What Is INTERPOL and a Red Notice?

First published: 25 May 2025 | Research and content update date of this version: 13 October 2026

A Red Notice is a notice published through INTERPOL channels requesting that a person be located and provisionally arrested with a view to extradition or a similar lawful procedure. By itself, it is not an international arrest warrant, a conviction or an extradition decision. Nevertheless, under the law of the country where you are, it may result in arrest and restriction of liberty. Whether the record complies with INTERPOL's rules is examined before the CCF, while national arrest and extradition procedures are examined separately by the competent authorities of the country concerned. (S3, S4, S6)

Current application information: For new applications to the CCF, the secure online portal has been the basis since 26 March 2026. The method of sending a request by e-mail or by post to Lyon, mentioned in older articles, should not be used as the general application route. In the exceptional cases where the portal is unavailable, a different method requires the Commission's permission. (S8, S9)

INTERPOL's mission and legal status

INTERPOL, in full the International Criminal Police Organization, is an intergovernmental organisation that facilitates the sharing of information between the law enforcement units of countries and international police cooperation. According to its official statement, it has 196 member countries. The General Secretariat works through the National Central Bureaus in member countries and a secure communications infrastructure. Comparing crime-related information, identifying persons, locating wanted persons and coordinating in cross-border investigations are among its core activities. (S1)

INTERPOL officers are not a world police force that goes to a country and arrests persons independently of that country's competent authorities. Powers of arrest, detention, remand, search and extradition rest on the law of the states concerned and on applicable international arrangements. For this reason, learning of the existence of an INTERPOL record does not remove the need to examine the procedural file in the country where the person is located. (S1, S6)

How does the Organization's history explain its present powers?

The origin of the Organization lies in the International Criminal Police Commission, established in 1923. The present name ICPO-INTERPOL and the renewed General Regulations were adopted in 1956. The historical debate about the Organization's status in relation to the UN has focused on how its constitutional form, and the role of governments in membership, representation and financing, are to be assessed. (S2, S17)

The assessment of the UN Office of Legal Affairs dated 14 December 1982 explains that INTERPOL was initially within the consultative arrangement for non-governmental organisations and was accepted as an intergovernmental organisation as a result of the constitutional amendments of 1956, the ECOSOC arrangements and the role of governments. The document does not reduce the status merely to the form of the founding text. It should not be concluded from this that all doctrinal debate about the nature of the General Regulations has ended. What is decisive in a current application is the INTERPOL rules in force and the conformity of the concrete data with those rules. (S17, pp. 179–180)

The human rights and neutrality limit

Article 2 of the INTERPOL General Regulations links cooperation to the laws of countries and to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits the Organization from undertaking or engaging in interventions and activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. These provisions are not applied mechanically by reference to the heading of an allegation; the events on which the allegation rests, the person's position, the nature of the source and the file as a whole are assessed. (S3; S4, art. 34)

For example, a person with a political opinion does not have every ordinary criminal allegation against them treated as political; likewise, describing the charge as "fraud" or "terrorism" does not by itself dispose of a claim that a political purpose exists. Legal assessment must separate the labelling of the allegation from the real nature of the act. (S4, art. 34)

The difference between INTERPOL notices and diffusions

Notices are used for different purposes. Not every coloured notice means a request for arrest or extradition. The current official list includes, alongside the traditional coloured notices, the Silver Notice pilot and the INTERPOL–UN Security Council Special Notice. For this reason, reducing the system to a closed list of "seven types of notice" leaves its current scope incomplete. (S5)

Why should a diffusion record be examined separately?

A diffusion is a police cooperation notice sent directly by one National Central Bureau to some or all member States. A Red Notice, by contrast, is published by the General Secretariat. Red diffusions for the purpose of arrest are also subject to the INTERPOL rules and are subjected to conformity review. It is therefore not correct to describe a diffusion as a "legally insignificant", "unofficial" or "never supervised" message. (S5; S4, art. 97–100)

In practice, checking only the publicly available Red Notice page is not sufficient. In an application, depending on the person's position, the examination may be requested to cover not only the Red Notice but also diffusions and other relevant INTERPOL data. However, the Statute of the CCF as amended in 2025 provides a specific limit on the Commission's power of review over information shared directly between National Central Bureaus. The exception for notice of a serious breach of INTERPOL rules is reserved; it should not be assumed that every bilateral police correspondence will be examined by the CCF on an ordinary request for data deletion. (S7, arts. 3, 19, 28)

Stolen travel documents, stolen works of art or criminal analysis records are also data fields with separate purposes. A favourable decision concerning a Red Notice should not be taken to cover all records held for other purposes. The purpose for which each data item is processed should be determined from the outset. (S4; S12)

For the full list of notice types, see INTERPOL notice types; for the difference between diffusion and Red Notice, see our articles on differences between a diffusion record and a Red Notice.

