A reader recently sent in a question about his ability to travel while INTERPOL may have a Red Notice (or other notice) pending in his name, as well as finding out whether he is actually the subject of such a notice.

I have addressed this topic previously here (under INTERPOL’s Red Notices- Published and Unpublished), so I won’t repeat the question of determining one’s Red Notice status again, but instead will focus on the issue of traveling as an INTERPOL notice subject.

When an individual is wanted by any member country of INTERPOL, international travel always poses a risk of detention.  When a member country utilizes its access to INTERPOL’s databases, it will likely be alerted to an individual’s status as the subject of a notice.  Member countries handle such “hits” differently, with some treating a Red Notice as an arrest warrant, and others requiring a domestic warrant to be issued prior to detention.

Red Notice subjects have experienced all manner of responses to an INTERPOL hit arising during their travels: some have been ordered back onto the plane and back to their departure countries; some have been briefly questioned; some have been detained and released on bond; and some have been detained, arrested, and jailed pending further court proceedings.

The question of whether to travel while wanted internationally really comes down to the level of risk that is acceptable to the wanted person.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

(*The reader also requested information regarding the challenge to an INTERPOL Red Notice in order to have it removed- some preliminary information on that issue was posted here previously.)

INTERPOL is an international information sharing agency that allows its 190 member countries to assist one another in the search for wanted persons who are suspected of having fled the jurisdiction of the requesting member country.

While the vast majority of publicized Red Notice challenges seem to arise from individual requests for removal that are prepared by the Red Notice subjects or their attorneys, some disputed Red Notices are challenged by the subject’s own country on behalf of the subject. In these instances, INTERPOL’s member countries may either approach one another directly, or may approach INTERPOL in an attempt to reach an agreement regarding the disputed Red Notice.

An example of country-led efforts at resolving INTERPOL matters arose last year, when the United States approached INTERPOL directly on behalf of several United States citizens to request that INTERPOL not issue Red Notices against them.  The U.S. argued that Egypt’s request was politically based, and INTERPOL eventually agreed, refusing to issue the notices.  INTERPOL also utilized its press release as an opportunity to increase its commitment to transparency, by offering that

Anyone seeking the truth about INTERPOL’s involvement, or otherwise, in any matter should contact the organization directly in order to ascertain the facts, rather than making statements based on ill-founded rumour and speculation.

This statement appears to have been prompted by what INTERPOL characterized as “ill informed speculation about this case and INTERPOL’s role.”  (More on this topic in the next several posts, which will focus on Fair Trials International’s recently issued report on INTERPOL.)

Certainly, member countries are free to engage directly in country-to-country efforts to resolve such matters. To some degree, the U.S. and Egypt did deal directly with one another regarding the NGO case. After the U.S. threatened to cut off significant aid to Egypt, Egypt did agree to allow the accused individuals to travel out of the country, although the charges remained pending, and the accused were later convicted.

INTERPOL does not govern the diplomatic relationships between member countries, so there is no INTERPOL-imposed means of conducting country-to-country communications outside of INTERPOL’s involvement.  However, if a member country does approach INTERPOL directly on behalf of a wanted individual, INTERPOL’s rules (Rule 135, RPD) do require that the country’s National Central Bureau (NCB) act as the country’s representative.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

A reader recently posed a question that is often the first in a long line of questions that arise when one’s life is touched by INTERPOL.  The question:

How could one verify and check whether he has a red notice issued by Interpol against his name? I check the Interpol site but I feel information is not accurate or updated. Please advise.

The answer is, of course, it depends.  A very small percentage of INTERPOL’s Red Notices are actually published on INTERPOL’s website.  The reason for this is that many of INTERPOL’s 190 member countries choose not to publish the majority of their Red notices.  Bear in mind that the member countries own the information, and INTERPOL is the temporary keeper of the information for purpose of providing assistance to law enforcement officials who seek to apprehend the subject.

While some individuals will find themselves on the website, the majority do not.  They become alerted to the Red Notice when they travel or attempt to travel, apply for immigration benefits, or receive a notice of account closure from their financial institutions.

The reason for the non-publication of most notices is that a wanted person is less likely to travel if he is aware of a Red Notice, and therefore the person is more difficult to apprehend.  When a Red Notice subject travels, it becomes more likely that identification checks at ports of entry to member countries will result in a “hit” in INTERPOL’s databases, thereby alerting authorities to his presence and providing the opportunity for detention.

If the notice is not published, then INTERPOL’s rules do provide for the provision of this information in limited circumstances.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

(This is the fourth  post in a series about the CCF’s Annual Report for 2012)

 

In his speech to the General Assembly last month, the Chairman of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files raised several issues for the GA’s consideration, and among them was the invitation to work with the General Secretariat to update INTERPOL’s rules.

