HomeDefense against Red Notice
The Facts
Our client is a dual national of the United Kingdom and Cyprus, who was charged with bank fraud. In January 2020, British authorities requested Interpol to issue a Blue Notice, claiming that the client was a witness in an ongoing case and that his location and testimony were crucial for the investigation. However, at the time, British prosecutors had already begun suspecting our client of being involved in the crime.
In April 2020, Interpol issued a Blue Notice regarding our client, who was residing in Cyprus at the time. Despite the initial claim that the client was a witness, the request for the Blue Notice was based on misleading information, and British authorities had already shifted their focus towards treating him as a suspect.
In August 2020, the Interpol Law Firm took preventive action by submitting a request to Interpol, urging them not to issue a Red Notice should UK authorities request it. This request was made pending further review of the case and a final decision from the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF).
In September 2020, UK authorities formally applied for the publication of a Red Notice regarding our client, leading to further scrutiny of the case.
The Commission’s Findings
The CCF’s decision noted that, as outlined in Article 79 of the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), all notice requests must be reviewed by Interpol’s General Secretariat to ensure compliance with the organization’s regulations.
The Commission observed that national authorities were aware that our client was already under suspicion for the crime, yet they requested a Blue Notice, which misled the General Secretariat into issuing the notice on incorrect premises. This was a clear violation of the protocols governing data processing within Interpol.
According to Article 77 §2 (a) of the Rules, Interpol’s General Secretariat is prohibited from publishing a notice if the provided data does not meet the necessary conditions. In this case, the information provided by UK authorities failed to meet these conditions, rendering the request for the notice unjustified.
The Interpol Law Firm’s Arguments
Our team of experienced lawyers argued that the British authorities misled Interpol by falsely claiming that the client was a mere witness when, in fact, he had already been classified as a suspect. This manipulation of the facts led to the wrongful issuance of the Blue Notice, which was both illegal and served a wrongful purpose.
Furthermore, we raised concerns regarding the human rights standards of the national prosecution, which we believed had not met the required standards for a fair trial and legal process. These violations further bolstered our case for the deletion of the data.
The Results
In April 2021, the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files ruled that the data concerning our client no longer met the conditions required for the publication of a notice. As a result, under Article 81 §3 (c) of the Rules, the notice was officially canceled, marking a significant victory for our client.
If you or someone you know is facing an unjust INTERPOL notice, whether it’s a Blue or Red Notice, it’s crucial to seek expert legal assistance. The team at Interpol Law Firm specializes in defending individuals against wrongful data retention and international law enforcement actions. Contact us today to discuss how we can help protect your rights and fight back against the misuse of INTERPOL’s resources. We are here to provide strategic legal support and ensure your case is handled with the attention it deserves.
