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

We know that Egypt has attempted to utilize its access to INTERPOL's databases for political reasons against people who posed ideological threats to the current government, and more recently, to a political opponent of its current president.  In accordance with its own constitution, INTERPOL has rightly refused to become involved in (or stay involved in) such politically motivated matters.  Egypt has also at least threatened to seek INTERPOL's involvement in religiously based criminal offenses.

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.

The offices of Amnesty International in Russia were recently raided as part of an "audit," as reported in the New York Times by David Herszenhorn and Andrew Roth, here.  Amnesty International is a leading non-governmental organization (NGOs) that provides in-depth and ongoing reports and information on the status of various human rights issues in countries around the world.  

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.

The last time Red Notice Law Journal addressed the issue of NGO workers charged with crimes in Egypt, it was here, with the focus being on the fact that NGO workers and journalists are critical in the work of evaluating human rights issues and country conditions around the world.  Egypt had charged employees of several NGOs for working in the country without their organizations being properly registered, although proper registration was not made possible by the Egyptian government.

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.

Earlier this year, the issue of Michael Misick's Red Notice was addressed here.  The next two posts are updates on Mr. Misick's case. 

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.

We last addressed the matter of Paul Watson, the leader of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ("SSCS"), and INTERPOL back in May, when Watson was arrested in Germany.  That arrest was made at the request of Costa Rica, for activity alleged to have occurred over ten years ago, and the arrest did not involve INTERPOL.  INTERPOL issued a press release at that time indicating that its denial of a Red Notice was based on a lack of compliance with its constitution and rules.  

Now, however, things have changed.  INTERPOL has confirmed that it has issued Red Notices in Mr. Watson's name on behalf of both Costa Rica and Japan.

Prior to the second Red Notice being issued, Watson's German attorney, Oliver Wallasch, issued a letter to SSCS. The letter has been publicized and explains the situation from the attorney's perspective.

Obviously, Watson's travel will either be curtailed until the Red Notices are addressed, or he will likely be detained if he attempts to exit or enter any INTERPOL member country while the Notices are outstanding.

Whether Watson decides to formally challenge the Notices remains to be seen.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

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.

Who should be outraged by Egypt's recent move to obtain Red Notices against NGO staff members? Out of basic concern for the human condition, all of us.  More specifically, and more selfishly, those of us who rely on the activities and findings of international journalists and non-governmental organization (NGO) workers should be very concerned about Egypt's recent activities.  

Egypt is seeking Red Notices in the names of 43 people, including 17 American NGO workers who are alleged to have worked for their respective organizations in Egypt without the proper licenses, and has asked the U.S. for assistance in locating those individuals. Those sought by Egypt include people affiliated with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI).

For the alleged offense of operating without a license, Egyptian officials seek the extradition and prosecution of each individual.  As reported here, the U.S. government is engaged in talks with Egypt and INTERPOL to prevent the subject Red Notices from being issued.  

Let us hope those discussions are successful in preventing the issuance of Red Notices, because collectively, we will suffer if the voices of these individuals are silenced.  

If you thought it was bad when country-to-country cables published by Wikileaks were unavailable due to funding issues, or when Wikipedia blacked out for twenty-four hours, imagine how difficult it would be to accomplish the following without the verified and unbiased information provided by trained international journalists, human rights watch organizations, and political observers:

1. Engaging in the preparation of an asylum petition for a client, without access to current reports from organizations such as Amnesty International regarding country conditions or political persecution.
2. Monitoring international elections on behalf of a professional organization without being able to rely on the monitoring efforts of organizations such as Freedom House or National Democratic Institute.
3. Researching and organizing a challenge to an INTERPOL Red Notice based on politically motivated grounds without current information regarding the issuing country's political activities, such as harassment of dissidents, retaliatory detention, or disparate treatment of political opponents.

I can't think of many attorneys who have the time, the skill, or quite honestly, the guts, to travel from country to country to gather the information provided by these organizations.  Without the work of investigative journalists and NGO's, we will lose access to quality information regarding country conditions, human rights violations, and the integrity of elections.  This information makes up the substance of much of the work we do.

To maintain its international credibility, Egypt should reconsider its position on this issue.  Absent that, the U.S. should stand strong in its position in support of its citizens and against the issuance of Red Notices in their names.  By all current indications, the U.S. is doing just that.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Next time:  what it takes to get the information out of a country and into a country report.

