INTERPOL Member Countries That Have Not Ratified Key Human Rights Treaties

Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution proclaims, among other Organization’s aims, to “ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’”  In his foreword to the INTERPOL Repository of Practice – Application of Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution in the Context of the Processing of Data via INTERPOL’s Information System, Mr. Jurgen Stock, at the time INTERPOL’s Secretary General, writes: “[A]s an international organization uniquely placed to support its member countries in preventing and combating crime, it is of utmost importance that our activities follow well-established human rights principles and transcend domestic and international politics.”  According to the Repository, “any communication sent via INTERPOL’s channels [is governed by] international human rights law that reflects the spirit of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)].”  INTERPOL “must refrain from any activity” that contradicts this requirement and “may not publish a Red Notice if . . . it would entail a violation of the individual’s human rights.”  By INTERPOL’s own admission, it is “bound to act . . . in the spirit of the [UDHR].”  

INTERPOL reminds us that “[r]eference to the spirit of the UDHR is repeated in various provisions of [INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD)],” and that “[i]n other provisions [of the RPD], the obligation for both the Organization and member countries to abide thereby is implicit.”  For example, Article 2 of the RPD proclaims that their aim is “to ensure the efficiency and quality of international cooperation between criminal police authorities through INTERPOL channels, with due respect for the basic rights of the persons who are the subject of this cooperation, in conformity with Article 2 of the [INTERPOL] Constitution and the [UDHR] to which the said Article refers.”  Another example is Article 11(1) of the RPD which requires that “[d]ata processing in the INTERPOL Information System should be authorized with due regard for the law applicable to the National Central Bureau [(NCB)], national entity or international entity and should respect the basic rights of the persons who are the subject of the cooperation, in accordance with Article 2 of the [INTERPOL] Constitution and the [UDHR] to which the said Article refers.”  Yet another example is Article 34(1) of the RPD which mandates that “prior to any recording of data in a police database, the [NCB], national entity or international entity shall ensure that the data are in compliance with Article 2 of the [INTERPOL] Constitution, and also that it is authorized to record such data pursuant to applicable national laws and international conventions and to the fundamental human rights enshrined in the [UDHR] to which the said Article refers.”  It is also important to mention Article 86 of the RPD which places on the INTERPOL General Secretariat the duty to “conduct a legal review of all [R]ed [N]otices prior to their publication to ensure compliance with INTERPOL’s Constitution and Rules, in particular, with Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution.”

INTERPOL notes that although the “travaux préparatoires of the 1956 [INTERPOL] Constitution do not reveal a specific discussion on the scope of the spirit of the UDHR[,] . . . they indicate that the drafters of the Constitution aimed to enable the Organization to adapt to the evolving demands and circumstances of both the international order and INTERPOL’s operations” (Repository, at 8 § 16).  In this regard, INTERPOL points to the many international human rights instruments that have been adopted and ratified since the adoption of the UDHR.  Among such instruments, the Repository names the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which were adopted to “give binding effect to the UDHR by rendering its provisions more concrete” (Repository, at 8 § 17(a)).  The ICCPR, INTERPOL stresses, “has proven particularly relevant to the General Secretariat’s compliance review” (Repository, at 8 § 17(a)).  The Repository also names other international instruments that have been adopted to “further develop specific human rights emanating from the UDHR,” specifically, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Repository, at 8-9 § 17(a), (b)).  This list, INTERPOL notes, is “non-exhaustive” (Repository, at 9 § 18).  

It is important to mention that “[i]n considering the (non-exhaustive) list of sources of international human rights law indicated above, [INTERPOL] takes into account the extent to which they are applicable to the source of data” (Repository, at 9 § 18).  At the same time, in this regard, INTERPOL stresses that the “level of ratification of these instruments is significant as it reveals their degree of acceptance and/or acknowledgement of their mandatory nature that is necessary to elevate a certain norm to international custom or general principle of law, hence binding all subjects of law independent of the ratification of specific treaties” (Repository, at 8-9 § 17, n.27) (emphasis added).  

To this day, there are countries that have not ratified some of the treaties mentioned above.  Among such countries are well-known abusers of INTERPOL’s channels.  China, for example, has signed the ICCPR but never ratified it, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have never even signed it.  Neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE have signed or ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  Nevertheless, as mentioned above, INTERPOL names these instruments among the human rights treaties that have been “formally accepted by a clear majority of INTERPOL’s 196 member countries, which covers nearly all States in the world.”  It is, therefore, fair to conclude that the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and other human rights treaties mentioned above have become international customs or general principles of law that bind all INTERPOL member countries without regard to whether they have ratified them.  As a result, China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other INTERPOL member countries that choose not to ratify all or some of these treaties must, nevertheless, comply with their provisions in their utilization of INTERPOL’s resources.