The Facts
The Applicant is a national of Ukraine and Russia. From 2007 to 2014 he was a member of nationalist organisation “Restruct” and took part in public rallies and actions condemning the actions of the Russian authorities in Crimea.
The Applicant was a subject of Interpol’s diffusion circulated on 19 November 2020 by Russia for “use of violence against a public official”.
On 06 November 2020 the Applicant was detained in Jakarta based on the diffusion and was released later the same month.
The Commission’s findings
In consideration of the general context of the case, the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s files (CCF) recalls that to support his argument of political purpose, the Applicant asserted that when he was detained in Indonesia on the basis of the Diffusion to arrest in view of extradition circulated by Russia, he was supported by the Ukrainian Embassy in Indonesia as well as the Ukrainian Foreign Minister who, on 28 November 2020, Tweeted that: “We returned Ukrainian citizen Mykhailo Orieshnikov from Indonesia, where Russia tried to seize him, using Interpol for their political persecution. We didn’t let them do it. The plane with Orieshnikov is already flying to Kyiv. Ukrainian passport = protection of the Ukrainian state”.
Although it did not receive confirmation from the NCB of Ukraine, the Commission verified through the Twitter platform that the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba indeed sent the abovementioned Tweet from his verified Twitter account concerning the Applicant.
The Interpol Law Firm arguments
Interpol Law Firm requested the deletion of the data concerning the Applicant contending, in essence, that:
- the case is of a predominantly political character;
- Indonesian authorities denied his extradition; and
- the relevant proceedings demonstrate no due respect to the principles of human rights.
The Outcome (decision of the CCF)
The Commission held that maintaining the data challenge would have significant adverse implications for the neutrality of the Organization.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the data challenged in this regard did not comply with Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution.
