Hubbry Logo
Interpol noticeInterpol noticeMain
Open search
Interpol notice
Community hub
Interpol notice
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Interpol notice
Interpol notice
Interpol notice
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Notices issued by Interpol.
Emblems of Interpol notices

An Interpol notice is an international alert circulated by Interpol to communicate information about crimes, criminals, and threats by police in a member state (or an authorised international entity) to their counterparts around the world. The information disseminated via notices concerns individuals wanted for serious crimes, missing persons, unidentified bodies, possible threats, prison escapes, and criminals' modus operandi.[1]

There are eight types of notices, seven of which are colour-coded by their function: red, blue, green, yellow, black, orange, and purple. The best-known notice is the red notice, which is the "closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today".[2][3] An eighth special notice is issued at the request of the United Nations Security Council.

Notices published by Interpol are made either on the organisation's own initiative or are based on requests from national central bureaus (NCBs) of member states or authorised international entities such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. All notices are published on Interpol's secure website. Extracts of notices may also be published on Interpol's public website if the requesting entity agrees.

Interpol may only publish a notice that adheres to all the proper legal conditions. For example, a notice will not be published if it violates Interpol's constitution, which forbids the organisation from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character. Interpol may refuse to publish a notice that it considers inadvisable or a potential risk.

Notices may be issued in any of the four official languages of Interpol: English, French, Spanish, and Arabic.[4]

Notice types

[edit]
Notice type Details
Red Notice To seek the location/arrest of a person wanted by a judicial jurisdiction or international tribunal with a view to extradition
Blue Notice To locate, identify or obtain information on a person of interest in a criminal investigation
Green Notice To warn about a person's criminal activities if that person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety
Yellow Notice To locate a missing person or to identify a person unable to identify themselves
Black Notice To seek information on unidentified bodies
Orange Notice To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing an imminent threat and danger to persons or property
Purple Notice To provide information on modi operandi, procedures, objects, devices, or hiding places used by criminals
Silver Notice To identify and trace criminal assets. Currently in its pilot phase.
Interpol–United Nations Security Council Special Notice To inform Interpol's members that an individual or an entity is subject to UN sanctions

In 2025, Interpol began piloting a Silver Notice for assets used in criminal activities.[5] Similar to the notice is another request for cooperation or alert mechanism known as a "diffusion". This is less formal than a notice, but also is used to request the arrest or location of an individual or additional information in relation to a police investigation. A diffusion is circulated directly by a member state or international entity to the countries of their choice, or to the entire Interpol membership and is simultaneously recorded in Interpol's databases.[1][4]

History

[edit]

The International notice system was created in 1946 as Interpol re-established itself after World War II in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Cloud. It initially consisted of six colour-coded notices; Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, Black, and Purple. In 2004, the seventh colour was added, Orange.[3]

In 2005, the Interpol-United Nations Security Council special notice was created at the request of the UN Security Council through Resolution 1617 to provide better tools to help the Security Council carry out its mandate regarding the freezing of assets, travel bans, and arms embargoes aimed at individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and was adopted by Interpol at its 74th General Assembly in Berlin in September 2005.[6]

Interpol notices issued since 2011
Published In circulation (EOY)
Year Red Blue Green Yellow Black Orange Purple Interpol‑UN Diffusions Total Notes Diffusions Arrests
2011[7] 7,678 705 1,132 1,059 104 31 8 30 15,708 ±26,500 40,836 48,310 7,958
2012[8] 8,136 1,085 1,477 1,691 141 31 16 78 20,130 ±32,750 46,994 66,614  
2013[9] 8,857 1,691 1,004 1,889 117 43 102 79 21,183 ±34,820 52,880 70,159 1,749
2014[10] 10,718 2,355 1,216 2,814 153 29 75 72 21,922 ±39,250 60,187 74,625 2,336
2015[11] 11,492 3,913 1,248 2,505 153 36 139 51 22,753 ±42,266 67,491 78,313  
2016[12] 12,878 2,675
2017[13] 12,042 2,508 4,422 130 777 3 165 19
2018[13] 13,516 2,397 4,139 134 827 52 97 28
2019[13] 13,410 3,193 3,375 256 761 33 92 15
2020[13] 11,094 2,554 3,966 391 509 39 130 9
2021[13] 10,776 2,622 3,604 118 1,072 45 107 13
2022[13] 11,282 2,916 4,073 167 607 43 101 6
2023[13] 12,260 2,687 3,546 282 473 17 72 10
2024[13] 15,548 3,345 4,078 211 561 43 68 23

Controversy

[edit]

Red Notice controversies

[edit]
Further information: Interpol § Abusive requests for Interpol arrests

In his book Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice, Bill Browder, the CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, describes how the Russian government repeatedly requested that Interpol issue a Red Notice for his arrest. Interpol refused to do so on the basis that it deemed the request was "predominantly political in nature and therefore contrary to INTERPOL's rules and regulations". Unable to secure his extradition, Browder was subsequently tried and convicted by a Moscow court for tax evasion in absentia.[14][15][16][17]

In January 2017, United Kingdom-based NGO Fair Trials called on Interpol to introduce more rigorous checks. Fair Trial chief executive Jago Russell stated, "Interpol has been allowing itself to be used by oppressive regimes across the world to export the persecution of human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents". There have been concerns about conflict of interest as well as in March 2017, the UAE donated $54 million to Interpol, which roughly equalled the contributions by all other member states.[18] Interpol's secretary-general, Jurgen Stock, stated that Interpol had introduced a task force to review requests "even more intensively".[19]

In June 2020, Iran issued an arrest warrant for U.S. President Donald Trump and 35 other U.S. political and military officials for their role in the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice.[20]

It was shown in 2013 that Interpol Red Notices were sometimes inaccurate and could be politically motivated. NGOs such as Fair Trials International have pointed to its limited internal controls to tackle political abuses. Many of its members have poor human rights records and corrupt, undemocratic governments and have been accused of abusing the Red Notice networks for political purposes.[21]

Some Red Notices are controversial and have been used to persecute opponents of regimes,[22] for example the former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whose Red Notice was removed because it was shown to be a political request.[23][24]

Interpol issued a new refugee policy in 2015, stipulating that a Red Notice should not be issued against a refugee when it has been requested by the country from which the refugee initially fled.[25]

In November 2018, Bahrain issued a Red Notice for footballer and dissident Hakeem al-Araibi, who had fled Bahrain in 2014 and been granted refugee status in Australia some years later. He was arrested on arrival in Thailand with his wife for a honeymoon in November 2018 by Thai police on the basis of the Red Notice, despite the Red Notice being withdrawn a few days later on the basis of illegality. On 11 February, he was released after Thai prosecutors dropped the case, arriving in Australia the following day.[26] He was granted Australian citizenship one month later, on 12 March 2019.

