Most of those familiar with INTERPOL know that any of the 188 INTERPOL member countries can request that the international police organization issue a Red Notice for a fugitive based upon their association with INTEPROL.

Now, with the issuance of the Red Notices in Muammar Gaddafi’s name and the names of his sons, we see an example of another means of obtaining a Red Notice.  The International Criminal Court, or ICC, has requested those Red Notices, and they have been issued by INTERPOL.  The requests were reportedly made by the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo.  

What allows a prosecutor of the ICC to appeal directly to INTERPOL for a Red Notice?  There is a special cooperation agreement in place between the ICC and INTERPOL.  It allows for the ICC to make such a request, and also provides the ICC with access to INTERPOL’s data, similar to the arrangement with member countries.  

And because nothing in life is free, the ICC has a financial obligation to INTERPOL, just as the member countries do, in exchange for its ability to benefit from INTERPOL’s considerable resources.  The ICC is also bound by all of the internal rules and regulations as the member countries.

In addition to highlighting the relationship between the ICC and INTERPOL, the Gaddafi Red Notice also signifies a recognition of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) as the country’s new formal government.  In the next post, look for a discussion of the NTC.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

A Red Notice has been issued for Muammar Gaddafi.  This is not surprising given the crimes against humanity that he is alleged to have committed. 

What would be surprising would be if he travelled in any manner that allowed a Red Notice to be of real service in his capture.

Red Notices are extremely useful for tracking and immobilizing persons who travel in fairly mainstream ways:  via scheduled airline flights, ticketed ship cruises, and the like.  Ports of entry and exit are where we would expect to see a passport swipe or a passenger manifest lead to a Red Notice hit. 

But it’s probably safe to say that Gaddafi is not booking a trip through a tour guide, and he is probably not using his passport.  He is moving quietly, at night or in disguise, or both, with the help of loyal supporters, under circumstances that would terrify the average tourist. 

When, and if, he is found, my guess is likely not much different from yours as to how it will happen: authorities (if he’s lucky, it will be authorities who find him) will be led to him by piecing together bits of information gathered from various people who have heard gossip and seen movement related to his whereabouts.  After numerous efforts and false leads, he will be found in a hole like Hussein or a compound like Bin Ladin.  At that point, the Red Notice would be moot, and would be removed from INTERPOL’s databases.

On the other hand, if my prediction is wrong, and INTERPOL is involved in the capture of Gaddafi, then that would be a major feather in INTERPOL’s cap.  It would also speak to the efficacy of the cooperative arrangement between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and INTERPOL.  The next post will address that relationship.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

On August 9, I wrote about two fathers on different sides of INTERPOL Red Notices.  One of the fathers was looking for his daughter, who allegedly had been taken illegally from the United States to the United Arab Emirates by her mother and maternal grandparents. The good news for that father is that his little girl was found, as reported here.

The other news is that the UAE does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, so the child’s mother and maternal grandparents will not be brought back to the United States pursuant to an extradition treaty.  It remains to be seen whether diplomatic efforts will result in their return to the United States.  

Of course, the father is also awaiting news of the path that the child’s return may or may not take from here.  

This incident highlights both the strengths and the limits of an INTERPOL Red Notice.  The Notice was very effective in allowing law enforcement officials to track and very quickly immobilize the fugitives. However, once they were found and detained, and released on bond, the law of the UAE becomes predominant for extradition purposes.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

 

A great example of INTERPOL’s adherence to its own rules is that of its refusal to assist in the extradition of persons accused of violating dowery law.  INTERPOL’s rules require that a Red Notice be issued with an eye towards extradition.  Extradition requires that a crime be recognized by both the country requesting extradition, and the country examining whether an extradition request will be granted.  If one of the countries does not recognize the matter in question as a crime, extradition will not occur.

This does not mean that dowry issues have not led to Red Notices in the past.  For instance, in 2005, a woman requested and received a Red Notice when her husband allegedly demanded dowry from her after their honeymoon.  The woman, of India, received assistance from the police in obtaining a Red Notice against her husband as well as his parents, who were of Austrailian nationality.

