By Alexis Anagnostakis
Summary. Recognition as a refugee does not prevent the State of origin from seeking the refugee’s arrest abroad through INTERPOL. The Organization’s Refugee Policy provides that such requests should, as a rule, be refused. Its protection is, however, most reliable when invoked before any request is made.
Can a State of origin reach a refugee through INTERPOL?
It can attempt to do so.
Refugee status protects the individual within the territory of the State that grants it. It does not, of itself, prevent the State of origin from requesting that INTERPOL circulate the individual’s details to the police authorities of its 196 member countries.
A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. At a border, however, it frequently has comparable consequences: provisional arrest, extradition proceedings and prolonged uncertainty for the person concerned.
The Refugee Policy is designed to prevent precisely this outcome.
The legal basis of the Policy
The Policy gives effect to two provisions of the INTERPOL Constitution:
- Article 2, which requires the Organization to act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
- Article 3, which strictly forbids any intervention or activity of a political, military, religious or racial character.
The Executive Committee endorsed the Policy in June 2014. The General Assembly formally adopted it at its 86th session in Beijing in September 2017 (INTERPOL).
When will a request be refused?
As a general rule, Red Notices and diffusions against refugees will not be processed where the following conditions are met cumulatively (policy text):
- Confirmed status: the status of refugee or asylum seeker has been confirmed;
- Requesting State: the request originates from the country in which the individual fears persecution; and
- Basis of the grant: refugee status was not granted on political grounds vis-à-vis the requesting country.
Note. The Policy extends to asylum seekers as well as recognised refugees. Each request is nonetheless assessed on a case-by-case basis; protection is not automatic.
The review process
Responsibility for compliance is distributed among four actors (INTERPOL, Compliance and review):
| Body | Function |
|---|---|
| Requesting National Central Bureau | Bears primary responsibility for the compliance of its request with INTERPOL’s rules |
| General Secretariat, Lyon | Assesses each request on a case-by-case basis |
| Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF) | Reviews Red Notices and diffusions prior to authorisation (since 2016) and keeps existing ones under review (since 2018) |
| Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) | Independent body determining individual requests for access, correction and deletion |
Where a request is refused for non-compliance with Article 2(1) or Article 3, no further cooperation on the matter may take place through INTERPOL’s channels.
The limits of the protection
Dependence on asylum status. Where a request is refused, INTERPOL may share the requesting country’s information with the country of asylum so that it may reconsider its decision. Should refugee status be revoked, the notice may then be issued, provided it otherwise complies with INTERPOL’s rules.
The information gap. The General Secretariat cannot apply the Policy to an individual it does not know to be a refugee. The asylum file is held by the authorities of the asylum State; the request is submitted by the State of origin. Unless the two are brought together, the review may proceed without the most material document.
An open question. The relationship between the Policy and the exclusion clauses of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention merits separate analysis.
Recommendations for practitioners
In our practice, the Policy is most effective when invoked pre-emptively. Where a refugee reasonably fears a politically motivated request, we recommend the following:
- Anticipatory submission. Submit a reasoned memorandum to the General Secretariat and the NDTF, copied to the CCF, requesting that any notice or diffusion from the State of origin be refused.
- Supporting evidence. Annex the asylum decision, the refugee travel document, the residence permit and material establishing the political context of any proceedings.
- Continuing disclosure. Notify INTERPOL of any renewal, review or challenge affecting the individual’s status.
- Existing notices. Where a notice or diffusion is already recorded, apply to the CCF for access and deletion. The procedure is free of charge and independent of the requesting State.
Conclusion
The Refugee Policy is among the most significant safeguards in INTERPOL’s legal framework. It reflects a fundamental principle: international police cooperation must not become an instrument by which a State pursues those it has persecuted.
Its effectiveness, however, depends on accurate information reaching Lyon in good time. In refugee cases, the most valuable work of defence counsel is frequently undertaken before any notice exists, and its success is measured by the absence of consequences.
For confidential advice on INTERPOL notices, diffusions or CCF proceedings, please contact Anagnostakis Law Offices. Consultations are by appointment only.
Alexis Anagnostakis is a criminal defence barrister in Athens, practising in extradition, INTERPOL/CCF and European human rights law. This article is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice.
