Aclient, who has been under investigation in a for-eign country, asks counsel if it is safe to travel inter-nationally, or if there is a risk of arrest and deten-

tion even in countries that are not involved in the matterunder investigation. That question implicates a powerfultool of global law enforcement known as a “Red Notice,”and an even more powerful tool called a “Diffusion.”These devices are issued and circulated by and throughInterpol, the International Criminal Police Organization.A Red Notice, issued by Interpol at the request of a mem-ber country, seeks the arrest of an individual in any ofInterpol’s 190 member countries. A Diffusion is a unilat-eral notice from an Interpol member country, oftenrequesting the arrest of an individual. It is disseminatedthrough Interpol, but lacks the screening that Interpol’srules require before a Red Notice is issued. Most common-ly, Red Notices and Diffusions are enforced at points ofentry, although in principle they may be enforced any-

where in a member country. While Red Notices andDiffusions can serve a legitimate law enforcement pur-pose, they are susceptible to abuse by regimes that usethem to oppress political dissenters, as well as by countriesthat treat civil disputes as criminal matters.

This article sets out the basic principles of InterpolRed Notices and Diffusions, and addresses the practicalquestions of how to ascertain whether a client is the sub-ject of a Red Notice or Diffusion, and, if so, how to requestits cancellation.

I. Interpol

a. Interpol GenerallyWith 190 member nations, Interpol is the largest

international law enforcement agency in the world.1 Itsstated mission is “[p]reventing and fighting crime throughenhanced cooperation on police matters.”2 It does notemploy its own police force.3 Interpol assists national lawenforcement agencies in combating transnational crimeand terrorism by providing “targeted training, expertinvestigative support, relevant data and secure communi-cations channels.”4 These tools help local police under-stand international trends in criminal activity, and con-duct multinational investigations and operations.5

b. Interpol’s Constitution Interpol’s Constitution sets out Interpol’s objectives

and general structure.6 Articles 2 and 3 are key provisions.Article 2 states that Interpol aims “[t]o ensure and promotethe widest possible mutual assistance between all criminalpolice authorities within the limits of the laws existing inthe different countries and in the spirit of the Universal

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N

B Y J A CQU E S S EMME LMAN AND EM I LY S P E NC E R MUN SON

Interpol Red Notices andDiffusions: Powerful —And Dangerous — Tools ofGlobal Law Enforcement

© Denys Prokofyev | Dreamstime

28

Declaration of Human Rights[.]”7 Article3 sets forth Interpol’s principle of neutral-ity, stating that “[i]t is strictly forbiddenfor the Organization to undertake anyintervention or activities of a political,military, religious or racial character.”8

c. Structure of InterpolInterpol’s supreme governing body

is the General Assembly, comprised ofdelegates appointed by each membernation.9 The General Assembly meetsannually to make decisions relating topolicy, resources, finances, workingmethods and programs.10 Interpol’sExecutive Committee oversees the imple-mentation of decisions made by theGeneral Assembly.11 The ExecutiveCommittee is composed of the President,three Vice Presidents and nine Delegates,each from a different member country.12

The day-to-day operations of Interpolare carried out by the GeneralSecretariat, which is headquartered inLyon, France, and which operates 24hours a day, 365 days a year.13 TheSecretariat also has seven regional offices,and maintains liaison offices at theUnited Nations in New York and theEuropean Union in Brussels.14 FormerU.S. Treasury Department officialRonald K. Noble, the current SecretaryGeneral, is charged with running theGeneral Secretariat.15

d. National Central BureausEach member nation of Interpol

maintains a National Central Bureau(NCB) that acts as a liaison between thenation’s law enforcement agencies andInterpol.16 NCBs are the “lifeblood” ofInterpol, contributing to its criminaldatabases, and cooperating in cross-bor-der investigations and operations.17 TheNCB for the United States is “INTERPOLWashington,” a joint venture of theDepartment of Justice and theDepartment of Homeland Security.18 AnyU.S law enforcement agency, from theFederal Bureau of Investigation to a localpolice department, seeking to interactwith Interpol must do so throughINTERPOL Washington.19

e. The Commission for theControl of Interpol’s FilesThe Commission for the Control of

Interpol’s Files (CCF) is an independentmonitoring body within Interpol thatoversees Interpol’s activities.20 The CCF iscomposed of five members, each servinga three-year term.21 The CCF’s primaryfunctions are (1) monitoring compliancewith Interpol’s rules governing the collec-tion and use of personal information; (2)

advising Interpol on projects that involvethe processing of personal information;and (3) handling requests for access toInterpol’s files.22 Red Notices andDiffusions fall within the CCF’s purview,as they involve the collection and use ofpersonal information.23

Interpol is not subject to nationallegislation aimed at protecting personalprivacy, and is generally immune fromsuit in national courts (including those ofthe United States).24 Instead, Interpol hasa set of rules designed to protect individ-ual rights, and the CCF oversees adher-ence to those rules.25

NCBs are responsible for ensuringthat any information they provide toInterpol’s databases is accurate, relevantand up to date, and that its processingconforms with the Organization’sConstitution, the NCBs’ respectivenational laws, and international treaties.26

Additionally, the General Secretariatoversees the NCBs to confirm compliancewith Interpol’s rules and Constitution.27

The CCF serves as an additional level ofcompliance oversight, monitoring theGeneral Secretariat’s actions and han-dling requests from individuals who seekaccess to the information in Interpol’sdatabases or who challenge the use oraccuracy of that information.28

f. Collection and Use ofPersonal InformationInterpol has two sets of rules with

respect to obtaining and using personalinformation. The goal of the Rules on theProcessing of Data (RPD) is to “exchangea maximum of information of interest forthe purposes of international police coop-eration,” while maintaining “due obser-vance of the Organization’s political neu-trality, independence and mandate, and ofth[e] [members’] respective national leg-islations and international conventions.”29

The Rules on the Control of Informationand Access to Interpol’s Files (RCI) estab-lish the authority of the CCF, and allowindividuals access to personal data con-tained in Interpol’s databases.30

II. Red Notices andDiffusions

a. Notices GenerallyAs an international police organiza-

tion with a declared vision of “connectingpolice for a safer world,” Interpol’s pri-mary role is informational.31 InterpolNotices facilitate information-sharingand cooperation among police forces ofmember nations.32 Notices are issued byInterpol’s General Secretariat at therequest of a member nation, and are

color-coded based on their purpose.33

Some notices serve a purely information-al function, such as Orange Notices,which “warn of an event, a person, anobject or a process representing a seriousand imminent threat to public safety.”34

Green Notices “provide warnings andintelligence about persons who havecommitted criminal offences and are like-ly to repeat these crimes in other coun-tries.”35 Purple Notices provide (and alsoseek) information regarding “modioperandi, objects, devices and conceal-ment methods used by criminals.”36

Yellow Notices “help locate missing per-sons or … identify persons who areunable to identify themselves.”37

The remaining varieties of noticesrequest information or action from thenetwork of police forces connected byInterpol.38 Blue Notices are issued to “col-lect additional information about a per-son’s identity, location or activities inrelation to a crime,” while Black Noticesrequest “information on unidentifiedbodies.”39 Red Notices “seek the locationand arrest of wanted persons with a viewto extradition or similar lawful action.”40

Yellow, Green, Blue and Red Noticesare submitted through Interpol’s I-Linksystem, a data exchange platform thatenables NCBs to record and access policeinformation contained in I-24/7,Interpol’s secure global police network.41

b. Red Notices and Diffusions GenerallySometimes characterized as an inter-

national “wanted poster,”42 a Red Notice isa demand by the requesting NCB on allInterpol members to arrest a personwanted for prosecution or to serve a pre-viously imposed sentence.43 A databasecalled Travel Documents Associated WithNotices (TDAWN) allows agents at bor-der points to check passport data againstInterpol Notices.44 If a subject of a RedNotice is located, the country in whichthe subject has been located shall imme-diately notify the requesting NCB and theGeneral Secretariat, “subject to limita-tions deriving from national law andapplicable international treaties,” andshall “take all other measures permittedunder national law and applicable inter-national treaties, such as provisionallyarresting the wanted person or monitor-ing or restricting his/her movement.”45

Due to Fourth Amendment con-straints, the United States will not arrestsomeone solely on the basis of a RedNotice or Diffusion,46 although variousother countries will do so.47 Assuming therequesting country is not hostile to theUnited States, U.S. agents would notify it

