While people who are the subject of Red Notices may be arrested when they encounter law enforcement officials with knowledge of the outstanding Red Notice, the fact is that a Red Notice is not an arrest warrant.

Although some of INTERPOL’s member countries treat a Red Notice as an arrest warrant, others do not.  One very clearly stated position regarding Red Notices is provided here by member country New Zealand.  A New Zealand law enforcement official outlined its procedures for Red Notice subjects as follows:  

“In New Zealand we cannot arrest on the basis of a Red Notice.  There must be a provisional arrest warrant issued by a New Zealand Court, pursuant to a formal extradition request.  If [the subject is] located, [the member country] would be required to make an extradition request to New Zealand through formal diplomatic channels.”

In addition to having formal procedures in place for handling Red Notices, member countries also take into consideration the practical matters associated with bringing a wanted subject back to the issuing country. Those issues may include the cost of extradition and the assembly of the required documents to effect an extradition.  The United States, for example, provides specific instructions regarding the action to be taken with respect to Red Notice subjects here.

In the next post, look for an update regarding the member countries of INTERPOL.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

In the previous post, I addressed the issue of a Blue Notice that had been issued by INTERPOL in the name of Ramona Bautista, who is under investigation for a crime alleged to have occurred in the Philippines. Today, the topic is how a Blue Notice request from a member country could be denied by INTERPOL.

Although the purpose of a Blue Notice (to monitor the movements of a criminal witness or suspect) is different from a Red Notice (to immobilize a criminal defendant or convict), these different notices have similiarities.  Specifically, they must be made in compliance with INTERPOL’s governing rules and texts.

Just as with a Red Notice, INTERPOL might refuse to issue a Blue Notice if its rules or binding texts would be violated by issuing the requested notice.  For example, in 2009, INTERPOL refused a request by member country Ecuador.

Ecuador had requested a Blue Notice in the name of Colombia’s former Minister of Defense (and current president), Juan Manuel Santos Calderon.  INTERPOL denied the request, and as grounds for the denial stated that the request was of a predominantly political and military nature.  INTERPOL’s constitution prohibits the organization from interfering in any such matters, and that prohibition naturally includes Blue Notice requests.

INTERPOL’s decision did not sit well with some authority figures in Ecuador, who publicly criticized the refusal to issue the Blue Notice.  INTERPOL eventually issued a public statement defending its decision, which reitereated the political and military nature of the request, and emphasized INTERPOL’s commitment to neutrality.

It even went so far as to state that if Ecuador didn’t like the decision, it could appeal to the Executive Committee or eventually to the entire General Assembly.   Eventually, the two countries began a normalization of relations, but the relationship is unstable and has shown recent indications of strain.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Until now, there hasn’t been much occasion to address Blue Notices since they were the topic of several posts here in May of this year.

This week, however, a Blue Notice has been issued in the name of Ramona Bautista, who is under investigation for activity thought to be related to her brother’s murder.  Ms. Bautista is a member of a politically connected family in the Philippines.  Another of Ms. Bautista’s brothers has been charged in the murder.

Ms. Bautista has not been charged with a crime as yet.  The government of the Philippines requested the Blue Notice after she left the country.  A Red Notice was not requested, at least as yet, because of the fact that no charging document or conviction exists against Ms. Bautista.

The point of a Blue Notice is to track a person’s movements when the person is believed to be a witness or a suspect to a crime.  The Blue Notice differs from a Red Notice in that a Red Notice is often treated as an international arrest warrant that frequently results in detention, at least temporarily.  

Despite the difference in purpose, a Blue Notice is still subject to the same INTERPOL rules as Red Notices, and iNTERPOL can refuse to issue Blue Notices if its rules would be violated by granting a certain request for a Blue Notice.

Next time:  why INTERPOL might refuse a request for a Blue Notice.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

When challenging a Red Notice, a lawyer has to be cognizant of many issues, not the least of which is the client’s personal timetable.  But the lawyer must ensure that the client’s need for speed does not overcome the more critical element of a complete and persuasive first submission for relief to INTERPOL.

In my experience, by the time the client decides to confront the Red Notice against him, he has already been through an investigation, charges being filed against him, efforts at defense, and flight from (or avoidance of) the country where the accusation lies.  He may have also already spent considerable funds on defense work and investigative efforts of his own.  Unfortunately, he also may have made pro se, and unsuccessful, efforts at resolving his Red Notice.

The client in this situation is exhausted, frustrated, and angry, and wants the Red Notice removed- now.  It can be difficult to explain to the client that his challenge will take time to prepare, perhaps more time than he would like.  But once the attorney explains the reasons for that timetable, the client will likely not only not mind it, but will fully support it.