There has been growing concern about refugees being targeted by Red Notices illegally. Recent examples before al-Araibi's case include the detention of Russian activist Petr Silaev in Spain and Algerian human rights lawyer Rachid Mesli in Italy. In al-Araibi's case, despite the Red Notice being withdrawn only a few days after being issued, Bahrain nonetheless issued an extradition order, and Thailand complied, leading to a trial in which al-Araibi had to defend his opposition to the extradition.[25]

Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files

[edit]

The Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) is an independent monitoring body. It operates in line with a number of official rules and documents and has three main functions:

  • Monitoring the application of data protection rules to personal data processed by Interpol
  • Advising with regard to any operations or projects concerning the processing of personal information
  • Processing requests for access to Interpol's files

In 2008, the Interpol General Assembly voted to amend Interpol's constitution to integrate the CCF into its internal legal structure, thereby guaranteeing its independence.[27]

The CCF's most notable function, however, is to consider legal petitions submitted by individuals requesting the revocation of red notices. Such petitions, as a rule, only succeed when a red notice is deemed to infringe on Interpol's Constitution either because it offends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or because it was issued for political, religious, military, or racial reasons.[28]

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Interpol notice

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An notice is an international request for cooperation or alert issued by the International Criminal Police Organization (), enabling agencies across its 196 member countries to share critical crime-related information about individuals, objects, or threats. These notices, often color-coded to denote their specific purpose, originated in the early as part of INTERPOL's framework for transnational policing but have evolved into a key tool for addressing modern cross-border crimes such as , , and financial fraud. Unlike domestic warrants, INTERPOL notices themselves lack legal force and serve merely as requests for provisional action pending national legal processes, with compliance varying by member state sovereignty and treaties. INTERPOL recognizes eight primary types of notices, each tailored to distinct investigative needs: the Red Notice seeks the location and provisional arrest of wanted persons for extradition or surrender; the Blue Notice requests information on unidentified persons or those linked to crimes; the Green Notice provides warnings about individuals posing risks of committing international crimes; the Yellow Notice aids in locating missing persons, often minors; the Orange Notice alerts on potential threats like kidnappings, bombs, or cyberattacks; the Purple Notice disseminates information on modus operandi, objects, or methods used in crimes; the Black Notice identifies unknown deceased individuals; and INTERPOL–United Nations Special Notices target subjects of UN Security Council sanctions related to terrorism or al-Qaida. Notices are initiated by a member country's National Central Bureau (NCB) and reviewed by INTERPOL's Secretariat for compliance with its constitution and rules before global dissemination via secure channels like I-24/7. In practice, Red Notices are the most prominent, with over 60,000 active as of recent reports, though their effectiveness depends on international cooperation and has faced scrutiny for occasional political misuse by requesting states, underscoring the organization's ongoing efforts to ensure notices align with human rights standards rather than serving as tools for oppression.

Overview and Purpose

Definition and Core Functions

notices are international requests for cooperation or alerts issued by the (), enabling police forces in member countries to share critical crime-related information. These notices facilitate cross-border collaboration by disseminating details on individuals, objects, or threats that require global attention. They are not international arrest warrants but serve as tools to prompt action under national laws, relying on the of each member state for implementation. The core functions of Interpol notices encompass locating and provisionally arresting wanted persons pending or legal action, identifying missing persons or unidentified victims, collecting supplementary intelligence on criminals or criminal methods, issuing warnings about imminent threats to public safety or security, and tracing stolen property, vehicles, or financial assets linked to crime. By standardizing information exchange, notices enhance operational efficiency among national police authorities, supporting investigations into transnational offenses such as , , and . Compliance with Interpol's rules, including Article 3's exclusion of political, military, religious, or racial matters, ensures notices remain focused on objectives. Notices are typically restricted to law enforcement channels for operational security, though public versions or extracts may be released upon request to aid in identification or awareness. Issued by Interpol's General Secretariat at the behest of a member country's National Central Bureau or international entities like the or , they undergo review by the Notices and Diffusions to verify adherence to data protection standards and organizational mandates. This process underscores their role in promoting secure, targeted international police cooperation across 195 member countries. The legal foundations of Interpol notices derive from the organization's , which establishes the mandate for mutual assistance among criminal police authorities of member countries while prohibiting any activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character. Article 2 of the specifically promotes the widest possible cooperation between bodies within the limits of existing national laws, providing the basis for notices as non-binding international alerts to share critical crime-related information. Issuance of notices is further governed by Interpol's Rules on the of (RPD) and internal procedures, requiring review by dedicated task forces to ensure compliance with these foundational documents and exclusion of inadmissible requests, such as those violating Article 3. Notices themselves lack the force of international arrest warrants, functioning instead as requests for provisional measures like detention pending decisions, which remain subject to each member country's sovereign legal processes. Interpol's international scope encompasses 196 member countries as of 2025, spanning all continents and enabling the dissemination of notices through a network of National Central Bureaus (NCBs) that connect national to the organization's General Secretariat in , . This global reach facilitates rapid information exchange on serious ordinary-law crimes, with notices published in multiple languages and distributed via secure channels to support cross-border investigations, though enforcement depends on bilateral treaties and national cooperation rather than uniform obligation. The framework's breadth is reinforced by provisions allowing requests from international criminal tribunals, such as the , extending notices to war crimes or cases when aligned with Interpol's neutrality principles. Membership criteria, outlined in Article 4 of the Constitution, emphasize adherence to democratic principles and , though practical challenges arise from varying national interpretations of these standards.