WWW. N A C D L . O R G M AY 2 0 1 4

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

29

if a subject of a Red Notice was detectedentering this country.48 This would allowthe requesting country to seek provision-al arrest with a view to extradition, inaccordance with U.S. law.49

Red Notices may be “public” or “pri-vate.” Public Red Notices are published onInterpol’s website. These notices areaccessible to the public under the“Wanted Persons” link on the Interpolhomepage.50 Private Red Notices arenotices that either have not yet beenapproved by the General Secretariat, orthat the requesting nation has asked notbe made public on the Interpol website.51

They are circulated among the policeforces of member nations via I-Link.52

Diffusions are a less formal alertmechanism than Red Notices, but canserve a similar function: they can “requestthe arrest or location of an individual oradditional information in relation to apolice investigation.”53 Diffusions are pub-lished on I-Link by the issuing NCB with-out any review by the General Secretariat.54

Thus, the only entity certifying the accura-cy of a Diffusion, and its compliance withInterpol’s Constitution and rules, is theissuing NCB.55 Notices (including RedNotices) must be disseminated to theentire Interpol network,56 while Diffusionscan be selectively distributed to specificNCBs.57 Otherwise, Diffusions are treatedlike Notices — they are included in variousdatabases accessible by local police andborder patrol agencies.58 In 2012, Interpolissued 8,136 Red Notices and disseminated20,130 Diffusions.59

i. Requirements for Issuance of a Red Notice

The General Secretariat is responsi-ble for “checking the compliance of allnotice requests” and “ensuring that pub-lished notices continue to comply withthe conditions for their publication andare regularly assessed by the NationalCentral Bureau or international entitythat requested their publication.”60 Forissuance of a Red Notice, the offensecharged must be a “serious ordinary-lawcrime,” and cannot raise “controversialissues relating to behavioural or culturalnorms,” or “relat[e] to family/privatematters.”61 These phrases are not definedin Interpol’s rules. Offenses “originatingfrom a violation of laws or regulations ofan administrative nature or derivingfrom private disputes” are similarly inad-equate to support issuance of a RedNotice “unless the criminal activity isaimed at facilitating a serious crime or issuspected of being connected to organ-ized crime.”62 Again, these phrases are notdefined in the rules.

In addition, to support theissuance of a Red Notice, a charge mustmeet a penalty threshold.63 For a RedNotice that seeks a subject for prosecu-tion, the charged conduct must bepunishable by “a maximum depriva-tion of liberty of at least two years or amore serious penalty.”64 Where the RedNotice is for a subject being sought toserve an imposed sentence, that sen-tence must be “at least six months ofimprisonment” with “at least sixmonths of the sentence remaining tobe served.”65

The General Secretariat has theauthority to issue a Red Notice in theabsence of these requirements, but onlyif, “following consultation with therequesting National Central Bureau orinternational entity, it considers thatpublication of the requested red noticewould be of particular importance tointernational police cooperation.”66

A request for issuance of a RedNotice must contain “sufficient identi-fiers” of the subject, which requires atleast one of the following: (1) a photo-graph and certain additional data (e.g.,alias, parent names, further physicaldescription, DNA profile, or finger-prints); or (2) family name, given name,gender, and date of birth (at least year ofbirth), as well as a physical description,DNA profile, fingerprints, or data con-tained in identity documents.67 Further,a Red Notice may only be issued if therequesting nation has furnished suffi-cient factual and legal information per-taining to the charges, namely: (1) asummary of the facts of the case, includ-ing the time and location of the allegedcriminal activity; (2) the criminalcharges; (3) the laws covering theoffense, including, where possible, thewording of the relevant provision; (4)the maximum penalty, or (in the case ofa conviction) the sentence imposed andthe portion of the sentence remaining tobe served; and (5) reference to a validarrest warrant or a judicial decision hav-ing the same effect, and where possible, acopy of the warrant or decision.68

The General Secretariat must “con-duct a legal review of all red noticesprior to their publication to ensure com-pliance with INTERPOL’s Constitutionand Rules.”69 In addition, a Red Noticethat no longer meets the required stan-dards of publication must be canceled bythe General Secretariat.70

ii. The RPD’s Limited Application to Diffusions And Red Notice Requests

The General Secretariat is not

charged with ensuring that Diffusionscomply with Interpol’s rules andConstitution.71 Requests for issuance ofRed Notices that are awaiting approvalby the General Secretariat are subject inprinciple to its oversight, but that over-sight is severely limited by the opera-tion of I-Link. Because NCBs submitDiffusions and requests for Red Noticesdirectly through I-Link, they are“recorded instantly into theOrganization’s central database andimmediately accessible to police aroundthe world,”72 without authorization orreview by the General Secretariat.

c. Ascertaining Whether aClient is the Subject of aRed Notice or Diffusion

i. Public Red NoticesBecause public Red Notices are pub-

lished on Interpol’s website, they are easi-ly accessible.73 If an individual is subject toa public Red Notice, there will be an entryon the “Wanted Persons” list in the indi-vidual’s name that includes basic personalinformation and a photograph.74

ii. Private Red Notices And Diffusions

Determining whether an individ-ual is the subject of a private Red Noticeor a Diffusion is not as simple. In cer-tain circumstances, a cooperative NCBmight be willing to check I-Link on theindividual’s behalf. This might be feasi-ble, for example, if the individual hasbeen granted asylum somewhere, inwhich case that country’s NCB mightbe willing to assist.75 In addition, thedomestic law of certain countries mightprovide a mechanism for seeking suchinformation. INTERPOL Washingtonhas a procedure for submitting requestsfor records under the Freedom ofInformation Act.76 These requests, how-ever, only extend to INTERPOLWashington’s records, not to recordsmaintained by Interpol.77

In unusual cases, the lawyer mightask the potential requesting NCB direct-ly. Of course, if the client is not alreadythe subject of a Red Notice or Diffusion,such an inquiry might trigger an investi-gation of the client, so this approachrequires extreme caution.

Ordinarily, the best option is tosubmit a request to the CCF for accessto the information contained inInterpol’s files.78 If counsel already hasreason to believe there is an outstand-ing Red Notice or Diffusion, he or shecan skip the informational step andrequest its cancellation.79

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N30

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

d. Ascertaining Whether a Red Notice or Diffusion Is in Effect, and Seeking Its Cancellation

i. Submitting a CCF Request Article 9 of the RCI provides that

“[a]ny person who so wishes may, freelyand free of charge, exercise the right ofaccess to personal information concern-ing him which has been recorded inInterpol’s files.”80 This seemingly broad“right of access” is actually quite limited.81

Member countries “remain the owners ofinformation they communicate toINTERPOL and must give permission forits disclosure to requesting parties.”82

Thus, a subject of a Red Notice orDiffusion has the right to be informed ofthat fact upon request unless the relevantNCB refuses to allow Interpol to providethe disclosure.83

The Operating Rules of theCommission for the Control ofInterpol’s Files (the Operating Rules) setforth the procedures the CCF follows inreviewing an individual request foraccess.84 Individuals can request access toinformation about themselves inInterpol’s databases by submitting aone-page form and supporting docu-mentation to the CCF.85 This includesascertaining whether a Red Notice hasbeen requested or issued, or a Diffusiondisseminated.86 Applicants may also askto modify or delete information in thefiles.87 Requests seeking cancellation of aNotice or Diffusion, also called “chal-lenges,” are made using the same form asa request for access.88

The CCF reviews each submission todetermine, in the first instance, if therequest is “admissible.”89 A request isadmissible if it (1) includes an original,signed letter explaining the purpose ofthe request; (2) is written in one of theorganization’s four official languages(English, French, Spanish, or Arabic); (3)comes from the person it concerns, orfrom that person’s duly authorized repre-sentative or legal representative; and (4) isaccompanied by a copy of an identitydocument for the person who is the sub-ject of the request.90 If the request comesfrom a duly authorized representative ofthe subject, it must be accompanied by anoriginal power of attorney authorizingaccess to the information recorded inInterpol’s files.91 If the request is submit-ted by a legal representative, it mustinclude a statement to that effect.92

If the CCF determines the requestis inadmissible, it must inform theapplicant and provide the reasons forits decision.93

WWW. N A C D L . O R G M AY 2 0 1 4

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

31

Checklist for Challenging an Interpol Red Notice or Diffusion

v Ascertain Whether the Client Is the Subject of a Red Notice or Diffusion

• Check the “Wanted Persons” list on Interpol’s website for a public Red Notice.

