Mr. Abdel Latif is in Australia seeking asylum.  He was originally listed as a wanted subject for the crimes of premeditated murder, destruction of property, and possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives without a permit.  The actual charges that remain listed on the Red Notice are membership of an illegally-formed extremist organization and forging travel documents for the organization’s members.  His attorney maintains that even these remaining charges are false.

What is interesting to note is the timing of Egypt's request for the Red Notice correction.  Mr. Abdel Latif was detained by Australian authorities, and Australian law enforcement officials relied upon the Red Notice in its treatment of Mr. Abdel Latif.  

His case attracted attention when Australian officials expressed dismay that Mr. Abel Latif had been in detention for an extended period of time without his status as a Red Notice subject and "jihadist terrorist" being known to them.  Efforts to understand the possible security lapse led to substantial public discussion about the case.

Advocates who worked on Mr. Abdel Latif's behalf raised questions as to the validity of the underlying charges listed in the Red Notice, as well as the fact that his conviction was obtained through a trial in absentia.  Egypt's problematic use of trials in absentia to obtain convictions has raised due process and human rights violation issues, as discussed here previously.  Ultimately, the security concerns raised by Australian officials evolved into questions about the validity of the underlying charges for the Red Notice.  Egypt finally, after twelve years, recognized that the information it had provided to INTERPOL was false.  (The question of whether the remaining charges are politically motivated or otherwise invalid is also subject to speculation, as discussed here.)

While the request for the correction came from Egypt, that request was only made when it became politically impossible for Egypt to do otherwise.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

I have a diffusion notice against me , which was issued by the Indian government. This was done purely to harass me , using the high influence of politics. The case I was wrongly implicated in, is now resolved. So is there a way that we apply to remove the name from the diffusion notice? This  is causing me terrible stress in the airport everytime I enter the airport.

The reader's experience with difficulty and delay when travelling is a common one.  Even after the underlying grounds for a Red Notice or diffusion have been resolved, many countries fail to remove the original information from their systems.  This failure is a violation of INTERPOL's rules and make the offending member country subject to sanctions by INTERPOL.

When a member country does not advise INTERPOL that an underlying warrant or conviction is no longer a valid grounds for a Red Notice or diffusion, the subject of the notice or diffusion is forced to either hire an attorney to assit him or to try to remove it himself.  Of course, it never hurts to first request that the member country execute the removal itself, as it is bound to do by its INTERPOL obligations. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The reason that this story is appropriate for a blog about INTERPOL is that Egypt sought Red Notices for those workers who had left the country prior to the charges being filed.  INTERPOL properly rejected Egypt's request for those Red Notices because of the political nature of the charges.

Now we have the disappointing news that 43 NGO workers, both Egyptian and non-Egyptian, have been found guilty of the charges.  The story is here.

Those individuals who managed to leave Egypt prior to the trial, or prior to sentencing, are unlikely to ever serve their sentences because of the fact that they are not Red Notice subjects and that INTERPOL's channels will not be used to facilitate their extradition.  They will, however, need to use caution when travelling abroad, and will need to consider the diplomatic relations between the countries they visit and Egypt.  

The international community benefits immensely from the work of people such as those who were recently convicted, and to the extent that this case has a chilling effect on journalistic efforts, the international community will also suffer.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

INTERPOL's press statement regarding the CCF recommendation is here.

The decision is certainly a significant one, but on its merits is not unheard of.  INTERPOL's "appellate" body, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files ("CCF"), routinely receives requests for removal of information from INTERPOL's databases.  So what makes Mr. Browder's request and decision unusual, and what part of his case is "run of the mill" for INTERPOL?  Let's take a look:

The complaint:  the fact that a complaint was even filed is unusual.  Out of all the wanted individuals in INTERPOL's databases, only 170 people (.35% of subjects) filed complaints in 2011.  This makes sense, given that requests for assistance with criminal apprension are presumed to be, and should be, valid.

The basis of the complaint:  Mr. Browder's complaint alleged political motivation as the primary basis for Russia's request that INTERPOL circulate his data.  This basis for a complaint to the CCF is not all that unusual, as it was raised in 29% of complaints in 2011.

The CCF's decision about the complaint: The CCF decided to withdraw Mr. Browder's information from its databases.  A decision to cancel a search of a subject or to destroy the information in INTERPOL's databases was made in approximately 19% of cases heard by the CCF in 2011.  When we consider that many challenges to Red Notices and other notices are improperly and/or poorly prepared, and may or not be validly based, that percentage is a higher rate than one might expect.

