{"id":336,"date":"2017-12-27T21:53:26","date_gmt":"2017-12-27T21:53:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ielrblog.com\/?p=336"},"modified":"2018-11-19T14:54:27","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T14:54:27","slug":"interpol-reviewing-40000-wanted-notices-political-abuse-whats-behind-message","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ielrblog.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/27\/interpol-reviewing-40000-wanted-notices-political-abuse-whats-behind-message\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cINTERPOL Reviewing 40,000 Wanted Notices for Political Abuse\u201d – What\u2019s Behind the Message?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On December 1, 2017, the Associated Press reported<\/a> that according to a confidential memorandum INTERPOL was reviewing 40,000 red notices to ensure they were not politically motivated.\u00a0 A red notice is a request any of the 192 member countries can disseminate via INTERPOL\u2019s channels to seek the location and arrest of a wanted person for the purposes of his or her extradition.\u00a0 Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution strictly forbids the organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.\u00a0 However, in a number of cases INTERPOL has found that some of its member countries have used the organization’s resources to persecute political opponents and other victims of unlawful criminal prosecutions.<\/p>\n

The memorandum reflects the November 20 meeting between INTERPOL and European Union officials held after two European Union citizens, Dogan Akhanli, a German-Turkish writer, and Hamza Yalcin, a Swedish-Turkish journalist, were detained in Spain at Turkey\u2019s request disseminated via INTERPOL\u2019s channels.\u00a0 Akhanli and Yalcin fled Turkey years ago and were granted refugee status in Europe.\u00a0 Unfortunately, like many reports and studies behind INTERPOL\u2019s policies and regulations, the full text of the memorandum is not available to the general public.\u00a0 If INTERPOL does indeed strive to observe human rights, as it must under its Constitution, it should be transparent about such initiatives.\u00a0 So far, the reports in the media leave more questions than answers.<\/p>\n

It is unclear how exactly INTERPOL is planning on conducting such a massive review in an effective and objective manner.\u00a0 To thoroughly examine 40,000 red notices to ensure they are not politically motivated would be a colossal undertaking.\u00a0 The volume of information requiring careful and comprehensive consideration would be enormous, even if INTERPOL’s staff and funding were significantly increased.\u00a0 In this regard, it is important to remember that in many cases INTERPOL would have to go far beyond what’s already recorded in its files, that is, the minimum information a government must produce to have its request disseminated, such as the nature of the charge behind the red notice, the identity particulars, the description of the facts of the case, and a reference to the country\u2019s criminal statute and a valid arrest warrant.\u00a0 To determine whether the red notice is politically motivated or not, INTERPOL would often need objective information about all the circumstances of the case.\u00a0 In this regard, the high volume of information is not the only reason to question the effectiveness and objectivity of such a review.\u00a0 Because INTERPOL\u2019s rules prohibit the organization from sharing any information it receives from a government about a particular case without the government’s consent, INTERPOL would often have to look to that government alone for any objective information.<\/p>\n

The report, citing the memorandum, rightfully points to the reforms INTERPOL recently undertook to expand the rights of individuals.\u00a0 However, despite the reforms, the existing redress mechanism for individuals still lacks some crucial safeguards inherent to the modern democratic due process, such as the right to a hearing, the right to examine the evidence produced by the government, and the right to appeal.\u00a0 In June 2014, the INTERPOL Executive Committee endorsed a new policy on refugees.\u00a0 The policy, however, does not guarantee any refugee the right to have the red notice deleted.\u00a0 It is formulated in such a way that it allows INTERPOL to make exceptions and deny a refugee the relief whenever the organization deems proper.\u00a0 Another important gap is that the policy doesn’t grant refugees an exception to the general rule that INTERPOL doesn’t disclose whether there is information about the individual in its databases without the government\u2019s consent.\u00a0 As a result, refugees, like other individuals, often learn that their names are recorded in the organization\u2019s databases after they are detained due to the INTERPOL alert.\u00a0 This is one of the main reasons why the detention of individuals, like Akhanli and Yalcin, continues despite the fact that the policy has been in place for several years.<\/p>\n

To its credit, INTERPOL continues to engage in a dialogue with human rights advocates who seek to ensure that the organization isn’t used to persecute political opponents or aid an otherwise unlawful prosecution.\u00a0 INTERPOL is in need of further reforms to guarantee individuals due process.\u00a0 It should actively work towards achieving this goal while staying fully transparent about its activities in this area.<\/p>\n

Yuriy Nemets<\/strong> is the managing member at NEMETS, a law firm based in Washington, DC.\u00a0 Yuriy is an attorney with over fifteen years of experience in domestic and international litigation and arbitration, international extradition, corporate, banking, transportation, international trade and investments, and intellectual property law.\u00a0 He has authored publications about international extradition, corporate, banking, and intellectual property law.<\/em><\/p>\n