• If not listed, request assistance from a cooperative NCB (if there is one).

• If necessary, submit a request to the CCF for access to information contained in Interpol’s files (see below).

• In unusual circumstances, ask the NCB suspected to have requested a Red Notice or issued a Diffusion to confirm that it has done so.

v Submit a CCF Request

•Decide whether to ask the CCF to maintain complete confidentiality with respect to the request.

• Complete the form “Request for Access to Interpol’s Databases” available on the Interpol website.

• Provide the following documentation:— an original letter, in one of Interpol’s four workinglanguages, signed by the subject of the requestedinformation;

— a copy of an identity document for the subject; and

— if submitted by a representative of the subject, an original power of attorney.

• For requests that challenge information in Interpol’s files, provide:— detailed reasons for the request; and

— supporting documentation.

• For requests concerning a minor, also provide:— a copy of an identity document for the adult submitting the request; and

— documents establishing the relationship between the adult submitting the request and the minor.

• If confirmation of receipt is not received within one month, contact the CCF to ensure the submission arrived.

v Seek Cancellation If Notice Was Requested in Error or Is No Longer Applicable

• Ask the issuing NCB to seek cancellation.• If the issuing NCB refuses to seek cancellation, submit a request for cancellation to the CCF.

• If possible, ask a supportive NCB to report the matter to the General Secretariat.

v If a Client’s Request Is Denied by the CCF, Request Re-Examination If Grounds Exist

• The request for re-examination must be based on a newly discovered fact that probably would have led to a different conclusion.

TWO SEMINARS — SAME DATE — ONE GREAT LOCATION!

Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, NV | September 11 - 13, 2014

If the request is admissible, the CCFwill perform a “detailed assessment” ofthe request.94 The CCF will evaluate com-pliance with Interpol’s Constitution andrules, which mandate, inter alia, respectfor “the basic rights of individuals in con-formity with … the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,”95 avoid-ance of “any intervention … of a political,military, religious or racial character,”96

and compliance with international con-ventions and domestic law.97 If the requestinvolves a Red Notice, the CCF will alsoassess compliance with Article 83 of theRPD, which prohibits the issuance of RedNotices that raise “controversial issuesrelating to behavioural or culturalnorms,” that “relat[e] to family/private

matters,”98 or that are based on offenses“originating from a violation of laws orregulations of an administrative nature orderiving from private disputes.”99

Confidentiality can be an importantstrategic consideration. Interpol repre-sents that requests by individuals are notrecorded in its databases, and are notaccessible by NCBs.100 While performingthe assessment, however, the CCF cansolicit additional information from therequesting person and from the relevantNCB.101 Interpol assures that the NCBwill not be contacted if the applicantexplicitly requests complete confiden-tiality.102 Likewise, if the CCF is “boundto communicate certain items of infor-mation to the INTERPOL GeneralSecretariat or to the entities concerned,in order to be able to process therequest” it will do so unless explicitlyforbidden from such communication bythe applicant in his or her request.103 Notsurprisingly, such a prohibition “may bedetrimental to the requesting party, as itrestricts the CCF’s ability to successfullyprocess the request.”104

In some instances, it will not be asecret that a client has been targeted by aparticular member nation. In such cases,the fact of the application will probablynot need to be kept confidential, butsome of the information the client sup-plies the CCF might not be known to themember nation, and should be kept con-fidential. Interpol states that, if sorequested, the CCF “never shares per-sonal or confidential information withNCBs that is not already known by theNCBs, such as elements of identificationor location of the subject.”105

In other cases, the client might notbe sure if he or she is a target, and wouldwant full confidentiality (including as tothe fact of the application) to avoid trig-gering interest where none may exist. Insuch a case, the need for complete confi-dentiality might outweigh the risk thatthe CCF will be unable to process therequest. Each case requires its own eval-uation.

The rules do not specify the burdenof proof the applicant is required tomeet in order to have information mod-ified or deleted, or to have a Red Noticeor Diffusion canceled. The CCF does notpublish the standards it applies and doesnot promulgate its decisions or the rea-soning in individual cases.106 If therequest is rejected in whole or in part,however, the CCF must explain its rea-sons to the requesting party.107

There is no right of appeal from aCCF decision,108 but if the requestingparty has “discover[ed] … a fact which

would probably have led to a differentconclusion if that fact had been knownat the time the request was processed,”the party can apply for re-examination.109

Once the CCF has concluded itsassessment, it issues its recommendationto the General Secretariat.110 The GeneralSecretariat is not bound by that recom-mendation, but will typically follow it.111

In the event of a disagreement betweenthe General Secretariat and the CCF, theCCF may bring the dispute before theExecutive Committee of Interpol.112

This, however, is highly unusual.113

1. Required Forms and Documents.The CCF provides a one-page form onits website for requesting access to anddeletion of information contained inInterpol’s files.114 The form is also usedfor requesting cancellation of a RedNotice or Diffusion.115 In addition tobasic information about the applicant,the form requires the applicant to setforth the reasons for the request, and toprovide supporting documents.116

2. Basis for Relief. A request forcancellation of a Red Notice orDiffusion may be based on Interpol’sConstitution and/or the RPD.117

Constitutional arguments can include aviolation of Article 2, which identifiesInterpol’s goal of promoting policecooperation consistent with the spirit ofthe Universal Declaration of HumanRights (the Declaration), or of Article 3,which prohibits Interpol’s involvementin matters of a political, military, reli-gious, or racial nature.118

When an individual claims theinformation contained in Interpol’s files,or a Red Notice issued on the basis ofthat information, violates Article 3, theCCF applies the “predominance test” toassess the claim.119 Under this test, theCCF evaluates the ordinary criminal lawaspects of the case and the Article 3aspects, determining which predomi-nates.120 The CCF will recommend can-cellation of a Red Notice, or deletion ofinformation in Interpol’s files, where theArticle 3 aspects of the case predomi-nate.121 In an Article 3 assessment, all rel-evant information is examined, includ-ing the following nonexclusive factors:(1) the nature of the offense, specificallythe charges and relevant facts; (2) thestatus of the individual concerned; (3)the identity of the source of the informa-tion; (4) the position taken by a membernation or authorized international enti-ties apart from the source of the infor-mation; (5) the obligations under inter-

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N32

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

the bloodstream must be restricted topsychoactive metabolites in order toavoid absurd results. And in a fourthcase, State v. Whitman, the courtappointed AACJ as amicus curiae toargue the case for the defense bar. Formore information, contact AACJ’sExecutive Director Max Bessler at480-812-1700 or emaildefense@aacj.org.

MACDL Creates Advocacy NetworkThe Massachusetts Association ofCriminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL)has created a statewide WitnessAdvocacy and RepresentationNetwork (WARN) designed to pro-vide pro bono legal representation forindividuals who are contacted by lawenforcement agents for questioningor interrogation. This network, thefirst of its kind in the United States,will make prompt referral of cases tovolunteer local attorneys — animportant and crucial step to closingthe gap in the provision of legal rep-resentation in the criminal justicesystem. It will address the inherentinequity of the current system where-in only individuals with adequatemeans are able to protect their rightswhen confronted by law enforcementagents. WARN has been in operationfor less than a month and has alreadyassigned counsel to two witnesses.For more information, contactMACDL’s President Elizabeth A. Luntat 617-742-6020 or emaillunt@zalkindlaw.com. n

AFFILIATE NEWSContinued from page 13

TWO SEMINARS — SAME DATE — ONE GREAT LOCATION!

BOTH Seminars Registration Categories FeesNACDL / NCDD Members — Both Seminars $790Non-Members of NACDL — Both Seminars $1090All Public Defenders — Both Seminars $558Groups of (4) or more Public Defenders from same office — Both Seminars $438(Must register at the same time with one payment; no changes, cancellations, or refunds allowed)

Seminar Total

Select your course materials preference:Pre-Seminar Download (FREE) CD-Rom (add $10) Hard copy (add $60) Events & Materials Total

Subtotal

GA CLE fee add $60.00*NC CLE fee add $40.00*PA CLE fee add $21.00*

IL, NE, UT CLE fee add $15.00*TX CLE fee add $10.00*

Grand Total

www.nacdl.org/cle Fax to 202-872-8690

Drug Seminar Registration Categories FeesNACDL Members: Regular, Life and Sustaining $389Non-Members of NACDL $565All Public Defenders $289Groups of (4) or more Public Defenders from same office $229(Must register at the same time with one payment; no changes, cancellations, or refunds allowed)

Seminar Total

Select your course materials preference:Pre-Seminar Download (FREE) CD-Rom (add $10) Hard copy (add $30)

DWI Seminar Registration Categories FeesNACDL Members / NCDD Members $599Non-Members $799All Public Defenders $409Groups of (4) or more Public Defenders from same office $319(Must register at the same time with one payment; no changes, cancellations, or refunds allowed)

Seminar Total

Select your course materials preference:Pre-Seminar Download (FREE) CD-Rom (add $10) Hard copy (add $30)

Can’t Attend? Order Materials Only DWI DRUG BOTHNon-Attendee Written Materials $150 $150 $300Non-Attendee Audio CD $200 $200 $400Non-Attendee DVD Video $299 $299 $598

*State fees must be paid inadvance to receive CLE credit. If left blank, you will not receive credit.