The announcement of the decision:  The news release about the CCF's recommendation and the General Secretariat's decision to follow the CCF's recommendation is obviously not a routine matter. Very few cases become the subject of a news release by INTERPOL.  The international drama that occured in the background of this particular case nearly mandated the news release.

The timing of the announcement of the decision: Here's where Mr. Browder's case is highly abnormal.  While the CCF has been willing to advise a complainant or his attorney as to the date that his case is likely to be considered by the CCF, it is very unusual to learn of the decision on the same date of the hearing.  

The grounds for the decision: The fact that the CCF provided a reason for its decision is to be expected, certainly in a case that has been monitored so closely from so many corners of the globe.  But the CCF frequently provides a basis for its decision, either in its response letter or after an inquiry regarding the grounds for the decision.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

* Statistical references are gleaned from the CCF's most recently published report, which is the Annual Report for 2011.  

In November of 2012, the PA was granted non-member observer state status with the United Nations.  This acceptance allows for, among other privileges and obligations, the possibility that the PA might be admitted to other intergovernmental organizations, such as INTERPOL.

Should the PA be admitted to INTERPOL as a member, it would have the authority to issue Red Notices as well as all of the other notices that are available to INTERPOL member countries.  It would also be required to maintain its financial obligation to INTERPOL, to undergo the requisite training for its assigned law enforcement agencies, and to bring its practices into compliance with INTERPOL's governing rules and texts.

And while aiding in the apprehension of criminals may be the obvious goal of member countries who join INTERPOL, the overriding benefit for the PA would be that of recognition and validation from the international community.  This effort, with respect to INTERPOL, was articulated back in 2010 as the PA anticipated discussions regarding its potential INTERPOL membership at the 2011 General Assembly meeting of INTERPOL.

When the General Assembly meets later this year and considers the PA's application, it will adhere to its "one country, one vote" policy.  If the votes at the UN last year are any indication, the PA may very well be INTERPOL's next member.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Mr. Watson and the SSCS have argued that the Red Notice is politically motivated, and they now have the support of former SSCS member and fellow conservationist Pete Bethune.

Mr. Bethune and the SSCS were, until recently, engaged in a legal battle over a vessel that was used during a confrontation with a Japanese ship.  Mr. Bethune was the captain of the vessel that sunk after it was rammed by the Japanese ship.  His dispute with the SSCS stemmed from a disagreement over the amount of money that the SSCS should pay for the destroyed vessel, and was accompanied by a long period of bad relations between the parties.

The SSCS and Mr. Bethune recently settled their dispute, agreeing that the SSCS would pay a specified amount for the vessel, and that Mr. Bethune would aid in Paul Watson's avoidance of extradition to Japan.  As of this writing, the SSCS had not responded to a request for information regarding exactly how Mr. Bethune would provide such aid, but if a response is given, it will be posted here.

As always, comments and questions are welcomed.

This was an animated film, so some artistic license is to be expected, but it bears pointing out that INTERPOL does not send agents or detectives around the world investigating pickpockets (as in the film) or other crimes.  Rather, it receives information from the law enforcement agencies in INTERPOL member countries around the world and shares that information with other member countries to aid in the suspect's apprehension.  

When we hear about "U.S. INTERPOL" or "the Ethiopian INTERPOL office," we are hearing a reference to the liaison between that member country's National Central Bureau ("NCB") and INTERPOL, not to an office owned or operated by INTERPOL.

So it was with interest that I read yesterday that INTERPOL's agents in Mexico had gone missing while conducting an investigation.  Multiple media outlets reported that INTERPOL's investigating officials had left the city of Chihuahua on Monday and not reached their destination of Ciudad Juárez.  This would be odd, of course, when INTERPOL has no such officials.  

INTERPOL was quick to clarify that in Mexico, the NCB is under the authority of the Policía Federal Ministerial, a part of the Procuraduría General de la República, not INTERPOL.  Moreover, as reported here, Mexican officials have stated that not only are no INTERPOL officials missing, but no one at all is missing.

So, to be clear:  No Thompson and Thomson, no INTERPOL agents in Mexico, and no missing police officers in Mexico.  At all.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today's post addresses an insightful and very personal comment that was posted here.  The author of that comment noted, correctly, that INTERPOL is sometimes used to further the corrupt goals of certain law enforcement officials in various member countries.  Obviously, the issuance of a Red Notice has a debilitating effect on its subject, and when the Notice is improperly issued, that effect is worsened by the very real sense of injustice that accompanies the Notice.  The author of the comment reports having experienced just such an injustice, and wonders why INTERPOL seems to allow this to happen without oversight.

