The short answer. Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution reads: "It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character." INTERPOL applies it through a predominance test — weighing "all relevant information and pertinent elements" to decide whether an offence is predominantly political, even where the requesting country's charge reads as ordinary crime. It is the best-known ground for refusing or deleting a Red Notice, and the hardest to prove.
One sentence from 1956 stands between a police network and a tool for pursuing dissidents.
What the rule says — and does not say
Article 3 does not say that politicians or journalists cannot be the subject of a Red Notice. It says INTERPOL may not intervene in matters of a political character. The difference is the whole doctrine. A General Assembly resolution of 1951, which INTERPOL still cites, directs that no request be sent for offences of a predominantly political character even where, in the requesting country, the facts amount to an ordinary-law offence. The question is never the label of the charge, but the predominant character of the matter behind it.
The predominance test
INTERPOL’s Repository of Practice separates “pure” political offences — those “directed against the State” with no ordinary-law element — from “relative” offences, which have ordinary-law elements but may still be predominantly political. Pure offences are refused outright. Relative ones are weighed: the nature of the offence, the status of the person (an opposition leader, a journalist, a refugee), the context of the request, the identity of the complainant, the timing, and what competent bodies — courts, tribunals, refugee authorities — have already found. The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files applies the same test to deletion requests.
A fraud charge against an opposition politician is not political because of who he is. It is political if, weighed as a whole, the prosecution serves a political purpose.
What evidence engages it
Documents, not adjectives. Reports by international bodies on the requesting country’s use of criminal law against opponents; foreign courts’ refusals of extradition on political grounds; a refugee determination, which engages Article 2 as well; the chronology showing a charge that followed a speech or an election; and the requesting country’s own statements. INTERPOL is candid that it “is neither mandated nor competent to conduct an independent assessment” of contested facts; it relies on “findings by bodies competent to assess them”. The file must bring them.
How often it bites
At the front door, Articles 2 and 3 accounted for 305 of the 2,462 Red Notices and diffusions INTERPOL refused or cancelled in 2024, and 558 of 2,550 in 2025 — nearly double in a year. Through the applicant’s door, the Commission found 60% of challenged data non-compliant in 2024. The rule works when argued with evidence; how it sits beside the others is in Which INTERPOL rules get a Red Notice deleted?
Related
- Which INTERPOL rules get a Red Notice deleted?
- Can INTERPOL circulate a Red Notice against a refugee?
- Can a Red Notice be used in a private dispute?
- Constitution of INTERPOL, Articles 2 and 3 — interpol.int
- INTERPOL — Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, third edition, November 2024 — interpol.int
- CCF Requests Chamber, decision excerpt no. 9 of 2019 — the predominance test — interpol.int
- INTERPOL — notice statistics, December 2025: refusals and cancellations by ground, 2017–2025 (Compliance and review, — interpol.int
Looking forward to any questions or comments that you may have! My goal is to help you, and your questions and comments are answered within one working day. And if you are somewhere in this story yourself: the assessment is free.
Ask a question or comment