Today’s post addresses the following question sent in by a reader:

I would like to ask you the follow question:
Can a member country of Interpol get a red notice, if this country has sentenced a person in absence, without this person was stopped and obviously without having knowledge that in some country she was prosecuting or sentencing?
Are the condemnations valid dictated in absence and without detention neither previous knowledge of the one imputed, so that Interpol emits a red notification?
The condemnations in absence are contrary to the Universal declaration of Human rights, is Interpol able to emit the red notification against this declaration?

This reader’s question goes straight to the heart of the problem inherent in cases where a defendant was sentenced in absentia and made the subject of a Red Notice.  Trials in absentia always carry the risk of due process violations.  This risk increases particularly when the trial takes place in a country without the procedural safeguards that ensure the preservation of an accused’s right to a fair trial.  

Very frequently, trials in absentia are reported to have occured in the complete absence of any notice to the accused; without the accused having any ability to confer with counsel; without the the accused’s ability to present a defense; and without any showing that the accused’s absence was either voluntary or willful.

In response to the reader’s question:

Yes, member countries do obtain Red Notices when subjects have been tried and convicted in absentia.

Yes, such convictions often violate international standards for fair and just trials.

And no, INTERPOL should not issue Red Notices when they are based on convictions where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was violated.  Once evidence of such violations is brought to INTERPOL’s attention, the Red Notice should be removed and destroyed according to INTERPOL’s rules.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 



A reader sent in this series of questions, which are good ones for INTERPOL newbies:

 

1. Can a country member of Interpol get a red notice, if this country has sentenced a person in absence, without this person having been stopped and obviously without having knowledge that in some country she was prosecuted or sentenced? 

2. Are the condemnations valid dictated in a person’s absence and without detention nor previous knowledge of the one imputed, so that Interpol issues a Red Notice?

3. The condemnations in absence are contrary to the Universal declaration of Human rights, is Interpol able to issue the red notice against this declaration?

 

It is true that a person may be tried and convicted in absentia in some countries. If the underlying charges and the judicial proceedings were handled in accordance with the country’s rule of law, then INTERPOL very well may issue a Red Notice at that country’s request.

On the other hand, if the proceedings were contrary to the country’s laws, then the Red Notice may be subject to challenge and eventual removal. Likewise, if the proceedings were violative of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Red Notice removal may be appropriate.

The one certainty is this: if INTERPOL doesn’t know that the proceedings were illegal, the Red Notice will remain in effect.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

As reported here by Ian Johnston of MSNBC, Fair Trials International received word that its work on behalf of Indonesian dissident Benny Wenda has paid off.  The Red Notice that had been issued in Mr. Wenda’s name was recognized by INTERPOL as being politically motivated and therefore improper. INTERPOL removed the Red Notice accordingly.

Once the confetti has landed and Mr. Wenda has caught his breath, he will no doubt have time to reflect on the very long road he was forced to walk as a result of the politically motivated charges that were filed against him.  

Mr. Wenda was convicted in court of charges that were politically motivated.  He was separated from his family and extracted from his own life.  Because of his knowledge that he was unfairly treated by the Indonesian authorities, and his anticipation of continued due process violations, he escaped from prison while awaiting his sentencing there.  Once he escaped prison, he then fled the country, and embarked upon the process of claiming and ultimately receiving asylum in the United Kingdom.  Now, finally, he has had relief from INTERPOL.

And this is someone who “won.”  Unfortunately, Indonesia is not the only INTERPOL member country that misuses INTERPOL for political reasons.  For every Benny Wenda, there are so many who don’t escape the prison where they are held on improper charges.  There are so many who don’t escape the persecuting country. And for those who do escape, so many lack the will or the resources to challenge the Red Notices improperly issued in their names.

Congratulations are in order for Mr. Wenda, for Fair Trials International, and in fairness, for INTERPOL’s CCF.  The Commission got this one right.  

But the CCF might bear in mind the truth that any trial lawyer will tell you:  you’re only as good as your last win, and tomorrow’s another day.  The CCF can do much to strengthen INTERPOL’s standing in the international community by refusing to allow itself to be manipulated for political gains, and by continuing to thoroughly examine claims of political motivation, and to get it right, again and again.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Discussions about INTERPOL’s Red Notices often include the fact that these notices are not actually arrest warrants.  When INTERPOL’s member countries issue Red Notices for worldwide circulation, the notices are meant to act as alerts for other member countries when wanted individudals interact with their law enforcement officials.  

