A Red Notice does not arrive by post. Most people find out about one when a border officer keeps their passport longer than usual, a bank closes an account without explaining why, or a residence permit is refused on grounds nobody will put in writing. From that moment two separate questions matter, and they are decided by two different bodies: whether the data INTERPOL holds about you complies with INTERPOL’s own rules, and whether a State has breached the European Convention on Human Rights in the way it used, or acted on, that data. This section deals with both, and with the point where they meet. Your initial case assessment is free of charge.
What a Red Notice is — and what it is not
Under Article 82 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data, a Red Notice is published at the request of a National Central Bureau, or of an international entity with powers of investigation and prosecution, “in order to seek the location of a wanted person and his/her detention, arrest or restriction of movement for the purpose of extradition, surrender, or similar lawful action”. It is a request addressed to police forces. It is not a court decision, and it is not evidence of anything.
- It is not an international arrest warrant. INTERPOL cannot compel any country to arrest anyone; each member country applies its own law in deciding what to do.
- INTERPOL does not initiate it. A member country asks for the notice on the basis of an arrest warrant or judicial decision issued by its own authorities.
- It is not a finding of guilt. Where a person is sought for prosecution, no court has convicted them, and they are to be presumed innocent.
- It is often invisible. INTERPOL states that the majority of Red Notices are restricted to law enforcement use, and that public extracts are published only at the request of the country concerned. Not finding your name on the public list tells you nothing.
A diffusion works differently in form and almost identically in effect: a National Central Bureau circulates the request directly to other countries rather than through the General Secretariat. It is recorded in the same INTERPOL Information System, it produces the same practical consequences at borders and in any national system into which the data are copied, and it is challenged by the same route described below. One legal difference matters: the pre-publication legal review by the General Secretariat applies to notices, while under Article 99 of the Rules it is the circulating bureau itself that must ensure its diffusion complies with Articles 2(1) and 3 of the Constitution.
At a glance
| Red Notice | Key facts |
|---|---|
| What it is | A request to police worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition or surrender |
| Legal basis | Articles 82–87 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data |
| Who asks for it | A National Central Bureau, or an international entity with powers of investigation and prosecution, on the basis of an arrest warrant or judicial decision |
| Checked before publication | Legal review by the General Secretariat against Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution (Article 86 RPD) |
| Who reviews it afterwards | The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) — an independent body, free of charge |
| CCF time limits | Four months for access requests, nine months for correction or deletion, from the date the request is declared admissible |
| Convention route | Against the State concerned, not against INTERPOL; four months from the final domestic decision |
The conditions INTERPOL’s own rules impose
Article 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data sets cumulative minimum criteria. A Red Notice may be published only where the offence is a serious ordinary-law crime; where the penalty threshold is met — a maximum of at least two years’ deprivation of liberty if the person is sought for prosecution, or at least six months imposed or remaining to be served if they are sought to serve a sentence; and where the request is of interest for international police cooperation. The same article leaves one door open: under Article 83(1)(b) the General Secretariat may publish a notice although the first two criteria are not met, where it considers publication to be of particular importance to international police cooperation.
The same article excludes three categories outright: offences that raise controversial issues in various countries relating to behavioural or cultural norms; offences relating to family or private matters; and offences originating from a violation of administrative rules or deriving from private disputes, unless the activity is aimed at facilitating a serious crime or is suspected of being connected to organised crime. Article 84 requires the requesting bureau to confirm that the issuing authority had the necessary power, that the request was coordinated with the authorities responsible for extradition and that extradition will actually be sought on arrest.
Two provisions of INTERPOL’s Constitution sit above all of this, and the General Secretariat is required by Article 86 to review every Red Notice against them before publication. Article 2(1) defines the Organization’s first aim as mutual assistance between 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’”. Article 3 is absolute in its terms: “It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” Most successful deletion arguments are built on these two articles, read together with the specific conditions in Article 83.
Why the Convention matters in an INTERPOL case
INTERPOL is an international organisation. It is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and it cannot be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The CCF says the same about itself in plain words: it is not a human rights court or accountability mechanism, and it does not weigh evidence or rule on the merits of a criminal case.
What the Strasbourg Court can examine is the conduct of a State bound by the Convention: the State that arrested and detained you on the strength of the notice, the State that is about to extradite you, or the State that requested the notice and keeps the data alive. In practice the following rights do the work:
- Article 5 — liberty and security. Provisional arrest on a Red Notice, how long it may last, and the right to have its lawfulness reviewed speedily by a court.
- Article 3 — prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. The bar on extraditing anyone to a real risk of ill-treatment, which admits of no exception.
- Article 6 — fair trial. Extradition is barred where the person would suffer a flagrant denial of justice in the receiving country.
