Interpol Red Notices and Challenges

A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. It is based on an arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities in the requesting country. Member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest a person.

It contains two main types of information:

Information to identify the wanted person, such as their name, date of birth, nationality, hair and eye colour, photographs and fingerprints if available.

Information related to the crime they are wanted for, which can typically be murder, rape, child abuse or armed robbery.

A Red Notice is issued by Interpol at the request of a member state's National Central Bureau—such as SOCA in the UK—or a sub-bureau within the UK’s Crown Dependencies. Its purpose is to assist in locating and arresting wanted individuals, either for extradition or other lawful proceedings. In effect, a Red Notice serves as an international request for member states to detain a suspect if they come to the attention of law enforcement within that jurisdiction.

Bringing a challenge against a Red Notice will often be limited to seeking removal from the public list in the first instance. This is governed by the various articles which apply to Interpol.

Article 83 sets out the specific criteria for ‘publishing’ Red notices, this includes prohibition on publication if:

a) the offence in question raises ‘controversial issues relating to behavioural or cultural norms’;

b) the offence originates from ‘a violation of laws or regulations of an administrative nature or deriving from private disputes …’;

c) penalty threshold – the conduct constituting the offence is punishable by at least two years ‘deprivation of liberty’ or, in conviction cases, the subject is to serve at least six months of imprisonment.

Article 76 grants Interpol the discretion to withhold the publication of a Red Notice if doing so could "prejudice the Organization’s image or interests." This provision is particularly relevant in cases where the request originates from a state with a questionable human rights record. In such situations, Article 76 may be applied alongside Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution, as well as Articles 11 and 12 (discussed below), to ensure compliance with international standards and safeguard against potential misuse.

Article 11 stipulates that Interpol’s data processing must be authorised in accordance with the applicable laws of the requesting state’s National Central Bureau (NCB). Additionally, it requires compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as referenced in Article 2 of Interpol’s Constitution.

Article 12 further mandates that the information processed by Interpol must be “accurate, relevant, not excessive [in relation to purpose], and up to date.” This reinforces the necessity of obtaining current and reliable information from the requesting state, which may at times conflict with data already supplied to Interpol. It is also important to note that Interpol does not own the information it receives; ownership remains with the relevant state or NCB.