Under what conditions may a Red Notice be published?

The purpose and conditions of a Red Notice are regulated in particular in Articles 82 and 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data, known as the RPD. As a rule, a serious ordinary crime, sufficient identity and judicial information, a valid arrest warrant or a judicial decision with the same effect, and the purpose of international police cooperation are required. It is not enough merely to assert that a debt exists or that there is a dispute with the person. (S4, arts. 82–83)

The question of whether a Red Notice amounts to an international arrest warrant is examined separately in our article Does a Red Notice count as an international arrest warrant?

Distinction between the lower and upper thresholds of the penalty

Where a person is sought for the purpose of prosecution, the requirement is that the penalty of deprivation of liberty provided for the act has an upper limit of at least two years, or that a heavier penalty is involved. This criterion does not mean that "the lower limit of the penalty must be two years". Where a person is sought to serve a sentence, the criterion applied is a conviction to imprisonment of at least six months and/or a period of at least six months still to be served. (S4, art. 83/1-a-ii)

RPD Article 83/1-b allows, in cases of particular importance for international police cooperation and after consultation with the National Central Bureau concerned, an exceptional publication in respect of the criteria of offence and/or penalty stated in the provision. This provision cannot be read as an unlimited power that removes the limits of human rights and impartiality. Where there is more than one offence, at least one offence must meet the relevant criteria, and the other offences must also comply with the INTERPOL rules. (S4, art. 83/1-b–c)

Identity and the description of the crime must be concrete

Similarity of names, spelling in different alphabets, date of birth or passport number discrepancies are important in matching identity. The Rules require sufficient identifying information; they do not state that in every case photographs, fingerprints and DNA must all be present. An application should therefore be prepared with documents that can show both the correct person and the possibility of a wrong match. (S4, art. 83/2-a)

Judicial information must explain the personal act alleged, the time and place of the event, the charge, the applicable penal provision and the basis of the arrest warrant. Writing only the name of the offence is not the same as explaining the conduct for which the person is charged. In files with several persons, information that distinguishes the applicant's role from that of the others is particularly important. (S4, art. 83/2-b; S13, §§27–30)

Murder, human trafficking, drug trafficking, organised crime, arms smuggling, serious fraud, money laundering or serious cybercrime may be the subject of a Red Notice where the conditions are met. These examples do not form a closed list of offences. Human trafficking and migrant smuggling are not the same offence; the elements of the charge and the individual connection must be examined separately. (S4, art. 83)

In what circumstances may a Red Notice fail to comply with the rules?

A request for removal of a record is not based only on the person's statement that they did not commit the offence. What must be shown is which rule the processing of data through INTERPOL is said to breach. Defence on the merits of the criminal allegation and objection to the lawfulness of the INTERPOL data may support each other; the competent authorities and the scope of review are different. (S7, art. 33; S13, §30)

Political, military, religious or racial character

In assessing political weight, the character of the allegation, the events, the applicant's status, the source country, the attitude of other States or international organisations and the general context are considered together. Journalistic activity, peaceful expression, dissident identity or an allegation of discriminatory pursuit must be explained by concrete documents. It cannot be concluded that every person with a political identity is automatically protected in every criminal investigation. (S3, art. 3; S4, art. 34)

Having been tried in a military court does not by itself remove all allegations from the scope of the matter. The real question is whether the military character or the serious ordinary criminal character of the activity predominates. Likewise, an allegation of discrimination on religious or ethnic grounds forms a meaningful basis for examination where its link with the allegation and the pursuit process is shown. General criticism of the country does not replace the personal file. (S4, art. 34; S12, §§14–16)

On this subject, see our article Cancellation of a record for political-character accusations.