Types of Notices

Red Notices

A Red Notice serves as an international alert issued by at the request of a member to locate and provisionally individuals wanted for serious crimes, pending or similar legal action. It targets persons for whom an or has been issued in the requesting for offenses punishable by at least two years of or a comparable penalty under dual criminality principles. Unlike an international arrest warrant, a Red Notice carries no independent legal force to compel ; enforcement relies on the domestic laws and decisions of the member where the individual is found. The issuance process begins with a National Central Bureau (NCB) of a submitting a request to Interpol's General Secretariat, which verifies compliance with Interpol's and rules, including prohibitions on political, , religious, or racial motivations. The Secretariat may consult the Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) for complex cases, and notices are disseminated securely to NCBs worldwide via Interpol's I-24/7 system. Publicly viewable Red Notices, which exclude sensitive data, number around 7,000 as of recent records, while the total active notices exceed 60,000. In 2024, published a record 15,548 Red Notices, reflecting a 27% increase from the prior year and highlighting growing reliance on the system amid trends. Earlier figures show 13,377 notices issued in 2019, contributing to approximately 62,000 in circulation by 2021. These alerts have facilitated thousands of arrests annually; for instance, member countries reported apprehending over 1,000 fugitives via Red Notices in various years, though exact enforcement varies by jurisdiction. Criticisms of Red Notices center on their potential misuse by authoritarian regimes to target political dissidents or rivals through fabricated charges, bypassing Interpol's safeguards against non-criminal pursuits. Instances include requests from countries like and for opponents, leading to wrongful detentions at borders without in receiving states. Interpol has responded with reforms since the 2010s, including mandatory reviews, deletion of non-compliant notices (over 1,000 removed annually by the CCF), and stricter issuance criteria to curb abuses, though enforcement gaps persist due to the organization's dependence on member state inputs. Independent analyses attribute such issues to systemic incentives in undemocratic polities, where national courts lack , underscoring the need for recipient countries to independently verify requests before action.

Yellow, Blue, and Green Notices

The Yellow Notice serves as an international alert to assist in locating missing persons, particularly minors, or to identify individuals unable to identify themselves, such as amnesiacs or those with severe mental conditions. It is typically issued at the request of a member country following incidents like parental abductions, kidnappings, or unexplained disappearances, enabling global dissemination of descriptions, photographs, and other identifying details to agencies. Unlike Red Notices, Yellow Notices do not seek arrest but foster cooperation for location and recovery efforts; public versions are available on 's website to encourage tips from the general public. The Blue Notice functions as a request for additional information regarding a person's identity, location, or activities in connection with a criminal investigation. It targets persons of interest who may not be wanted for arrest but whose details could aid ongoing probes, such as verifying involvement in fraud, cybercrime, or other offenses. Issued through Interpol's secure channels to member countries, Blue Notices support discreet inquiries without public disclosure, ensuring compliance with data processing rules that mandate relevance to serious crimes. The Green Notice warns member countries about individuals whose criminal activities render them a potential to , particularly if they are likely to continue offending across borders. It profiles convicted criminals or suspects at risk of reoffending, such as those involved in violent crimes, exploitation, or , to enable preventive measures like enhanced upon entry. Green Notices emphasize proactive sharing rather than pursuit, and their issuance requires demonstration of the subject's ongoing risk, subject to review for compliance with 's standards.

Specialized Notices (Black, Silver, and Others)

The Black Notice serves to gather information on unidentified bodies discovered in member countries. It includes details such as the location of discovery, biometric data like DNA profiles, fingerprints, facial images, and dental records to facilitate identification. These notices support investigations into suspicious deaths or cold cases, often disseminated to forensic experts worldwide via Interpol's secure channels. In practice, Black Notices have enabled public appeals, such as the Identify Me campaign launched to identify deceased women across Europe, leading to resolutions in cases like a Spanish cold case from 2005 identified in 2025 as Russian citizen Liudmila Zavada. The Silver Notice, introduced following a 2015 General Assembly resolution, targets the tracing and recovery of criminal assets to disrupt networks. Piloted in 2024 and first published on January 10, 2025, it alerts member countries to illicit proceeds such as , vehicles, or financial holdings linked to investigations. Unlike Red Notices focused on individuals, Silver Notices emphasize , requiring compliance with strict criteria including ties to ongoing criminal probes and potential for international cooperation. This tool enhances efforts against and transnational finance crimes, as demonstrated in operations targeting assets in and regions. Other specialized notices include the Orange Notice, which warns of events, persons, objects, or processes posing imminent threats to public safety, such as potential terrorist acts or hazardous devices. The Purple Notice seeks or shares intelligence on criminal , specialized techniques, or objects used in offenses, aiding across borders. These notices, like Black and Silver, undergo review for adherence to Interpol's rules before dissemination, prioritizing operational utility over public visibility.

Operational Procedures

Issuance and Review Process

Requests for notices originate from the National Central Bureau (NCB) of a member country or, in specific cases, from international entities such as the or bodies for crimes under their jurisdiction. The requesting NCB submits detailed case information, including supporting judicial documents like arrest warrants for Red Notices, to the General Secretariat. Prior to issuance, all notice requests undergo by the Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF), a specialized unit established in 2016 comprising lawyers, police officers, and analysts. This initial screening employs technological tools, geopolitical assessments, and external sources to evaluate adherence to Interpol's —particularly Article 3 prohibiting political, military, religious, or racial motivations—along with the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD, Articles 82-99) and relevant resolutions. If compliance issues arise, the NDTF requests additional details from the originating NCB; compliant requests are authorized for publication, while non-compliant ones are denied with explanations provided to the requester. The General Secretariat then publishes approved notices in Interpol's secure database, accessible to all member countries' NCBs. Post-issuance oversight includes systematic reviews of active notices and diffusions, targeting both recent and pre-2016 entries for ongoing compliance; non-compliant items are canceled, and member countries are notified to expunge related data. For individual challenges, the independent Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) handles requests for access, rectification, or deletion of personal data in notices, assessing whether the underlying cooperation request aligns with Interpol's rules through consultations with the Secretariat and NCBs. The CCF's supervisory role ensures data processing conforms to organizational standards, though it does not opine on the merits of national judicial decisions. In cases of repeated non-compliance by an NCB, interim measures such as heightened scrutiny or suspensions may be imposed, subject to Executive Committee approval.

Dissemination and Enforcement Mechanisms

Once approved by Interpol's Notices and Diffusions Task Force, notices are disseminated to all 196 member countries through the organization's secure global police communications system, known as I-24/7, which connects National Central Bureaus (NCBs) in each member state. The General Secretariat publishes the notices in a dedicated database accessible via I-24/7, enabling NCBs to retrieve and share the information with national law enforcement agencies for operational use. This centralized system ensures rapid, standardized distribution of alerts containing details such as suspect descriptions, photographs, and offense information, while allowing for restricted dissemination if requested by the originating country to limit visibility to specific members. Enforcement of notices relies entirely on the sovereignty of member countries, as Interpol possesses no independent powers or executive authority to compel action. For instance, a Red Notice serves as a request for provisional pending , but each receiving country determines its legal effect under domestic law, bilateral treaties, and decisions on whether to extradite. NCBs forward notices to relevant national police forces, who may act upon sightings—such as detaining a Red Notice subject at borders or during routine checks—but outcomes vary; some nations treat Red Notices as equivalent to domestic warrants, while others require additional . Non-Red notices, like Yellow or Blue, prompt cooperative inquiries rather than arrests, with enforcement limited to information-sharing or preventive measures at the discretion of local authorities. To promote compliance, Interpol's reviews notices for adherence to organizational rules, excluding those involving prohibited offenses such as military conscription or political matters under Article 3 of the Constitution. Member countries are expected to update or delete notices in their systems upon cancellation by the originator, though inconsistent implementation can lead to prolonged alerts without corresponding action. In practice, enforcement success depends on factors like agreements—over 100 countries have ratified conventions facilitating Red Notice-based arrests—and operational coordination via NCBs, with facilitating over 13,000 arrests annually linked to Red Notices as of recent reports.

