INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) recently finished its last session under the governance of INTERPOL’s existing rules.  The CCF began and completed its session in late May. Several of INTERPOL’s governing sets of rules will be abrogated by the new Rules on the Processing of Data, which become effective on July 1, 2012.

Of course, we all wonder if the Commissioners and the CCF staff were wistful during that last session? Was it a bittersweet time as they reviewed requests?  Will they miss the old rules come next session? Were there tears?  Alas, we will likely be left in suspense about those questions and have to wait until the 2012 Annual Report is issued next year to find out the CCF’s perspective on life under the new rules.  (The 2011 Annual Report is due out this month, and is reasonable to assume that the 2012 Report will be released under the same time frame next year.)

I, for one, welcome the new rules, as I imagine other INTERPOL attorneys do.  The rules, while not replacing all of the existing rules, certainly go a long way toward reorganization and simplification of the three sets of rules that they do replace.  More significantly, in addition to the change in format, there are substantive changes to the rules that should result in increased accountability of member National Central Bureaus- more on that in the next post.

So, for now, we will bid adieu to the old rules and look forward to the implementation of the new.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Paul Watson, the leader of the environmental activist organization, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, has been arrested and released on bond in Germany for alleged criminal activity in Costa Rican waters nearly ten years ago.  Interestingly enough, there appears to have been no Red Notice issued against Mr. Watson based on his Costa Rican activity.  There is, however, a Blue Notice based on his activity in Japan.

After Mr. Watson’s arrest in Germany, INTERPOL issued a public statement regarding its involvment (or lack thereof) in Mr. Watson’s arrest in its News and Media Releases page, here.  INTERPOL specified that it “would not issue” a Red Notice in Mr. Watson’s name because the request did not comply with INTERPOL’s constitution and rules.  The arrest and extradition process, therefore, will be strictly between Costa Rica and Germany.

We last addressed Mr. Watson in a post in May of last year, here, while discussing Blue Notices.  At that time, he seemed nonplussed, even pleased, to have been the subject of a Blue Notice.  Recall that a Blue Notice allows for the tracking of an individual’s movement and activity.  

Last year, Mr. Watson recognized the fact that a level of publicity followed a publicized Blue Notice.  Since his arrest, he and his cause have received the support of several celebrities and organizations that he may not have anticipated prior to his arrest.  John Paul Dejoria, co-founder of Paul Mitchell, Brigitte Bardot, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers have all made public pleas for his release and support.

In the next post, a discussion about why a Red Notice would have been improper in Mr. Watson’s name.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

In the last post, we addressed the fact that the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is still required under its operating rules to meet only three times per year.  This requirement has remained the same in spite of the fact that the Commission’s requests for relief have continued to increase over the last few years.  Based on the rate of new Red Notices being issued currently, there is every reason to believe that individual requests to the Commission will continue to climb year after year.

Even though INTERPOL missed out on a great opportunity to amend the CCF’s operating rules along with so many other rules when it modified so many other rules and created its new Rules on the Processing of Data, not to worry.  The Commission can still greatly increase its productivity without modifiying its rules.

The current Operating Rules of the CCF, specifically Article 36, require that the Commission meet “at least three times a year.” This means that the Commission has authority to meet much more frequently than it currently does.  It also means that the three yearly sessions, as scheduled for 2012, are the bare minimum allowed under its rules.

Given the workload now faced by the Commission, it’s time for more than the bare minimum number of meetings.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

The process for seeking relief from an improperly issued Red Notice currently requires that the request be reviewed by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files.  The Commission is made up of five individuals from specific professional backgrounds who, for the purposes of their assignments, act solely in the interest of INTERPOL and without regard for their individual country allegiances. The Commission members are assigned temporarily to terms of service, and they are supported by staff members.

in the last few years, as we’ve discussed here previously, the number of Red Notices has increased exponentially.  The number of yearly meetings for the Commission, however, has remained the same.  The Commission is still required by INTERPOL’s governing rules to meet three times per year, despite the fact that the Commission’s workload has greatly grown significantly.