Human rights and the problem of a fair trial

The risk of torture or ill-treatment, the disappearance of basic defence safeguards and serious human rights problems are important for Article 2 of the General Regulations. Court decisions, international protection documents, medical records connected with the event and reliable institutional reports may be assessed together. However, it should not be asserted that every procedural error is an automatic ground for deletion, or that the CCF will substitute itself for a foreign criminal court and re-weigh the evidence. (S3, art. 2; S13, §§30, 35–37)

The fact that a person has been convicted does not remove their right to request that the data be processed in accordance with the INTERPOL rules. On the other hand, the deletion of a record does not mean that the conviction has been annulled. The strength of the application lies in showing the breach of the rule by documents, without concealing the records that favour or disfavour the person.

The limits of this ground of application are also addressed in our article on deletion of a record on the grounds of the risk of torture and unfair trial.

Private law, family disputes and criminal allegations

RPD Article 83 excludes from its scope certain matters concerning family or private life, and certain charges arising from administrative regulatory breaches or private disputes. The exception for facilitating a serious offence or a link with organised crime in the category of administrative regulation or private dispute is examined separately. Accordingly, both the generalisation that "if there is a commercial relationship, there cannot be a Red Notice" and the approach that "if a debt has not been paid, a Red Notice will be issued" are wrong. (S4, art. 83/1-a-i)

A failure to perform a contract must be distinguished from an allegation of fraudulent criminal conduct from the outset. Contracts, payments, delivery records, correspondence and the person's role in the transaction may clarify this distinction. The account to be submitted to the CCF should not stop at stating that a commercial dispute exists; it must explain in what respect the allegation fails to meet the data conditions of INTERPOL. (S4)

In family disputes too, a custody conflict is not treated as the same as an independent serious criminal allegation. A claim of child abduction, conflicting custody decisions of several countries and the known location of the child are each evaluated separately. Since the purpose of a Yellow Notice also differs from that of a Red Notice, the same reasoning is not applied automatically to both records. (S11, §§23–34)

Limitation, acquittal, annulment of the decision and data quality

Developments such as the lifting of an arrest warrant, the ending of the case, a final acquittal, the execution of a sentence, amnesty or limitation are important for the basis and currency of the record. Without determining which offence and which decision have come to an end, a collective deletion covering other allegations cannot be concluded. The finality of the decision and any pending remedy, where there is one, must be documented. (S4, arts. 10–12, 46, 49–51, 81–83)

The source country may be asked to update the record; where its conditions are met, an application for correction or deletion may be made to the CCF. While awaiting the CCF's decision, the possibility of a challenge against the national arrest order should also be examined. A refusal by one country of an extradition request does not mean that the purpose of worldwide search has definitively been lost without the reason for the refusal being assessed. That citizenship is an obstacle to extradition and that the allegation is unfounded are not the same ground. (S7, art. 28/2; S13, §§31–37)

For details, see our articles on whether the Red Notice is lifted after acquittal or dismissal and the effect of a refusal of an extradition request.

How does refugee or international protection status affect a record?

In INTERPOL's refugee policy, the decisive factors are whether the status has been confirmed by the competent country and whether the notice originates from the country of which the person has a well-founded fear of persecution. The official statement provides for the deletion of a notice or diffusion in those circumstances. Where the status is refused or withdrawn, the retention or re-processing of the data may arise, provided that it also meets the other INTERPOL conditions. (S10)

Making an asylum application, holding recognised refugee status and holding another residence permit are different situations. It must be explained against which country and on what grounds protection was granted. The search by a third country, the scope of the status and the possibility of indirect refoulement are examined together. In the CCF Case 2023/05, this distinction is clearly visible. (S13, §§33–37)

Protection status must be presented separately in the CCF file and in the extradition file. In Türkiye, the prohibition of refoulement and the provisions on deportation in Law No. 6458 are also assessed. The fact that a document has been submitted in only one of the extradition and migration procedures does not mean that the other authority knows of the file. (S14, arts. 11–12; S15, arts. 4, 53, 55)

How can you find out whether an INTERPOL record exists about you?

The INTERPOL public "Wanted Persons" page does not show all Red Notices. Because records not intended for public disclosure and diffusions exist, failing to find your name in an internet search does not prove that you have no record. Conversely, the existence of a publicly available record is not a final determination that the person is guilty. (S6)

For practical steps, see our article How to learn whether there is an INTERPOL record about you.

