Today was a great day for transparency and political freedom.  INTERPOL refused to allow the Red Notices as requested by Egypt against the non-governmental workers who are currently sought for prosecution in Egypt.  In so doing, INTERPOL issued a press release that was heartening for two reasons:

  1. It confirmed its dedication to its constitution, which clearly prohibits intervention in political matters.  This was a highly publicized and pressure-intensive case, and INTERPOL did the right thing in a relatively short period of time.
  2. INTERPOL offered to receive fact-checking inquiries from anyone regarding specific cases where INTERPOL’s involvement is suspected, but not known.  The purpose of the offer is to avoid speculation and rumour about INTERPOL’s involvement in such matters.  INTERPOL’s availablity for verification of information is critical for journalists, lawyers, and others who closely follow INTERPOL-related activities.  Absent such availability, speculation is often the only alternative.

Congratulations to the NGO’s, and good on ya to INTERPOL.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

Chances are, if you’re reading this blog, you have an interest in international politics, crime, persecution, or all of the above.  For the information you have accessed thus far in your life regarding such issues, you can likely thank an international journalist or an NGO employee or volunteer.  In the last post, we discussed the fact that Egypt is taking steps to prosecute those professionals based on recent activities in Egypt, and to obtain Red Notices in their names. Today seems like a good time to give some thought to the work that goes into an NGO report or a reliable news article. 

In order for us to recieve the information about other countries that we rely upon for our professional and personal pursuits, real people must travel to the countries that are to be studied.  They engage in difficult, and often dangerous, activities as necessary to obtain information, check the validity of the information, and export it from the country.  

A day in the life of such an investigative journalist often includes the following:

  • Deciding whether to brave a certain area of town in an effort to speak with residents, who may be too afraid of their government to even be seen with a journalist.
  • Weighing the benefit of conducting interviews with political dissidents against the risk of arrest in a country known for its human rights abuses.
  • Researching an interview subject’s background to determine whether any unseen agenda exists.
  • Attending journalist training programs to learn the skill of fair and balanced reporting.

An NGO worker’s day might look like this:

  • Monitoring elections for signs of irregularity while risking arrest on charges of interfering with an election.
  • Attempting to convince people who live in countries ruled by particularly oppressive regimes that it’s safe to speak out.
  • Avoiding physical danger while moving from place to place and collecting information in post-conflict regions.
  • Hoping against hope for the safety of the people he just interviewed before he was ordered out of a country by its government.

Any professional who works in this field encounters the unavoidable fact that we do not live in a perfect world, where people would feel free to speak about injustices and harsh governmental treatment.  We live in a world where some countries are so oppressive that, as a journalist recently told me,

“People are terrified . . . people just want to get through their

daily lives and are wary of talking to journalists.”

 Despite that reluctance to speak, and despite the danger involved, some people do tell the truth.  Some NGO’s do get information out of countries and into country reports.  Some journalists do take the risks that result in real and balanced information getting out to the rest of the world.  

While we don’t all pay the price for those efforts, we all reap the benefits.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 


Who should be outraged by Egypt’s recent move to obtain Red Notices against NGO staff members? Out of basic concern for the human condition, all of us.  More specifically, and more selfishly, those of us who rely on the activities and findings of international journalists and non-governmental organization (NGO) workers should be very concerned about Egypt’s recent activities.  

Egypt is seeking Red Notices in the names of 43 people, including 17 American NGO workers who are alleged to have worked for their respective organizations in Egypt without the proper licenses, and has asked the U.S. for assistance in locating those individuals. Those sought by Egypt include people affiliated with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI).

For the alleged offense of operating without a license, Egyptian officials seek the extradition and prosecution of each individual.  As reported here, the U.S. government is engaged in talks with Egypt and INTERPOL to prevent the subject Red Notices from being issued.  

Let us hope those discussions are successful in preventing the issuance of Red Notices, because collectively, we will suffer if the voices of these individuals are silenced.  

If you thought it was bad when country-to-country cables published by Wikileaks were unavailable due to funding issues, or when Wikipedia blacked out for twenty-four hours, imagine how difficult it would be to accomplish the following without the verified and unbiased information provided by trained international journalists, human rights watch organizations, and political observers:

  1. Engaging in the preparation of an asylum petition for a client, without access to current reports from organizations such as Amnesty International regarding country conditions or political persecution.
  2. Monitoring international elections on behalf of a professional organization without being able to rely on the monitoring efforts of organizations such as Freedom House or National Democratic Institute.
  3. Researching and organizing a challenge to an INTERPOL Red Notice based on politically motivated grounds without current information regarding the issuing country’s political activities, such as harassment of dissidents, retaliatory detention, or disparate treatment of political opponents.