The Commission has an incredibly time-consuming task.  While staff members can certainly provide competent and specialized support for Commission members, it must be acknowledged that we have reached the point where thrice-yearly meetings simply are not enough for part-time Commissioners to become properly advised about individual requests and make carefully considered decisions about them.  

When INTERPOL’s new rules become effective in July of this year, many of the old operating rules will have been abrogated.  The new rules are much more streamlined, organized, and intuitive. The Operating Rules of the Commission on the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, however, will remain in effect.  

Too bad.  This was the perfect opportunity to amend those rules as well, and create a full-time Commission.  There does remain another option- more on that in the next post.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

INTERPOL’s most well-known tool, the Red Notice, exists to aid its member countries’ law enforcement efforts for the following purpose:

To seek the arrest or provisional arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition.

Member countries are required to be responsive to requests for supporting documentation regarding the grounds for an extradition request once a Red Notice subject has been detained.  The requests may come from INTERPOL or directly from the detaining member country.

So what happens when a Red Notice exists, but the requesting country fails to follow through on its extradition obligations?  

The effect of a county’s non-response to requests for extradition-related information is that the subject of the Red Notice may be released within the country where she currently finds herself, but she certainly risks detention again if she travels to other countries.  

If there is no valid reason for that failure, then the member country’s request is not being used for the appropriate purpose as set forth in INTERPOL’s governing rules.  Where the party making use of INTERPOL’s tools obstructs the underlying purpose of the rules, then the Red Notice subject very well may have a cognizable claim for relief. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In dealing with INTERPOL-related matters, attorneys and Red Notice subjects often naturally seek assistance from their countries’ National Central Bureau (NCB) in an effort to resolve their cases.  To understand why those efforts may not yield the desired results, consider the purpose of the U.S. NCB.

On its “Who We Serve” page, the U.S. NCB addresses its role as an INTERPOL liaison agency, and explains the services it offers.  More importantly, it explains to whom its services are offered:

“The USNCB offers these services to the law enforcement community exclusively.”

If the requesting party is not a member of law enforcement, the U.S. NCB is not the place to go seek assistance.  Recall that all Red Notices have underlying charges or convictions, and if the original charge/conviction is within the United States, any errors regarding those charges must be directed to the originating court or law enforcement agency for correction.  

When do we go to INTERPOL for relief?  Have a look here for our previous discussion on that issue.

 As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

A reader recently inquired as to how a Red Notice requested by Country “A” could remain outstanding in his name when his own country, Country “B,” had found a complete lack of evidence for the charges after an investigation.

This reader’s problem is rooted in the fact that it is the underlying criminal charges, as stated in the Red Notice from the requesting country, that must be addressed for Red Notice purposes.  The reason a Red Notice is issued is to aid in the return of the subject to the requesting country, not for another country to conduct its own investigation into the matter.

If Country “A” still has valid grounds and supporting documentation for the underlying charges, and has not agreed to an investigation and prosecution in Country “B,” then it is quite likely that the Red Notice will remain outstanding absent a proper challenge.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

The following post was originally published in March of 2011.  What a disappointment to see how Egypt has come to view its INTERPOL-related obligations. 

For those of us who are proponents of democracy, it has been mesmerizing to watch from afar the developments in Egypt recently. Like everyone, I wonder how the fledgling democracy will work for the people of Egypt, and whether they will be better off, as we all hope.

Perhaps unlike everyone except for other INTERPOL-philes, I also wonder what this means for the future of Egypt-originated Red Notices. Egypt was one of the founding member countries of INTERPOL and has a long history of both requesting and offering assistance with Red Notice subjects. How will the altered Egyptian government handle future requests for Red Notices? Will it be more or less observant of the rules designed to prevent political abuses of the judicial system?

Although the requirements for a Red Notice are inflexible and consistent, the individuals who request the Red Notices are still human, with all the biases that accompany the human condition. When we consider the information publicized by INTERPOL, we may not always consider its veracity, its reliability, or its very legality.