Historical Development

Origins in the 1920s-1930s

The International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC), the predecessor to , was established on September 7, 1923, following a five-day International Police Congress in , Austria, organized by Dr. , then President of the Vienna police and Austrian Minister of the Interior. This initiative built on discussions from the First International Criminal Police Congress held in in April 1914, where delegates from 24 countries addressed challenges in cross-border criminal identification and fugitive apprehension, efforts interrupted by . The 1923 congress, attended by representatives from 14 European countries, formalized the ICPC with headquarters in to promote mutual assistance among national police forces in combating international crime, particularly through information exchange on suspects and . Founding statutes emphasized non-political cooperation focused on ordinary , excluding matters of military, religious, or political character. The ICPC's early mechanisms for disseminating alerts on wanted individuals—precursors to modern Interpol notices—relied on printed circulars distributed to member states' police authorities and publications in its official periodical, the International Public Safety Journal. The first such wanted person notices appeared in the journal in 1923, providing descriptions, photographs when available, and details of offenses to facilitate arrests abroad. These notices targeted common transnational crimes like , , and , with the ICPC acting as a central repository for rather than an enforcement body. By the late 1920s, membership expanded to include non-European nations, such as the in 1928, enabling broader circulation of these alerts. In the 1930s, the ICPC formalized specialized departments for handling inquiries on criminal records, currency counterfeiting, and passport forgery, which enhanced the precision and volume of circulated notices. By 1934, approximately 30 countries participated, reflecting growing utility in coordinating responses to rising cross-border mobility and crime post-World War I. However, the of Austria by in March 1938 shifted ICPC leadership to under , introducing ideological influences that began prioritizing notices aligned with regime interests, though early 1930s outputs remained largely oriented toward apolitical offenses. This period laid the operational foundation for standardized international alerts, emphasizing empirical over extradition enforcement.

Post-1945 Reconstitution and Expansion

Following the end of , the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC) was reconstituted in 1946 under Belgian leadership at a conference in , establishing a democratic process for electing its president and executive committee. This revival addressed the organization's dormancy during the war, when its pre-war headquarters in had been repurposed by Nazi authorities, and focused on resuming cooperation among surviving member states initially numbering around 19. The reconstituted ICPC maintained its Paris-based secretariat and emphasized apolitical criminal intelligence sharing, excluding political, military, religious, or racial matters as per its foundational principles. In 1956, at its 25th in , the ICPC adopted a revised that renamed it the International Criminal Police Organization - INTERPOL (ICPO-INTERPOL), deriving "Interpol" from its longstanding telegraphic address. This change granted the organization greater autonomy through member dues rather than reliance on host government funding, enabling expanded administrative independence and operational scope. The new framework reinforced restrictions on intervening in political crimes, aiming to prevent wartime-era abuses while facilitating growth in international police coordination. Membership expanded rapidly from 19 countries in to 55 by , driven by post-war reconstruction and increasing recognition of challenges. This growth continued steadily into the , reaching 50 members by and further bolstered by , which added newly independent states from and . Operational enhancements included formalized systems for fugitives and missing persons, with Interpol's and telex communications scaling to support diffusion across an enlarging membership. By the late , the organization's budget and staff had proportionally increased to handle rising caseloads in areas like counterfeiting and , reflecting broader of criminal methods.

Reforms from the 2010s Onward

In response to growing concerns over the misuse of notices, particularly Red Notices, for political persecution, Interpol implemented several internal safeguards starting in the mid-2010s. These reforms aimed to strengthen compliance with Article 3 of 's Constitution, which prohibits interventions in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial character. A key initiative was the establishment in 2015 of a policy allowing for the removal of Red Notices against individuals recognized as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, provided the notice violated neutrality rules, as demonstrated in cases like that of Uzbek activist Nadejda Atayeva. By 2016, Interpol introduced a pre-circulation review process, whereby a dedicated within the General Secretariat—comprising 30-40 staff members—screens incoming requests for adherence to organizational rules before dissemination, reducing the risk of abusive publications. That same year, the Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) was restructured into two specialized chambers: the Supervisory Chamber, focused on monitoring data processing and conducting audits, and the Requests Chamber, handling individual challenges to s and data entries, thereby enhancing operational independence and efficiency. Further transparency measures followed in 2017, when began publishing redacted versions of CCF decisions on its website, offering insights into the application of neutrality criteria without compromising sensitive information, which has aided legal challenges and public scrutiny. In 2019, revisions to the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) expanded CCF authority over and deletion requests, mandating stricter evidentiary standards for maintaining notices and enabling proactive deletions for non-compliant entries. These updates built on earlier data protection efforts, including the 2015 creation of a dedicated data protection office to foster internal compliance culture. Ongoing evaluations, such as biannual assessments mandated by the U.S. TRAP Act of 2019, have documented persistent challenges but noted a decline in certain misuse patterns due to these mechanisms, though critics argue enforcement remains inconsistent against persistent abusers like and . Interpol's 2023 compliance guidelines formalized automatic reviews of older notices for rule violations, with provisions for member states to delete non-compliant diffusions. Despite these advancements, external analyses highlight that reforms have not fully eliminated abuse, as evasive tactics—such as shifting to diffusions or other databases—continue to test the system's limits.