Registration InformationCircle your membership category fee and note the Grand Total due. Confirmation letters willbe sent to all registrants in early August. Registrants must stop by the on-site registrationdesk before attending any events to receive their badge and materials. Cancellations mustbe received in writing before 5:30 pm ET on Friday, September 5, 2014 to receive a refund,less a $75 processing fee. A $15 processing fee will be applied for returned checks. To regis-ter online, visit www.nacdl.org/cle; or fax this form with credit card information to 202-872-8690; or mail with full payment to: 2014 DWI DRUG Seminar, 1660 L St., NW, 12th Floor,Washington, DC 20036. Questions? Contact Viviana Sejas at 202-872-8600 x632.

Name ____________________________________________________________________________________

Badge name (if different) ____________________________________________________________________

CLE State(s) ______________________________ Bar # (s) __________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________ State ____________________ Zip ________________

Office phone __________________________________ Home phone _________________________________

E-mail ________________________________________________ Fax _________________________________

Guest(s)/children ____________________________________________________________________________

m Check enclosed (payable to NACDL)m AMEX m VISA m MASTERCARD m DISCOVER

Card Number ________________________________________________________________________________

Name on Card ____________________________________________________ Exp. Date __________________

Billing Address ______________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________ State ____________________ Zip __________________

Authorized Signature __________________________________________________________________________

Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, NV | September 11 - 13, 2014

NACDL & NCDD’s 18th Annual“DWI Means Defend with Ingenuity®”

The Art and Science ofDWI Defense

#NACDLdwi #NACDLdrugs

andLas Vegas NACDL & NCDD’s 7th Annual

“Defending the ModernDrug Case”

© Ingimage © Ingimage

*Register for both seminars together and receive a 20%discount on your total combined registration fee.

ATTEND ONE OR BOTH!

national law; (6) the implications onInterpol’s neutrality; and (7) the generalcontext of the case.122

The General Secretariat maintains arepository of practice on the applicationof Article 3 that is available to NCBs.123 Acooperative NCB might be willing toprovide access to the repository, whichcould be a useful source of information.

Arguments under the RPD will usu-ally be based on one or more of Articles5(3), 11, 12, 76 and 83. Article 5(3) pro-vides that information collected byInterpol should be processed with “dueobservance” of Interpol’s political neu-trality and relevant national laws andinternational conventions. Article 11requires Interpol to use data “with dueregard for the law applicable to” therequesting NCB, and to “respect thebasic rights” of the subject of the RedNotice or Diffusion, in accordance withArticle 2 of Interpol’s Constitution andthe Declaration. Article 12 provides thatdata processed by Interpol must be“accurate, relevant, not excessive in rela-tion to their purpose and up to date[.]”Article 76 states that Interpol is notrequired to issue a Notice if doing so“could prejudice the Organization’simage or interests.”

Article 83 imposes specific require-ments for issuance of a Red Notice,including minimum penalty thresholdsfor the underlying offense, the provisionof personal information sufficient forlaw enforcement to identify the subject,and restrictions on the use of RedNotices in conjunction with private dis-putes, family matters, administrativeoffenses, and violations of cultural orbehavioral norms. This Article is fre-quently ignored, as Red Notices havebeen issued in connection with mort-gage loan defaults and other commercialdisputes.124 Any such abuses should becontested vigorously before the CCF.

3. Benny Wenda’s SuccessfulApplication for Cancellation of a RedNotice. Although Interpol’s websitedoes not provide sample applications,Fair Trials International, a not-for-profit legal organization in the UnitedKingdom, has submitted a number ofCCF requests and has made two ofthose requests available on its website.125

One of these applications, that ofBenny Wenda, resulted in thecancellation of a Red Notice.126

Wenda is an activist from WestPapua, an area of New Guinea that isconsidered part of Indonesia.127 Wendaserved as Secretary-General for the tribalassembly representing the West Papuanpeople, an organization that seeks to

protect the customs and beliefs of nativeWest Papuans legally and peacefully.128

In 2002, Wenda was arrested byIndonesian authorities and, after beingdetained for over two months, wascharged with inciting an attack on apolice station which resulted in multi-ple deaths.129 Wenda denies culpability,and says he was detained, tortured,and solicited for bribes by theIndonesian judge and prosecutorbefore escaping and fleeing to theUnited Kingdom.130 The U.K. grantedWenda political asylum.131

In the U.K., Wenda created the FreeWest Papua campaign, a nonviolentinternational movement promoting theindependence of West Papua.132 Hisactivism required significant interna-tional travel, which became nearlyimpossible when Wenda learned that, atIndonesia’s request, Interpol had issueda Red Notice for him in 2011.133 On April24, 2012, Fair Trials International filedan application on Wenda’s behalf withthe CCF, seeking to cancel the RedNotice.134 In August 2012, Interpol can-celled the Red Notice.135Wenda’s applica-tion, discussed below, was premisedlargely on violations of Articles 2 and 3of Interpol’s Constitution.

3a. Violation of Article 2 —Infringement of The Declaration.Wenda invoked Article 2 of Interpol’sConstitution, which provides thatInterpol aims to “ensure and promotethe widest possible mutual assistancebetween all criminal police authoritieswithin the limits of the laws existing inthe different countries and in the spiritof the Universal Declaration of HumanRights.”136 Wenda argued that the RedNotice violated Articles 12 and 19 of theDeclaration by causing an “arbitraryinterference with [his] privacy, family,home … [and] correspondence”; by“attack[ing] … his honour and reputa-tion”; and by violating his “right to free-dom of opinion and expression.”137

Wenda also argued that the RedNotice violated Article 5 of theDeclaration by exposing him to the riskof future “torture or … cruel, inhumanor degrading treatment or punishment”in Indonesia.138 Wenda’s applicationdetailed the ill-treatment he sufferedwhile detained in Indonesia, and citedreports from Human Rights Watch,Amnesty International and the UnitedNations, which documented the contin-uing abuse against West Papuanactivists.139 Because the Red Noticewould assist in returning him to a nationwhere there was a real risk he would be

subjected to torture or inhuman treat-ment, Wenda argued that the Red Noticewas inconsistent with the “spirit” of theDeclaration and thus violated Article 2of Interpol’s Constitution.140

3b. Violation of Article 3 —Prohibition on Interventions of aPolitical, Military, Religious or RacialCharacter. Wenda also invoked Article 3of Interpol’s Constitution, which pro-hibits Interpol from engaging in activi-ties “of a political, military, religious orracial character.”141 Wenda argued thatthe charges against him were politicallymotivated, citing the abuse he sufferedduring his pretrial detention; the factthat he was not indicted until twomonths into his detention; the absenceof key witnesses at trial and the admis-sion by the court of written statementswithout an opportunity for cross-exam-ination; and the solicitation to bribe thejudge and prosecutor.142 Wenda notedthat the U.K. would have denied hisrequest for asylum had there been suffi-cient evidence he was guilty of thecrimes charged.143

Wenda also argued that the realobjective of the Red Notice was toimpair his ability to travel, and therebyeliminate his ability to engage in politi-cal activism outside the U.K., and thatthis was a politically motivated abuse ofInterpol’s notice system.144

3c. Compliance With Obligationsof Domestic And International Law.Although the RPD was not yet in effectat the time of Wenda’s application,Wenda made an argument that couldnow be made under Article 5(3), whichrequires that member nations processinformation in Interpol’s databases“with due observance of … theirrespective national legislations andinternational conventions to whichthey are parties.”145 Wenda argued thathis trial failed to comply with interna-tional conventions to which Indonesiawas a party.146

Wenda’s application was granted,but the CCF did not reveal which of hisarguments it considered most effective.Nevertheless, the Wenda applicationprovides a useful example of a successfulchallenge to a Red Notice.

