Charges against the client and criminal prosecution in Turkey
Our client was involved in criminal prosecution by Turkey, where he was charged with two counts of theft. At the time the case was initiated, he was legally in the country and was not hiding from law enforcement agencies. Despite this, Turkish authorities made no attempt to question him, did not inform him of his status as a suspect, and did not issue a subpoena. The client did not receive any written notices, summonses, or other signs of official proceedings against him.
Instead of conducting an investigation or pre-trial procedure, the Turkish authorities decided to apply an administrative measure to him – deportation. The basis was a violation of the migration regime, although at that time a criminal case had already been registered. Thus, administrative removal measures were used to bypass criminal proceedings, without any procedural guarantees or the ability of the client to defend himself against the charges. In fact, he was removed from the territory of the country without giving him the opportunity to learn about the case filed and exercise his right to defense.
Client’s deportation and sentencing in absentia
After expulsion from Turkey, the client was banned from re-entry for a period of 10 years. At the same time, without notifying the client about the development of the case, the authorities continued criminal proceedings. A trial in absentia took place in Istanbul, as a result of which the court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 years in prison.
The trial took place without the participation of the accused. Neither the client nor his potential representative were notified of the hearing. A public defender was not appointed, and there were no procedural documents confirming his knowledge. Thus, the person was convicted in absentia, without knowledge of the charges brought against him and without the opportunity to provide evidence of his innocence or give an explanation.
Put on the international wanted list through Interpol
After the verdict in absentia entered into force, the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Istanbul sent a corresponding notification to the General Secretariat of Interpol. A request was made to publish a red card against a client. This move gave Turkish authorities the opportunity to initiate his arrest in any country cooperating with Interpol.
It is important to note that the search was initiated a significant period of time after the deportation – at the time of filing the notification, the client had already been legally living and working in one of the countries of the European Union for several years. He had no idea about the case or the verdict. Accordingly, the appearance of a red card in the Interpol system became an unexpected and threatening factor for him, capable of restricting his freedom of movement and affecting his legal status in another jurisdiction.
Detention of a client in Denmark with a red card
Living and working in Denmark legally, the client did not suspect that there was an international wanted list against him. Several years after his deportation from Turkey, he was stopped by Danish police during a routine identity check. Upon checking the international database, an active Interpol red card was found, initiated by the National Central Bureau of Turkey.
For the client, this detention came as a complete surprise. He never received notice of the criminal case, was not invited to appear in court, had no assigned counsel, and was generally unaware of the existence of any legal proceedings against him. Moreover, he considered his past deportation from Turkey to be a completed administrative procedure not related to criminal prosecution. Following his arrest, a temporary detention process was initiated with a view to subsequently considering his possible extradition to Turkey.
Extradition proceedings and the position of the Danish prosecutor’s office
After receiving documents from the Turkish side confirming the existence of a verdict in absentia, the Danish prosecutor’s office began a thorough analysis of the submitted materials. Particular attention was paid to respecting the client’s procedural rights in the initial criminal proceedings.
As a result of the analysis, Danish prosecutors concluded that the criminal case in Turkey was handled in clear violation of fundamental rights. There was no evidence in the materials confirming that the client was properly notified of the proceedings. There was also no evidence of legal counsel or other assurances provided to indicate that basic fair trial standards were met. The trial itself was one-sided, and the sentencing took place in absentia, without the actual participation of the accused.
These circumstances became the basis for the prosecutor’s office to conclude that extradition of the client was inadmissible. In its conclusions, the Danish side directly referred to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially in relation to Article 6.
Violation of the provisions of the European Convention by Turkey
The most significant aspect of the case was the finding that Turkey violated Article 6 of the European Convention, which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial. The principle of this article is to ensure equality of arms, the right to be heard, the right to defense and access to information about the nature of the charges.
In our client’s specific situation, none of these principles were followed. He was not notified of the filing of the case, was not given the opportunity to participate in the trial, and as a result was convicted without participation or representation. Moreover, his deportation took place before the trial began, making physical participation in the proceedings impossible.
The Danish prosecutor’s office qualified these actions as a gross violation of fundamental rights, and therefore the client’s extradition was refused. This decision became key to the subsequent defense strategy at the international level, including an appeal to the Interpol Files Control Commission.
Consideration of the complaint by the Interpol File Control Commission
Following the refusal of extradition, our team initiated a complaint to the Interpol Control Commission for Files (CCF), an independent body authorized to consider disputes regarding the processing of personal data in the Interpol system. In our appeal, we detailed the circumstances of the case, pointing out numerous violations, including the lack of notification to the client, the conviction in absentia without the possibility of a defense, and the one-sided nature of the process in Turkey.
Special emphasis was placed on the legal absurdity of the very structure of the case: the client was deported with an entry ban, and then convicted in absentia and put on the international wanted list. We emphasized that such actions not only contradict the logic of criminal prosecution, but also violate the principles of legal certainty, since the person was not physically able to participate in the proceedings. The complaint also stated that the refusal of extradition by Denmark confirms the existence of internationally recognized legal violations.
The Commission was provided with copies of the decisions of the Danish prosecutor’s office, materials from the extradition proceedings, as well as references to the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. We argued that the continued maintenance of the red card in the Interpol database violates the Charter and Data Processing Regulations of this organization.
Removing data from the Interpol system
The commission, after analyzing the evidence provided and assessing the legal basis, came to the conclusion that the search against the client was initiated in violation of the procedural and legal standards of Interpol. Considering that the person did not have access to court proceedings and could not protect his interests, the Commission declared the red card inadmissible for further distribution.
As a result, it was decided to completely remove information about the client from the Interpol database. This meant that information about the search was no longer available to participating States and the client was excluded from all international notifications. The move effectively restored his legal status and eliminated the risk of further detentions or extradition requests.
The Commission’s decision was an important recognition that Interpol cannot be used as an instrument of political or undue pressure to circumvent international standards of fairness.
Legal conclusions and significance of the case for the protection of human rights
This case became a clear example of how international search tools can be used by states to put pressure on a person in the absence of legal grounds. The combination of administrative deportation, criminal prosecution in absentia and filing a wanted list without the participation of the accused is a violation of both basic standards of criminal procedure and international law.
The key point was that the decisions of the Danish prosecutor’s office and the Interpol Commission were agreed in essence: both bodies recognized the inadmissibility of considering the case in the absence of the client and the impossibility of recognizing such a verdict in absentia as fair. This confirmed the priority of the European Convention on Human Rights over actions initiated by states violating its provisions.
The case confirmed the need for constant monitoring of Interpol’s enforcement practices, as well as the importance of having effective legal protection mechanisms within the system. It demonstrated that strong legal work, rapid response and international cooperation can achieve justice even in cases of wrongful prosecution across borders.