I can’t think of many attorneys who have the time, the skill, or quite honestly, the guts, to travel from country to country to gather the information provided by these organizations.  Without the work of investigative journalists and NGO’s, we will lose access to quality information regarding country conditions, human rights violations, and the integrity of elections.  This information makes up the substance of much of the work we do.

To maintain its international credibility, Egypt should reconsider its position on this issue.  Absent that, the U.S. should stand strong in its position in support of its citizens and against the issuance of Red Notices in their names.  By all current indications, the U.S. is doing just that.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Next time:  what it takes to get the information out of a country and into a country report.

Last week, we addressed the issue of former premier Michael Misick of Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI).  A Red Notice was issued against Mr. Misick, based on underlying allegations of money laundering and corruption.

Recently, the TCI government addressed concerns about the reason behind the issuance of the Red Notice. There has been public speculation that the Notice was politically motivated based upon a public argument between Mr. Miscik and Governor Ric Todd, precipitated by Mr. Misick’s criticism of Mr. Todd.   Governor’s Office spokesman Neil Smith, in response to those allegations, reportedly stated that the country had applied for the Notice back in February.  Therefore, goes the logic, the Notice could not have been based upon a spat that occurred in March.

Such a procedure, “applying for” a Red Notice, would be unusual these days, given that a Red Notice is now issued directly by an INTERPOL member country’s National Central Bureau (NCB).  The ability to issue a Red Notice for immediate circulation without the prior approval of INTERPOL’s offiicals in Lyon, France was made possible by the organization’s I-Link system.  

I-Link, discussed more thoroughly here, became available in 2009 and is now widely used by member countries.  While it is certainly possible that TCI requested approval for a Red Notice, and received approval over a month later, the I-Link system makes it completely unnecessary for a member country to do so. 

While the timing and manner of the Red Notice issuance is yet unclear, one thing is certain:  any Red Notice challenge on behalf of Mr. Misick will certainly include evidence of his criticism of, and later argument with, Governor Todd.

** Note to readers:  Red Notice Law Journal placed a request for verification of the grounds for the Red Notice in Mr. Misick’s name with INTERPOL’s press office.  To date, no response has been forthcoming.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

If a Red Notice subject applies for and is granted political asylum in a given country, does that necessarily mean that his claim to INTERPOL of politically motivated criminal charges will be successful?

And if a Red Notice subject’s claim to INTERPOL that his Red Notice is based on a politically motivated criminal charge succeeds, does that necessarily mean that his petition for political asylum will be granted?

No and no.  While this may seem counterintuitive, success (or failure) on one front does not dictate the same result on the other front.  To understand why, imagine that a client has a Red Notice from Ethiopia and also seeks political asylum in the United States.

Claims for political asylum are made to the appropriate governmental bodies within the varying countries.  In our example, a political asylum claim made in the United States is submitted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the form of an application, or if the applicant is outside the United States, he may submit a refugee claim to the nearest U.S. Consulate or DHS office.  The regulations governing U.S. proceedings must be followed if a favorable result is to be had.

On the other hand, a request for relief from an INTERPOL Red Notice is handled by the appropriate body within INTERPOL.  An application for relief must follow the rules and texts that govern INTERPOL, and those rules and texts are completely independent of those in the United States.

In this example, one sees that the United States could arrive at a completely different decision than INTERPOL. Our Red Notice subject could thereby prevail on his Red Notice issue but still be denied political asylum in the United States, or vice versa.  In order to succeed, each matter must be given careful consideration, time and attention as the attorney prepares with the client.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick is now wanted internationally for questioning on corruption allegations by officials in Turks and Caicos, as reported by Jacquline Charles in the Miami Herald, here.  The investigation, which has already resulted in the arrest of other government officials, centers on the allegedly fraudulent distribution of government land.  Mr. Misick has reportedly fled to an undisclosed country and is seeking political asylum from what he claims is political persecution.

At first glance, the superficial observer of all matters INTERPOL would dismiss the matter as being prohibited by INTERPOL’s constitution.  Article 3 requires that the Organization not “undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”  Given that the allegations against Mr. Misick stem from his tenure in office, the question of INTERPOL’s involvement should end there, shouldn’t it?

Not so fast.  The question of political motivation requires a look at all the circumstances involving the allegations, as well as a review of the political landscape and history of the requesting country.  Additionally, the relationship between the subject (Mr. Misick) and the requesting country must be considered along with their respective activities.  If the true overriding basis for the Red Notice is the underlying criminal charge, then a challenge to the Red Notice likely will not succeed.

