We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
View our privacy policy
This blog addresses how to delete a Red Notice: process and challenges.
Part 1 explained what INTERPOL is. Part 2 explained what a Red Notice is and how it is checked. This part covers what a person can do about one. The process is established and it works, but it is slow, closed and unforgiving of poorly prepared applications.
The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is the independent body that decides individual requests to access, correct or delete data held in INTERPOL’s systems, including Red Notices and diffusions. Its decisions bind INTERPOL. If the CCF finds that data does not comply with INTERPOL’s rules, the General Secretariat must delete it.
The CCF has seven members, sitting in two chambers. The Supervisory and Advisory Chamber has three members. The Requests Chamber, which decides individual cases, has five, with expertise in international criminal law, policing, judicial work, data protection and human rights. A secretariat of 19 full-time staff supports it. All seven seats are up for election at the General Assembly in Hong Kong in late 2026, with new terms starting on 11 March 2027.
There are three. An access request asks whether INTERPOL holds data about the applicant and, if so, what it is. A deletion or correction request asks the CCF to remove or amend data that breaches the rules. An application for revision asks the CCF to reopen a decision already taken, on the basis of a new fact that would have led to a different result.
In 2024 the CCF received 2,586 new admissible requests, its highest ever. Some 45 per cent were deletion requests, 37 per cent access requests and 18 per cent applications for revision.
A Red Notice can be deleted when it breaches the Constitution or the Rules on the Processing of Data. The main grounds are these.
The notice is political, military, religious or racial in character, contrary to Article 3. The CCF applies a “predominance” test, asking whether the political element outweighs the ordinary criminal element. We explain it in When Is a Case Political?
The notice breaches Article 2 because the proceedings behind it violate fundamental rights. Examples include convictions in absentia without a retrial, evidence obtained by torture, or a justice system that cannot provide a fair trial.
The applicant is a recognised refugee, and the request comes from the country they fled.
The notice fails the RPD’s own conditions. The offence may be below the penalty threshold, fall into an excluded category such as a private commercial dispute, or lack a valid arrest warrant. The data may be inaccurate, or the case may have been dropped, time-barred or settled.
The CCF Statute sets a target of four months for access requests and nine months for deletion requests, from the point a request is found admissible. The CCF’s own 2024 report shows those targets are often missed. Only 30 per cent of access requests were completed within four months. Around 70 per cent of deletion requests were decided within nine.
The results are more encouraging. Of 703 admissible deletion requests decided in 2024, the CCF found the data non-compliant in 272 cases. In another 164, the data was deleted before the CCF reached a decision. In 50 cases, the requesting country did not cooperate at all. The data was found compliant in 217.
On 26 March 2026 the CCF launched a secure online portal, which is now the exclusive channel for new requests except in exceptional cases. Applicants and their lawyers can track the progress of a request and see correspondence with the Commission. We reported on the launch in Developments from the CCF: Online Portal Launch.
The portal makes filing easier. It does not change the underlying problems. There are no public hearings, and oral submissions are rarely allowed in practice. The requesting country sees the applicant’s submissions and can respond; the applicant does not always see the full response. There is no appeal. Beyond an application for revision, the CCF’s decision is final.
A CCF request is rarely the only thing that needs doing. Extradition proceedings in the country of arrest run on their own track, and the national court will not wait for the CCF. Asylum claims, domestic litigation in the requesting country and representations to the NCB of the country where the person lives can all affect the outcome.
Timing matters too. Where a person expects a notice to be sought but it has not yet been issued, a pre-emptive submission to INTERPOL can put the objections on the record before the NDTF reviews the request. We cover this in Pre-emptive Requests to INTERPOL.
Nothing requires one, and the portal is open to individuals. In practice, success depends on evidence and on knowing how the CCF reasons: which arguments it accepts, what material it finds persuasive, and how to answer a requesting country’s reply. Specialist representation makes a measurable difference. Ben Keith and Rhys Davies, the editors of this site, act in CCF cases against requesting states across the world. For more on the process, see Remove a Red Notice.
The CCF can and does delete Red Notices. It deletes the ones that are properly argued.
Next in the series: Back to Basics Part 4: INTERPOL Notices and the Louvre Heist. To discuss a case in confidence, contact us.
—
©Shutterstock
Red Notice Monitor launches Back to Basics series to ensure our readers understand the essential elements of Interpol and Red Notices before dealing with the complexities.
Continuing our Back to Basics series, we turn to perhaps the most frequently misunderstood element of international policing: the Red Notice itself.
Red Notice Monitor launches Back to Basics series to ensure our readers understand the essential elements of Interpol and Red Notices before dealing with the complexities.