Unfortunately, his is not an isolated experience.  INTERPOL has 190 member countries, each of which is bound by its membership conditions with INTERPOL to request or publish Red Notices only when it has ensured that the proper legal channels have been followed.  Based on that obligation, INTERPOL does assign a rather high level of trust to member countries, and Red Notices are strongly presumed to have been validly issued.

This does not mean that a Red Notice, once issued, must remain active until it has led to an arrest.  On the contrary, INTERPOL's stated goals include observation and adherence to not only its own rules, but also such texts as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  When a subject or his lawyer files a proper challenge which shows a violation of INTERPOL's governing rules and texts, it is indeed possible for a Red Notice to be withdrawn, modified, or revoked.

Nonetheless, what of the author's larger question about INTERPOL's quality assurance issues? INTERPOL's "honor system" with its member countries inevitably results in the problem that any honor system encounters:  someone, somewhere, cheats.   That cheating may take the form of active misinformation or simple laziness and failure to carry out one's duties.  Regardless of the manner of non-compliance with INTERPOL's rules, the outcome for the Red Notice subject is the same:  she is immobilized, finds difficulty obtaining employment, suffers financially, and risks detention by law enforcement constantly.  

My thanks to the author of the comment for raising these important questions about a persistent problem, and I hope that he or his lawyer were able to resolve his problems.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

But what of other, less obvious violations of INTERPOL's rules?  If Egypt is willing to violate INTERPOL's rules in order to prosecute individuals, is it also willing to violate its own due process laws in order to obtain convictions?  The case of Wael Abbas is summed up here, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR")"

Award-winning digital journalist Wael Abbas was charged with selling communications services without a license, and because neither he nor his lawyers were ever informed of the trial date, he was sentenced in absentia to six months in prison and fined 500 Egyptian pounds ($86).

THe UNHCR went on to point out that, while the conviction was ultimately thrown out, the threat of multiple charges for the same alleged crime is also a very real threat in Egypt.

Even assuming that Egypt were to follow its own criminal procedure laws, Egyptian law does not contain the internationally accepted safeguards that allow for a due process compliant trial in absentia.  The problems with Egypt's form of trial in absentia were aptly described by Human Rights Watch in its Q & A column about the trial of Hosni Mubarak:

Trying a defendant in absentia can undermine some of the defendant’s basic rights to a fair trial, including the right to be present, to be defended by counsel of the person’s choice, and to examine witnesses. International law disfavors but does not prohibit trials in absentia. National systems that maintain the practice should, at a minimum, institute procedural safeguards to ensure the defendant’s basic rights. These include requirements that the defendant be notified in advance of the proceedings and that the defendant unequivocally and explicitly waive his right to be present. The defendant should also have the right to representation in his or her absence, and should be able to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the conviction following the person’s return to the jurisdiction.

Egyptian law does not meet these minimum requirements... Egyptian law does not include any procedural safeguards requiring that the court take into account whether the defendant’s absence was by choice or assess whether a defendant unequivocally and explicitly waived the right to be present before deciding to proceed with a trial in absentia.

Given that we have seen Egypt's pattern and practice of using, and attempting to use, its access to INTERPOL's tools in an abusive fashion in political and religious cases, there is no basis to believe that Egypt does not also misuse that access to further its goals in criminal cases where gross due process violations have occurred.  When the goal is a criminal conviction regardless of the means by which the conviction is obtained, no other motivation is necessary for a member country to violate INTERPOL's rules.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

While all outward appearances indicate that INTERPOL has become wary of many Red Notices that are initiated or requested by Venezuela, particularly those that concern charges of easily fabricated financial crimes, there remains plenty of room for concern that Venezuelan authorities will continue to attempt to abuse their access to INTERPOL's tools.

Because of the fact that INTERPOL's I-Link system provides member countries with the ability to instantly issue Red Notices, which are not subject to an immediate "human" check, countries that do not honor their obligations to properly utlize INTERPOL's tools can - and do- obtain Red Notices improperly.  If INTERPOL authorities are  unaware of the illicit nature of the Red Notice, it remains active at least until the problem is brought to INTERPOL's attention and reviewed.