For now, however, INTERPOL has recognized that dual criminality does not exist and has taken the position that dowry violations are improper subjects for Red Notice requests.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

In order for INTERPOL to publish a Red Notice, one of its 188 member countries must first request the Red Notice based upon certain criteria.  This request is made by the member country’s National Central Bureau (NCB).  Today’s post addresses the question of what can be done when an NCB submits erroneous or false information to INTERPOL.

When such a submission occurs, the information may be circulated in the form of a Red Notice worldwide to various law enforcement agencies and to border checkpoint locations.  It may also be published on INTERPOL’s website.  The NCB’s act therefore has a monumental ripple effect.  However, INTERPOL respects the finite realm of its control, and advises aggrieved parties of the limits of its authority.  Attorneys and Red Notice subjects are frequently reminded that INTERPOL cannot force a member country’s NCB to take any specific action. 

In these instances where a member country is at fault for the inaccuracy of INTERPOL’s data, INTERPOL’s corrective options are limited to either entirely withdrawing the Red Notice, modifying it, or removing it from circulation pending clarification of the issue in question.  No mechanism exists, nor is intended to exist, by which INTERPOL will force a member country to take any type of corrective action.  

It is the member country that will be responsible for correcting the error or falsity.  Of course, if the information, such as an underlying arrest warrant, has been purposely falsified, remedying the situation may be difficult if it is possible at all.  On the other hand, where clear errors have been made or where the underlying information is no longer valid, member countries have taken it upon themselves to advise INTERPOL of those developments and request to have the Red Notices removed.  

Not exactly a satisfying answer for most cases, I know.  But it is what it is.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

In the last post, the focus was on the manner in which INTERPOL might publish erroneous information. While a Red Notice client is certainly interested in how such an error might have occurred, it is obviously even more important to know that it can be corrected- sometimes.

It may be intuitive to think that INTERPOL will correct an error immediately once it is brought to INTERPOL’s attention, but that is not necessarily so.  This is because a correction is not always made, and when it is, it often not immediate.

Where the error is due to INTERPOL’s actions, such as INTERPOL’s characterization of offenses, it is appropriate to seek the correction directly through INTERPOL.  INTERPOL can and does correct its own mistakes by reviewing its own decision-making process in the publication of the notice, and it does so on its own timetable.  Clients who have sought a modification of the information circulated by INTERPOL in the the past have ultimately received the requested relief, but it can take an agonizingly long time to happen.

On the other hand, some errors, such as false charges emanating from the country that requested the Red Notice, may require a different form of correction.  In the next post, look for a discussion of modifying information received by outside sources.

As always, questions and comments are welcomed.

 

As some unfortunate souls have discovered, iNTERPOL sometimes publishes information that is simply wrong. Due to the “honor system” it uses to allow member countries to request Red Notices, there are instances where INTERPOL issues a Red Notice containing erroneous information, which can happen in one of several ways:

  1. The underlying charge is completely fabricated by law enforcement or judicial officials in the requesting country,
  2. The underlying charge is mischaracterized by the requesting country, or 
  3. The Red Notice itself as issued by INTERPOL contains an erroneous characterization of the underlying charges

When the false information is circulated worldwide on INTERPOL’s databases, the result is that the subjects of the Red Notices lose the ability to travel, maintain their livelihoods, and needlessly suffer the accompanying humiliation and embarrassment.

It is difficult to overstate the effect of the reverberations following the ringing of INTERPOL’s Red Notice bell.  There are, however, steps that attorneys can take to correct these errors on behalf of their clients.

Next time:  a discussion of damage control.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A few weeks ago, a reader contacted me to discuss a Red Notice that had been wrongly issued against him for “kidnapping” his own child.  The charges were brought falsely in another country, which led to the Red Notice being issued.  Luckily, he had valid court orders showing that he was the custodial parent.  He had already begun the process of challenging the Red Notice, and was hoping to hear from INTERPOL in the near future.  However, his optimism was guarded because of the harrowing experience he has undergone in the last few years:  he lost his job, he lost his ability to travel, and he lost his feeling of freedom.  The one thing he has not lost is his child.