Once alerted to that fact that an individual is wanted, the member countries decide for themselves whether to detain the person, to monitor the person, or to take no action at all.  INTERPOL member countries are not obligated to detain the wanted person, and INTERPOL does not require its member countries to take any particular action against Red Notice subjects.

These distinctions are significant to attorneys and matter from a legal perspective.  The different approaches that member countries take to Red Notice subjects matter very little to Red Notice subject, however.  The fact remains that any form of international travel, and even contact with domestic law enforcement, carries the risk of detention for Red Notice subjects.  

Particularly when a Red Notice has been improperly issued, wanted individuals rightly feel that they are unfairly restricted from traveling for business or pleasure.  They refrain from asking a police officer for directions in the street out of fear of being arrested; they often have difficulty banking at reputable financial institutions; and they cannot make any long-term plans requiring mobility.

Red Notice subjects who believe that they have been wrongly accused often seek to challenge their Red Notices and have them removed from INTERPOL’s databases.  For them, the difference between a Red Notice and an arrest warrant is less significant than the very real similarity: both of these tools immobilize a person until they are properly addressed.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

A reader recently posed this question:

I would like to know if you can asnwer my questions. I know of a person, Ethiopian citizen, which has been red-noticed. The individual has committed crimes in the US and has been now hiding for the past 14 years in Ethiopia. I have met this man and he is very violent and dangerous.

How can I make sure that this man gets apprehended and the families of the victims get justice? Do you think he can get extradited to the US?

The issue of extradition to any INTERPOL member country will depend on the nature of the extradition treaty between the two countries (if one exists) and the possibly the nature of the diplomatic relations between the countries.  The list of countries having extradition treaties with the United States can be found here. (Regarding the reader’s specific question, Ethiopia does not have such a treaty with the United States, but the countries do maintain diplomatic relations.)

 In terms of “making sure” that a Red Notice subject is apprehended, that may be beyond the control of any particular person.  Naturally, it is more likely that a person will be apprehended if he or she has contact with law enforcement officials who are aware of their Red Notice status than if no such contact ever occurs.

Obviously, if there are problems with the validity of the Red Notice and the subject challenges the notice, it may be withdrawn, modified, or destroyed.  Assuming that the notice is valid in every respect, then it can be instrumental in aiding in a subject’s apprehension.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post is directed specifically towards those individuals who have been Red Notice subjects and their lawyers.  Red Notice Law Journal often receives inquiries from people who are currently dealing with INTERPOL-related matters.  For a change, I’d like to ask for a review from those who have finished with their Red Notice experiences.  For those of you who fit that description, we would love to hear from you on any topics such as the following:

  • What was the nature of the charge in your case?
  • Was there a political element to the case?
  • Was the charge justified?
  • Which member country requested your Red Notice?
  • How did you find out about your Red Notice?
  • How long did you wait before challenging your Red Notice?
  • What was the outcome of your case?
  • What were the “side effects” on your life of having a Red Notice in your name?

In any other area of the law, finding the answers to such questions is as easy as researching the applicable legal database.  As most of you with INTERPOL experience know, INTERPOL’s files and activities regarding individual cases are not ordinarily subject to public view.  Aside from the anecdotal evidence that we happen upon in a piecemeal fashion, extensive case information is typically unavailable.  

So we ask regarding your collective INTERPOL experiences:  How was it for you?

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Once upon a time, a business with interests abroad had little reason to consider INTERPOL in its evaluation of whether to accept international business opportunities.  That time is no longer.

As INTERPOL grows and its member countries have increasing contact with one another both politically and economically, so grows the need for private businesses to conduct previously unheard-of analyses of costs and benefits.  INTERPOL receives requests for Red Notices not only for people accused of violent crimes, terrorism, and human trafficking, but also for people alleged to have been involved in business gone bad.

For those accustomed to a more Western approach to business issues, there is a frequently held assumption that an unsuccessful business transaction or plan will result in nothing more than lost future oppportuniities or, at the worst, a civil law suit.  In many other countries, however, the loss of money by one party can quickly become a criminal matter for the other party. When this transformation of a civil matter into a criminal matter takes place in an INTERPOL member country, the member country may request a Red Notice after criminal charges are filed.

How does this play out?  Even if the accused party is innocent, and even if that party has always conducted business activity from outside the member country, once criminal charges are filed, the accused party becomes the subject of a Red Notice.  Whether the Red Notice was properly requested or not, the now-subject of the Red Notice is left to either challenge the propriety of the Red Notice or live with the fact that she can no longer travel for business or pleasure and is subject to being detained.