Governance and Oversight

Structure of Interpol's Secretariat and Assemblies

The General Secretariat constitutes Interpol's permanent administrative organ, tasked with executing the organization's day-to-day operations, including the coordination of international police activities, , and support to member countries' law enforcement efforts. Headquartered in , , it comprises the Secretary General and a multinational staff of approximately 1,000 personnel drawn from over 100 nationalities, encompassing both seconded police officers and experts. The Secretariat operates through specialized directorates covering areas such as operational support, innovation, and administration, while maintaining global reach via regional bureaux, liaison offices, and facilities like the Global Complex for Innovation in . The Secretary General serves as the , appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Executive Committee for a five-year term, and is responsible for implementing decisions of the governing bodies, managing resources, and representing externally. As of November 2024, Valdecy Urquiza, a Brazilian police commissioner with prior experience in international cooperation, holds this position, succeeding . The Secretariat's structure emphasizes neutrality and technical expertise, with staff bound by obligations of secrecy and impartiality under 's . Interpol's assemblies form its primary decision-making structures, with the General Assembly functioning as the supreme governing body. Composed of one delegate per member country—currently 196 nations—the Assembly convenes annually to establish , approve the , elect key officials including the Executive Committee and President, and address strategic priorities such as amendments to the constitution. Each member holds one vote regardless of size or contribution, ensuring broad representation, though decisions require a two-thirds for substantive matters. The Executive Committee, subordinate to the General Assembly, comprises 13 members: the President, three vice-presidents (one from each of , the , and //), and nine delegates elected for four-year terms to reflect geographic diversity. It oversees the General Secretariat's adherence to Assembly directives, prepares the annual agenda, and handles interim governance between sessions, meeting multiple times yearly. The President, elected by the Assembly for a four-year term, chairs both the General Assembly and Executive Committee, directing discussions and ensuring procedural compliance. This assembly framework, outlined in Interpol's 1956 constitution, balances collective oversight with operational efficiency, though its effectiveness depends on member states' voluntary participation.

Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF)

The Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) is an independent supervisory organ within Interpol responsible for verifying compliance of personal data processing with the organization's rules, including those governing notices like Red Notices. Its mandate encompasses three primary functions defined in Articles 36–38 of Interpol's : supervisory oversight of data handling practices; advisory input on data protection policies and rules; and adjudication of individual requests for access, rectification, or deletion of data in Interpol's systems. This structure aims to balance operational efficiency with safeguards against misuse, such as politically motivated data entries, though empirical reviews reveal persistent challenges in timely enforcement. Tracing its roots to a supervisory mechanism amid concerns over data accuracy and French legal pressures, the CCF evolved into its modern form through iterative reforms, with a pivotal Statute overhaul restructuring its operations for greater autonomy. The updates replaced prior ties to Interpol's Executive Committee, prohibited members from attending official meetings as national delegates, and formalized decision-making protocols to mitigate conflicts of interest. These changes responded to documented instances of inadequate oversight, enhancing the body's capacity to independently assess compliance without deference to originating member states. The CCF comprises seven members elected by Interpol's for renewable terms—five years initially, with one optional three-year extension—chosen for demonstrated expertise in fields like , data protection, and . Members operate in a personal capacity, insulated from national influences, and are supported by a dedicated Secretariat; the body divides into a Chamber for handling individual cases and an Advisory Chamber for broader consultations. Current leadership, as of 2022 elections, includes figures such as Chairperson Teresa McHenry, a U.S. lawyer specializing in . Individuals or entities affected by Interpol data—such as targets of Red Notices—may submit requests directly to the CCF for verification of compliance, with applications processed confidentially and decisions rendered within statutory timelines (four months for access requests, nine for rectification or deletion). The CCF examines factors including the seriousness of alleged offenses, evidentiary accuracy, and absence of political motivations, potentially recommending data deletion if rules are breached; non-compliance findings trigger remedial actions like notice suspension or removal. In practice, over 50% of cases involve national central bureau restrictions on data disclosure, complicating reviews. Empirical data from annual reports underscore the CCF's workload: in 2023, it closed 500 admissible complaints, deeming 68% (342 cases) non-compliant and prompting data corrections or deletions, while 32% aligned with rules. Similar patterns held in 2022, with 470 reviewed complaints yielding 58% non-compliance rates amid rising submissions tied to expanded notice volumes. Despite reforms bolstering independence, backlogs persist due to resource constraints and complex interstate dynamics, with average processing exceeding targets in high-volume years. These metrics highlight the CCF's role in curbing abuses, though causal analyses indicate that cooperation remains a limiting factor in enforcement efficacy.

Role of Member States and National Central Bureaus

Member states form the foundation of Interpol's operational framework, with each of the 196 countries hosting a National Central Bureau (NCB) that serves as the designated liaison for all interactions with the organization. These states initiate requests for notices, such as Red Notices for fugitives, by submitting applications through their NCBs, including supporting evidence like arrest warrants or judicial decisions from national authorities. Interpol's General Secretariat reviews these requests for procedural compliance with its and rules but does not verify the substantive merits or conduct independent investigations, deferring to the requesting state's judicial processes. NCBs, typically embedded within national police or interior ministries, handle the practical transmission of notice requests to and the distribution of incoming alerts to domestic agencies. They contribute data to Interpol's global databases—such as on wanted persons, stolen vehicles, or criminal networks—strictly in line with each country's legal constraints on . For enforcement, NCBs coordinate provisional arrests or intelligence gathering prompted by notices, but ultimate action remains under national sovereignty: member states alone determine a notice's legal weight, ranging from equivalent to a domestic warrant (as in some European nations) to non-binding advisory status elsewhere. This structure underscores member states' primary responsibility for both originating and actioning notices, enabling tailored enforcement while fostering international coordination. NCBs facilitate real-time exchanges via Interpol's secure I-24/7 network, supporting over 100,000 annual police-to-police communications as of recent operations data. However, variations in national capacities and political priorities can affect responsiveness, with NCBs in resource-limited states relying on Interpol training programs to build expertise in notice handling. States must also ensure requests align with Interpol's apolitical mandate, though oversight of compliance ultimately rests with the submitting NCB and national authorities.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Political Abuse by Non-Democratic Regimes