If a Red Notice subject applies for and is granted political asylum in a given country, does that necessarily mean that his claim to INTERPOL of politically motivated criminal charges will be successful?

And if a Red Notice subject's claim to INTERPOL that his Red Notice is based on a politically motivated criminal charge succeeds, does that necessarily mean that his petition for political asylum will be granted?

No and no.  While this may seem counterintuitive, success (or failure) on one front does not dictate the same result on the other front.  To understand why, imagine that a client has a Red Notice from Ethiopia and also seeks political asylum in the United States.

Claims for political asylum are made to the appropriate governmental bodies within the varying countries.  In our example, a political asylum claim made in the United States is submitted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the form of an application, or if the applicant is outside the United States, he may submit a refugee claim to the nearest U.S. Consulate or DHS office.  The regulations governing U.S. proceedings must be followed if a favorable result is to be had.

On the other hand, a request for relief from an INTERPOL Red Notice is handled by the appropriate body within INTERPOL.  An application for relief must follow the rules and texts that govern INTERPOL, and those rules and texts are completely independent of those in the United States.

In this example, one sees that the United States could arrive at a completely different decision than INTERPOL. Our Red Notice subject could thereby prevail on his Red Notice issue but still be denied political asylum in the United States, or vice versa.  In order to succeed, each matter must be given careful consideration, time and attention as the attorney prepares with the client.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In a recent MSNBC.com article, Ian Johnston reports on some of the frustrations experienced by Red Notice subjects as they attempt to challenge their Red Notices.  He addresses the issue of possibly pending lawsuits against INTERPOL as a means of changing the manner in which a Red Notice is issued or challenged.

Although such efforts are in very early stages, and previous similar efforts have failed, INTERPOL has long been aware of the possibility of such legal action and governs itself accordingly.  In its 2010 Annual Activity Report, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files ("CCF") recognized its possible vulnerability to lawsuits.  Specifically, the CCF lauded INTERPOL's decision to have its Constitution registered with the United Nations Charter as a means of solidifying its status as an international organization operating under international law.  The CCF noted that such status would

              "enhance INTERPOL's immunity from legal process vis-a-vis     

                    national courts in all of its member countries."

The CCF went on to highlight the fact that its I-link project (discussed in more detail here and in the next post) has created a significant likelihood that INTERPOL and its NCBs would both be liable in the event that a Red Notice subject was prejudiced by the inappropriate entry of information into its databases.

This concern was echoed in CCF Chairman Billy Hawkes' speech to the General Assembly in November of 2011.  As always, his speech was both respectful and frank.  He discussed the CCF's concern that, at that time, the appropriate control mechanisms for the I-Link project had not been implemented in a timely fashion.  He further acknowledged that the data quality of information processed through the I-Link system would determine whether National Central Bureaus of member countries could properly rely on Red Notices.

It is clear that the CCF is both aware of the issue of potential liability for INTERPOL's actions and actively working to ensure that INTERPOL does not process information improperly.  Mr. Hawkes rightly observed that "for an Organisation of 190 members, this will always be a significant challenge."  But if the appropriate safeguards are not in place, that challenge becomes unwieldy, and perhaps, impossible.

Next time:  more on I-Link.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A good number of people who complain about unfairly issued Red Notices argue that the charges underlying their Red Notices are politically motivated.  Many times, the claim of political motivation is true.

A government's basis for bringing charges against one of its citizens or residents may stem from the governing regime's desire to control dissidents, to quiet whistleblowers, or to discourage political opposition.  As any human rights non-governmental organization can attest, politically motivated criminal charges are brought with frequency in many countries.

INTERPOL's Constitution prohibits INTERPOL from becoming involved in any matter of a political character. Nonetheless, the argument that a Red Notice is politically based can be made, substantiated, and submitted with proof to INTERPOL, and the subject's request to remove the Red Notice can still be validly denied.

How can such a claim fail?  For INTERPOL, the existence of political motivation is not the only determining factor regarding whether a Red Notice is properly issued or not.  There are certainly numerous criminal cases in any country which are brought based on legitimate criminal violations, but which are also partially based on the political motivation of a government official.  Because of this reality, INTERPOL will only categorize a Red Notice request as impermissibly politically motivated when the primary character is political.