The scope of an access request to the CCF

A person may apply to the CCF to learn whether data about them is processed in the INTERPOL Information System. Requests for access, correction and deletion are distinguished from one another; where sufficient information is available, the requests may also be framed together, as suits the state of the file. There is no general rule that a separate access file must be concluded before every deletion application. (S7, arts. 30–35; S8, rule 30)

The right of access is not an unlimited right to receive a full file. Information may be restricted for reasons such as public or national security, the confidentiality of an investigation, or the rights of the applicant or of third persons. The statement "the application has been accepted" is not the same as the result "all records will be disclosed". Nor does non-disclosure by itself show that a particular allegation has been confirmed. (S7, art. 35)

Details of the types of application are described in our article CCF access, correction and deletion application.

Is there an "INTERPOL clean certificate" or travel guarantee?

A CCF application does not produce a criminal record certificate, a visa approval or a guarantee of never being arrested in the future. The reply to an access request is limited to the state of the data under review and to information that can be shared. National arrest warrants, passport records, entry bans or other international data systems may also be effective. (S7, arts. 3, 28, 33; S6)

In particular, where there is a concern that problems will arise before travel, employment or a banking transaction, the record from which the problem derives must first be identified. A search result from a private body or a "background check" does not replace the CCF's examination or the information to be obtained from the competent authority of the country concerned. Passport and file documents should not be sent to websites whose relationship with official data is unclear.

How is a CCF application made?

The CCF is the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files. This independent supervisory body consists of a Supervisory and Advisory Chamber and a Requests Chamber. Applications for access to personal data, correction, deletion and, where the conditions are met, a re-examination of a decision fall within the remit of the Requests Chamber. The CCF is not a criminal court that acquits on a criminal allegation or sets aside the decisions of national courts. (S7, arts. 3, 6, 28, 33)

The current application channel and representation

The starting point is the secure CCF portal linked from INTERPOL's official "How to submit a request" page. Under the Operating Rules that came into force on 26 March 2026, requests for access, correction/deletion and re-examination, together with supporting documents, are submitted through the portal. An exceptional alternative method of communication requires the Commission's permission. For files started before the portal, the communication instruction given by the CCF in the relevant file must be followed. (S8, rule 25; S9)

An application may be made by the person directly or by a properly authorised representative. Retaining a lawyer is not a general mandatory condition of admissibility. Where the application is made through a representative, a signed authorisation giving access to the person's information in INTERPOL files is required. The current rule does not impose an automatic notarisation and apostille requirement on every CCF power of attorney. The formal requirements of a power of attorney to be used for the conduct of a case in Türkiye must be assessed separately. (S8, rule 30/2–4)

Language, signature and document requirements

The application may be made in Arabic, English, French or Spanish. Turkish is not among these four working languages. Supporting annexes must also be in one of these languages or translated into one of them. The statement that applications may be made only in English and French is incomplete. (S8, rule 30/3)

A legible, unredacted identity document is attached to the application. Where representation, minority, guardianship or legal personality is involved, the relevant additional authority and relationship documents are required. These documents are prepared for the official application environment; they are not to be placed in a public article or in a file link accessible to everyone. The application must state clearly that the request concerns access, correction/deletion or re-examination. (S8, rule 30)

The statement of reasons for a correction/deletion and re-examination request must not exceed ten pages. This limit does not mean that the total of all supporting documents must be reduced to ten pages. A list of documents should be added to the statement of reasons, and the allegations should be matched with specific annexes. Rather than compressing a long file into unreadably small print, it is necessary to organise it by choosing the chronology and the legal reasoning. (S8, rule 30/8)

For the list of documents, see our article Documents required for a CCF application and the application period.

File review and confidentiality

Notification that the application has been received, the decision on admissibility and the outcome on the merits are different stages. The CCF may ask for explanations from the General Secretariat and from the National Central Bureaus that are the source of the data. The time limits given to the applicant for additional information must be observed. The failure of the source country to reply does not mean that all of the applicant's allegations are automatically accepted as correct. (S7, arts. 31–35; S8, rules 27, 31)

The Commission's files are confidential; nevertheless, relevant information may be shared with the competent units in order for the examination to be carried out. The information to be protected should be specifically identified, and it should be borne in mind that a restriction on sharing may make it harder to investigate the request. Making an application does not provide a travel guarantee. The CCF, in examining personal data, does not automatically suspend a separate national procedure. (S7, arts. 20, 23, 33, 35)

Application fee and the role of the lawyer

The CCF application itself is free of charge. The costs of legal representation, translation, obtaining documents and separate procedures in the countries concerned are different from this free right of application. It is not correct to combine an official fee with a private service fee as though there were a single "INTERPOL deletion fee". (S7, art. 30/3)

Legal assistance functions in determining the correct type of record, examining the national file, linking the grounds with the INTERPOL rules, preparing documents and following parallel applications. The expression "INTERPOL lawyer" describes a lawyer who works in this field; it is not a special title conferred by INTERPOL or a guarantee that the application will be accepted. The outcome depends on the characteristics of the file and on the assessment of the competent authorities.