Non-democratic regimes have frequently been accused of exploiting Interpol's Red Notice system to target political dissidents, exiled opponents, and critics abroad, circumventing Article 3 of Interpol's Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the organization's involvement in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial character. This misuse transforms a tool intended for criminal fugitives into an instrument of transnational repression, enabling arrests, travel restrictions, and reputational harm without aligned with international standards. Reports indicate that such abuses are concentrated among a subset of member states with poor records, where requests often disguise political motivations under charges like , , or . China has emerged as one of the most prolific abusers, issuing Red Notices against Uyghur activists, democracy advocates, and mainland critics who flee abroad, often on spurious economic or security pretexts. For instance, since at least 2015, has targeted individuals involved in non-violent dissent, including those exposing corruption or advocating for , with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission documenting over a dozen cases by 2023 where notices facilitated harassment of communities. These actions extend to business figures perceived as disloyal, such as associates of high-profile entrepreneurs, blending political vendettas with asset recovery efforts. Russia similarly weaponizes the system against opposition figures, with notices issued post-2012 against critics like financier , whose Magnitsky Act advocacy prompted retaliatory charges, and more recent targets including anti-war activists following the 2022 Ukraine invasion. By 2025, Russian requests continued to spike, prompting Interpol to impose enhanced scrutiny, yet challenges persist due to the volume of submissions—Russia accounted for a disproportionate share of politically tinged notices deleted after review. Turkey under President Erdogan has abused notices extensively against perceived enemies, particularly Gülen movement affiliates labeled as terrorists after the 2016 coup attempt, with over 100 such requests by 2021 leading to detentions in and beyond. A 2025 UK parliamentary report identified , alongside and , as among the top violators, noting systemic patterns where notices target journalists and clerics without evidence of ordinary crimes. has followed suit, using notices in transnational repression campaigns against protesters and dual nationals, as evidenced in analyses of cases from 2022 onward involving digital threats and proxy coercion. These patterns highlight enforcement gaps, as initial notices are not pre-vetted for Article 3 compliance, relying on post-issuance challenges via the Commission for the Control of Files, which deleted hundreds of abusive entries between 2015 and 2023 but struggles with resource constraints and state pressure. While has responded with monitoring for high-risk issuers like and temporary blocks on in 2017, critics argue that democratic member states' reluctance to confront allies enables persistence.

Empirical Evidence of Misuse in Specific Cases

In 2013, requested to issue a Red Notice against financier for alleged related to his advocacy for the , which sanctions Russian human rights abusers; 's Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) reviewed the request and deleted all related information from its databases, stating that the organization could not be used for such purposes under its constitution prohibiting politically motivated pursuits. made at least eight subsequent attempts to place Browder on 's wanted list, all rejected or deleted by the organization for violating rules against abuse. In 2018, a Russian diffusion (a less formal alert) led to Browder's brief detention in , but Spanish authorities released him after confirming no valid Red Notice existed, and subsequently deleted the diffusion as abusive. In 2015, cancelled Red Notices against Pakistani businessman Rafat Ali Rizvi and Yemeni national Hesham al-Warraq, issued at the request of the over allegations tied to a scandal; the CCF determined the notices failed to meet Interpol's criteria, including prohibitions on political motivations, and deleted them from the database. Legal representatives argued the cases stemmed from politically motivated prosecutions amid disputes over government-linked financial dealings, highlighting how economic conflicts in authoritarian contexts can mask as criminal matters to justify international alerts. Following Turkey's 2016 coup attempt, the government requested 3,579 Red Notices targeting alleged affiliates of the Gülen movement, which it designates as a ; between 2016 and 2021, rejected or cancelled 839 of these submissions after CCF reviews identified non-compliance with rules against political persecution. A specific instance involved Selahaddin Gülen, brother of movement leader , whose 2020 Red Notice was challenged and removed on grounds of political motivation rather than ordinary criminality. Department reports have documented Turkey's pattern of leveraging tools to target dissidents abroad, often blending claims with broader suppression efforts.

Responses, Reforms, and Ongoing Challenges

In response to documented instances of political misuse, established the Notices and Diffusions (NDTF) to scrutinize incoming requests more rigorously, refusing or canceling notices that violate its constitution's prohibition on politically motivated pursuits. In 2023, the NDTF rejected 1,603 red notices and diffusions for noncompliance, including 304 specifically for violations; this rose to 2,462 refusals and cancellations in 2024, a 54% increase, reflecting heightened internal filtering amid record-high notice volumes. These measures built on earlier reforms from the , such as mandatory pre-publication reviews and expanded oversight by the Commission for the Control of 's Files (CCF), which processed over 1,000 challenges annually by the early , deleting or restricting hundreds of notices deemed abusive. Interpol has also strengthened data-sharing protocols, introducing biometric hubs and digital verification tools in 2023 to reduce reliance on unverified inputs from member states, while training programs for national central bureaus emphasize compliance with Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, which bars intervention in political, military, religious, or racial matters. External advocacy, including from organizations like Fair Trials, prompted procedural enhancements such as public guidelines for notice issuance and faster CCF adjudication timelines, reducing average processing from months to weeks in select cases by 2024. U.S. legislative efforts, via the Transnational Repression Accountability and Prevention (TRAP) Act of 2021, further pressured reforms by mandating sanctions on entities facilitating abuse, leading to collaborative deletions in joint operations with Western allies. Despite these advancements, ongoing challenges persist, as authoritarian regimes adapt by shifting to less-scrutinized mechanisms like diffusions or blue notices, which bypass central review and numbered over 10,000 annually by 2024. Refusal rates, while improved, lag behind issuance surges—red notices hit record highs in 2024—indicating resource strains and uneven enforcement across 196 member states, where non-democratic contributors dominate submissions. Critics, including legal experts, highlight the CCF's limited enforcement power, as deleted notices can reappear via national channels, and systemic biases in member state reporting undermine causal deterrence against repeat abusers like Russia and China, which accounted for disproportionate challenge volumes in 2023-2024. Sustained external monitoring and technological upgrades remain essential to address these gaps, though Interpol's dual mandate—facilitating cooperation while upholding neutrality—creates inherent tensions unresolved as of 2025.

Effectiveness and Impact

Quantitative Statistics on Issuance and Outcomes

In recent years, the issuance of Red Notices has shown significant growth, with 15,548 published in 2024, representing a 27% increase from 2023 and the highest annual figure on record. This escalation underscores the increasing use of Red Notices by member states to request the provisional of wanted individuals for or prosecution. Issuance of other notice types also rose modestly: Notices, used for collecting additional information on persons of interest, increased from 3,546 in 2023 to 4,078 in 2024; Yellow Notices, for missing persons, grew from 2,687 to 3,345 over the same period; while Green Notices, alerting on criminal methods, remained relatively stable. As of the end of 2022, Interpol maintained 15,462 valid wanted notices, predominantly Red Notices, in circulation alongside 71,531 notices. However, not all requests result in publication; in 2024, Interpol refused or cancelled 2,462 Red Notices due to non-compliance with its rules, including violations of Article 3 prohibiting political, military, religious, or racial motivations. Over the five years prior to 2022, an average of 1,000 Red Notices and equivalent diffusions were rejected or deleted annually, with specific cases in 2021 citing 150 deletions for concerns and 353 for prohibited motives. Comprehensive data on outcomes such as arrests and extraditions remains limited in public reporting, with Interpol's annual reports emphasizing operation-specific results rather than aggregate figures across all notices. For instance, in 2023's Operation JACKAL targeting West African , 178 arrests and 181 suspect identifications stemmed from notice hits, resolving 354 cases. Similarly, 2022 operations like Flash-Pact yielded 9 arrests via Red Notices, while broader initiatives have facilitated thousands of arrests in firearms and trafficking probes, though attribution to notices alone is not always delineated. The Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF) processed rising challenges, with review requests surging to over 2,700 by 2023 from 120 in 2002, reflecting increased scrutiny of notice validity. These trends highlight both the scale of notice deployment and ongoing compliance issues, though systematic success metrics for extraditions or long-term resolutions are not routinely disclosed.