If this sounds a bit like the old, "I know it when I see it" standard articulated for pornography by American Supreme Court Justice Stewart, take solace in this: INTERPOL does have actual criteria that it applies to each case to determine whether it is primarily politically motivated or based on the stated crime.  If INTERPOL agrees that the primary motivation for the Red Notice request is political, then it will be deemed inappropriate for INTERPOL's involvement. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The Libyan Transitional Council's members include several lawyers, a former political prisoner, a human rights activist, and a veterans affairs representative, among others.  The LTC's statement is brief, to the point, and inspiring.  The Council states:

"Either we achieve freedom and race to catch up with humanity and world developments, or we are schackled and enslaved under the feet of the tyrant Mu'ammar Gaddafi where we shall live in the midst of history."

The LTC announced its own establishment in March of this year, and its work towards devloping a permanent governance continues.  Libya has been a member country of INTERPOL since 1954.   The LTC stated that it intends to honor all international agreements signed by the former Libyan government, and this would seem to include its relationship with INTERPOL.  Indeed, as mentioned in the previous post, INTERPOL's issuance of the Red Notices against Muammar Gaddafi and his sons is seen as a recognition of the legitimacy of the LTC as a governing entity.

If the LTC steers Libya in the direction one would expect given a leadership body that is cognizant of human rights issues and sound legal policy, it would be fair to expect the new Libya to be a solid, rules-observant member country.  It would follow that we should expect to see few or no politically based Red Notice requests from this Libya.  

The LTC's mission statement definitely leaves one hopeful for this possibility, and for the future of Libya after so many years of oppression.  The statement also reminded me of something the comedienne Roseanne Barr once said:  

No one gives you power.  You just take it.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In a continuation of the issue of INTERPOL's seemingly blind trust in the representations of its member countries, today's post concerns the application process of member countries requesting Red Notices from INTERPOL.  And this just in . . . an article by Libby Lewis, sponsored by the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists, wherein the author asks, "Are Some Countries Abusing Interpol?"

A great, and timely, question.  It goes without saying that in any group of 188 countries, some of those countries necessarily will be governed more honestly or more corruptly than others.  Lewis' article accurately points out that INTERPOL's Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's files cannot investigate cases on its own.  Adding to that frustrating fact is another increasingly frustrating fact:  law enforcement agencies now enter the information regarding Red Notice applications on their own.  Not surprisingly, this change has coincided with a rise in applications for Red Notices.

As the numbers of Red Notice applications rise, so naturally do the instances of rules violations stemming from improper Red Notice Requests.  The ICIJ has identified seventeen countries with a history of improperly utilizing Red Notices to persecute political opponents, economic targets, or environmental activists.

We do know, and the Lewis article recognized that, once INTERPOL becomes aware of a given member country's improper Red Notice request habits, INTERPOL takes notice and acts.  An example discussed here previously is that of Venezuela.  Raising that awareness, however, can require the considerable and repeated efforts of Red Notice subjects and their lawyers.    

In the next post, look for a discussion of an idea proposed by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions: the modification of INTERPOL's Red Notice request review process.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

In a continuation of the discussion of the current Venezuelan Red Notice situation, I thought it interesting to consider INTERPOL'S public explanation of two matters:  first, the historic visit by Ronald K. Noble, INTERPOL's Secretary General, to Venezuela early this month, and second, the possible reasons for INTERPOL's denial of Venezuela's Red Notice requests.

Why the visit?

In its media release of May 4, 2011, INTERPOL publicized Mr. Noble's trip to meet with Luisa Ortega Díaz, the Attorney General of Venezuela, with the stated purpose of improving cooperation between the country and the organization, and contained repeated references to INTERPOL's respect for Venezuela.  The release was carefully crafted to paint a picture of a confined, limited argument, rather than a complete breakdown of relations.

 Mr. Noble emphasized that,

"[t]here are currently more than 100 valid Red Notices issued by INTERPOL on behalf of Venezuela in circulation worldwide.  The decision therefore to refuse specific Red Notices, in a specific catergory of cases and for specific defendants should not be interpreted as any kind of 'attack' on Venezuela, but simply that INTERPOL is adhering to its rules."

INTERPOL also characterized the tiff between it and Venezuela as a "current disagreement between Venezuela and INTERPOL and its independent oversight body, the CCF, on whether INTERPOL should issue Red Notices in a specific category of cases for specific defendants," and that it should not "be misconstrued as a broader conflict between Venezuela and INTERPOL." 