3d. Prejudice to Interpol’s Imageand Interests. Interpol has been criti-cized for its willingness to assist nationsthat have questionable human rightsrecords or a history of abusing the RedNotice system.147 In a suitable case,Article 76 of the RPD enables counsel to

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N34

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

argue that Interpol is prejudicing itsimage and interests by allowing a mem-ber nation with a poor human rightsrecord to maintain a Red Notice orDiffusion against the client.148

4. Timeline for CCF Challenge.There is no published timeline fordeciding a request for information or achallenge to information contained inInterpol’s files. The CCF’s OperatingRules state that the CCF processesrequests in the order received, reservingthe right to “decide to give priority to aparticular request.”149 The CCF isrequired to acknowledge receipt of arequest within one month of itssubmission,150 and, as a threshold matter,the CCF Secretariat must determinewhether the request is admissible.151 If itis, the CCF Secretariat makes a “detailedassessment of the request by reference tothe Organization’s Rules” and submits asummary of the case to a CCF sessionfor consideration andrecommendations.152 The CCF, however,meets only three times a year.153 Thus,depending on the number of requests,154

it could be months before the CCFSecretariat makes an admissibilitydecision, and more months before theCCF evaluates the merits of the request.

Within one month of its determination,the CCF is required to send the GeneralSecretariat a report containing itsrecommendations.155 The GeneralSecretariat then has one month to rejectthose recommendations before thereport becomes final.156

Anecdotal evidence, gathered fromwell-publicized cases involving requestsfor Red Notice cancellation, provides fur-ther insight into the timeline of a CCFrequest. These cases, however, might notbe fully representative, as most applica-tions do not receive the kind of mediaattention these cases received. It appearsthat publicity and political support canhave an effect on Interpol.

4a. Mohamed Ali Harrath. MohamedAli Harrath, a political dissident whoendured imprisonment and torture forcampaigning against President Ben Ali’sregime in Tunisia, became the subject of aRed Notice in 1992.157 He fled to theUnited Kingdom, where he lived in exileuntil his arrest in South Africa in January2010 based upon the Red Notice.158

Extradition proceedings were instituted,but after the Tunisian government failedto provide evidence in support of thecharges, the South African court dis-missed the case.159 Harrath then

announced that his lawyers would file arequest with the CCF to have the RedNotice canceled.160 About one year later,Interpol canceled the Red Notice.161 In itscommunication with Harrath, Interpolstated that “after re-examining all theinformation in the file,” it “considered thatthe proceedings against [him] were pri-marily political in nature.”162 The RedNotice had been in effect for 20 years.

4b. Petr Silaev. For Russian activistPetr Silaev, the CCF challenge processtook about five months, but was unsuc-cessful. In July 2010, Silaev participatedin a demonstration protesting construc-tion of a highway through the Khimkiforests near Moscow.163 After seeing hisfellow protestors arrested by Russianpolice, Silaev fled in April 2012, and wasgranted asylum in Finland.164 Russia cir-culated a Diffusion requesting Silaev’sarrest, and in August 2012 Spaindetained Silaev.165 Spain, however,refused to extradite him, concludingthat the Russian charges were politicallymotivated.166 Nevertheless, the Diffusionremained in effect.167 On May 20, 2013,Fair Trials International filed a requestwith the CCF to have the Diffusion can-celed and information in Interpol’s filesregarding Silaev deleted.168 On Oct. 25,

WWW. N A C D L . O R G M AY 2 0 1 4

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

35

2013, Interpol denied the request, stat-ing that “there is no reason to believethat the retention of information [relat-ing to Silaev] in INTERPOL’s fileswould not be in compliance withINTERPOL’s rules.”169

4c. William Browder. WilliamBrowder, a British investment banker,became the subject of a Blue Notice inMay 2013 after campaigning againsthuman rights abuses by the Russiangovernment.170 Although Blue Notices(which seek information about theidentity, location, or activities of anindividual in relation to a crime) differfrom Red Notices, the procedure forseeking their cancellation is identical.171

Interpol canceled the Blue Notice with-in one month of Browder’s request.172

Browder had become a humanrights activist following the death of hisaccountant, Sergei Magnitsky, in aRussian prison.173 Magnitsky had beenarrested after exposing a corruptionscheme by the Russian government.174

Browder became a proponent of a bill,the U.S. Magnitsky Law, which imposes

financial and visa-related penalties onRussian citizens who have committedhuman rights violations.

Browder was already well knownbefore his dispute with Russia. Thehigh-profile nature of the dispute, how-ever, was likely a factor in Interpol’sdecision to cancel the Blue Notice with-in one month of his request for its can-cellation.175 Interpol released a rarepublic statement about its decision,explaining that the CCF had “conclud-ed … the case was of a predominantlypolitical nature.”176 Later, when theRussian Federation sought the issuanceof a Red Notice against Browder,Interpol again responded publicly,announcing its refusal to “be used bythe Russian Federation to seek thearrest of Mr. William Browder.”177

ii. Seeking Relief From the NCB That Requested the Red Notice or Diffusion

There are other potential avenuesfor challenging a Red Notice orDiffusion. If the client has been acquit-ted, has served his or her sentence, or

believes the Red Notice or Diffusionwas simply requested in error, the mostdirect route for its cancellation isthrough the NCB that applied for it.178

The requesting NCB must withdraw itsrequest and ask the General Secretariatto cancel the Notice immediately when:(1) the purpose of the request has beenachieved; (2) the alert is linked to anddependent upon another requestwhose purpose has been achieved; (3)the NCB no longer wishes to maintainthe request; or (4) the notice no longermeets the conditions for publication.179

NCBs can seek cancellation of request-ed notices at any time, and should doso when the subject of the notice hasserved his or her sentence or has beenacquitted.180 If the NCB refuses to with-draw its request and ask for cancella-tion, the attorney should submit arequest for cancellation to the CCF,supported by documentation showingthat cancellation is required.

If the underlying arrest warrant isbased on inaccurate information, or isotherwise susceptible to challenge in theissuing country, counsel should work

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N36

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

Membership Marketing ManagerLinda Gill Anderson / landerson@nacdl.org 202-465-7647

Senior Resource CounselVanessa Antoun / vantoun@nacdl.org 202-465-7663

Education ManagerAkvile Athanason / aathanason@nacdl.org 202-465-7630

Sales & Marketing DirectorJames Bergmann / jbergmann@nacdl.org 202-465-7629

Deputy Executive DirectorTom Chambers / tchambers@nacdl.org 202-465-7625

Editor, The ChampionQuintin Chatman / qchatman@nacdl.org 202-465-7633

National Security and Privacy CounselMason C. Clutter / mclutter@nacdl.org 202-465-7658

Membership DirectorMichael Connor / mconnor@nacdl.org 202-465-7654

Director of Public Affairs & CommunicationsIvan Dominguez / idominguez@nacdl.org 202-465-7662

State Legislative Affairs DirectorAngelyn Frazer / afrazer@nacdl.org 202-465-7642

Manager for Grassroots AdvocacyChristopher D. Glen / cglen@nacdl.org 202-465-7644

Indigent Defense CounselJohn Gross / jgross@nacdl.org 202-465-7631

Post-Conviction CounselLindsay Herf / lherf@nacdl.org 202-465-7646

Counsel — White Collar Crime PolicyTiffany M. Joslyn / tjoslyn@nacdl.org 202-465-7660

Director of EventsTamara Kalacevic / tkalacevic@nacdl.org 202-465-7641

Public Affairs & Communications AssistantIsaac Kramer / ikramer@nacdl.org 202-465-7656

Associate Executive Director for ProgramsGerald Lippert / glippert@nacdl.org 202-465-7636

Associate Executive Director for PolicyKyle O’Dowd / kodowd@nacdl.org 202-465-7626

National Affairs AssistantElsa Ohman / eohman@nacdl.org 202-465-7638

Director — White Collar Crime PolicyShana-Tara Regon / sregon@nacdl.org 202-465-7627

Executive DirectorNorman L. Reimer / nreimer@nacdl.org 202-465-7623

Freelance Graphic DesignerJason Rogers / jrogers@nacdl.org 202-465-7635

Multimedia Production AssistantMateo Samper / msamper@nacdl.org 202-465-7661

Member Services AssistantNelle Sandridge / nsandridge@nacdl.org 202-465-7639

Senior Membership and Administrative AssistantViviana Sejas / vsejas@nacdl.org 202-465-7632