Today, I read the story of another father on the other side of a Red Notice issued for a custodial matter. His child’s mother has been indicted for removing the child from his lawful custody in the United States and fleeing with her to the United Arab Emirates.  The mother and her parents are the subjects of Red Notices, and the child is the subject of a Yellow Notice.  

I am struck by the fact that these two fathers, both innocent according to all available documentation, are living their lives while tethered to INTERPOL.  Of course, one is appealing to INTERPOL for relief, and the other for assistance.  Assuming that INTERPOL acts in accordance with its own regulations, both should be successful.

For their sakes, and for their children’s sakes, let’s hope they are.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Still on the topic of INTERPOL’s ability and need for improvement of its information processing methods and internal accountability, today’s post addresses INTERPOL’s own discussions of those issues.

While there are certainly many valid points to be made regarding the frustrating experience that many have while dealing with INTERPOL, there is also evidence that INTERPOL is aware of the need for continual improvements in its processing of Red Notice requests.  It also takes steps, slower than some may like, towards making those improvements. 

In his 2010 speech to INTERPOL’s General Assembly, Billy Hawkes, the Chairman of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files candidly discussed the issue of accountability, as well as the need for an increased level of dedication to international human rights standards.  Towards the issue of accountabilty, he stated:

The Commission represents the Organisation’s commitment to the outside world that it is willing to be accountable to an independed body for the manner in which it deals with the sensitive information entrusted to it. . .

Regarding the frequently raised question of respect for human rights, he proposed an idea: 

The Organisation’s commitment to international human rights standards would be further strengthened by the incscription of the Organisation’s Constitution with the United Nations, a proposal that the Commission fully supports.

Similar issues were discussed by the former Chairman, Peter Hustinx, in his 2007 speech of the same nature.  Additionally, Chairman Hustinx raised other issues.  He raised the rather uncomfortable fact that, in the Commission’s observation, there appeared to be an “almost systematic” practice of INTERPOL assessing the accuracy and relevance of information in favor of NCBs (National Central Bureaus).

These two very brief examples indicate a willingness to effect change, at least from within the CCF.  They also indicate what must be more than a little tension between the CCF and INTERPOL itself, which is probably healthy given their respective roles.  

INTERPOL is capable of making changes to allow for transparency, fairness, and due process.  We also know that it is aware of the need for those changes.  Whether it will continue to make real progress towards those goals, well, time will tell.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

How could INTERPOL shield itself from being used as a political weapon against a corrupt country’s own people?  In the last post, I referenced an article by CNN writer Libby Lewis entitled, “Are some countries abusing Interpol?”  In the article, Lewis raises numerous questions, one of which is whether a more in-depth review process should occur prior to INTERPOL’s acceptance of Red Notice requests.

As it stands, INTERPOL relies on member countries to be aware of and observe the rules requiring that Red Notice requests be made legally, in compliance with the country’s own laws and INTERPOL’s rules.  A Red Notice request is processed with a presumption of validity and remains so unless it is challenged specifically, or otherwise brought to INTERPOL’s attention as being improper.

Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama reportedly requested a revision of that process, and his is a good idea.  For INTERPOL, however, the thought may be rather daunting.  Imagine having to review the validity of thousands of Red Notice requests, particularly when they originate from 188 countries across the globe, all with differing legal systems and law enforcement practices.  Where is one to start?

Here’s an idea.  Start by amending the rules and governing texts of INTERPOL to allow for the existence, funding, and operation of a small human rights monitoring division.  Charge that division with the limited duty of studying and documenting human rights violation activity among member countries.  When a member country with a questionable history of violating human rights requests a Red Notice from INTERPOL, require additional information and checks from the country to guard against improper requests being granted.

All member countries must contribute financially in order to be members of INTERPOL, and as discussed here before, INTERPOL occasionally benefits from other monetary contributions.  Funding such a division is within easy reach.  An amendment providing for a human rights monitoring division, with the accompanying appropriation of funding, would allow INTERPOL to do the one thing that would allow it to continue serving as a law enforcement aid while maintaining a sense of integrity:  trust but verify. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.