Edward Grange is a partner at the law firm Corker Binning.
To honor its commitment to increasing transparency, last November, Interpol published a significant amount of new data.
In it, the organization disclosed the number of “red notices” and “wanted person dissemination” that it had denied or removed during 2021 — meaning, both of its requests to global law enforcement for “extradition, surrender, or pending “Similar legal action,” as well as its more informal alerts to notify law enforcement, are circulated directly by member states to locate and temporarily arrest the person.
This was the first time in the organization’s 99-year history. And yet, in the fight for transparency, it still falls far short of what is needed.
Had this data not been published, the casual observer would have been none the wiser as to the scale of the problem Interpol has faced in dealing with notices that are abusive or otherwise non-compliant with its legal requirements. , as its 2021 annual report was completely silent on these matters
So, what exactly can be learned from this sudden and surprising revelation?
The data shows that Interpol published 23,716 notices during 2021 – including 10,776 red notices and 12,940 proliferation notices, a 4 percent decrease from the equivalent number published last year.
But this isn’t the revelation that piqued the interest of Interpol watchers.
A more eye-opening revelation is that during 2021, 1,270 notices were either rejected before publication or were canceled after their publication last year. Of these, 150 were not in accordance with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is in violation of Article 2 of the organization’s own constitution, and 353 were of a political, military, religious or racial character, which is in violation of Article 2 of its constitution. K3.
This begs the question: What about the remaining 767 notices?
No further details have been given on this. All are told that they were refused or canceled at publication for reasons mysteriously described as “other”.
However, the meaning of the term is unclear, and leaves the reader to consider whether it may fail to satisfy Interpol’s rules on the processing of data – basic legal requirements The Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) has the right to recommend that continued processing would be non-compliant and should be terminated. Examples include failure to meet minimum penalty requirements and cases where the offense falls under one of the categories of excluded offenses – such as adultery, dowry offences, failure to pay child support, possession of drugs for personal use. possession of, etc.
The next challenge in interpreting the published data is that no distinction is made between a notice denied publication in 2021 and a notice that was published in 2020 but then canceled due to review. Grouping these two categories together is unlikely to quench the thirst of critics, who are more interested in what the organization has chosen to reveal, not include or explain.
Of course, Interpol is to be commended for publishing this data – especially as it clearly demonstrates the scale of abuse of its system by member states. But the data also reveals a worrying trend: Why do so many abusive or illegal notices keep getting published in the first place?
And since INTERPOL’s own Notices and Diffusion Task Force – a specialized multilingual and multidisciplinary group of lawyers, police officers and operational experts who review requests for notices for compliance – allows these notices to slip, it To what extent does the offending notice constitute adequate protection?
If all 1,270 notices were refused publication, it would be irrefutable proof that the system is working. However, if most of them were rescinded after publication, it raises the question of why the Notices and Diffusion Task Force allowed them to be published.
This is the reason why the data raises more questions than it answers.
As it stands, the exact division between notices rejected before publication and those canceled after publication is unknown.
The split between Red Notice and Wanted Person circulation is also unknown, among those canceled after publication. Also, within those two categories, the reasons for cancellation in each case, and whether the target of the notice was detained, arrested or even subject to extradition proceedings before the Red Notice was cancelled. Was, or is not accessible. For how long these notices were in circulation before being canceled has also not been answered.
Of course, member states’ notice applications may not reveal their abusive nature on their face – for example, whether they are politically motivated, in violation of INTERPOL’s constitution, may not be immediately clear. However, there can be no excuse for publishing notices for offenses where the minimum requirements for publication are not met.
As the new data does not reveal where the fault lies, it must be a stab in the dark to conclude that the Notice and Diffusion Task Force is working as it should. One only has to check the most recent annual report of the CCF to find that a lot of notices are being published when they are not in line with Interpol’s constitution and data processing rules.
In 2021, the CCF processed data deletion requests on 478 applications where the applicant was the subject of a notice in the Interpol system. In 62 percent of these applications, the Commission recommended that the disputed data did not meet legal requirements under Interpol’s constitution and/or regulations, and that the data should be removed. In 28 percent, the challenged data was held to comply. And in the remaining 10 percent, either the Interpol General Secretariat or the source national central bureau removed the challenged data before considering the merits of the CCF.
Again, these figures suggest that more work needs to be done when Interpol first receives a notice application, to ensure that it is not published without thorough investigation to guarantee full compliance. .
The movement towards greater transparency from an organization that has operated in the dark for most of its life is a welcome development. But to demonstrate true transparency, Interpol must adopt continued openness. And so far, it has allowed only intermittent and tantalizingly incomplete glimpses into its inner workings.
These are only small steps – and more than one deserves to expect from an organization that will celebrate its centenary this year.