In certain high-stakes cases, the INTERPOL General Secretariat (IPSG) can step in to block a Red Notice while the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) examines the request. This temporary suspension — known as a provisional measure — effectively freezes the notice, protecting the individual from arrest and allowing them to travel freely, as member states can no longer act on the data in their systems. The notice or diffusion is, in essence, neutralised until the CCF reaches its final decision. These actions become critical, especially when there’s an immediate risk of extradition, when someone’s detention hinges on INTERPOL data, or when protective status is involved.
When are temporary measures imposed?
INTERPOL’s rules remain vague. Under Article 37 of the Statute of the Commission, the CCF holds the power to enforce provisional measures in cases where urgency cannot be ignored. These include situations where an applicant’s extradition is imminent, where their detention hinges solely on the data held in INTERPOL’s files, or where they have been granted protective status.
However, the IPSG, when applying such measures, offers no explanation or rationale for its decisions, leaving those affected in the dark. The reasons are, at best, partially referenced in INTERPOL’s internal instructions on how the CCF processes requests. In these life-altering decisions, the Commission wields its authority cautiously, knowing that every moment counts — but so does precision.
A Case Example: Swift Action to Prevent Extradition
Consider a case where the Commission had to act swiftly. The Applicant was in detention, with extradition pending, running the danger of torture or even death. On top of this, the Applicant had been tried in absentia, raising serious concerns about violations of fair trial rights, all in the context of a justice system notorious for human rights abuses. The stakes were clear: extradition could lead to irreversible harm.
Recognising the gravity, the Commission immediately blocked access to the data, halting any possible use of INTERPOL channels that could facilitate extradition. This decisive move bought time for a thorough review, ensuring no action was taken until the data’s compliance with INTERPOL’s rules was fully assessed.
Blocking a Red Notice Don’t Mean Data Deletion
In practice, the CCF often blocks INTERPOL Red Notice shortly after receiving a request for its removal, but this blocking isn’t always acknowledged until the case is resolved. While it’s common for a removal Red Notice decision to follow the blocking of data, blocking is not a guarantee that the data will be deleted.
From experience, the majority of cases where data is blocked initially lead to a removal, but the CCF makes it clear that a final decision could still go either way. The blocking is a temporary measure, and the subject is always informed that the outcome might result in either the removal or retention of the data.
According to CCF’s official 2021 statistics, out of the 478 deletion requests, temporary blocking measures were imposed in 311 cases (around 65%). This high figure reveals that in the majority of cases, there are immediate red flags about INTERPOL’s compliance with its data processing rules—long before the CCF reaches its final verdict.
However, make no mistake: the IPSG’s temporary blocking of data, while offering immediate relief by preventing arrest or extradition, does not guarantee a final victory. The case may still conclude with the CCF deciding to retain the data in INTERPOL’s files.
Although provisional measures provide critical time for the applicant to fight their legal battle without the immediate threat of detention, the final decision could still uphold the notice. Blocking is merely a safeguard during the review, and while it buys essential time, it doesn’t ensure the ultimate outcome will result in deletion.
Blog post can be checked at LinkedIN.