Information Services ManagerDoug Shaner / dshaner@nacdl.org 202-465-7648

Strategic Marketing & Product Sales AssociateGrekan Simpson / gsimpson@nacdl.org 202-465-7643

Freelance Graphic DesignerJennifer Waters / jwaters@nacdl.org 202-465-7655

Foundation Manager and Executive AssistantDaniel Aaron Weir / dweir@nacdl.org 202-465-7640

Art DirectorCatherine Zlomek / czlomek@nacdl.org 202-465-7634

NACDL STAFF DIRECTORY MEMBERSHIP HOTLINE 202-872-4001

u Includes Written Materials and PowerPoints

u *Up to 17 Self-Study CLE Credits*CLE Credit is issued to participants who fulfill the necessaryrequirements and in states where self-study CLE is authorized &approved. Total credit hours vary by state. Additional fees may apply.

q Check enclosed (payable to NACDL)

q Pay by credit card:

qAmex qVisa qMastercard qDiscover

1. Biomechanics and the Criminal Defense Case | Dr. Dutch Johnson

2. Abusive Head Trauma: Current Controversies & Opposing Theories | Tara Godoy

3. Lost Evidence & Expert Testimony: LitigatingCollection and Preservation Issues | Marcia Shein

4. Ballistics & Toolmark Identification | Paul Paradis5. Forensic Pathology & Toxicology: The Power

Of Scientific Expert Testimony— The SynergisticEffect of Heroin and Xanax | Michael V. Cristalli

6. Utilizing State-of-the-Art Forensic Technology toDocument Accident & Crime Scenes | Steven Schorr

7. The Syllogism of Expert Testimony | Prof. Edward Imwinkelried

8. Bloodspatter Pattern Analysis: Art or Science? | George Schiro

9. Daubert/Frye/Sargon: Dealing With Experts & Standards of Admission | Charles Sevilla

10. GPS/Cell Phone Tower Data Analysis | Robert Aguero11. Mitochondrial DNA: A Highly

Useful Tool | Dr. Terry Melton12. A Burning Question: Applying the Scientific Method

in Fire Investigation | Paul Bieber & Len Walker13. Forensics for the Defense: 20 Ways

To Win Using Enhancement and Authentication Science | Doug Carner

Credit Card Number Expiration Date

Name

Mailing Address (No P.O. Boxes)

City State Zip

Phone Fax

E-mail Address

Authorized Signature

SHIPPING AND PAyMENT INFORMATION

ExperienceSomething Better!

5 EASy WAyS TO ORDER

Call: Email: Fax: Online:(202) 465-7643 orders@nacdl.org (202) 872-8690 www.nacdl.org/store@

Mail: NACDL Education Dept., 1660 L St NW12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036

qVideo DVD $375**qAudio CD $200**qAdd Hard Copy Materials $75**Special pricing is available for public defenders.

Discount Code

Total $

All orders add shipping $9.50

NACDL’s 7th Annual Forensic Science & the Law Conference

Making Sense of Science VIIFull

Seminar on

Audio CD

or VideoDVD

with local counsel to challenge the arrestwarrant in order to have it withdrawn orvacated. In turn, this would require can-cellation of the Red Notice or Diffusionbased on the arrest warrant.181

iii. Working With a SupportiveNCB to Cancel a Red Notice Or Diffusion

Under certain circumstances, theclient’s most powerful ally might be a sup-portive NCB. For example, if the client hasbeen granted asylum, counsel might askthe asylum country’s NCB to help chal-lenge the Red Notice or Diffusion.

Pursuant to Articles 24, 25 and 135 ofthe RPD, the General Secretariat maydelete information in its databases, includ-ing cancelling Red Notices or Diffusions,based on data obtained from anotherNCB.182 A supportive NCB can report adefect in the information used to supportthe Red Notice or Diffusion, identify anyimpropriety in the charges or the prosecu-tion, or otherwise question compliancewith Interpol’s Constitution and rules.183

The General Secretariat is charged withensuring that disputes between NCBs aresolved by “concerted consultation.”184 Ifthat fails, the matter is referred to theExecutive Committee.185 If the Executive

Committee cannot resolve the issue, it issubmitted to the General Assembly.186

While the dispute is pending, the support-ive NCB can request that the GeneralSecretariat apply interim measures to pre-vent the Red Notice or Diffusion frombeing circulated among member nationsor published on Interpol’s website.187

Conclusion

A client might have good reason tobe concerned about international travel,as many countries will arrest and detainthe subject of a Red Notice or Diffusion.There are steps that can be taken to try toascertain whether the client is the subjectof a Red Notice or Diffusion, and, if so, totry to have it canceled. Nevertheless, thechallenges are substantial.

Notes1. Overview, INTERPOL, http://www.

interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Overview (lastvisited May 1, 2014).

2. Vision and mission, INTERPOL,http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Vision-and-mission (last visited May 1,2014).

3. See INTERPOL FAQs, INTERPOL,http://www.interpol.int/FAQs (last visitedMay 1, 2014).

4. See Overview, supra note 1.5. Id.6. The Constitution, INTERPOL,

http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Legal-materials/The-Constitution (last visit-ed May 1, 2014).

7. Interpol Constitution and GeneralRegulations, INTERPOL (Oct. 15, 2008), art. 2, available at http://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/Legal-material/Reference-Documents/Constitution-and-General-Regulations (internal quotation marksomitted).

8. Id. at art. 3.9. Structure and governance, INTERPOL,

h t t p : / / www. i n t e r p o l . i n t / A b o u t -INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance (lastvisited May 1, 2014).

10. Id.11. Id.12. Executive Committee, INTERPOL,

h t t p : / / www. i n t e r p o l . i n t / A b o u t -INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/Executive-Committee (last visited May 1,2014).

13. Id.14. General Secretariat, INTERPOL,

h t t p : / / www. i n t e r p o l . i n t / A b o u t -INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/General-Secretariat (last visited May 1,2014).

15. Id.16. National Central Bureaus, INTERPOL,

http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/National-Central-Bureaus (last visited May 1, 2014).

17. Id.18. About INTERPOL Washington, THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,http://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/about.html (last visited May 1, 2014).

19. See id.20. Commission for the Control

of INTERPOL’s Files, INTERPOL,http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL’s-Files (last visitedMay 1, 2014).

21. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the Controlof Information and Access to INTERPOL’s Files,INTERPOL (Feb. 15, 2010), at arts. 2–3, avail-able at http://www.interpol.int/Media/F i l e s / L e g a l -m a t e r i a l / R e f e r e n c e -Documents/Rules-on-the-Control-of-Information-and-access-to-INTERPOL’s-Files-RCI.

22. Id. at art. 1.23. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, INTERPOL (Mar. 14,2013), art. 18, available at http://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/Legal-mater-ial/Reference-Documents/INTERPOL’s-Rules-on-the-Processing-of-Data.

24. See Compliance with the rules,INTERPOL, http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Legal-materials/Compliance-with-the-rules (last visited May 1, 2014); seealso Mario Savino, Global Administrative LawMeets ‘Soft’ Powers: The Uncomfortable Caseof Interpol Red Notices, 43 N.Y.U. J. INT’L L. &POL. 263, 272 & n. 22 (2011); Catherine Heard& Alex Tinsley, The Power of the Interpol RedNotice, 28 No. 8 INT’L ENFORCEMENT L. REV. 299(2012). By Executive Order dated June 16,1983, President Ronald Reagan grantedInterpol immunity from suit in the UnitedStates. See Exec. Order No. 12425, 48 Fed.Reg. 28069 (June 16, 1983).

25. See Compliance with the rules, supranote 24.

26. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processingof Data, supra note 23, at arts. 11–12.

27. Id. at arts. 10(4), 12(3).28. See Compliance with the rules,

supra note 24.29. INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing

of Data, supra note 23, at art. 5(3).30. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the Control

of Information and Access to INTERPOL’s Files,supra note 21.

31. See Overview, supra note 1.32. Notices, INTERPOL, http://www.

interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices(last visited May 1, 2014).

33. Id.34. Id.35. Id.36. Id.

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N38

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

W h e r e D o Y o u F i n d T h e T i m e ?

CLE on the goAny time; Any place

Scan Here For More Information Online

37. Id.38. Id.39. Id.40. Id.41. See Data exchange, INTERPOL,

http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Data-exchange/I-link (last visited May 1,2014).