We should. The information publicized by INTERPOL is presumed to be accurate primarily due to the rigorous prerequisites to which the information is supposed to be subject prior to publication. When a national central bureau of any given participating country submits information to INTERPOL, the organization relies upon its General Secretariat to verify that the information is correct, but also that it was obtained legally. For the information to be gained legally, it must be obtained not only in compliance with INTERPOL’s various governing documents, but also with the requesting country’s laws.

But what happens if the requesting country doesn’t comply with its own laws when, say, issuing an arrest warrant? If an arrest warrant is issued illegally in Egypt, and Egypt’s National Central Bureau (NCB) accepts the information and forwards it to the General Secretariat of INTERPOL, that arrest warrant can be published internationally. The General Secretariat relies upon each member country’s representation that the information it submits is validly and legally obtained.

Even though the subject of the Red Notice has the ability to challenge the notice, the proper issuance of the notice is of critical significance because of the presumption of correctness which accompanies its issuance. A defensive challenge to a Red Notice begins with the presumption that the Notice has been properly issued, and that hurdle must be overcome by the challenging party. As noted by Mark Leon Goldberg of the UN Dispatch, INTERPOL is concerned with more than Julian Assange.  Most of the subjects of its Red Notices lack Assange’s considerable resources with which to challenge their Notices. If a Red Notice is issued without being truly subject to the rigors of INTERPOL’s prerequisites, not only is the integrity of INTERPOL damaged, but the person named in the Notice is substantially prejudiced before his attack on the notice ever begins.

My hope, like that of many others, is that Egypt’s people ultimately experience a democratic form of government, and one that is observant of its international, as well as domestic responsibilities to justice. Given the level of civility, respect, and civic responsibility shown by the citizens of Egypt during their protests, I’m guessing that any government that is truly reflective of the wishes of the Egyptian people will handle its international policing activities in true accordance with INTERPOL’s constitution and governing documents. 

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

Egypt’s recent diffusion action against NGO staffers is not exactly the start we hoped to see a year ago.

 

In response to the last post on the significant events between Egypt, the U.S., and INTERPOL, and particularly regarding INTERPOL’s stated offer to clarify matters regarding its involvement in a given matter, a reader left this comment:

Thanks for the great work in this area Michelle.  My wife, one of the named individuals in this case attempted to contact INTERPOL here in Washington and their automated system says if you are a private citizen to press 3.  At which point you get a recorded message indicating they will not talk to you.

Pushing the issue and contacting the public affairs person she was not given information to assist her regarding the diffusion notice or risks if she travels.  She was told “contact your local law enforcement.”

 Interpol has NOT reached out to the individuals involved in this egregious use of the diffusion system, a secretive process with no legal recourse, to assist in any way.

The reader’s frustration is understandable, as INTERPOL can be difficult to navigate.  It helps to understand, however, that there is a significant difference between INTERPOL and its member countries’ National Central Bureaus.  That difference accounts for the fact that any inquiries (regarding the status of an individual’s information with INTERPOL) to any entity outside of the actual organization called INTERPOL headquartered in Lyon, France, will likely be fruitless.  

National Central Bureaus for member countries serve as their countries’ liaisons between INTERPOL and the member countries.  While they work closely with INTERPOL, they are not branches or divisions of INTERPOL. The National Central Bureau for the United States, for example, unfortunately refers to itself as INTERPOL Washington.  It is operated by the Department of Justice, not by INTERPOL.  Thus, when one reasonably believes she is dealing with INTERPOL, she is in fact dealing with the law enforcement officials of the United States government.

Regarding the idea of INTERPOL- the real one, the one in France- reaching out to the aggrieved individuals to offer assistance, such action would seem contrary to the procedures set forth in INTERPOL’s opoerating rules.  A response to an individual’s formal request is certainly a reasonable expectation, and has always been forthcoming in my experience.  Whether the response is satisfactory or not, obviously varies. 

INTERPOL would likely argue that it does provide recourse to those individuals affected by improper diffusions and Red Notices.   The simple fact is that, for private citizens and attorneys accustomed to an open, transparent, public legal process, INTERPOL’s procedures can be difficult to comprehend or accept. The organization is an animal unlike any other.

As always, comments and thoughts 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.