Documented Successes in Law Enforcement

Interpol Red Notices have facilitated the apprehension of numerous high-profile fugitives across international borders. In 2024, an INTERPOL-coordinated operation in resulted in the arrest of 58 individuals wanted for serious crimes including , drug trafficking, and sexual exploitation, all subjects of active Red Notices, some outstanding for up to 15 years. These arrests were enabled by enhanced intelligence sharing and border checks prompted by the notices, demonstrating the mechanism's utility in regional fugitive round-ups. In the United States, collaborations between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Marshals Service, and led to the arrest of 45 international s in 2025, each subject to Red Notices for offenses ranging from to child exploitation. A specific instance involved Marleny Rodriguez-De Lovo, a 43-year-old Salvadoran national, apprehended on June 21, 2025, in , on a Red Notice from for aggravated homicide. Similarly, in July (year unspecified but reported as recent), ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations in arrested a Guatemalan wanted for crimes against children, located through an active Interpol notice alert. Counter-terrorism operations have also yielded results via Notices. During a 2024 INTERPOL operation targeting terrorist financing and , authorities detained a subject to a Red Notice for a church bombing in committed 23 years prior, alongside seizures of cash and weapons. In another case, Canadian fugitive Rabih Alkhalil, sought for first-degree murder and attempted murder under a Red Notice, was captured in after three years evading capture, highlighting the notice's role in global tracking. Earlier, in December 2019, support during the Southeast in the facilitated the arrest of over 25 internationally wanted persons, many located via notice-driven intelligence. These instances underscore Red Notices' effectiveness in prompting provisional arrests pending , particularly when integrated with national actions and real-time database queries at borders and airports. However, success metrics remain operation-specific, as INTERPOL does not publicly aggregate comprehensive arrest statistics to avoid aiding evasion tactics.

Analyses of Limitations and Systemic Weaknesses

Interpol notices, particularly Notices, exhibit inherent limitations due to their non-binding status and dependence on voluntary cooperation among 196 member states, resulting in inconsistent enforcement influenced by geopolitical factors, resource disparities, and national sovereignty priorities. Unlike formal requests, notices do not obligate arrests or extraditions, with execution rates varying widely; for example, approximately one-third of member countries perform provisional arrests based on Notices, often prioritizing urgent cases like over others. This discretion frequently leads to failures in apprehending fugitives when requesting states lack leverage or when targets reside in non-cooperative jurisdictions. Systemic weaknesses in the issuance and oversight processes exacerbate these issues, as initial requests undergo only cursory checks for compliance with Interpol's rules—such as prohibitions on political, , religious, or racial offenses under Article 3 of the —before publication, with comprehensive scrutiny deferred to the reactive Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files (CCF). This front-loaded acceptance has enabled the persistence of invalid notices, including those used for , with CCF data from 2014–2023 revealing thousands of challenges and a pattern of oversight lapses, such as delayed deletions despite evident violations. In 2024, refusals reached record levels, including 111 for human rights non-compliance under Article 2 and 194 for political motivations under Article 3, underscoring persistent gaps in preemptive vetting. Procedural flaws further undermine reliability, as Red Notices and diffusions—less formalized alerts—lack standardized evidentiary thresholds, allowing unverified or fabricated claims to trigger global alerts, travel bans, and detentions without equivalents. U.S. Ninth Circuit rulings have explicitly deemed Red Notices insufficient as standalone for crimes, citing risks of foreign overreach, while empirical cases demonstrate notices issued for civil debts exceeding $10,000 thresholds but lacking criminal elements, transforming administrative tools into extrajudicial leverage in commercial or political disputes. The system's bridging of democratic and authoritarian regimes amplifies these vulnerabilities, as flawed originating requests from states with compromised judiciaries propagate unchecked until challenged, eroding trust and enabling collateral harms like wrongful arrests documented in reports. Resource and technical constraints compound operational limitations, with Interpol's Secretariat overwhelmed by surging volumes—over 10,000 active Red Notices annually—hindering timely monitoring and updates, while diffusion practices bypass central oversight entirely, fostering opacity and abuse. Despite reforms like enhanced CCF independence since 2011, implementation remains uneven, as member states retain primary data control via National Central Bureaus, perpetuating delays in rectifying errors and exposing individuals to prolonged restrictions even after invalidation. These interconnected weaknesses highlight a causal mismatch between Interpol's facilitative model and the demands of uniform, rights-respecting enforcement, often prioritizing speed over safeguards.