Nicolas Maduro campaigned on a pledge to continue with Chavez' policies, and there is every indication that he will do just that, including the misuse of their access to INTERPOL's databases.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

What does surprise many people, however, is that the Red Notice does not guarantee an arrest.  Assuming that Mr. Faid is found by any INTERPOL member country's authorities, several factors will determine whether he is returned to France.  Those factors include:

• Whether the official who encounters Faid checks INTERPOL's databases and finds the Red Notice in Faid's name;
• Whether the member country chooses to detain Faid while investigating extradition possibilities; and
• Whether Faid is found in a member country that has an extradition treaty with France, or is willing to return him to France via deportation or diplomatic means.

Granted, the case of Redoine Faid appears to be one of the more egregious cases in INTERPOL's wanted lists, and it is unlikely that a member country would refuse to return him, all other matters being equal. 

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

Criminal victims have many options in terms of how they handle their roles in a criminal case, but INTERPOL access is not one of those options.  INTERPOL's channels are only accessible to law enforcement agencies.  All INTERPOL member countries have an assigned National Central Bureau ("NCB") that is responsible for liaising between the country and INTERPOL.  

Victims do have the ability to take some steps that may aid in the process of seeking a Red Notice.  For instance, if they remain readily available to the investigating officers, a complete investigation is more easily conducted and the officers will be more likely to have the documents needed to obtain a Red Notice.

Another consideration is that not all law enforcement agencies are very well versed in the use of INTERPOL's tools.  The victim's request that a Red Notice be issued may be the first time that an officer ever even considers a Red Notice.  By familiarlizing himself with the NCB's information page (on INTERPOL's website) a victim can also become a source of information for law enforcement officials who may have never utilized INTERPOL's tools.

Finally, as we have all learned, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Victims who maintain contact with the assigned law enforcement officials are more likely to see progress on the cases.  Victims who sit idly by and hope for results will likely continue to do just that- sit and hope.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Member countries can use their INTERPOL pages in varying ways.  A review of the INTERPOL page for any country of interest provides a bit of insight as to the country's most recent joint endeavors with INTERPOL, such as this page for South Africa.  It may also provide links to relevant law enforcement agencies, as is found in Norway's page.  Paraguay's page provides an example of how the countries also use their INTERPOL pages to highlight certain wanted subjects.  The United Arab Emirates provides little information compared to some other countries, but it includes a video in its page.

When I reviewed the pages for each of the countries, the inevitable question of superlatives arose.  Toward that end, I humbly suggest that the following awards go to the following member countries:

• Madagascar, Guinea Bissau and Marshall Islands, tied for the most concise pages
• Japan, for display of the most politically contested Red Notice (for the Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson)
• Thailand, for including the most flowers in a photograph with law enforcment officials
• Costa Rica, for best display of overkill in a takedown of a single subject

To the reader who posed the question, thanks for the opportunity to review the various member countries' INTERPOL pages.  We may have to make "superlatives" a yearly event.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

The raid on Amnesty International is the most recent in a series of actions taken by the Russian government to tighten control over NGOs that provide human rights observation and advocacy services. Russian law now requires any nonprofit organizations that receive financing from abroad to register as "foreign agents."  The inspections that have resulted from this policy have appeared to focus on advocacy groups in particular.

The significance of this particular brand of oppressive activity is that it often results in the NGO being forced to reduce its functions in the oppressive country, or to leave the country altogether.  John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia director, articulated his concern about Amnesty International's future in Russia in a statement issued last week:

 “There has long been a fear that Russia’s new NGO law would be used to target prominent critical organizations,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia director. “The spate of inspections in recent weeks appears to confirm this suspicion. The bigger fear is that this is just round one, and that, after the smearing, the forced closures will come.

For those people who find themselves to be the subjects of Red Notices, the work of NGOs such as Amnesty International could not be more significant.  When challenging a Red Notice, it is often necessary to place an individual's own experience into the context of a country's ongoing practices, and to provide documented proof of a country's history of human rights violations.  

Without the consistent and documented observations of reputable human rights organizations, it would be difficult to provide any substantive evidence of a given country's history and pattern of human rights violations. And once the NGOs are attacked, it becomes increasingly difficult for other advocacy groups to maintain a voice of any kind.  Human rights observers will recall that Egypt conducted a this type of campaign against various NGOs in 2012.

About this time last year, we addressed a very similar situation in Egypt, wherein NGO workers were being arrested for working for unregistered agencies.  With the passage of time, and fewer observers and protections in place, we now see that activists are being targeted for prosecution.  Associated Press reporters Hamza Hendawi and Saral El Deeb report that five promininet activits in opposition to Egyptian President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are the subject of arrest warrants.  In their report, here, Hendawi and El Deeb point out that the five activists who are the subjects of the warrants were at the forefront of the 2011 uprising against former President Hosni Mubarark.  Is anyone surprised?

