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.

INTERPOL is scheduled to open a new global complex in Singapore early this decade, and has already broken ground at the new site. The center is intended to complement the agency’s existing General Secretariat in Lyon, France, and is planned to go into full operation in late 2013 or early 2014. The focus of the complex is, naturally, to aid in fighting crime.

While INTERPOL already has other regional headquarters, the significance of this complex can hardly be overstated. Generally, it speaks to the worldwide shift in focus to the east. Specifically, it speaks to INTERPOL’s continued stepping away from its original European focus and towards an increasingly globally inclusive culture, which has regional bureaus in Africa, South and Central America, and Southeast Asia. The Global Complex will also house a 24-hour Command and Co-ordination Centre (CCC), the third to be created since Ronald Noble became Secretary General. The other two CCC’s are in Lyon, France and Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Why Singapore now? The current president of INTERPOL is Khoo Boon Hui, of Singapore, who is serving a term until 2012. And according to a speech given by Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, the Minister for Law and Home Affairs of the Republic of Singapore at the 79TH INTERPOL General Assembly, the Singapore Government accepted an invitation from INTEPROL’s General Secretariat to host the proposed INTERPOL Global Complex. After that invitation was extended in 2010, the Singapore Government set aside the necessary budget and land for the Global Complex. Singapore plans to construct a new and building, and provide it free of rental to house the INTERPOL Global Complex. The Qatari Government also contributed two million U.S. dollars towards the project.

So what does all of this have to do with Red Notices? Could be, nothing, and could be, everything. With the current president of Interpol being from Singapore and having the clear backing and support of the General Secretariat, it doesn’t require too large a logical leap to imagine that a lawyer’s challenge to a Singapore-issued Red Notice might meet with more resistance than one issued by another member country. This thought becomes a bit disturbing in light of the World Report 2011, issued by the Human Rights Watch. The report indicates that during the last year, Singapore’s government restricted freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly and frequently used defamation laws and detention to silence political critics and human rights defenders.

On the other hand, given its history and current position with INTERPOL, Singapore is also poised to lead by example and modify its police practices to address criminal activity rather than peaceful, civic activity. As with all things, time will tell which path Singapore takes.

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.

President Hugo Chavez has cast his net far and wide in his efforts to socialize the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela.  It’s no secret that he uses every branch of government to his advantage in furtherance of his political goals.  His abuses against Venezuela’s citizens and its businesses have been well-documented for years. In its 2009 report on Venezuela, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) reported that it had “received complaints by persons who assert that they have been subjected to criminal proceedings because of their political opinions,” and that, “[i]ncluded among persons considered by different organizations to be political prisoners are journalists, persons detained in the context of social demonstrations, . . .  representatives of political parties, business leaders, and dissidents in general.”

Among Chavez’ most recent efforts to take over much of the private sector is his campaign against the private banking industry.  Before banking, it was television, radio, the cement industry, and the steel industry. It has become increasingly evident that when Chavez gets involved with any particular industry, chances are good that someone is going to jail.  The trend of jailing people who may become obstacles to Venezuela’s socialization continues with members of the private banking industry in Venezuela. 

Despite the widely recognized fact that many of Chavez’ instructions to the judiciary are politically motivated, INTERPOL’s “Venezuela” pages are filled with Red Notices, many of them issued against Venezuelan citizens accused of fraud charges stemming from their connections with a certain industry.  Care to guess which one? 

That’s right, banking. 

The subjects of the red notices have protested publicly and privately that the Notices were illegally issued against them to provide a means to clear the way for their respective financial institutions to be taken over by the government. 

Not coincidentally, in 2010, ImpactoCNA reported in its article, “Denuncian que Fiscalia esta fabricando expediente falso para acusar opositores,” that prosecuting attorneys were fabricating cases against political opponents of President Chavez.   There also has been widespread criticism of the Venezuelan government based on the idea that certain Venezuelan prosecutors are more subject to influence and corruption because of the instability of their positions in the government.  The Venezuelan judiciary is extremely unlikely to provide a potent shield against such abuses, given the fate of those such as Judge María Lourdes Afiun, who was incarcerated for ordering that a banker be released on bond in December of 2009.   

In every respect, Chavez continues his drive to control the thoughts, actions, and words of the Venezuelan people, recently going so far as to disallow a television show called Chepe Fortuna which poked fun at his administration via thinly disguised characters and analogies.  “Ever since his ascent to power, Chavez has not missed any opportunity to silence whomever did not align with him,”   writes Anna Mahjar-Barducci, in her Hudson New York article about Chepe Fortuna, “Venezuela:  To Celebrate Free Expression, Chavez Shuts Down Media.”

Venezuela has been a member country of INTERPOL since 1948, and its people deserve respect.  Chavez’ police practices, maybe less so. 

Perhaps it’s time that INTERPOL’s General Secretariat take a second look at its Venezuelan Red Notices, this time with a more critical eye.  Those of us who have challenged Red Notices have seen that it doesn’t take much scratching beneath the surface to see that some of them are blatantly politically motivated and cannot stand up to the scrutiny that should come with a careful INTERPOL screening process.

If we believe Venezuela’s Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz, INTERPOL is now beginning to do just that.  She is reported to have complained recently about Interpol’s reluctance to enforce Venezuela’s arrest warrants, particularly where the Red Notice subjects were in the banking industry. 

I’m not so sure about that.  A review of INTERPOL’s published Red Notices for Venezuela shows that the vast majority of Red Notices that were posted as of December of 2010, for Venezuelans charged with bank-related fraud, are still present and published.  Some were withdrawn, but what of the others? 

As always, comments and thoughts are welcomed.