Initial situation and client status at the start of the case
Our client is a Belarusian entrepreneur who has been living in Spain since the early 2010s, running a legal construction business. In 2020, he learned that Belarusian law enforcement agencies had launched an investigation into a number of contracts concluded with government agencies between 2013 and 2016. He was called to testify in a criminal case about possible corruption, but only as witness, without charges. He cooperated with the authorities by providing information as part of international legal assistance, which demonstrates his open attitude and trust in legal procedures.
However, in a political system where authorities often use law enforcement agencies as a tool of pressure, the status of a witness can quickly change. Which is what happened later.
Discovering a Blue Notice and filing a complaint for the first time
During a routine check of international databases, our legal team identified the presence Blue Notice Interpol in relation to the client. This type of notification is intended to collect additional information about a person’s location or activities and does not automatically result in an arrest.
However, content analysis revealed a disturbing anomaly: the client had already designated as suspect, not as a witness, and indicated that he was wanted for arrest. This information contradicted the legal documents in force at that time, where the client did not even have the status of an accused.
We immediately filed a formal complaint with Commission for the Control of Interpol Files (CCF), pointing out a violation of the principles of accuracy and legality in data processing.
Removal of data from the Interpol database and the Commission’s reaction
After a short time we received a positive decision: The Commission found the notification to be unlawful and confirmed its removal. This meant that Interpol no longer disseminated this information to its member countries, and the client could move freely without fear of detention at the borders.
The Commission also admitted that the content of the notification was not consistent with its objectives – it was punitive nature, not informational. Thus, the illegality of using Interpol for pressure purposes was confirmed.
New episode – diffusion arrest and legal consequences
It would seem that the matter is resolved. However, a few months later the client was arrested in Spain – already after diffusion, initiated by the Interpol National Central Bureau in Minsk. Diffusion is a simplified form of arrest request distributed by a country independently, bypassing the prior approval of the Interpol General Secretariat.
We were surprised to discover that the plot of the case is the same one that was previously deleted. However, now it has been framed as international request for detention for the purpose of extradition, and the client ended up in custody.
Notification Comparison: Blue Request and Diffusion
In the case under consideration, we were faced with a legally non-standard situation when information, recognized by the Interpol Commission as unreliable and subject to deletion, was returned to the system – but in a different procedural guise. We’re talking about replacing the blue notice with diffusion, which has a completely different legal weight.
A Blue Notice is typically used to obtain additional information about a person, their location, or possible connections. It does not involve arrest and is most often perceived as a form of international request without coercion. Such notifications are monitored by the General Secretariat of Interpol and are subject to analysis for compliance with the organization’s Charter.
Unlike him, diffusion can be sent directly by participating countries and is often used as bypass tool. It does not require prior approval and can quickly enter the Interpol database and become the basis for arrest. Thus, the legal nature of diffusion gives the initiator much more operational flexibility, but at the same time significantly reduces the level of international control.
In a specific case, the Belarusian side, in fact, used diffusion as a way to resuscitate already recognized unacceptable information. And although from a formal point of view these are two different procedures, in content they completely coincided. This raises serious questions: how legal is it to reuse deleted information, and why does the system allow such manipulation?
Actions of lawyers after arrest and repeated appeal to the Commission
Immediately after the arrest, our team initiated an appeal against the extradition procedure in the Spanish court, which refused to transfer the client to Belarus, pointing out the politically motivated nature of the case. We have also prepared a repeated appeal to the Interpol Files Control Commission with a demand to remove the diffusion and draw attention to the reuse of information previously found to be unreliable.
Potential violations on the part of the initiator of the search
The very fact that the National Central Bank of Belarus published a diffusion with the same plot, which was previously recognized as unreliable, casts doubt on the integrity of the actions of the initiator of the search. This is not just a technical error or misunderstanding – we are talking about the deliberate use of a loophole in the system to circumvent the decision of the highest regulatory authority.
If such actions go unpunished, it opens the door to massive abuses. Each precedent in which a country re-publishes rejected information under a different type of notification, weakens trust in Interpol as a neutral and legal institution.
In practice, this means that any person, even after the official removal of his data from the system, remains at risk: the diffusion feed mechanism remains unprotected from secondary, reuse and misuse. This creates legal instability and contradicts Interpol’s goal of being a platform for legal cooperation rather than political pressure.
The role of the Interpol General Secretariat in such situations
The Interpol General Secretariat is obliged to monitor the fair use of its channels, especially in cases where we are talking about countries with authoritarian regimes and a high degree of politicization of law enforcement agencies. We believe that the actions of the National Central Bank of Belarus should be investigated for systemic violations of the principles of neutrality and legality. To do this, it is necessary to strengthen supervision over diffusions and introduce a mandatory mechanism for preliminary verification of their content.
The significance of the case in international legal practice
This case is not an isolated violation, but mirror of a systemic problem. It showed how vulnerable the Interpol structure is to the actions of states that use international instruments to persecute undesirables. Such cases become a threat not only to individuals, but also for Interpol itself as an institution losing its reputation as a neutral intermediary in international jurisdiction.
The case highlights the need reforming mechanisms for processing and re-analysis of data, especially in terms of diffusion. It has also become an important argument in the legal community for strengthening transparency, accountability and oversight in the work of the NCBs of member countries.
From a legal perspective, it shows that even after a positive decision by the Commission, the defense does not end: lawyers must be prepared for new attempts at prosecution – in a different form, under a different name, but with the same content. International law today requires not only formal procedures, but also active protection against procedural manipulations, to which this case certainly belongs.
Recommendations for protecting rights when using Interpol mechanisms
In situations where Interpol is being misused—especially in politically motivated cases—it is important to proactively take steps to obtain legal protection. One of the key ones is regularly checking your status in the Interpol database, especially if you have previously participated in criminal trials as a witness or defendant. Information may appear without your knowledge, becoming the basis for arrest abroad.
If you discover a notice, you should immediately contact a lawyer who specializes in Interpol matters. Such cases require knowledge of international law, the Interpol statute and the practice of Commission decisions. The faster legal work begins, the higher the chances of avoiding restrictions on freedom.
The most effective tool is to contact the Interpol Files Control Commission. This structure can remove a record if it is invalid or out of date. However, success depends on the quality of the complaint, the evidence and the legal basis.
Even after information is deleted, monitoring should continue: attempts are made to re-submit information in the form of diffusion. Therefore, it is important to monitor the situation through a lawyer or special services.
If the notification nevertheless became the reason for the arrest, it is necessary to engage judicial protection in the host country. Courts of the EU and other rule-of-law states often refuse extradition on political grounds. In such cases, it is also possible to initiate asylum proceedings.
