In a continuation of the discussion of the current Venezuelan Red Notice situation, I thought it interesting to consider INTERPOL’S public explanation of two matters:  first, the historic visit by Ronald K. Noble, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, to Venezuela early this month, and second, the possible reasons for INTERPOL’s denial of Venezuela’s Red Notice requests.

Why the visit?

In its media release of May 4, 2011, INTERPOL publicized Mr. Noble’s trip to meet with Luisa Ortega Díaz, the Attorney General of Venezuela, with the stated purpose of improving cooperation between the country and the organization, and contained repeated references to INTERPOL’s respect for Venezuela.  The release was carefully crafted to paint a picture of a confined, limited argument, rather than a complete breakdown of relations.

 Mr. Noble emphasized that,

“[t]here are currently more than 100 valid Red Notices issued by INTERPOL on behalf of Venezuela in circulation worldwide.  The decision therefore to refuse specific Red Notices, in a specific catergory of cases and for specific defendants should not be interpreted as any kind of ‘attack’ on Venezuela, but simply that INTERPOL is adhering to its rules.”

INTERPOL also characterized the tiff between it and Venezuela as a “current disagreement between Venezuela and INTERPOL and its independent oversight body, the CCF, on whether INTERPOL should issue Red Notices in a specific category of cases for specific defendants,” and that it should not “be misconstrued as a broader conflict between Venezuela and INTERPOL.” 

Why the denials?

Although it is not specifically stated in the release, INTERPOL certainly implied that previous denials of Red Notice requests were the result of improper requests.  Mr. Noble is quoted as pointing out that INTERPOL’s rules and regulations must be followed in order for one of its tools, such as a Red Notice, to be used.  

INTERPOL also seemed to distance itself from its own Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files (CCF) by twice referring to the CCF as being “independent,” and referring to the disagreement as being between “Venezuela and INTERPOL and . . . the CCF.”  Perhaps that distance is a means of insulating the CCF from the politically delicate matters that currently require INTERPOL to continue to deal intimately with Venezuela.

Mr. Noble called for more communication between INTERPOL and Venezuela, but did not indicate an intention to back down from previous decisions.  As for the type of communication that is to come, there may be room for concern.  More on that next time.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Back in February, I discussed the fact that Venezuela’s Attorney General, Luisa Ortega Díaz, complained about what she painted as INTERPOL’s unfair treatment of Venezuela’s request for Red Notices against a certain group of people.  Specifically, she argued that Venezuela’s requests for Red Notices were being denied for people charged with crimes related to the banking industry.  She rejected the idea that the requests were politically based.   

In response to this complaint, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, Ronald K. Noble, made an official visit to Venezuela to address the issues raised by Ms. Ortega Díaz. This visit was unprecedented.  An INTERPOL Secretary General has never visited Venezuela in an official capacity before, according to INTERPOL.

Noble’s visit to Venezuela was reported in its news, but the ultimate reaction of the Venezuelan government to the visit remains to be seen.  Obviously, the Venezuelan government hopes that INTERPOL will revise its previous denials of Red Notices, and its Attorney General is reported to have said that she expects just that.  

Why is INTERPOL so concerned about Venezuela’s complaints?

Perhaps INTERPOL is extremely sensitive to Ms. Ortega Díaz’ feelings.  More likely, INTERPOL is interested in at least maintaining a relationship with Venezuela, both as a member country and especially given Venezuela’s geographic location and potential role in anti-drug trafficking efforts.  Venezuela has made some recent, public efforts to cooperate with INTERPOL’s mission to combat the illegal drug trade, even if some of those efforts may be less than completely altruistic.

Whether a revision of decisions to deny past Red Notice requests will result from the meeting, however, is not so clear from the press release issued by INTERPOL.  The press statement reads as more of an explanation and defense of decisions than an indication of possible reconsideration.

Next time:  INTERPOL’s defense of its decisions on Venezuelan Red Notice requests.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

Now for the last of the posts on Blue Notices (for a while, at least).  In the last post, I discussed the fact that one of the purposes that a member country may provide in its application for an INTERPOL Blue Notice was the tracking of the subject’s movement.  While a case is still in the investigative stages, a law enforcement agency may wish to trace the steps of a suspect, witness, or other person of interest in furtherance of its investigation.