Mr. Misick has also announced that he is seeking political asylum in an undisclosed country.  More on the relationship between political asylum and politically motivated charges in the next post.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

 

As much as we may complain about some NCB’s (National Central Bureaus) behaving improperly with respect to their INTERPOL duties,  it’s always nice to hear that others handle their responsibilities properly.

A few months ago, I spoke with a subject of a Red Notice from Denmark who had agreed to be extradited in order to resolve the matter.  Once he was in Denmark, he closed his criminal case.  The next natural step in a perfect world would have been that Denmark’s officials, of their own accord, would have requested from Denmark’s NCB that the Notice be destroyed since it was no longer valid.  As it turns out, that’s exactly what happened, and the Notice was removed almost immediately.

More recently, a Red Notice subject with an issue arising from the United Arab Emirates was able to resolve his underlying criminal case.  The UAE ensured that its NCB destroyed the Red Notice accordingly.  That’s how INTERPOL’s tools are supposed to be used:  fairly, quickly and efficiently.  

We all know that it doesn’t always happen the way it should; this post is about giving credit where credit is due.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

One of the very few moments that a criminal defendant has control over a criminal matter is when he first becomes aware of the criminal allegations.  If a defendant’s attorney acts quickly enough, information discovered during an investigation can prevent charges from ever being filed.  If they are filed, the information that was gathered during the investigation can make a defense infinitely stronger.

Before criminal charges are ever filed and referred to INTERPOL for aid in apprehending a subject via a Red Notice, the subject often has at least some advance notice that the charges are looming.  The matter may never lead to criminal charges if the attorney takes early and swift action such as:

  • Preserving audio and video surveillance records 
  • Reviewing and preserving telephonic text messages, e-mails, Facebook posts, etc.
  • Arranging for toxicology examinations and obtaining test results
  • Creating a paper trail showing travel locations:  atm receipts, credit card receipts, etc.
  • Taking photographs or printing existing photographs showing pertinent information

If the attorney conducts a thorough investigation immediately upon learning that charges may be filed, the investigation is much more likely to bear fruit than if she takes a “wait and see” approach.  By the time the charges are filed, much of the evidence will be unavailable.

Even where the investigation does not prevent charges from being filed, the information found in the investigation may be useful in an INTERPOL challenge.  For example, if the investigation revealed that the laws of the requesting member country were not followed during the police investigation or the filing of the criminal charges, that information might be relevant to an INTERPOL request for relief.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

 

 

MSNBC reporter Greg Keller writes that twenty-five suspected members of Anonymous were arrested in connection with hacking into various law enforcement databases.  An investigation that began in mid-February led to the arrests.  

Now it is being reported that INTERPOL’s website also may have been the victim of an attack by Anonymous when its website crashed briefly on Tuesday after the arrests were announced.

Questions arise in my mind regarding the extent of the invasion, if any truly occurred, on the website by Anonymous. Specifically, I would like to know whether:

  1. Anonymous has previously breached INTERPOL’s website?
  2. Anonymous made changes to the substantive information about Red Notice subjects on the INTERPOL website?
  3. Is an attorney’s already difficult job of challenging Red Notices going to become even more so by the resulting confusion?

I pose these questions because of concerns expressed by clients that information regarding their cases has been modified after they were initially made public on the INTERPOL website.  Previously, these questions would be directed to the appropriate party within INTERPOL.  Now, however, I suppose that I am asking Anonymous.

So, Anonymous, what say you?  How far into INTERPOL’s business have you been, and have you made any changes to its website?

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Since completing the first session of the year in late January, the staff and commission members of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) are likely a bit tired.  

Each year, the number of Red Notices grows.  In January, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Ronald Noble, confirmed that the number of wanted notices in 2011 had increased by a full 50%, from 50,000 to 75,000. Included in that increase are 10,000 new Red Notices.  

Such an large increase over such a short period of time can be attributed to INTERPOL’s having allowed its member countries greater access to its databases, and greater authority to enter information into those databases.

What this means for the staff of the CCF is more work.  Naturally, an increase in the number of notices accompanies an increase in challenges by individuals who are the subjects of those notices and their attorneys.  As those challenges come in, more of them will likely have increased validity than in years past.  Since the safety mechanisms related to the relatively new increased database access are still settling into place, the CCF staffers should feel comfortable in the knowledge that their job security won’t be an issue for quite some time.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.