42. See Interpol: Julian Assange ‘RedNotice’ Issued, THE HUFFINGTON POST (Nov. 30,2010), available at http://www.huffington-post.com/2010/11/30/interpol-julian-assange-r_n_790157.html.

43. See INTERPOL’s Rules on theProcessing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 82.

44. Annual Report 2012, INTERPOL, at 13,available at http://www.interpol.int/con-tent/download/20552/185413/version/5/file/Annual%20Report%202012_EN_i.pdf.

45. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processingof Data, supra note 23, at art. 87(a).

46. See Interpol Washington FrequentlyAsked Questions, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE, http://www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/faqs.html (last visited May 1,2014).

47. See, e.g., Catherine Heard & AlexTinsley, supra note 24, at 299.

48. See Audit Report 09-35, UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTORGENERAL AUDIT DIVISION (Sep. 2009), at xiii,available at http://www.justice.gov/oig/

reports/plus/a0935/final.pdf.49. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (2012).50. See INTERPOL, http://www.inter-

pol.int/en (last visited May 1, 2014).51. See FAQs, INTERPOL, http://www.

interpol.int/FAQs (last visited May 1, 2014).52. See Data exchange, supra note 41.53. See Notices, supra note 32.54. See Data exchange, supra note 41;

see also Notices, supra note 32.55. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 99(2).56. See id. at art. 99(3).57. See id.; see also Notices, supra note

32.58. See Audit Report 09-35, supra note

48, at xiii, xvi. 59. Annual Report 2012, supra note 44,

at 32.60. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 73.61. Id. at art. 83(1)(a).62. Id.63. Id.64. Id.65. Id.66. Id. at art. 83(1)(b).67. Id. at art. 83(2)(a).68. Id. at art. 83(2)(b).69. Id. at art. 86.70. Id. at art. 81(c).71. Id. at arts. 97–100.

72. See Data exchange, supra note 41.73. See INTERPOL, supra note 50.74. See, e.g., Pashchenko, Denys, INTER-

POL, http://www.interpol.int/notice/search/wanted/2014-5929 (last visited May 1, 2014).

75. See Catherine Heard & Alex Tinsley,supra note 24, at 299.

76. Make a FOIA Request to DOJ, UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, http://www.jus-tice.gov/oip/foia-request.html (last visitedMay 1, 2014); see also Interpol WashingtonFOIA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,http://www.justice.gov/interpol-washing-ton/foia.html (last visited May 1, 2014).

77. INTERPOL Washington FOIA, supranote 76.

78. The CCF is responsible for guaran-teeing the right of individuals to access per-sonal information contained in Interpol’sfiles. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processingof Data, supra note 23, at art. 18; see alsoAccess to INTERPOL’s Files, INTERPOL,http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/CCF/Access-to-INTERPOL’s-files (last visited May 1, 2014).

79. CCIF Application-Benny Wenda, FAIRTRIALS INTERNATIONAL (Apr. 24, 2010), at 1, avail-able at http://www.fairtrials.org/documents/CCIF_Application_-_Benny_Wenda.pdf(“The Wenda Red Notice was removed fromthe public website on or around 20 April2012. However, it is assumed that it remains

WWW. N A C D L . O R G M AY 2 0 1 4

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

39

a live notice on the restricted network.”).80. INTERPOL’s Rules on the Control of

Information and Access to INTERPOL’s Files,supra note 21.

81. See Access to INTERPOL’s files, supranote 78.

82. Id. The rule does not apply whenthe requesting party proves he or shealready knows the information exists inInterpol’s files or the information hasbecome public. Id.

83. See id. In his speech at the 82ndSession of Interpol’s General Assembly inOctober 2013, current Chairman of the CCFBilly Hawkes indicated that cooperation byNCBs with individual requests is “forthcom-ing” in most cases and that “[w]here NCBsdo not cooperate, the Commission’sapproach is to recommend at least block-ing, and often deletion, of the information.”Billy Hawkes, Chairman, Commission for theControl of Interpol’s Files, Presentation ofthe Annual Report of the CCF to GeneralAssembly at the 82nd Session (October2013), at 3, (transcript available athttp://www.interpol.int/content/down-load/21979/206899/version/1/file/GA2013-Speech%20delivered%20by%20Mr%20Hawkes.pdf ).

84. See Operating Rules of theCommission for the Control of Interpol’s Files,INTERPOL (Oct. 31, 2008), art. 2, available athttp://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/CCF/Documents/Operating-Rules.

85. See Access to INTERPOL’s Files, supranote 78.

86. See Interpol, Red Notices andDiffusions, FAIR TRIALS INTERNATIONAL, at 8(September 2013), available at http://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Fair-Trials-International-INTERPOL-Note-of-Advice.pdf (providing language from asample CCF response that states: “TheCommission has been authorised by theNational Central Bureau of [country] toinform you that you are wanted by virtue ofan arrest warrant dated [date] issued by[the relevant court]. This arrest warrant isthe basis for a [Diffusion / Red Notice]issued against you.”).

87. See Request for Access to INTERPOL’sDatabases, INTERPOL, available at http://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/CCF/Documents/Form-for-request-for-access-to-INTER-POL’s-databases (last visited May 1, 2013).

88. See CCF FAQs, INTERPOL,http://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Structure-and-governance/CCF/FAQs (lastvisited May 1, 2014).

89. Operating Rules of the Commissionfor the Control of Interpol’s Files, supra note84, at art. 10.

90. See id.91. Id.92. Id.

93. Id.94. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88.95. Interpol Constitution and General

Regulations, supra note 7, at art. 2.96. Id. at art. 3.97. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 11(1).98. See id. at art. 83(1)(a).99. Id.100. See Access to INTERPOL’s Files,

supra note 78; see also Operating Rules of theCommission for the Control of Interpol’s Files,supra note 84.

101. See Operating Rules of theCommission for the Control of Interpol’s Files,supra note 84, at art. 20.

102. Id.103. Id.104. CCF FAQs, supra note 88.105. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88.106. Id.107. See Operating Rules of the

Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files,supra note 84, at art. 13(2).

108. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88.109. Operating Rules of the Commission

for the Control of Interpol’s Files, supra note84, at art. 19(1).

110. See id. at arts. 41(1)–(2).111. See id. at arts. 41(3), 43(1); see also

Rules on the Control of Information andAccess to INTERPOL’s Files, supra note 21, atart. 6(b).

112. Id.113. See id.; see also Annual Activity

Report of the CCF for 2010, INTERPOL (Nov.2011), at § 7.2.1, available at http://www.interpol.int/content/download/13104/91464/version/4/file/ccf2010.pdf.

114. Access to INTERPOL’s Files, supranote 78.

115. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88; seealso Request for Access to INTERPOL’sDatabases, supra note 88; CCIF Application-Benny Wenda, supra note 79.

116. See Request for Access to INTER-POL’s Databases, supra note 88.

117. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88.118. Id.; see also CCIF Application-Benny

Wenda, supra note 79. 119. See CCF FAQs, supra note 88.120. Id.121. See id.; see also, e.g., INTERPOL state-

ment following decision by independentCommission for the Control of INTERPOL’sFiles, INTERPOL (May 24. 2013), available athttp://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2013/PR063.

122. See INTERPOL’s Rules on theProcessing of Data, supra note 23, at art.34(3).

123. See id. at art. 34(3).124. See, e.g., Rachel Baines, FAIR TRIALS

INTERNATIONAL, http://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Rachel-Baines.pdf (last

visited May 1, 2014).125. Legal Interventions, FAIR TRIALS

INTERNATIONAL, http://www.fairtrials.org/publi-cations/legal-interventions/ (last visited May1, 2014) (follow hyperlinks for “Benny WendaCCIF application” and “Petr Silaev CCIF appli-cation”).

126. See Benny Wenda Has Abusive RedNotice Removed, FAIR TRIALS INTERNATIONAL, http://www.fairtrials.org/press/benny-wenda-has-abusive-red-notice-removed/ (last visitedMay 1, 2014).

127. Spotlight Benny Wenda, FAIR TRIALSINTERNATIONAL, at 1 (2012), http://www.fairtri-als.org/documents/Benny_Wenda_spot-light.pdf.

128. Id.129. CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,

supra note 79, at 1; see also Ian Johnston,Interpol Faces Legal Threat for HelpingOppressive Regimes Hunt Dissidents, WORLD

NEWS NBC (Jan. 23, 2012), available athttp://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/23/10167327-interpol-faces-legal-threat-for-helping-oppressive-regimes-hunt-dissidents?lite.