Finding out that one is the subject of a Blue Notice is unlikely to be good news.  The only person, at least that I am aware of, who was ever happy to be the subject of a Blue Notice was Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.  He blogged about the Blue Notice in his name, which was issued based upon his anti-whaling activities in Japan, and rightly stated that “you can’t buy this kind of recognition.”  Take note, anti-establishment activists:  Blue Notice = free publicity. 

Now, back to the question at hand:  is traveling advisable for the subject of a Blue Notice?  Of course, the common sense answer is, if you don’t want your movements to be traced, don’t travel. However, the chances are good that most people who are the subjects of Blue Notices are unaware of the existence of the Notices.  While a small percentage of Notices are available to the public on INTERPOL’s website, most Notices are unpublished and available only to law enforcement upon authorized request.  

People who are unsure of whether they are the subjects of Blue Notices, or the reasons that they are the subjects of Blue Notices, may wish to obtain legal assistance to institute an effort to determine those answers.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

In keeping with this week’s theme of Blue Notices, this post addresses the question of whether a Blue Notice can eventually lead to a Red Notice.  The answer is that old lawyer favorite:  it depends.  When a Blue Notice Application Form is completed, the requesting country supplies a “purpose” for the request.  The purpose may be to obtain information about someone’s identity, criminal records, and activities; or to locate and trace a person’s movements, or for other stated reasons.

Just as with a Red Notice request, a Blue Notice request may be denied by INTERPOL if the request does not comply with the organization’s rules.  A request for Blue Notice issuance was denied and the denial was actually explained back in 2009 when INTERPOL refused Equador’s request for a Blue Notice.  However, if the request satisfies the rules of INTERPOL, then it may be issued. 

If a Blue Notice is issued for investigative purposes or for identifying the witnesses to a crime, the witnesses may never be suspected of, nor sought for, criminal prosecution.  They may simply be sought for whatever testimony or evidence they have to provide. 

Likewise, if the Blue Notice is made for the purpose of simply locating or tracing the movements of a person, the Notice may be being used for an overall criminal investigation which does not eventually target the subject of the Blue Notice.  Obviously, this type of request could also lead to evidence of criminal activity.

In the case of Indian Premier League Chairman Lalit Modi, a Blue Notice was requested based upon the BCCI Disciplinary Committe’s investigation of financial irregularities during the dealings of the Twenty20 League. (The BCCI is the Board of Control for Cricket in India.  I know- lots of cricket references lately.)  If this, or any, investigation were to reveal sufficient evidence of criminal activity as to justify the filing of criminal charges, then a request for a Red Notice may certainly be made. 

While a Blue Notice will not magically transform into a Red Notice, it could very well eventually lead to an application for, and issuance of, a Red Notice.  Whether this happens or not will depend on the initial purpose of the Blue Notice and the information that is gathered as a result of the Blue Notice.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

 

A reader recently posted some questions about INTERPOL’s use of Blue Notices.  I omitted some of the reader’s comments and questions because of the identifiying information contained therein, but the reader’s basic questions present an opportunity to discuss whether one should be concerned about being the subject of a Blue Notice.  The short answer is, yes. 

Anytime INTERPOL is interested in you, there is sufficient cause for concern.  Note that I say concern, not panic. The subject of a Blue Notice may or may not be a suspect in a crime.  A Blue Notice is issued when INTERPOL grants a member country’s request for assistance with the following:

  • seeking the location of someone connected with a criminal investigation
  • identifying someone connected with a criminal investigation
  • finding witnesses to a criminal act, and
  • locating friends, relatives, or associates of offenders or suspected offenders

The difference between a Red Notice, our usual topic, and a Blue Notice, is that a Blue Notice can be issued prior to criminal charges being filed.  Red notices are concened with persons who have been charged with or convicted of crimes.  (Whether a Blue Notice can “turn into” a Red Notice will be addressed in the next post.)

If a person of interest has a known identity, INTERPOL can issue the Blue Notice in the person’s name, just as it did in the case of Frenchman Xavier Dupont de Ligonnes, who is being sought in connection with the investigation of his family’s death in April of this year. 

On the other hand, there are times when an offender is wanted, but his identity is unknown.  One such instance was in 2007, when INTERPOL launched an effort termed, Operation Vico, where it circulated a photograph of a man who was wanted for the sexual abuse of children based on widely circulated images on the internet.  Although the man’s identity was unknown, his face was known, and INTERPOL’s efforts led to his arrest 11 days later.  He was later sentenced after entering a guilty plea.   

