Today’s post will address Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution and why it exists.
When an INTERPOL member country’s Red Notice request appears to be predominantly motivated by political, military, religious, or racial reasons, Article 3 requires that the organization deny the request.
Using the example cited in part 1 of this series, Bosnian officials sought a Red Notice against Milorad Dodik, the former separatist leader. A Bosnian court sought a Red Notice after Mr. Dodik and his aide went abroad in defiance of an internal arrest warrant for allegedly attacking the constitutional order. The office of Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic reported, “We are informed that INTERPOL General Secretariat has evaluated, based on our protest note and explanation by the INTERPOL Belgrade, that the request is not aligned with Article 3 … and that the terms for issuing warrants have not been met.”
What is Article 3, and why is it needed?
Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution states specifically,
“It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”
INTERPOL adopted Article 3 in 1956 to help prevent member countries’ abuse of the organization. As INTERPOL develops, it adopts resolutions that aid in the development of interpretations of Article 3. In 2004, for example, the organization adopted a resolution pertinent to the interpretation of Article 3. INTERPOL has also established that notices are reviewed on a case-by-case basis which takes into account the context of each individual case.
The primary objectives of Article 3 are:
- To prevent the compromising of INTERPOL’s neutrality or otherwise affecting its mission to assist its member countries in combatting crimes
- To reflect international extradition law
- To protect individuals from persecution
Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution aims to safeguard the organization’s neutrality and ensure that it remains a tool for law enforcement cooperation rather than a mechanism for political persecution. By prohibiting involvement in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial nature, INTERPOL continues in its efforts to protect individuals from corrupt member countries.
Cases like that of Mr. Dodik underscore the importance of Article 3 and demonstrate how critical it is for INTERPOL to evaluate requests to ensure they align with its requirements. In our practice, we have assisted clients who are private individuals and journalists who have engaged in dissident speech and behavior and political activity for opposition parties. The protection afforded by Article 3 is often the difference between a Red Notice staying in place and being removed.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.