay the price for those efforts, we all reap the benefits.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Last week, we addressed the issue of former premier Michael Misick of Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI).  A Red Notice was issued against Mr. Misick, based on underlying allegations of money laundering and corruption.

Recently, the TCI government addressed concerns about the reason behind the issuance of the Red Notice. There has been public speculation that the Notice was politically motivated based upon a public argument between Mr. Miscik and Governor Ric Todd, precipitated by Mr. Misick's criticism of Mr. Todd.   Governor's Office spokesman Neil Smith, in response to those allegations, reportedly stated that the country had applied for the Notice back in February.  Therefore, goes the logic, the Notice could not have been based upon a spat that occurred in March.

Such a procedure, "applying for" a Red Notice, would be unusual these days, given that a Red Notice is now issued directly by an INTERPOL member country's National Central Bureau (NCB).  The ability to issue a Red Notice for immediate circulation without the prior approval of INTERPOL's offiicals in Lyon, France was made possible by the organization's I-Link system.  

I-Link, discussed more thoroughly here, became available in 2009 and is now widely used by member countries.  While it is certainly possible that TCI requested approval for a Red Notice, and received approval over a month later, the I-Link system makes it completely unnecessary for a member country to do so. 

While the timing and manner of the Red Notice issuance is yet unclear, one thing is certain:  any Red Notice challenge on behalf of Mr. Misick will certainly include evidence of his criticism of, and later argument with, Governor Todd.

** Note to readers:  Red Notice Law Journal placed a request for verification of the grounds for the Red Notice in Mr. Misick's name with INTERPOL's press office.  To date, no response has been forthcoming.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.