130. See Ian Johnston, supra note 126.131. See Spotlight Benny Wenda, supra

note 124, at 2.132. Id.133. Id.; see also CCIF Application-Benny

Wenda, supra note 79, at 7.134. See CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,

supra note 79, at 1.135. Leah Hyslop, Benny Wenda

Removed From Interpol ‘Wanted’ List, THETELEGRAPH (Aug. 7, 2012), available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9458223/Benny-Wenda-removed-from-Interpol-wanted-list.html.

136. Interpol Constitution and GeneralRegulations, supra note 7, at art. 2.

137. See CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,supra note 79, at 6–7; see also UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III)A, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948),arts. 12, 19.

138. See CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,supra note 79, at 7–8; see also The UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, supra note134, at art. 5.

139. CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,supra note 79, at 7, 10.

140. Id. at 7.141. Interpol Constitution and General

Regulations, supra note 7, at art. 3.142. CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,

supra note 79, at 3.143. Id. at 4–5.144. Id. at 5–6.145. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 5(3).146. CCIF Application-Benny Wenda,

supra note 79, at 9.147. See Rogue States: Cross-Border

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N40

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

n coerced confessionsn collateral consequencesn forensic issuesn forfeiture issuesn habeas corpusn identification issuesn juvenile justicen RICO

n search and seizuren sex offender registration and residency restrictions

Manuscripts of practical use in all criminal defense categories are welcome, including:

Are you looking for a way to share your legal knowledgeand practical tips with other criminal defense lawyers?

Write an article for The Champion! THE CHAMPION is seeking practical

“here’s how you do it” articles for our readers.

The magazine reaches over 9,000 NACDL members, as well as our state and affiliate members.

Editorial guidelines are available at www.nacdl.org.

Send your manuscript to Quintin Chatman (qchatman@nacdl.org).

Policing Can Be Political, THE ECONOMIST (Nov.16, 2013), available at http://www.econo-mist.com/news/international/21589901-cross-border-policing-can-be-political-rogue-states; Owen Bowcott, InterpolAccused of Failing to Scrutinize Red NoticeRequests, THE GUARDIAN (Nov. 27, 2013), avail-able at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/interpol-accused-red-notice-requests; see also Peter Oborne, IsInterpol Fighting for Truth and Justice, orHelping the Villains?, THE TELEGRAPH (May 22,2013), available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ law-and-order/10073483/Is-Interpol-fighting-for-truth-and-justice-or-helping-the-villains.html;Libby Lewis, Are Some Nations AbusingInterpol?, CNN (July 18, 2011), available athttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe

/07/18/interpol.red.notices/.148. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art.76(2); see also CCIF Application — BennyWenda, supra note 79, at 9; Kingsley Napley& Stephen Gentle, Interpol Red Notices andHow to Deal With Them, LEXOLOGY.COM (Jan.7, 2013), available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1279d646-9189-40b0-817a-25ae9a4e873a.

149. Operating Rules of the Commissionfor the Control of Interpol’s Files, supra note84, at art. 3.

150. Id. at art. 6(1).151. Id. at art. 7.152. CCF FAQs, supra note 88.153. Operating Rules of the Commission

for the Control of Interpol’s Files, supra note84, at art. 36(1).

154. According to the CCF AnnualActivity Report for 2011, applications haveincreased by approximately 124 percent(from 115 to 258) since 2005. Annual ActivityReport of the CCF for 2011, INTERPOL (Nov.2011), at § 7.4.2, available at http://www.interpol.int/content/download/19070/169143/version/1/file/ccf2011.pdf.

155. Operating Rules of the Commissionfor the Control of Interpol’s Files, supra note84, at art. 41(2).

156. Id. at art. 41(5).157. Oborne, Is Interpol Fighting for

Truth and Justice, or Helping the Villains?,supra note 147.

158. Peter Oborne, The Terrorist WhoWasn’t, NEW STATESMAN (Jan. 30, 2012), avail-able at http://www.newstatesman.com/africa/2012/01/ali-harrath-interpol-tunisian.

159. Islam Channel CEO—Mohamed AlHarrath Vindicated in ‘Interpol Red NoticeCharge’ Trial in South Africa, ISLAMCHANNEL.TV(Mar. 29, 2010), available at http://www.islam-channel.tv/pressrelease.aspx?ArtId=166.

160. Id.161. Oborne, The Terrorist Who Wasn’t,

supra note 158.162. Id.163. Spotlight Petr Silaev, FAIR TRIALS

INTERNATIONAL, at 1 (2013), http://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Spotlight-Petr-Silaev1.pdf.

164. Id. at 2.165. See Silaev Application to CCIF, FAIR

TRIALS INTERNATIONAL (May 20, 2013), at 7, avail-able at http://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/Silaev-Application-to-CCF.pdf.

166. Id. at 8.167. Id.168. Id. at 1.169. Petr Silaev, FAIR TRIALS INTERNATIONAL,

http://www.fairtrials.org/cases/petr-silaev/(last visited May 1, 2014). Fair TrialsInternational has sought a reasoned deci-sion from Interpol regarding its rejection ofSilaev’s CCF application and disclosure of

any additional information Interpol hasreceived from Russia since the application’ssubmission. Id.

170. See Ronald K. Noble, Interpol Makesthe World a Safer Place, THE TELEGRAPH (May 28,2013), available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10082582/Interpol-makes-the-world-a-safer-place.html.

171. See Notices, supra note 32.172. See Noble, supra note 170.173. Kathy Lally, Interpol Snubs Russia on

Request to Arrest Human Rights Critic WilliamBrowder, WASH. POST (May 25, 2013), availableat http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-25/world/39516489_1_sergei-magnit-sky-interpol-visa-and-financial-sanctions.

174. Id.175. See Ronald K. Noble, supranote 170.176. INTERPOL statement following

decision by independent Commission for theControl of INTERPOL’s Files, INTERPOL (May24, 2013), available at http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releas-es/2013/PR063.

177. INTERPOL Cannot Be Used by theRussian Federation to Seek the Arrest of Mr.William Browder, INTERPOL (July 26, 2013),available at http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2013/N20130726.

178. See id.179. See INTERPOL’s Rules on the

Processing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 80(2).180. See Michelle A. Estlund, Red

Notice Removal by the Requesting Country: The Quickest Resolution of All, REDNOTICELAWJOURNAL.COM (Sep. 27, 2012), available athttp://www.rednoticelawjournal.com/red-notice-challenges/red-notice-removal-by-the-requesting-country-the-quickest-reso-lution-of-all/.

181. See INTERPOL’s Rules on theProcessing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 81.

182. See id. at arts. 24–25, 135.183. See, e.g., Parties Meet to Discuss Red

Notice Dispute, INTERPOL (Jan. 27, 2007),available at http://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2007/N20070122.

184. See INTERPOL’s Rules on theProcessing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 135;see also INTERPOL’s Procedures for theHandling of Article 24 Disputes BetweenMember Country National Central Bureaus(NCBs), INTERPOL (Mar. 7, 2007), available athttp://www.interpol.int/News-and-media/News-media-releases/2007/N20070307.

185. See INTERPOL’s Procedures for theHandling of Article 24 Disputes BetweenMember Country National Central Bureaus(NCBs), supra note 184.

186. See INTERPOL’s Rules on theProcessing of Data, supra note 23, at art. 135.

187. Id. at art. 129. n

WWW. N A C D L . O R G T H E C H A M P I O N42

INTERPO

L R

ED N

OTIC

ES A

ND D

IFFUSIO

NS

About the AuthorsJacques Semmelman, a partner at

Curtis, Mallet-Pre-vost, Colt & MosleLLP, is a formerAssistant U.S. Attor-ney whose practiceincludes interna-tional extradition,white collar crimi-nal defense, com-

mercial litigation, and patent litigation.

Jacques SemmelmanCurtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP101 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10178212-696-6067Fax 917-368-8867

jsemmelman@curtis.com

Emily Spencer Munson is an associate atCurtis, Mallet-Pre-vost, Colt & MosleLLP, focusing ongeneral and com-plex commercial lit-igation. She gradu-ated from the DukeUniversity School ofLaw in 2013, where

she participated in the Appellate Litiga-tion Clinic, successfully representing a fed-eral prisoner in his appeal before theFourth Circuit.

Emily Spencer MunsonCurtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP101 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10178212-696-6914Fax 917-368-8867

emunson@curtis.com

E-MAIL

E-MAIL