The idea of yet another change to the rules likely evokes sighs of exasperation from the members of the working group on the processing of information, who in 2012 saw the results of its Herculean efforts when the new Rules on the Processing of Data became effective.  The modifications and streamlining of the Rules (formerly the Rules on the Processing of Information, or RPI), was a very necessary endeavor, which naturally involved a great deal of time and effort.

So why tweak them even more?

Chairman Hawkes is right when he says that continued change is needed.  As INTERPOL grows, member countries have increasing access to personal data of individuals.  Most of the time, member countries use their INTERPOL access for legitimate law enforcement goals.  However, there are also increasing opportunities for – and instances of – abuse by some member countries.  The CCF is INTERPOL’s means of safeguarding its own reputation as a legitimate international organization, so as INTERPOL evolves, so should the CCF.

One very small example provided by Chairman Hawkes is that of disclosing to individuals whether information exists about them within INTERPOL’s databases.  As it stands, that disclosure is only allowed under limited circumstances, ostensibly due to INTERPOL’s concerns that 1) member countries own the data that it is safeguarding, and 2) it is more difficult to apprehend subjects, such as Red Notice subjects, when they know that a notice exists.

These concerns no longer serve as valid bases for denying information to individuals.  By the time a person is contacting INTERPOL regarding their own data, the cat is out of the bag and someone or something has already alerted them to the fact that INTERPOL is assisting in efforts to find, track, or apprehend them.  Nothing is lost by confirming this information, which may have been processed improperly.  On the other hand, the refusal to confirm it may lead to the person’s wrongful apprehension, and may prejudice his ability to challenge the notice.

For this reason, when Chairman Hawkes says,

It may be appropriate for the Organisation to consider changes taking place in the international environment on issues such as the right to know whether information exists on an individual, without necessarily disclosing its content.  The Commission remains ready to work with the General Secretariat on any updating to the Organisation’s Rules that might be considered appropriate to take account of these international developments…

… he is right.  As INTERPOL is functioning in the context of multiple “right to know” or “right to information” campaigns and organizations, like Article19, Freedom of Information Advocates Network, and freedominfo.org, it can only maintain credibility if it keeps up with the international community’s standards on human rights.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

(This is the third post in a series about the CCF’s 2012 Annual Report)

Each year, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) submits its annual report at the General Assembly meeting.  The report is normally presented by the the Chairman of the Commission in conjunction with his annual speech.

This year, Chairman Billy Hawkes offered several observations and proposals regarding the need to strengthen the Commission’s role in the organization.  While acknowledging that the vast majority of INTERPOL use is uncontroversial, portions of his speech were directed at the small percentage of cases were INTERPOL’s channels are abused.

 In addressing the inappropriate use of INTERPOL, particularly in the context of political issues, Chairman Hawkes stated, 

… it is for the Organisation as a whole to make clear that such behaviour is unacceptable.  The Commission can only play a limited role and is very alive to the accusation that it colludes with such behaviour by not adopting a more challenging approach in cases that come before it.

The fact that the Commission’s decisions on individual cases are formally only recommendations contributes to this negative perception.  Since the General Secretariat invariably accepts our recommendations, there is clearly a case for formalising this position.

Chairman Hawkes’s latter comment, and apparent proposal, both go to the fact that the CCF’s recommendations on individual cases are almost always accepted by the General Secretariat (only one case in 2012 was determined contrary to the CCF’s initial recommendation, and even in that case, the revised decision was based on new information provided to the CCF by the General Secretariat).

Despite that fact, it is also true that the CCF’s decisions are subject to being rejected in some circumstances by the General Secretariat, as well as being considered by the Executive Committee and even the General Assembly as a whole, which certainly creates ample room for accusations of partiality and politics in the decision making process.

So it appears that while the CCF enjoys autonomy in its decision making process as a matter of practice, the Chairman makes a case for making that autonomy more official.  If that were to happen in the truest sense, then the currently existing quasi-appellate function served by the General Assembly, although rarely invoked, would need to be replaced.  

The solution that comes to mind is a panel of experts specifically trained in INTERPOL’s rules and governing texts, educated as to the facts of the individual cases, and allowed to make informed findings as to both the CCF’s analysis and the alleged violations of the underlying case being challenged.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

We’re in the middle of a series of posts about issues that are addressed in the 2012 Annual Report of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).  The question for today is probably the most common of all for Red Notice subjects who decide to seek the removal of their Red Notices:  “How long will this take?”

In its recently issued report, the Commission announced its average time for processing a request, which is an appeal for some sort of relief from Red Notice subjects and their attorneys. The CCF lists its average response time for 2012 requests as being 6 months.  

While the 6 month average is likely accurate for the CCF’s general case load for 2012, my experience has been that cases take an average of nine months for a response.  This average is taken over a period of years, rather than just 2012, and includes cases that may have been particularly sensitive in nature, thereby taking longer to process.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files has just issued its 2012 Annual Report.  The report provides information regarding the CCF’s activities over the last year.  It also includes statistics on the CCF’s decisions in cases that it considered during its three sessions in 2012.

