© 2025 Red Notice Abuse Report
Since 2017, INTERPOL has carried out several reforms that closed some of the loopholes in the Organization’s rules allowing governments to abuse its channels. For the most part, the reforms have significantly expanded the rights of victims of INTERPOL abuse. However, in at least one aspect, individual access to INTERPOL’s files, the reforms resulted in a rollback.
It is important to stress that there has never been an unconditional individual right of access to INTERPOL’s files despite the Organization loosely referring to it as such. Article 18 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) proclaims:
“Any person or entity shall be entitled to submit directly to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files a request for access to, or correction and/or deletion of data processed in the INTERPOL Information System concerning that person or entity. These rights of access to, or correction and deletion of data shall be guaranteed by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files and be governed by separate rules.”
The two sentences contradict each other. The first guarantees the right to submit a request for access only, whereas the second points to an unconditional right of access.
Under the Operating Rules of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, adopted in 2008, prior to providing an individual access to the information about her or him in INTERPOL’s databases, the Commission had to obtain consent from the government-source of that information. This rule, however, had an exception which permitted the Commission to provide access without the government’s consent if the individual possessed “sufficient evidence showing that he/she [knew] that there [was] information about him/her in INTERPOL’s files.” The exception played an important role. It is often impossible to prepare a comprehensive complaint against an abusive Red Notice, diffusion or other government request without possessing all information recorded in INTERPOL’s files. The exception, however, was repealed as part of the reforms. Together with repealing the exception, the INTERPOL General Assembly adopted requirements for governments to meet if they wished to restrict individual access. Under Article 35(4) of the Commission’s Statute, a government must justify any restriction on the disclosure of information. The absence of justification, however, does not per se lead to the disclosure, but it may be “taken into consideration” by the Commission in its consideration of the legality of the Red Notice or other government request at issue.
The Commission has tried to find a balance between achieving due process for individuals, the direction that the reforms were clearly pointing at, and respecting the government right to deny individuals access to information about them in INTERPOL’s files. The Commission has ruled that the provision prohibiting the disclosure without government consent, even in the absence of justification, is an “exception to the general principle of communication of information,” that it is “bearing consequences on the rights of the parties” and for that reason must be interpreted “strictly.” The Commission has explained that when a government requests restriction on access to information, the Commission “tries on the one hand to protect the interests of the parties, while preserving at the same time the essence of an adversarial procedure in order to provide an effective remedy.” In assessing whether the government’s interest in restricting access to information outweighs an individual’s interest in obtaining access to such information, the Commission “takes into account, inter alia, the general context of the case, the other avenues available to the [individual] to obtain access to the information at the national level, the potential violation of other rules or international obligations, the possible risks for INTERPOL.” The Commission has instructed that to comply with the Statute, a government seeking to deny an individual access to INTERPOL’s files must:
Some of the Commission’s decisions describe examples of governments’ unjustified refusals to disclose information to an individual. Among the most obvious violations of Article 35 is a government’s opposition to any disclosure, “an absolute restriction of communication of information,” “without any reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 35(3)” combined with the government’s refusal of “any counter-balancing measures (such as the provision of a redacted summary, of a minimum set of information, or simply a confirmation of the existence of data), which may have minimized the impact of the restrictions on the rights of the [individual].” Another example of such violation, also published by the Commission, is a government making “general comments on the potential consequences of a disclosure” instead of providing evidence “link[ing the restrictions] to the particular case at hand.” The Commission appears to take the issue of government abuse of the right to deny access seriously. In one of its decisions, the Commission has ruled to delete the Red diffusion unless the government, which previously placed an unjustified absolute restriction on communication of information to the individual, agrees to provide such access or justifies its refusal to do so. As one of the Commission’s more recent decisions suggests, the Commission has not stopped seeking a fair approach to the government right to deny individuals access to INTERPOL’s files and, moreover, depending on the circumstances of the case, appears to be ready to limit it even further.
The decision in question followed the Commission’s consideration of a request to delete data concerning a vehicle recorded in the INTERPOL Stolen Motor Vehicles (SMV) database. The NCB argued against providing the individual access to “any information including the existence or the absence of data concerning the vehicle in the INTERPOL Information System” citing the need to protect the “confidentiality of the investigation or prosecution.” The Commission concluded that the government provided a “reasonable justification for the restrictions [on the individual’s access to data] in this case” and applied “restrictions . . . to certain information” in its decision. However, the Commission ruled that the individual “may be provided a copy of [the Commission’s] decision, subject to restrictions” because he produced “information which demonstrates that he knows there are data concerning the [v]ehicle in the SMV database” and “[m]oreover, despite the restrictions, . . . was able to present information concerning his case.”
The Commission’s decision in this case is notable not only because it has agreed to provide the individual with a copy of its decision on the merits despite the government’s justified objections, but because as the reason for the disclosure the Commission cited the individual’s knowledge that the information was in fact recorded in INTERPOL’s files. That is, albeit in a limited form and without mentioning it in its ruling, the Commission has effectively applied the above-mentioned exception abrogated as part of 2017 reforms, that access could be provided despite a government’s objection if the individual possessed “sufficient evidence” that s/he knew that data was recorded in INTERPOL’s files.
.png){kind=logo}