Why does the first submission for relief to INTERPOL need to be the best possible?  Here’s why:

1.  First impressions matter.  Assuming that the same commission members are still sitting from the time of the first application for relief, they very well may recall your case and the fact that they already decided against you.  This unnecessarily steepens the slope in an already uphill battle against your client.

2.  Incomplete and unprofessional work requires “clean-up” work.  No one wants to be in the position of submitting an ill-prepared package, only to have it denied, and then later seek relief again on similar grounds once the nvestigation of the client’s case is complete.

3.  INTERPOL may deny successive applications for relief based simply on the existence of previous submissions.  INTERPOL’s rules allow for the refusal to review claims for relief if they are substantially similar to previous claims, or if they are so numerous as to be considered abusive of INTERPOL’s processes.  This consideration is particularly relevant if the attorney is representing a previously pro se client.

If these valid reasons for taking a measured and considered approach to preparing a client’s case are presented to the client, then it is much more likely that the client will be a temporal ally instead of demanding quick, but ineffective, action.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

Since we have been on the issue of the ease with which Red Notices often seem to be obtained by INTERPOL member countries, today’s discussion centers on the burden of proof faced by Red Notice subjects and their lawyers.  

Once it is issued, a Red Notice is presumed to be accurate and proper, according to INTERPOL’s rules.  In order to overcome that presumption, substantial and competent evidence must be presented to show precisely which rules or laws have been violated.

When an NCB has complied with all of the rules governing INTERPOL member countries, this presumption may be fair.  But when a member country has engaged in illegal behavior or has a consistent record of human rights violations, the idea that the member country enjoys such a presumption is a bit hard to stomach.

In order to be successful in their challenges, Red Notice subjects and their attorneys are required to obtain credible evidence of the illegalities and/or rules violations in their cases.  The evidence must be presented in a clear, cogent, and persuasive manner, and then the subject must wait for a decision.  If that evidence cannot be found, it can be quite difficult to prevail on a request for a Red Notice removal or modification.

As to the question of whether that burden is fair, NCB’s would likely think it is.  Red Notice subjects, however, probably disagree.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

In keeping with the last post’s discussion of INTERPOL member countries’ National Central Bureaus (NCB’s) issuing their own Red Notices, today’s post addresses the safety features offered by INTERPOL.  

INTERPOL maintains that it has safety measures in place such as its set of standards, which it supplies to its member NCB’s under the theory that such provision will ensure compliance with INTERPOL’s rules.  

In the event that the safety standards are not followed, INTERPOL offers as a backup safety feature the General Secretariat, which may modify or delete information from INTERPOL’s databases “in case of doubt.”  In other words, when a doubt as the to the validity of a Red Notice is raised, the General Secretariat reviews the information to determine its propriety.  

The difficulty with this approach stems from the extremely high burden placed upon a Red Notice subject. Once a Red Notice is issued, as now can occur based on the simple entry of information by an NCB official, the Red Notice bears a presumption of validity.  Therefore, even without review by an actual INTERPOL official, INTERPOL accepts, circulates, and often publishes Red Notices based on the unconfirmed information submitted by a member country’s law enforcement employee.

While this system does provide a forum for relief, it assumes that all NCB’s are playing fairly.  When they don’t, they still receive the benefit of instant credibility which must be overcome by the complaining parties or their attorneys. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

  

If you think that you are hearing more about Red Notices and INTERPOL than you did in the past, you’re right.  There is currently more Red Notice activity than there has been in at least the last decade, and quite likely in INTERPOL’s history.

INTERPOL’s 2010 Annual Report provides information regarding INTERPOL’s various endeavors last year. Perhaps the most stunning information in the report is the section on notices and diffusions.  INTERPOL reports that it issued 6,344 Red Notices in 2010.  This may not sound significant given INTERPOL’s worldwide reach and the growing world population, but when viewed in context of the number of Red Notices issued in previous years, the change is substantial.

The report shows that in the year 2000, only 1077 Red Notices were issued.  By 2010, that number had jumped to 6,344 for the year.

What accounts for such an increase in Red Notices?  Certainly we are a more mobile society, and that mobility resultS in more international travel, even for wanted persons.  The majority of the increase, however, is most likely due to one of INTERPOL’s newest database systems.

It’s called I-link, and it was launched in 2009.  INTERPOL’S 2009 Annual Report notes the following:

Through I-link, the National Central Bureaus of all INTERPOL member countries were given the ability to “directly access and record police information regarding wanted persons subject to Red Notices.  Via I-link, NCB’s (National Central Bureaus) can now directly issue Red Notices rather than requesting them through the General Secretariat.”

With the passage of time, the effect of I-link has become evident.  In 2009, Red Notice issuance jumped 61%. As mentioned above, 2010 saw a further increase.  Thus we see that when NCB’s have the power to issue Red Notices without INTERPOL’s direct oversight and approval, suddenly more Red Notices are issued. Hmm.