How long does a CCF application take?

In calculating the time, the sending of the application, its admission as admissible, the decision, its implementation and its notification to the person must be distinguished. The table below shows the stages of the current CCF Statute; it does not mean that all files will be concluded on the same timetable. (S7, arts. 32–33, 40–42)

After the 2025 amendment of the Statute, if the General Secretariat is carrying out a compliance review of the same data, the CCF's examination may proceed only after that decision has been made. This situation may be one of the reasons requiring an extension of time. The CCF's official session page also contains statements on delays arising from workload. Therefore, using four or nine months as "a guarantee of a final result from the day of application" is not correct. (S7, arts. 33/5, 40/3; S18)

To monitor the time limits in a file, the receipt of the application, the notice of admissibility, requests for additional documents and extension letters should be kept together. The same date is not the start of all steps. When following up correspondence, the file number and the means of communication determined by the CCF should be used.

Can an interim measure be requested in an urgent case?

Article 37 of the CCF Statute permits interim measures during the examination concerning the processing of data. The request must show documents relating to an imminent and concrete risk. If there is an arrest, a continuing extradition process or a particular development affecting personal security, its date and file information should be explained. Requesting an interim measure does not mean that it has been granted. (S7, arts. 37, 41)

An application to the CCF or a request for an interim measure does not by itself stop the national arrest order, the extradition proceedings or a deportation procedure. Where liberty has been restricted, the national application and interim protection routes through a lawyer in the country where the person is located must be separately assessed. Allowing other time limits to pass while awaiting the CCF's response, such as the seven-day period for appealing a deportation, may cause serious loss of rights. (S14; S15, art. 53)

Where there is as yet no data but a concrete danger of misuse is alleged, the nature of the information that may be submitted to the CCF may also be examined separately. Such a preliminary notification is not a definitive permission or immunity document that prevents all future notices from being published. An assessment under Article 33/3 of the Statute should not be treated as the same as a different file that may arise in the future. (S7)

For the risks of travel for a person who has a record, see our article Airport and transit risks for a person with an INTERPOL record.

Arrest, provisional detention and the extradition process in Türkiye

The basic legislation for Türkiye is Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. Treaties to which Türkiye is a party remain reserved; the scope of the relevant treaty in the concrete relationship is separately examined. The Central Authority is the Ministry of Justice. A Red Notice is not a substitute for examining the extradition conditions and the interference with personal liberty under national law. (S14, arts. 1–3, 10–19)

The stages of the process are also discussed in our article Arrest and extradition process in Türkiye on account of a Red Notice or diffusion.

The Red Notice threshold and the extradition threshold are not the same

Article 10 of Law No. 6706 provides a threshold for investigation or prosecution: offences for which the requesting State and Turkish law both require a penalty of deprivation of liberty with an upper limit of at least one year. For a final conviction, the penalty imposed must be at least four months. The provision on the joint treatment of several offences is reserved. These are not the same arrangement as the criteria of two years and six months in RPD Article 83. (S14, art. 10; S4, art. 83)

The fact that a file meets the INTERPOL rules does not mean that Türkiye will necessarily extradite. Conversely, the non-acceptance of a ground for deletion before the CCF does not remove the duty of a Turkish court to examine separately the conditions for extradition and arrest.

Provisional arrest and judicial control

Under Article 14 of the Law, where there is strong suspicion for an offence capable of extradition and the conditions set out in the provision are met, provisional arrest may arise before the extradition request reaches the Central Authority. In the ordinary framework, the request of the State concerned and the approval of the Central Authority are required; the law also provides a special case in which no request is required. (S14, art. 14/1–2)

A person arrested under the procedure of Article 14 must be brought before a criminal judgeship of peace within twenty-four hours at the latest, so that a decision on provisional arrest is taken. Judicial control aimed at preventing flight may also be applied in place of provisional arrest. The period is determined according to the relevant international agreement; on the basis of reciprocity it is at most forty days. The forty days should not be described as the absolute upper limit of total detention throughout the whole extradition process in every case. (S14, art. 14)