Next:  Can a Blue Notice “Turn Into” a Red Notice?

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

A principal concern for people who believe they may have INTERPOL problems is whether they should travel, since they don’t really know their status with INTERPOL.  It is important to ignore that little voice inside that says, “It will be okay just this once; maybe they won’t notice.”  That little voice needs to be pushed aside until a clear understanding exists of one’s status with INTERPOL.

Why? Because if there is information about a person in the possession of INTERPOL, and that information has been disseminated to INTERPOL’s member countries, here is what will happen:  INTERPOL will do its best to make sure that the person is stopped, probably detained, and possibly extradited, whether the information underlying the Red Notice is true or not.

After all, that’s in large part what INTERPOL is designed to do:  immobilize persons wanted pursuant to Red Notices.  INTERPOL is very frequently very good at what it does.  What it does is gather and disseminate law enforcement information for the purpose of fighting crime when criminal accusations have been made or proven.  What it does not do is determine innocence or guilt.

In its media release in March, INTERPOL tooted its horn about a very strong tool in its arsenal, the Major Events Support Team (IMEST).  As I mentioned in the last post, the IMEST is deployed for events such as international conferences and sporting events where security is a larger-than-normal concern.  And during the 2011 Cricket World Cup, the IMEST’s efforts paid off in the form of leading to the capture of Iqbal Mohamed, who had been the subject of a Red Notice based on his alleged connection to a 2007 terror bombing.  This is how INTERPOL did it:

  • INTERPOL already had issued a Red Notice for Iqbal Mohamed pursuant to a request by the Maldives National Central Bureau.
  • Mohamed’s name appeared on a passenger manifest for the Colombo airport, and matched the subject of the Red Notice.
  • INTERPOL confirmed Mohamed’s identity.
  • INTERPOL’s IMEST worked with the Colombo International Airport Criminal Investigations Department and the National Central Bureaus in Colombo and the Malé International Airport.
  • Mohamed was taken into custody at the Malé International Airport.

Ronald K. Noble, the Secretary General for INTERPOL, credited the IMEST with being the “x-factor” that allowed for Mohamed’s capture.

However, after Mr. Mohamed was captured based on the Red Notice, he was released after fifteen days in custody.  An investigation reportedly is still pending.

Back to the question of whether traveling with INTERPOL on your mind is a good idea.  It’s certainly possible that a Red Notice subject traveler, such as Mohamed, would not be stopped without the involvement of the IMEST, but is it really a chance worth taking?

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

 

These days, most of us have come to expect at least some form of invasive security at almost any venue. Whether it’s the airport, Disney World, or even some stores, we know that our personal items and perhaps even our persons may be subject to a check for safety.  But what many people may not know is the level of sophistication involved in a security check at a major sporting event.

From mid-March to early April, three countries hosted visitors for the 2011 Cricket World Cup.  Those countries, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and India, collaborated with INTERPOL to check the backgrounds of almost THREE MILLION people against INTERPOL’s databases.  INTERPOL frequently deployes its Major Events Support Team (IMEST) for events such as:

  • the Olympics, 
  • FIFA World Cup, and 
  • World Bank/IMF conferences.  

The IMEST works with INTERPOL’s 24 hour Command and Co-ordination Center (CCC) to conduct instant searches of INTERPOL’s global databases.

What does this mean for the sports fans who just want to watch cricket?  It means that they should understand that they will not only undergo a search of their property and their persons at the sports venue, but also their legal standing in their respective countries prior to their arrival.

This search could result in a detention if a Red Notice is outstanding or if a diffusion has been disseminated, even if the subject is unaware of the Notice’s extistence.

In fact, INTERPOL’s queries during its deployment for the Cricket World Cup activities resulted in 150 “hits,” or matches, of persons who were in INTERPOL’s databases.  One of those was a terror suspect wanted in connection with a bombing from 2007.  His name is Iqbal Mohamed, and the steps INTERPOL took to assist in his capture, along with an update on his case, will be covered more fully in the next post.  

How exactly was his name matched?  The name and passport for foreign visitors are checked a specific inspection points in connection with the World Cup.  This information is checked against INTERPOL’s databases, including persons wanted for Red Notices and stolen or lost travel document databases.  Once a match, or hit, is found, local law enforcement officials are advised of the subject’s whereabouts, and determine whether to detain the subject.