Just like grandmother used to say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  A business considering international contracts or endeavors would be well-served to research the country of concern prior to engaging in that activity.  Questions to be answered in advance by a company or its attorney should be:

  • How does the country treat debtors?
  • Does the country have a history of jailing people for primarily civil matters?
  • How does the country’s judicial system regard failed business transactions?
  • Does the country have a high level of corruption?

Obviously, if these inquiries are not made by the interested company, the individual charged with conducting the international activities will need to research those issues prior to becoming involved.  Only once the answers to these questions are known should a new business concern with an INTERPOL member country begin.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

Having recently read a few items regarding people who believe they may be Red Notice subjects, I think it’s probably a good time to clarify the matter of Red Notice publication.

Anyone reading this blog probably knows that INTERPOL has its own website which includes a page for Red Notice subject searches.  What people often misunderstand is the fact that only a small percentage of Red Notices are made public on INTERPOL’s website or anywhere else.

When an INTERPOL member country requests a Red Notice, it may also request that the Red Notice be posted on INTERPOL’s website.  Many countries do just that for some of their Red Notices.  Many other Red Notices, however, are not publicized.  

While a Red Notice is not an arrest warrant, the reasons for not publishing a Red Notice are frequently the same as the reasons for not publicizing an arrest warrant.  If a person knows that he is wanted, he will likely limit his activities and travel.  Law enforcement and immigration officials will clearly have an easier time locating a Red Notice subject if he travels than if he stays hunkered down at home.

It is true that some Red Notice subjects can verify their status by conducting a simple online check. However, the absence of one’s name on INTERPOL’s website should not be confused with the absence of a Red Notice. 

 

As we discussed in the last post, INTERPOL’s new rules are called the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) and will become effective July 1, 2012.  Among the changes from the old rules, and of interest to Red Notice subjects and their attorneys, will be the following:

  • Better organization of topics in a more streamlined layout
  • Additional responsibilities (and repurcussions for failing to observe those responsibilites) for the National Central Bureaus (NCB’s).
  • More clearly delineated distance between the roles and functions of NCB’s and INTERPOL.

Obviously, ease of reading the rules is particularly important when navigating INTERPOL.  That change doesn’t require much more discussion as far as how it will affect attorneys.  Suffice to say that a more intuitive approach to setting forth the rules makes for a more organized approach to preparing every case.

The changes regarding the NCB’s are significant.  The RPD create enhanced responsibilities to which the NCB’s must adhere regarding employee training, observation of country-specific legal requirements, and data protection and entry.  Where NCB’s embrace the new rules, there will be little room for complaint.  However, where the rules are violated, challenges will likely include those violations as grounds for relief.  NCB’s have ample reason to carefully review the new rules:  violation of the rules carries penalties such as re-training, supervision, and finally, suspension from accessing INTERPOL’s tools.

One of the rule changes will have an effect that is more difficult to predict:  built into the new rules is an obvious effort to create distance between the NCB’s and INTERPOL.  It’s no secret that INTERPOL intends to maintain its status as an international organization generally not subject to lawsuits in member country courts.  As INTERPOL’s reach expands and more people suffer the effects of improperly issued Red Notices, the drumbeat to hold INTERPOL accountable for aiding improperly acting member countries grows louder.  The new rules are absolutely meant to hold that movement at bay.  Whether it succeeds or not, only time will tell.  

 

 

As INTERPOL has evolved over the years, it has developed varying bodies of rules to address the issues that arise when a small network of information-sharing law enforcement agencies becomes a massive international entity with control over sensitive information originating from every corner of the globe.

One of the most current matters relating to INTERPOL’s internal governance is its adoption of the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), which become effective on July 1, 2012.  While the new RPD do not completely replace all existing INTERPOL rules, they do serve to consolidate, clarify, and update three sets of current rules, titled as follows:  

1.  The Rules of Processing Information for the Purpose of International Police Co-operation

2. The Implementing Rules for the Rules of Processing Information for the Purposes of International Police Co-operation

3. The Rules Governing Access by Intergovernmental Organizations to INTERPOL Telecommunications     Network and Databases.

(Let us pause a moment to recognize the irony of the above-referenced, typical government-issue titles, given INTERPOL’s jealously guarded non-governmental status.)  

As INTERPOL has groomed itself into an increasingly effective information-sharing entity, with an increasing number of member countries, its responsibilities have also grown.  For example, while INTERPOL has always acknowledged its responsibility to protect the personal data of individuals, the components of that responsibility have changed as INTERPOL’s tools have become more widely available and more automated. 

In the next post will be a continued discussion of these related topics: the focus of new rules; NCB’s additional responsibilities; and the creation of distance between INTERPOL and NCB’s.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.