Why the denials?

Although it is not specifically stated in the release, INTERPOL certainly implied that previous denials of Red Notice requests were the result of improper requests.  Mr. Noble is quoted as pointing out that INTERPOL's rules and regulations must be followed in order for one of its tools, such as a Red Notice, to be used.  

INTERPOL also seemed to distance itself from its own Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's files (CCF) by twice referring to the CCF as being "independent," and referring to the disagreement as being between "Venezuela and INTERPOL and . . . the CCF."  Perhaps that distance is a means of insulating the CCF from the politically delicate matters that currently require INTERPOL to continue to deal intimately with Venezuela.

Mr. Noble called for more communication between INTERPOL and Venezuela, but did not indicate an intention to back down from previous decisions.  As for the type of communication that is to come, there may be room for concern.  More on that next time.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

President Hugo Chavez has cast his net far and wide in his efforts to socialize the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela.  It’s no secret that he uses every branch of government to his advantage in furtherance of his political goals.  His abuses against Venezuela’s citizens and its businesses have been well-documented for years. In its 2009 report on Venezuela, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) reported that it had “received complaints by persons who assert that they have been subjected to criminal proceedings because of their political opinions,” and that, “[i]ncluded among persons considered by different organizations to be political prisoners are journalists, persons detained in the context of social demonstrations, . . .  representatives of political parties, business leaders, and dissidents in general.”

Among Chavez’ most recent efforts to take over much of the private sector is his campaign against the private banking industry.  Before banking, it was television, radio, the cement industry, and the steel industry. It has become increasingly evident that when Chavez gets involved with any particular industry, chances are good that someone is going to jail.  The trend of jailing people who may become obstacles to Venezuela’s socialization continues with members of the private banking industry in Venezuela. 

Despite the widely recognized fact that many of Chavez’ instructions to the judiciary are politically motivated, INTERPOL’s “Venezuela” pages are filled with Red Notices, many of them issued against Venezuelan citizens accused of fraud charges stemming from their connections with a certain industry.  Care to guess which one? 

That’s right, banking. 

The subjects of the red notices have protested publicly and privately that the Notices were illegally issued against them to provide a means to clear the way for their respective financial institutions to be taken over by the government. 

Not coincidentally, in 2010, ImpactoCNA reported in its article, “Denuncian que Fiscalia esta fabricando expediente falso para acusar opositores,” that prosecuting attorneys were fabricating cases against political opponents of President Chavez.   There also has been widespread criticism of the Venezuelan government based on the idea that certain Venezuelan prosecutors are more subject to influence and corruption because of the instability of their positions in the government.  The Venezuelan judiciary is extremely unlikely to provide a potent shield against such abuses, given the fate of those such as Judge María Lourdes Afiun, who was incarcerated for ordering that a banker be released on bond in December of 2009.   

In every respect, Chavez continues his drive to control the thoughts, actions, and words of the Venezuelan people, recently going so far as to disallow a television show called Chepe Fortuna which poked fun at his administration via thinly disguised characters and analogies.  “Ever since his ascent to power, Chavez has not missed any opportunity to silence whomever did not align with him,”   writes Anna Mahjar-Barducci, in her Hudson New York article about Chepe Fortuna, “Venezuela:  To Celebrate Free Expression, Chavez Shuts Down Media.”

Venezuela has been a member country of INTERPOL since 1948, and its people deserve respect.  Chavez’ police practices, maybe less so. 

Perhaps it’s time that INTERPOL’s General Secretariat take a second look at its Venezuelan Red Notices, this time with a more critical eye.  Those of us who have challenged Red Notices have seen that it doesn’t take much scratching beneath the surface to see that some of them are blatantly politically motivated and cannot stand up to the scrutiny that should come with a careful INTERPOL screening process.

If we believe Venezuela's Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz, INTERPOL is now beginning to do just that.  She is reported to have complained recently about Interpol's reluctance to enforce Venezuela's arrest warrants, particularly where the Red Notice subjects were in the banking industry. 

I'm not so sure about that.  A review of INTERPOL's published Red Notices for Venezuela shows that the vast majority of Red Notices that were posted as of December of 2010, for Venezuelans charged with bank-related fraud, are still present and published.  Some were withdrawn, but what of the others? 

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.