Home
The Facts
The Applicant was a national of Ukraine and Russia. Russia circulated an INTERPOL Diffusion concerning him in November 2020 for alleged violence against a public official.
He was detained in Jakarta on the basis of the Diffusion and released later that month. According to the case record, Ukrainian authorities publicly supported him and described Russia’s use of INTERPOL in the case as politically motivated.
The Legal Arguments
Our legal team requested INTERPOL notice deletion, arguing that the case had a predominantly political character. The application also referred to the refusal of extradition and concerns relating to human-rights protections.
INTERPOL Diffusions, like Notices, must comply with the Organization’s Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data. A Diffusion of a political, military, religious or racial character must not be recorded in INTERPOL’s databases.
Why Article 3 Was Important
Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution prohibits the Organization from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. The CCF evaluates such arguments case by case and considers whether political elements predominate over the ordinary-law nature of the alleged offence.
In this case, the Applicant relied on the broader political context and public support from Ukrainian authorities.
Why the Minister’s Twitter Post Mattered
The Applicant referred to a public Twitter post by then-Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba.
According to the case record, the CCF verified that the statement had been published from the minister’s verified account. The post was considered as part of the wider political context surrounding the case.
The significance of the post was therefore not that a single social-media statement automatically invalidated the Diffusion. It was one element considered together with the other circumstances.
The CCF Decision
The CCF concluded that maintaining the challenged data would have significant adverse implications for INTERPOL’s neutrality.
The Commission therefore found that the data did not comply with Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution.
What This Case Shows
This case shows that Article 3 assessments can extend beyond the formal criminal charge. The CCF may examine the wider political context and relevant official statements when deciding whether INTERPOL cooperation remains compatible with the Organization’s neutrality requirements.
For cases involving political-character arguments, our INTERPOL CCF lawyers assist with requests for review, correction and deletion of INTERPOL data.
Need Legal Help?
Facing an Interpol Notice or Extradition Threat?
Our international criminal defence lawyers have helped clients in 50+ countries. Get a confidential consultation today.
