As we’ve previously written about, it’s sometimes difficult to form a holistic view of Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) jurisprudence. CCF decisions, when released, tend to be heavily redacted and are only partial publications of the significant volume of cases that pass across the CCF’s desk. The CCF has recently released excerpts from five of its latest decisions. The CCF has the role of deciding on applications for the deletion of Red Notices and/or Diffusions (‘How to remove a Red Notice’). It does not publish case decisions, as it is not a judicial body. Data protection rules also require that any personal details relating to individual applications should be kept confidential.
For some years now the CCF has published anonymised “Decision Excerpts”, generally focussed on contentious topics deemed to be in the wider public interest. These documents, heavily redacted, nonetheless offer valuable insights into the CCF's current approach to various Interpol-related issues and provide useful guidance on how the CCF in practice applies its constitution, the rules for the processing of data and general principles of international law to any deletion requests.
We have examined the key trends and implications emerging from these decisions. A particular focus was placed on Decision No 2024-03 which provides a detailed look at the CCF's approach to claims of political motivation and misuse of Interpol's channels.
A nuanced Approach to Family-Related Cases
In decision No 2024-01, the CCF addressed the validity of notices in family-related matters. The Commission maintained that even when a child's general location is known, a Yellow Notice can remain valid if there's any risk of further international travel. This stance underscores the CCF's commitment to child protection while balancing the complexities of international family disputes. If you would like to know more about Yellow Notices, read our blog here.
The importance of NCB Responsiveness
A notable trend across these decisions is the emphasis on National Central Bureau (NCB) responsiveness. In decision No 2024-02, the CCF ordered data deletion partly due to the NCB's failure to address specific concerns raised by the applicant. This highlights the critical role of NCB cooperation in maintaining the integrity of Interpol's data. We have previously addressed this issue here.
The burden of Proof in Political Motivation Claims
Decision No 2024-03 provides a detailed look at the CCF's approach to claims of political motivation and misuse of Interpol’s channels. This case involved an applicant requesting the deletion of data related to his passport being recorded as "Revoked" in the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database. Blogs on this issue can be found here and here.
Some key aspects of this decision include:
Specificity of Claims: The applicant argued that the recording of his passport was politically motivated and that Interpol’s channels were being misused by his home country. However, the CCF noted that the applicant "did not support his claims with any specific information or concrete element regarding the alleged political character of actions against him, nor an explanation as to how Interpol's channels would have been misused in his particular case."
Insufficiency of General Reports: The applicant provided a newspaper article and a report about his country's alleged abusive practices regarding the SLTD database. However, the CCF found these general context reports insufficient to prove political motivation in the applicant's specific case.
NCB's Role: The National Central Bureau (NCB) of the country in question provided a legal justification for the passport revocation, citing specific laws and a court decision. The CCF considered this information as sufficient support for the lawfulness of the SLTD database entry.
Burden of Proof: This decision clearly places the burden of proof on the applicant to provide specific, individualized evidence of political motivation or misuse of Interpol's channels. General reports or claims without concrete supporting evidence are unlikely to succeed.
Threshold for Lawful Registration: The decision suggests that if an NCB can demonstrate that a passport revocation was carried out in accordance with domestic laws and following a court decision, this may be sufficient to justify the SLTD database entry in Interpol's files.
This decision reaffirms the CCF's position that claims of political motivation or misuse of Interpol's channels must be substantiated with specific, individualized evidence. It also highlights the importance of NCBs providing clear legal justifications for their actions, as this can significantly influence the CCF's decision-making process.
Challenges in Contesting Stolen Vehicle Data
The decision regarding stolen vehicles (No 2024-05) reveals the difficulties in challenging entries in Interpol's Stolen Motor Vehicles (SMV) database. Even when a vehicle has been purchased in good faith, the CCF prioritizes ongoing investigations and evidence from the reporting NCB, reflecting Interpol's focus on facilitating international police cooperation.
Heightened Scrutiny in Family Dispute Cases
In decision No 2024-06, the CCF demonstrated a more nuanced approach to Red Notices stemming from family disputes. The Commission looked beyond the basic criteria for serious crimes, considering factors such as the nature of the dispute and evidence of personal gain. This suggests a trend towards more contextual evaluation in such cases.
Conclusion
These recent CCF decisions reveal an evolving approach to Interpol-related cases. The Commission appears to be striving for a balance between effective international law enforcement cooperation and the protection of individual rights.
For those facing Interpol notices or diffusions, these decisions emphasize the importance of presenting robust, well-documented cases. The high stakes and the often "one-shot" nature of CCF applications coupled with a more nuanced approach of the CCF also highlights the value of specialized legal expertise in navigating this intricate and ever-changing landscape.
As Interpol's role in global law enforcement continues to evolve, staying informed about the CCF's latest jurisprudence is crucial for both, legal practitioners and individuals. Subscribe to our blog today.
---
If you find yourself subject to a Red Notice that you believe is unjust, do not hesitate to contact us. At Red Notice Monitor, we have an outstanding track record in successfully challenging Interpol Red Notices and Diffusions. Get in touch today to understand the best course of action for your situation.
Comments