And you thought all you had to worry about at the World Cup were the obnoxious fans behind you.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

One of the means by which to challenge an INTERPOL Red Notice is to provide evidence that the document underlying the Notice is no longer valid.  A recent example of such a challenge occurred when the Red Notice for Senator Panfilo Lacson of the Philippines was withdrawn.  Senator Lacson had been the subject of a Red Notice since 2010.  The warrant which led to the Red Notice being issued was based upon an indictment charging Senator Lacson with the murders of two people.

A Court of Appeals eventually found no probable cause for the pending murder indictment.  The challenge to this Red Notice, however, reportedly came directly from the government itself rather than from a defense attorney.  Once the court made its ruling, the Bureau of National Investigation immediately contacted INTERPOL to seek a withdrawal of the Notice.

The basis for this Red Notice removal was that a court of competent jurisdiction found an insufficient legal basis for the charges.  If the charging document (the indictment, in this case) is invalid, then the arrest warrant based on the charging document is invalid, and therefore the Red Notice is not valid either.  This does not necessarily mean that the Red Notice was never valid, however.  If the charging document was found to be legally sufficient at an earlier point, then the Secretariat General properly allowed the dissemination of the Red Notice.

Although it was the government that requested that the Red Notice be withdrawn, Senator Lacson’s attorneys had maintained from the beginning that the warrant was legally insufficient and politically motivated.  Back in 2010, they asserted that Lacson’s criticism of the Filipino government was the true motivation behind the warrant.  In the end, though, the withdrawal was due to a legal infirmity.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

 

 

 

 

 

When the phone call comes that a client may be, or is, the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice, an attorney’s immediate response may be to start thinking about an extradition hearing. That’s good, but it’s not always enough.

A client can greatly benefit from the attorney’s investigation into whether INTERPOL does, in fact, possess any information on the client, and if a Red Notice has been issued, whether the Notice was properly issued.  As noted in the very thoughtful book, The Legal Foundations of Interpol, by Rutsel Silverstre J. Martha, 2010, INTERPOL may refuse to acknowledge possession or non-possession of information on a person.  However, once it is public, there is generally no objection to the information’s release upon request by an authorized person.

When the existence of a Red Notice has been confirmed, in addition to a working knowledge of

  • INTERPOL’s constitution,
  • text,
  • agreements, 
  • resolutions, and
  • pertinent treaties,

the attorney will either need to know the relevant law of the country that requested the Notice, or to co-counsel with an attorney who does. Only by understanding the law in the originating country is the attorney fully able to determine the applicability of INTERPOL’s available remedies for the client. Part of the legal investigation may involve the acquisition of documents related to the criminal investigation against the client. Obviously, the more oppressive the regime of the requesting country, the more difficult it may be to obtain documentation of the history of the client’s warrant. 

It is also critical to the challenge of a Red Notice to understand and document the political background and atmosphere of the requesting country, particularly as it applies to the client individually. This element of representation requires extremely thorough interviews with the client and witnesses to his or her political activity, if the challenge is politically based, as well as a compilation of evidence to demonstrate any such activity.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

Red Notices are viewed as being at least theoretically valid based upon the requirement that they be approved by the General Secretariat prior to acceptance and/or publication by INTERPOL.

Another animal entirely is the diffusion. A diffusion is a notice shared by any one of INTERPOL’S member countries with the other member countries. It is comparable to a BOLO (be on the lookout), as we would say in the States.

The major difference between a diffusion and a Red Notice is that the General Secretariat does not review or approve a diffusion prior to its being disseminated to other member countries. It most often contains information similar to a Red Notice, and is frequently disseminated while the issuing member country awaits an approval for a red notice. A diffusion is circulated via INTERPOL’s I-24/7 secure police communications network.

Why does it matter whether an accusation is formally publicized as a red notice or issued provisionally as a diffusion? Why do we need the reassurance from INTERPOL that accompanies a vetting of the accusing documents?

We need it because the safety mechanisms put in place by INTERPOL are meant to protect us from improperly motivated accusations wreaking havoc on our lives. If a diffusion is issued based an improperly issued warrant, INTERPOL should catch the problem and refuse to issue the red notice.

Late last year, attorney and blogger Jill Filipovic of Feministe recognized that charges which are the subject of Red Notices may or may not be valid, and the motivation behind the issuance of the warrant may or may not be legitimate. Given that those possibilities exist, it is especially important that warrants are subject to the rigors of INTERPOL’s screening process prior to publication as red notices.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.