Over the next several posts, I will address various topics of interest to the INTERPOL attorneys and subjects.  The primary areas of focus will be the CCF’s decision-making process and results; the CCF’s call for improvement and reform;  and issues that are new to the CCF’s annual report. For today, I will take the opportunity to answer a reader’s question regarding data retention on invalid Red Notices

Deletion of Invalid Red Notices

One of the matters discussed in the annual report is that of data retention after the underlying reason for the data has been satisfied or made invalid.  The CCF reports that there is an ongoing concern with the retention of data within INTERPOL’s files after the subject is no longer wanted.

Normally, INTERPOL deletes information from its databases once a subject is not wanted, and only rarely may that information be retained in compliance with INTERPOL’s rules. 

A reader recently asked a related question: what happens when member countries fail to delete invalid information from their own domestic databases?  Each member country has its own internal databases, separate and apart from its access to INTERPOL’s databases.  INTERPOL’s rules require that member countries process all data in conformity with their own domestic laws and regulations.  

When a member country fails to delete invalid data from INTERPOL’S databases, this is a clear violation of INTERPOL’s rules, and an evidence-supported complaint to INTERPOL will normally solve the issue.  However, when the country fails to update its own internal databases, domestic law necessarily governs.  INTERPOL may be willing to contact the member country to advise of the inconsistency and recommend an update, but it has no authority to force the correction.

The former Red Notice subject may also avail herself of the fact that INTERPOL’s member countries are required to process information in the context of compliance with their own domestic laws, and where local law requires updating of criminal databases, stale data constitutes a violation of law.  If a member country has a pattern and practice of violating its own rules, specifically with respect to data retention, INTERPOL may exercise its right to place the country’s NCB (National Central Bureau) under supervision until it is satisfied that the country is back in compliance with its own rule of law.

A member country’s refusal to update its databases, particularly those that are publicly represented as being INTERPOL-related, certainly runs counter to INTERPOL’s stated goals of accountability and transparency. 

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

Paul Watson, founder of a marine wildlife conservation organization called the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, has landed in the United States.  Readers of this blog will recall that Mr. Watson had been exiled at sea for most of the last year because of outstanding Red Notices against him by both Japan and Costa Rica.  The basis for the Red Notice from Japan is discussed here, and the basis for the Red Notice from Costa Rica, from Mr. Watson’s perspecitve, is found here. 

Now, Mr. Watson has stated that the Red Notice against him from Costa Rica has been dropped, but Costa Rica disputes this information, flatly stating that the notice remains in effect.

The last time I addressed the Red Notice request by the Costa Rican authorities, INTERPOL had issued a statement confirming that both Japan and Costa Rica had made requests for INTERPOL’s assistance in apprehending Mr. Watson.

Based on these previous statements, it is anticipated that INTERPOL will will issue a clarifying statement on this issue.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Last week, Bassama Al Jandaly of gulfnews reported that an alleged Italian mafia head was detained in Duabai based on a Red Notice issued at the request of Italian authorities.  The suspect, Amadeo Matacena, is wanted in Italy for charges of colluding with the Italian mafia.

All news reports on this case indicate that local authorities in Dubai were alerted to Matacena’s arrival through its INTERPOL connections.  Normally, when a passenger manifest is inspected for a particular  flight, authorities have access to INTERPOL’s databases and are notified when a particular passenger is wanted by another country.  

In this case, the subject was detained at the airport and was arrested.  The Dubai Public Prosecution is handling the extradition request, and the subject was released on bail until extradition has been determined.

If his attorneys are successful in obtaining a denial of extradition, it is likely that INTERPOL will provide an addendum to the Red Notice against Mr. Matacena indicating the failed extradition.  If extradition is ultimately granted, then Mr. Matacena will be returned to Italy to face the pending charges.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

In the last post, I addressed the case of Mahmoud Ezzat, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood who is believed to have fled Egypt and is wanted on charges listed as inciting murder and violence.  The focus of that post was whether INTERPOL would agree to issue a Red Notice, particularly in light of the possibly political elements of the request.

Earlier today, INTERPOL’s press office responded to Red Notice Law Journal’s request for confirmation of Egypt’s request, and declined to comment on the matter based on the “speculative” nature of the subject news reports.

While INTERPOL frequently issues public statements regarding its refusal to become involved in certain fugitive cases, it is also well within its rights under its governing rules to make no comment about such cases.  Each member country of INTERPOL owns the data that is submitted to INTERPOL, and absent a few limited circumstances, the member countries have the discretion to allow for publication of their Red Notice requests, or to leave the requests secret, in hopes of catching a fugitive off guard.

In this case, however, Egypt has practically broadcast its intentions to seek a Red Notice against Mr. Ezzat, so INTERPOL’s refusal to comment is probably not due to Egypt’s desire to keep the matter under wraps.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.