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Along with the benefit of instant access come the drawbacks of lack of review.  Prior to I-link's implementation, member countries were required to submit their requests for Red Notices to Interpol for approval.  Only after the requests had been reviewed and approved by the General Secretariat would they be circulated in INTERPOL's databases and made available to other member countries.  

Under the current I-link system, however, no such review or approval is required prior to the entry and circulation of a Red Notice.  According to the 2011 annual report of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, that lack of review presents one of the problems with the I-link system.  The Commission's finding in section 5.2.3 of the report addressed that concern and emphasized:  

While automatic checking mechanisms are increasingly advanced, they are not intended to replace human checks.

And given the fact that Red Notices are cloaked in a presumption of validity, the fact that they can now be issued without any "human check" is particularly alarming.  The simple truth is that any member country that has a corrupt, lazy, or improperly motivated INTERPOL liaison official can easily and quickly upload invalid Red Notices into INTERPOL'S databases.  The result is that truly innocent people may have their lives turned upside down while they navigate the waters of INTERPOL, detention, and extradition.

While the Commission must be commended for keeping INTERPOL honest, it remains to be seen exactly how INTERPOL will rectify the problem of Red Notices that are improperly entered into the I-link system.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In the case of religious law violations, it doesn't.  INTERPOL's member countries include many with strict, religious-based codes, that provide for severe penalties for religious transgressions.  When a person accused of violating those laws absconds, the member country may request INTERPOL's assistance in apprehending the person.  According to INTERPOL's constitution, INTERPOL should refuse that request.

Article 3 of INTERPOL's constitution is most often cited for its prohibition on any involvement with matters that are primarily political in nature.  However, religiously motivated charges are also prohibited:

"It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, or religious or racial character."

Article, 3, constitution of INTERPOL.

When member countries utilizes INTERPOL's I-Link system, which allows for Red Notices to be entered into INTERPOL's databases without quality checks being made prior to entry, it is possible that inappropriate Red Notices may be issues.  This possibility certainly exists for crimes based on religious violations as well as politically motivated criminal charges.  

If a person is the subject of an improperly issued Red Notice due to its being religiously based, it is important for that fact to be brought to INTERPOL's attention in a challenge to the Red Notice.  Violations of INTERPOL's constitution provide for valid grounds for the Notice to be destroyed.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Some of the workers who were charged were U.S. citizens. One of them is Robert Becker, who has remained in Egypt to face the charges and who regularly reports on the progress of the trial.  The other U.S. citizens left the country.  Because they had left Egypt, they were charged in absentia and Egypt requested Red Notices to be issued by INTERPOL.  INTERPOL rightly refused to issue the Red Notices.

However, for Becker and for Defendants 27, Rawda Ali, and 28, Hafsa Halawa, and thirteen  other Egyptians, INTERPOL did not become involved because they remained in Egypt.  As reported here by Nancy Youssef and Amina Ismail, both women were  employees of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), as was Becker.  The NDI and other NGOs were working in Egypt with the goal of educating reporters on fair and impartial reporting methods, those NGOs were accused of operating without being properly registered as organizations within Egypt.

It is truly impossible to overstate the value of the work done by people like Ali, Becker and Halawa and their fellow defendants.  But for people like them, the world has no real hope of obtaining reliable, verified, accurate information about any kind of activity, political or otherwise, in any foreign country.  The ideal of unbiased journalism cannot be realized without journalists dedicated to unbiased research and reporting methods.

Every country has journalists for sale, those who will write what is easy, or unverified, or false.  We know that.  But we also know that there are journalists who are not afraid to find the truth, to understand the truth, and to tell the truth.  They deserve our protection and they deserve that we bear witness to their dedication.  

These journalists and their colleagues are braver than most of us, and we are indebted to them.  INTERPOL was right not to become involved in this matter.  The political motivation behind the charges is palpable, and it is important for these defendants to know that they are not forgotten, and that the world is, in fact, watching.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In fact, according to INTERPOL, no such activity has occurred.

Any cessation of a relationship with one of its member countries would be extraordinary for INTERPOL, particularly given that INTERPOL has a protocol in place for "disciplining" member countries that run afoul of its governing rules.  Red Notice Law Journal contacted INTERPOL yesterday in an effort to verify the reports.  In a very timely response, INTERPOL's press office indicated that the reports were, in fact, untrue, and that the organization will seek a correction of the reports immediately.