References

  1. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices
  2. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/625/file/GI-02-Notices-2025-02-EN.pdf
  3. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices
  4. https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices
  5. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Compliance-and-review
  6. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/About-Notices
  7. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Member-countries
  8. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Membership-of-INTERPOL
  9. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-611-interpol-red-notices
  10. https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/policy/15006.1_INTERPOL_RedNoticesWantedPersonDiffusions.pdf
  11. https://otherside.law/interpol-red-notices-2024-statistics/
  12. https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2021/02/recent-interpol-reforms
  13. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/weaponizing-interpol/
  14. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interpol-policing-success-failures-60-minutes/
  15. https://hir.harvard.edu/weaponizing-the-police-authoritarian-abuse-of-interpol/
  16. https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/Yellow-Notices
  17. https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/Yellow-Notices/View-Yellow-Notices
  18. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2024/International-appeal-seeks-to-uncover-identities-of-46-deceased-women
  19. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2025/Unknown-woman-in-Spanish-cold-case-named-after-20-years
  20. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/5917/file/AG-2015-84-RES-01%2520-%2520Pilot%2520project%2520concerning%2520Silver%2520Notice.pdf
  21. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2025/INTERPOL-publishes-first-Silver-Notice-targeting-criminal-assets
  22. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/22463/file/EN%2520Legal%2520Framework%2520Governing%2520the%25202025%2520Silver%2520Notice%2520and%2520Diffusion%2520Pilot.pdf
  23. https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2025/Disrupting-criminal-finances-in-Africa-INTERPOL-s-Silver-Notice
  24. https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices
  25. https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/Compliance-and-review
  26. https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF
  27. https://www.stout.com/en/insights/article/silver-notices-transforming-global-asset-recovery
  28. https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/information-and-toolkits/faqs-about-interpol/
  29. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Our-history/Key-dates
  30. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Our-history/How-our-history-started
  31. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/interpol-and-international-police-cooperation
  32. https://www.belugyiszemlejournal.org/index.php/belugyiszemle/article/download/1319/1321
  33. https://academic.oup.com/book/7196/chapter/151820353
  34. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Interpol
  35. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e516
  36. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF/About-the-CCF
  37. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Data-protection
  38. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/20231204-Third-TRAP-Act-Report-Accessible-3.21.2024.pdf
  39. https://www.justsecurity.org/104398/new-interpol-chief-abuses-reforms/
  40. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/General-Secretariat
  41. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/General-Secretariat/Secretary-General
  42. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/Valdecy-Urquiza-of-Brazil-elected-new-INTERPOL-Secretary-General
  43. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/New-Secretary-General-begins-work-as-INTERPOL-General-Assembly-closes
  44. https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Governance/General-Assembly
  45. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Governance/General-Assembly
  46. https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Governance/Executive-Committee
  47. https://www.interpol.int/Who-we-are/Governance/President
  48. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF/Frequently-Asked-Questions
  49. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/commission-control-interpols-files-ccf-konstantina-zivla-msa6f
  50. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/22421/file/AnnualActivityReportCCF_2023_English.pdf
  51. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/6903/file/Annual%2520Report%2520of%2520the%2520CCF%25202015.pdf
  52. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2019/INTERPOL-and-Fair-Trials-chiefs-discuss-recent-reforms
  53. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/16993/file/Activity%2520Report%2520of%2520the%2520CCF%25202019%2520%25E2%2580%2593%25202020.pdf
  54. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Legal-documents
  55. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/5695/file/Statute%2520of%2520the%2520CCF-EN.pdf
  56. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF/How-to-submit-a-request
  57. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8163b786-780b-441f-be7c-04cbd0d3ced3
  58. https://otherside.law/right-to-access-interpol-data-vs-ncb-restrictions/
  59. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/20967/file/GA-2023-91-REP-22%2520E%2520AnnualActivityReportCCF_2022%2520%252823Y2486%2529%2520%2528REV%2529%25282%2529.pdf
  60. https://rednoticemonitor.com/stalled-in-the-system-unpacking-the-ccfs-processing-delays-and-their-implications/
  61. https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Member-countries/National-Central-Bureaus-NCBs
  62. https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Capacity-building/NCB-and-police-training
  63. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/25/interpol-address-chinas-red-notice-abuses
  64. https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/Chinas_Global_Police_State.pdf
  65. https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/interpol-red-notice-police-warrant-jack-ma/
  66. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/25/turkey-accused-of-using-interpol-summit-to-crack-down-on-critics
  67. https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/08/05/turkey-among-top-abusers-of-interpols-notice-system-uk-parliament-report-says/
  68. https://freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression/iran
  69. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603472/EXPO_STU%282019%29603472_EN.pdf
  70. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/world/europe/interpol-oversight-red-notices-blue-notices-databases-abuse-dissidents.html
  71. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2013/INTERPOL-cannot-be-used-by-the-Russian-Federation-to-seek-the-arrest-of-Mr-William-Browder
  72. https://www.jurist.org/features/2024/02/26/explainer-interpol-red-notices-and-the-quest-to-balance-justice-and-geopolitics-in-global-law-enforcement/
  73. https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/why-was-bill-browder-arrested-spain
  74. https://www.gherson.com/blog/gherson-involved-in-cancellation-of-two-interpol-red-notices/
  75. https://rednoticemonitor.com/how-turkiyes-authoritarian-agenda-is-corrupting-interpols-red-notice-system/
  76. https://www.meforum.org/turkey-tries-to-persecute-dissidents-via-interpol
  77. https://jwf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Abuse-of-Interpols-Notice-System-by-Turkey.pdf
  78. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/turkey
  79. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10766
  80. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/22267/file/INTERPOL%2520Annual%2520Report%25202023%2520EN.pdf
  81. https://www.fairtrials.org/campaigns/interpol/
  82. https://www.csce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/57-135.pdf
  83. https://rednoticemonitor.com/a-numbers-game-part-2-the-numbers-keep-growing/
  84. https://www.ibanet.org/2024-interpol-repository-of-practice
  85. https://www.csce.gov/briefings/countering-authoritarian-abuse-of-interpol/
  86. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/19843/file/INTERPOL%2520%2520Annual%2520Report%25202022_EN.pdf
  87. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rwhalliday_15548-interpol-red-notices-were-issued-activity-7353748735757062144-kxUl
  88. https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/news/interpol-new-data/
  89. https://rednoticemonitor.com/a-numbers-game-the-worrying-data-of-non-compliant-notices-registered-by-interpol/
  90. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/Latin-America-s-most-wanted-58-arrested-in-INTERPOL-fugitive-round-up
  91. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-us-marshals-arrest-45-international-fugitives-interpol-notices
  92. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ero-boston-arrests-fugitive-interpol-notice-wanted-crimes-against-children-guatemala
  93. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2024/INTERPOL-operation-nets-terror-suspects-cash-and-illegal-weapons
  94. https://x.com/interpolwanted?lang=en
  95. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2019/Southeast-Asian-Games-INTERPOL-security-support-leads-to-arrests-investigations
  96. https://rednoticemonitor.com/navigating-the-complexities-of-interpol-s-red-notice-system-insights-from-legal-experts/
  97. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/17285/file/Specific%20offences%20for%20which%20Red%20notices%20may%20not%20be%20issued.pdf
  98. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/red-notice-monitor_a-numbers-game-the-worrying-data-of-non-compliant-activity-7317502987940057088-rGn4
  99. https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/news/interpol-us-ninth-circuit-rejects-red-notices-as-evidence-of-a-crime-being-committed/
  100. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5c65a533-2615-4e7d-ad20-187d091b78d3
  101. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13624806221105280
  102. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/interpol-s-transnational-policing-by-red-notice-and-diffusions-procedural-standards-systemic-abuses-and-reforms-necessary-to-assure-fairness-and-integrity
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.