In a continuation of a series of posts about the CCF’s Annual Report for 2011, today’s post focuses on a perhaps surprising, but apparently common, occurence in INTERPOL member country courts around the world.

In its Annual Report, the CCF noted that many domestic courts were confused about INTERPOL’s role in extradition proceedings.  The

INTERPOL’s role in the world of law enforcement, boiled down to its bare bones, is to aid its member countries with two things:  1) alerting them to the movement of wanted persons, and 2) assisting in the apprehension of wanted persons.  The alerting is normally accomplished via a member country’s request for a Red Notice.

Not too far in the future, INTERPOL’s General Assembly will gather in Rome for its annual meeting.  The General Assembly is charged with making decisions about how the organization will be run in the coming year, and considers everything from general policy matters to resources to electing the members of the Executive Committee.  From November

Many Red Notice subjects simply want to move forward with their lives when their names are removed from INTERPOL’s databases.  That decision is understandable, given the vast amount of time, resources, and energy that are required to live through the events leading up to a Red Notice being issued and to actually challenge the Red

Red Notice subjects who are considering challenging their Red Notices have frequently exhausted all of their other options.  Their efforts to show investigating police officers that they are innocent have failed; they have been charged and improperly convicted despite mutliple law violations by government officials; and they have fled their countries due to a very