The question remains open, then, as to whether the information reported had more to do with internal law enforcement agency disputes within Iraq, and less to do with INTERPOL itself.  Further information will be reported as it becomes available.

INTERPOL’s constitution forbids its involvement in politically motivated cases

Regardless of that fact that Mr. Misick’s political asylum claim was denied in Brazil, it would be surprising if he did not also challenge his Red Notice directly to INTERPOL on political grounds as well.

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution establishes that

            It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or

            activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.

Given that the allegations against Mr. Misick stem from his tenure in office, one might assume that the question of INTERPOL’s involvement should end there:  activities conducted in a political office are necessarily political. 

However, the analysis of whether a Red Notice is politically motivated requires a more thorough review of the underlying charges and Red Notice application.  The question of political motivation requires a study of all the circumstances involving the allegations, as well as a review of the political landscape and history of the requesting country. Additionally, the relationship between the Red Notice subject and the requesting country must be considered along with their respective activities.  

If the predominant reason for the Red Notice is the accomplishment of the issuing country’s political goals, then the Red Notice very well may be politically motivated to an unacceptable level.  However, if the true overriding basis for the Red Notice is the underlying criminal charge, then a challenge based on the political motivation of the Red Notice likely will not succeed. 

TCI responded to allegations of political motivation behind charges

Earlier in 2012, the TCI government addressed concerns about the reason behind the issuance of the Red Notice. Mr. Misick’s supporters had  speculated that the notice against him was politically motivated based upon a public argument in March of this year between Mr. Misick and Governor Ric Todd.  The argument was 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.

While the timing and manner of the Red Notice issuance is yet unclear, one thing is certain:  any Red Notice challenge by Mr. Misick's attorneys will certainly include evidence of his criticism of, and later argument with, Governor Todd.  The success of such a challenge will depend on the strength and validity of the documentation of the underlying criminal charges.

** 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.  As of today’s date, no response has been forthcoming.

International police cooperation results in arrest of former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick

Former Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Premier Michael Misick was arrested in Brazil on December 7, 2012 while at Rio de Janeiro’s domestic airport.  TCI is an overseas  territory of the United Kingdom, and its government has confirmed that it will seek the extradition of Mr. Misick.

Both Brazil and the United Kingdom are member countries of INTERPOL.  Their National Central Bureaus (NCBs) are in Rio de Janeiro and London, respectively, and the NCBs are the countries’ liaisons with INTERPOL’s headquarters in Lyon, France. The United Kingdom also maintains an INTERPOL sub-bureau in TCI.

Background of charges

Mr. Misick is wanted by officials in TCI for questioning on corruption allegations, as originally reported by Jacqueline Charles in the Miami Herald, here.  The investigation, which has already resulted in the arrest of other government officials, centers on the allegedly fraudulent distribution of government land, money laundering, and corruption.  Mr. Misick fled TCI and was reportedly seeking political asylum from what he claims is political persecution.

Brazilian authorities reportedly gave Mr. Misick permission to work while in the country and while his asylum petition was pending.  However, as reported here, that request was denied and the INTERPOL Red Notice triggered detention and extradition proceedings in Brazil.

Interpol notices function differently from arrest warrants

INTERPOL’s notices, particularly Red Notices, are often an inaccurately referred to as “international arrest warrants.”  A Red Notice issued by INTERPOL is a tool used by member countries to aid in detecting, detaining, and extraditing internationally wanted persons. 

INTERPOL does not dictate that its member countries arrest red notice subjects.  Each INTERPOL member country is left to determine how it will react to finding a Red Notice subject.  Many countries immediately detain the subject, while others monitor him or her and only execute a detention when a domestic warrant is issued based on the Red Notice.  Other countries have been known to completely ignore the notice, as happened recently in Afghanistan.

In the United States, once an international fugitive is discovered, the case is assigned to an Assistant United States Attorney. Assuming that all of the requisite documentation is in order, that attorney obtains an arrest warrant for the fugitive from a federal judge or magistrate in the district where the fugitive is believed to be located.  At that point, a detention and extradition process is authorized.

In Mr. Misick’s case, the Red Notice served to alert Brazilian authorities as to his wanted status in TCI.  Although Brazil apparently gave Mr. Misick temporary legal status and entertained his asylum claim, a domestic warrant for his arrest ultimately resulted in just that.  

In the next post, look for a discussion on Mr. Misick's claim of political motivation that his lawyers are expected to advance, and INTERPOL's policy regarding such claims.