NCB’s can be expected to state that the increase in Red Notices is due to the efficiency offered by I-link, and perhaps that is true.  Another possiblity is that less scrutiny equals less restraint.

In the next post, a look at the safety mechanisms that INTERPOL uses to ensure that its rules are followed even when NCB’s are given direct Red Notice issuing authority.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

A good number of people who complain about unfairly issued Red Notices argue that the charges underlying their Red Notices are politically motivated.  Many times, the claim of political motivation is true.

A government’s basis for bringing charges against one of its citizens or residents may stem from the governing regime’s desire to control dissidents, to quiet whistleblowers, or to discourage political opposition.  As any human rights non-governmental organization can attest, politically motivated criminal charges are brought with frequency in many countries.

INTERPOL’s Constitution prohibits INTERPOL from becoming involved in any matter of a political character. Nonetheless, the argument that a Red Notice is politically based can be made, substantiated, and submitted with proof to INTERPOL, and the subject’s request to remove the Red Notice can still be validly denied.

How can such a claim fail?  For INTERPOL, the existence of political motivation is not the only determining factor regarding whether a Red Notice is properly issued or not.  There are certainly numerous criminal cases in any country which are brought based on legitimate criminal violations, but which are also partially based on the political motivation of a government official.  Because of this reality, INTERPOL will only categorize a Red Notice request as impermissibly politically motivated when the primary character is political.

If this sounds a bit like the old, “I know it when I see it” standard articulated for pornography by American Supreme Court Justice Stewart, take solace in this: INTERPOL does have actual criteria that it applies to each case to determine whether it is primarily politically motivated or based on the stated crime.  If INTERPOL agrees that the primary motivation for the Red Notice request is political, then it will be deemed inappropriate for INTERPOL’s involvement. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s been lots of talk lately surrounding the idea that INTERPOL is issuing Red Notices almost automatically, with no actual review of the request taking place.  Some say that INTERPOL is ripe for abuse by certain member countries, while INTERPOL counters that it has procedures in place to avoid such abuses.

Support for INTERPOL’s position is found in one recent example of INTERPOL rejecting a Red Notice request from Thailand.  The ex-prime minister, Thaksin Thongphakdi, was the subject of a warrant issued after he was sentenced to a prison term, but the country’s request for a Red Notice in his name was rejected by INTERPOL.  The stated reason for the rejection was that the request did not meet INTERPOL’s critera, which could mean anything from the paperwork not being properly submitted to the request being obviously politically based.

Another example comes from India, where Red Notice requests for wanted terrorists were reportedly rejected by INTERPOL. In an article discussing the Indian cases, the author writes that Indian official complain that “It is very difficult to build a strong case and provide the exact details that Interpol is looking for.”  

That last line would honestly astound some Red Notice subjects, who complain that the information submitted to obtain a Red Notice typically does not require much detail at all about the underlying charges, nor does it require any details regarding the strength of any given case. Nonetheless, it seems that in certain cases, this particular part of the application process has frustrated Indian officials. 

There does appear to be some anecdotal support for INTERPOL’s assertion that it not only possesses but utilizes mechanisms to prevent member country abuses and improper Red Notice requests.  There also appears to be anecdotal support for the position of many Red Notice subjects, which is that member country abuse occurs with some frequency.  

Without a more transparent process or judicial oversight, INTERPOL will likely continue to find itself on the defensive. When it comes to INTERPOL’s decision-making processes, criticism from both member country applicants and Red Notice subjects can be expected as long as those processes remain relatively mysterious.  

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

The Libyan Transitional Council’s members include several lawyers, a former political prisoner, a human rights activist, and a veterans affairs representative, among others.  The LTC’s statement is brief, to the point, and inspiring.  The Council states:

“Either we achieve freedom and race to catch up with humanity and world developments, or we are schackled and enslaved under the feet of the tyrant Mu’ammar Gaddafi where we shall live in the midst of history.”

The LTC announced its own establishment in March of this year, and its work towards devloping a permanent governance continues.  Libya has been a member country of INTERPOL since 1954.   The LTC stated that it intends to honor all international agreements signed by the former Libyan government, and this would seem to include its relationship with INTERPOL.  Indeed, as mentioned in the previous post, INTERPOL’s issuance of the Red Notices against Muammar Gaddafi and his sons is seen as a recognition of the legitimacy of the LTC as a governing entity.

If the LTC steers Libya in the direction one would expect given a leadership body that is cognizant of human rights issues and sound legal policy, it would be fair to expect the new Libya to be a solid, rules-observant member country.  It would follow that we should expect to see few or no politically based Red Notice requests from this Libya.  

The LTC’s mission statement definitely leaves one hopeful for this possibility, and for the future of Libya after so many years of oppression.  The statement also reminded me of something the comedienne Roseanne Barr once said:  

No one gives you power.  You just take it.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.