When most people think of someone who is listed on INTERPOL’s wanted pages, they likely imagine someone exactly like Redoine Faid, the French gangster who blasted his way through multiple prison doors in order to escape from prison, as reported here.  Faid has been convicted of serious, violent crimes, and few people would be surprised about his being listed as a wanted man by an international crime-fighting organization.

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.

 

Most of the time, the posts for this blog are geared towards the subjects of Red Notices and their attorneys.  Today, however, the focus is on crime victims and their involvement with Red Notices.  A man wrote to me recently to inquire how one might go about seeking a Red Notice in a certain INTERPOL member country, when the relevant law enforcement officials have been ineffective in obtaining a Red Notice.

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.

 

 

 

I received a question from a reader this week who was interested in knowing which countries were actually INTERPOL member countries.  INTERPOL keeps an updated list of its member countries on its website on this page.  Each member country has its own page of facts and relevant information.  Many also have links to press releases that were issued by INTERPOL with reference to that specific country.

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:

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 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.

 

 

One of the most frustrating experiences encountered by Red Notice subjects is what one might expect to be a simple process of finding out whether they are actually Red Notice subjects.  Once a person has been charged or convicted of a crime in a country from which they have fled (or perhaps never even entered), INTERPOL’s member countries may seek a Red Notice from INTERPOL to aid in the person’s apprehension.

Not surprisingly, many Red Notice subjects claim innocence.  The fact that they are (or believe themselves to be) innocent often drives their decision to flee the country that issued the arrest warrants and Red Notices in their names.  They often flee to avoid participating in a judicial process that is notoriously corrupt, politically biased, or violative of basic human rights.  While the subjects usually know that they are wanted in a certain country, they often do not know whether a Red Notice exists in their names.

In order to determine whether one is the subject of a Red Notice, the most obvious course of action is to check the INTERPOL website under “wanted.”  The Red Notices listed here have been published at the request of the member countries.  The vast majority of Red Notices, however, do not appear on the website and are not available to non-law enforcement individuals.

A person who believes that she is wanted, but whose name is not published by INTERPOL, is left with the following choices in order to ascertain that status:

  • Travel, and take the chance of possibly being detained
  • Appear at a law enforcement agency and inquire as to her wanted status
  • Inquire with INTERPOL regarding the data that INTERPOL possesses in her name

If the person chooses the third option, it is important that she or her attorney follow the regulations in force for INTERPOL so that the request is accepted.  Once she knows whether she is a Red Notice subject, she can decide whether to challenge the Notice or not.

As always, comments and questions are welcomed. 

 

 

 

I was recently contacted by a representative of a financial watch list compliance organization.  He had an interesting question:  How valuable is the information in INTERPOL’s website?  His goal was to determine whether the information on the website was valuable enough to provide to the subscribers to his watch list.

Of course, the determination of the value of information always depends on the intended use of the information.  With that in mind, it is important to acknowledge a few facts:

The website does not list all active Red Notices.  Only a very small percentage of Red Notices in circulation are actually published on the INTERPOL website.  Each country has the discretion to either publish a Notice on the website or to keep the Notice confined to INTERPOL’S databases so that only member country law enforcement officials can view it.  The vast majority of the time, the countries choose not to have the Notices published.  This point is illustrated in INTERPOL’s 2011 Annual report, which showed that 7,678 Red Notices had been issued during 2011. The website, however, listed Red Notices in the hundreds, not thousands, for that year.

Some listed Red Notices are no longer valid.  The 2011 Annual Report of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (“CCF”) contained disturbing information regarding member countries’ efforts to provide INTERPOL with updated information regarding active Red Notices.  The CCF reported that, in certain situations, National Central Bureaus (“NCBs”) generally only rarely informed the General Secretariat when a wanted person had been apprehended and had served his or her sentence.  This failure to update INTERPOL results in invalid information remaining active in INTERPOL’s databases.

Red Notices sometimes contain inaccurate charge information.  Because of the fact that member countries can now upload Red Notices directly into INTERPOL’s databases without a quality check being conducted by INTERPOL first, some information is entered invalidly.  For example, a person wanted for a traffic-related charge may be listed as being wanted for a fraud charge.  This information would naturally, and inaccurately, lead a financial institution to miscalculate the financial risk posed by such a person.

So, back to the question at hand:  is the Red Notice subject information on INTERPOL’s website of value?  The answer is a typical lawyer answer:  it depends.  If up-to-date, complete, and positively accurate information is needed, then the answer is no.  However, if the idea is to provide clients with information that gives them a starting point from which to evaluate the desirability of a given potential customer, with the understanding that clarification and correction may be necessary, then some value may exist.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

 

 

When INTERPOL introduced its I-link system, the goal of the system was to provide its member countries with near-instant access to one another’s shared information about wanted subjects.  While that goal clearly has been met, it hasn’t been without some bumps in the road.  

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.

 

INTERPOL is dedicated to providing global cooperation between the law enforcement agencies for all of its member countries.  Obviously, the primary goal of an organization such as INTERPOL is enforcement of the laws of its respective countries.  But what happens when one country’s rule of law is completely out-of-step with that of other member countries?  How does international law enforcement work then?

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Yesterday, numerous media outlets reported that INTERPOL had suspended its involvement with member country Iraq.  Those reports were made here, here and here.  The purported basis for the suspension was a lack of neutrality and independence of the judiciary.  The reports also indicated that INTERPOL would continue its relationship with certain portions of the country, which would be unusual given that INTERPOL utilzes only one National Central Bureau (NCB) for each of its member countries. 

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.