The CCF’s published decisions

Red Notices can be removed and deleted.

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files publishes a handful of its decisions each year, anonymised. Read together, the forty-two that concern a Red Notice are the nearest thing to a rulebook the watchdog has ever written: what gets a notice deleted, what does not — in its own words.

Last verified · 11 October 2026 · 65 decision excerpts, 2017–2025 · every outcome checked against the Commission’s own table of contents

2017–2025 · Forty-two Red Notice decisions

Nearly two in three ended in deletion.

decision excerpts the Commission has published since 2017

of them concern a Red Notice — the rest diffusions, Green and Blue Notices, passports and vehicles

Red Notices found non-compliant and deleted; seven more kept with an addendum; eight kept as they were

64%

deletion rate in the published set — against 60% on the merits in the Commission’s 2024 report

The docket — one square, one decision

Every published Red Notice decision, sorted by what decided it. Tap a square to jump to the case.

8 Extradition would breach human rights

6 It was never INTERPOL’s business

6 The paperwork did not hold

3 A custody fight dressed as a crime

2 The politics were predominant

2 The requesting country went quiet

7 Kept, file amended

8 Kept as it was

Deleted
Kept, file amended
Kept

The Commission chooses which decisions to publish, so this is its showcase, not its caseload. Its 2024 report puts the real rate on the merits at 60% non-compliant.

The six reasons

What deletes a Red Notice — in the Commission’s own words.

Twenty-seven deletions, sorted by the ground that decided each one. Most rested on two or three of these at once.

Article 2 of the Constitution

Extradition would breach human rights

Five of the eight rest on a court somewhere refusing extradition on torture or fair-trial grounds; the others on a UN finding, a confession extracted under torture, and a life-threatening illness.

the conclusions drawn by an independent […] judicial body on the risks faced by the Applicant in case of extradition cannot be ignored by the Commission in the course of its own review.
— CCF decision excerpt 2018 N°15

an extradition proceeding could irreparably harm the Applicant and would be life-threatening according to medical professionals.
— CCF decision excerpt 2019 N°5

Article 83(1)(a)(i) of the Rules on the Processing of Data

It was never INTERPOL’s business

Private debts, contracts, cheques, petty theft. The test is whether a serious ordinary-law crime has been shown — not whether a court somewhere was willing to prosecute.

the mere act of issuing an unfunded cheque where no criminal intent has been demonstrated does not meet the criteria of a “serious ordinary-law crime.”
— CCF decision excerpt 2019 N°1

the case of the Applicant concerns a petty crime that does not meet the requirements of Articles 35 and 83 of the RPD for the publication of the Notice.
— CCF decision excerpt 2019 N°7

Articles 83(2)(b) and 84 of the Rules on the Processing of Data

The paperwork did not hold

No valid arrest warrant behind the notice, a notice issued before anyone was charged, proceedings a national court had thrown out — and, in every deletion since 2023, no clear account of what this person actually did.

the initial Decision issued in this case is not an arrest warrant in the sense of RPD Article 83.2(b,ii)
— CCF decision excerpt 2017 N°14

it did not provide supporting elements but rather general statements as to the existence of evidence against the Applicant
— CCF decision excerpt 2025 N°2

the family-matter exclusion, Article 83(1)(a)(i)

A custody fight dressed as a crime

Parental-abduction charges where two countries’ courts had each given custody to a different parent. All three ended with the parent’s Red Notice and the children’s Yellow Notices deleted.

Since INTERPOL is not the appropriate forum to address situations of competing custodial disputes
— CCF decision excerpt 2018 N°9

Article 3 of the Constitution

The politics were predominant

Decisive on its own in two cases — an opposition figure, a journalist with refugee status — and a contributing factor in five more. The Commission’s concern is INTERPOL’s neutrality.

the political elements of the case are predominant over the common law crime elements.
— CCF decision excerpt 2017 N°5

maintaining the data challenged could have adverse implications for the neutrality of the Organization, in that the Organization would be perceived as facilitating politically motivated activities.
— CCF decision excerpt 2018 N°8

Article 5(2) of the Statute of the Commission

The requesting country went quiet

When the National Central Bureau does not answer the Commission’s questions, the doubt is resolved against the notice — decisive in two cases, a factor in at least five others.

this lack of cooperation prevents it from ensuring that the retention of the data in INTERPOL’s files is compliant with Article 83(2)(b)(v) of the RPD.
— CCF decision excerpt 2023 N°11

The fifteen that survived

What did not work.

The arguments the Commission has answered the same way every time.

The argument

The Commission’s answer

“I was tried for this elsewhere.” — ne bis in idem

→“the Red Notice is an international instrument that is not linked to the applicability of the principle of non bis in idem” — 2017 N°9

“They know where I am, so the notice has no purpose.”

→“The fact that the Applicant’s location is known to […] authorities does not undermine as such the lawfulness of the Red Notice.” — 2018 N°16

“I was convicted in my absence.”

→“would be entitled to appeal or to obtain a retrial in his presence” — 2018 N°6

“That country’s courts are not independent.”

→“the simple assertion of possible procedural irregularities or general criticisms about the independence of the judicial system cannot rise to the level of Article 2 violations” — 2019 N°9

“The notice stops me travelling.”

→“the UDHR Article 13 is not infringed by the mere issuance of a valid Red Notice” — 2017 N°3

“The case is political.” — when it is not predominantly so

→“The Commission considered that there are political elements surrounding the case, but established that they are not predominant over the common law crime elements of the case.” — 2017 N°12

Reading between the lines

Four patterns worth knowing.

Deletion is usually cumulative.

The Commission’s own phrase is “on the balance”. Two or three weak grounds together beat one strong-sounding one.

“the Commission concluded that on the balance, the data challenged are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data.” — 2018 N°13

One fact outweighs all others.

A court refusing extradition on human-rights grounds drove five deletions outright — and reopened a case the Commission had already closed.

It corrects before it deletes.

Seven notices were kept with an addendum: an extradition refusal recorded under the 1984 General Assembly resolution, or a “political elements” caveat — which every country sees before acting on the notice.

Since 2023, the battleground is Article 83.

Every recent deletion turns on the requesting country failing to show the person’s own acts, intent and benefit. “There is evidence against him” no longer passes.

The docket, in full

Forty-two decisions, one line each.

Open the full docket

2017 N°1
Deleted

Issued before any charge — the country wanted him for questioning, not extradition.

The paperwork did not holdRead the decision →

2017 N°3
Kept · file amended

Business executive; political elements not predominant; two extradition refusals written onto the file.