- Article 8 — private life. The storage and circulation of police data about you, and the damage it does to your reputation, work and family life.
- Article 13 — effective remedy. Whether the State offered you any real way of contesting what was done.
Two routes that answer different questions
| Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files | European Court of Human Rights | |
|---|---|---|
| Decides | Whether processing the data complies with INTERPOL’s rules | Whether a State breached the Convention |
| Directed against | Data held in the INTERPOL Information System | A Council of Europe member State |
| Outcome | Deletion or correction of the data, implemented by the General Secretariat | A binding judgment, just satisfaction, measures supervised by the Committee of Ministers |
| Cost | No fee | No court fee; legal costs may be recoverable |
| Deadline to start | No time limit for a first request | Four months from the final domestic decision |
| Cannot do | Assess evidence, rule on extradition, award damages against a State | Delete an INTERPOL notice; the Court binds States, not the Organization |
They are not alternatives, and the order matters. A CCF file is built on INTERPOL’s rules but is often made persuasive by material from the Convention system — judgments of the Strasbourg Court about the requesting country’s criminal justice system, an interim measure that has already stopped your removal, findings about the treatment of a category of people to which you belong. A Strasbourg application, in turn, needs the domestic remedies exhausted and the admissibility conditions met before the Court will look at anything.
What the Council of Europe has said about abuse of the system
This is not a fringe complaint. In Resolution 2161 (2017), adopted on 26 April 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe found that INTERPOL and its Red Notice system had been abused by some member States in pursuit of political objectives, including silencing free expression and persecuting political opponents abroad. The Assembly noted that targeted persons could not successfully challenge Red Notices before national or international courts, and called for stricter preventive checks, for notices to be deleted when they have not led to extradition within a reasonable time, for a more independent and better-resourced CCF, for closer scrutiny of bureaux with a record of abusive requests, and for a fund to compensate victims of unjustified notices. The Assembly returned to the subject in Resolution 2315 (2019), noting that part of those proposals had since been implemented.
In this section
- Asking the CCF to delete a Red Notice — the online portal, admissibility, the four- and nine-month limits, revision, and what the Commission will not do.
- Arrest on a Red Notice and Article 5 — when provisional arrest is lawful, how long it may last, and the right to speedy judicial review.
- Extradition, Article 3 and Rule 39 — the absolute bar on removal to a real risk of ill-treatment, assurances, and emergency interim measures.
- A Red Notice and Article 8 — police data, reputation and the damage that continues long after any criminal case has stalled.
What people mean when they search for an “INTERPOL lawyer”
The phrase is one of the most common searches in this field, and it describes something that does not exist. INTERPOL does not appoint, accredit or instruct lawyers for or against individuals, and no practitioner acts on its behalf in these matters. What people are looking for is a lawyer who works on cases in which INTERPOL’s channels have been used against them: a request to the CCF, a defence in national extradition proceedings, and, where a Convention right is engaged, an application in Strasbourg. We are lawyers in INTERPOL-related cases and have no affiliation with the Organization.
A Red Notice affecting your travel, work or liberty?
Our ECHR lawyers advise applicants whose cases involve INTERPOL notices, from the request to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files to proceedings in Strasbourg. Explore the judgments we analyse or get a free assessment of your case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there such a thing as an “INTERPOL lawyer”?
No. INTERPOL has no panel of lawyers and does not act for or against individuals through counsel. The term is used loosely in search engines to mean a lawyer who handles cases involving INTERPOL notices — requests to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, extradition defence before national courts, and applications to the European Court of Human Rights where a State has breached the Convention.
Can I complain to the European Court of Human Rights about INTERPOL?
Not directly. Only States that have ratified the Convention can be respondents in Strasbourg, and INTERPOL is not one of them. What you can bring to the Court is the conduct of a member State — your arrest and detention, a decision to extradite you, or the continued circulation of data about you by that State’s authorities.
How can I find out whether a Red Notice exists against me?
By submitting a request for access to the CCF, which is free of charge and confidential. The public list on INTERPOL’s website is not a way of checking: INTERPOL states that the majority of Red Notices are restricted to law enforcement use, and that extracts are published only at the request of the country concerned.
How long does the CCF take to decide?
Under Article 40 of the CCF Statute, the Requests Chamber decides a request for access within four months, and a request for correction or deletion within nine months, counted from the date the request was declared admissible. The Chamber may extend those limits where the circumstances of a particular request warrant it, and must explain any extension in its decision.
Does deletion by the CCF end the criminal case against me?
No. Deletion removes the data from INTERPOL’s channels; the national arrest warrant behind it continues to exist and can still be enforced through bilateral extradition channels. The CCF has no power to assess evidence, to rule on extradition or to interfere with national proceedings — those are matters for the competent national authorities and, where a Convention right is at stake, for the European Court of Human Rights.