If the extradition documents are not sent within the time limit, provisional arrest or judicial control is lifted; if a properly made extradition request later arrives, the protective measures may be reconsidered. The separate safeguards of Article 16 apply to the detention review during the extradition process and to the total period. The provision lays down a review at least every thirty days, an overall limit of one year at a particular stage, and a total limit linked to the period of enforcement. (S14, arts. 14/6, 16)

The Constitutional Court: duration and proportionality of extradition detention

In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Samira Alakbarova, Application No. 2018/19302, 22 February 2022, detention continuing for extradition purposes, which began on the basis of a Red Notice, was examined. The Court distinguished between provisional arrest before the extradition documents arrived and extradition detention after they arrived. For this reason, the forty-day limit for provisional arrest cannot be interpreted as the single period covering the whole extradition proceedings. (S19, §§54–59)

In the case concerned, total detention lasted one year, one month and twenty days. The Court found no delay at the first-instance and appeal stages; however, it assessed that the due care required had not been shown during the seven-month period between the transmission of the finality information to the Ministry and the day of surrender. The unexplained delays in the approval and surrender stages, the failure to observe the thirty-day detention reviews and the lack of reasons why judicial control would be insufficient were considered together; the Court found a violation of the right to liberty and security under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. (S19, §§64–70)

The practical importance of the decision is that in an extradition file it is not only the first detention order that must be supported by its grounds; the careful conduct of the process, regular review and the examination of lighter measures must also be supervised. The applicant's family, residence and work ties should be brought into this assessment with concrete documents. In the same decision, the claim of unfair trial was declared inadmissible as outside the Court's competence, given the nature of the extradition proceedings. That result does not remove the safeguards of liberty and the other fundamental rights; nor does the decision of itself delete the INTERPOL record. (S19, §§68–79 and operative part)

Heavy criminal court and the route of appeal

The heavy criminal court of the place where the person is found has jurisdiction to examine the extradition request; where the place is unknown, the heavy criminal court of Ankara has jurisdiction. In the ordinary extradition procedure there is a right of appeal against the court's decision. The law provides that the Court of Cassation should conclude such appeals within three months. Extradition by consent has different procedures and consequences, and an objection to the admissibility decision is provided for. The legal consequences of consent must be explained to the person. (S14, arts. 15, 17–18)

In the ordinary procedure, a finding that the extradition request is admissible does not mean that surrender will take place automatically. Implementation of the decision depends on the opinion of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of the Interior, on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and on the approval of the President. For the execution of extradition by consent, a special provision on the approval of the Central Authority applies. The concrete time limits for appeals, the notification and the procedural provisions in force must be calculated separately. (S14, arts. 17/4, 19)

On what grounds may extradition be refused?

Article 11 of the Law regulates grounds such as citizenship; the danger of discriminatory pursuit or ill-treatment; the nature of the thought and political offence; purely military offences; the jurisdiction of Türkiye to try the case; limitation or amnesty; an acquittal or conviction in Türkiye for the same act; and the nature of the penalty. Each heading is assessed on its own conditions. Genocide and crimes against humanity are not accepted as political offences. (S14, art. 11)

The exception wording in the law concerning the extradition of Turkish citizens in relation to obligations required by being a party to the International Criminal Court is reserved. That provision does not mean that citizenship automatically ends the criminal file in the source country or the international record. The provision of sufficient guarantees where the penalty is death or incompatible with human dignity must not be used as a general guarantee against the risk of torture. (S14, art. 11/1-a, b, d and 11/3)

Personal grounds, such as age, long residence in Türkiye and family circumstances, which may make extradition disproportionately harmful, are also addressed in the law. These facts must be presented with concrete documents; merely having a family or work in Türkiye does not in every file create a bar to extradition. (S14, art. 11/4)

Why must extradition, deportation and administrative detention be followed separately?

Extradition is the process of surrender to another State for the purpose of criminal investigation, prosecution or enforcement of a sentence. Deportation is, by contrast, a separate administrative act under foreigners' law. Article 12 of Law No. 6706 lays down special rules on the opinion of the Central Authority concerning the deportation of a foreigner who is in the extradition process, and of a person to be sent to a State that has refused extradition. This opinion is not a permission that overrides the prohibition of refoulement. (S14, art. 12; S15, art. 4)

Under Article 53 of Law No. 6458, a deportation decision may be challenged before the administrative court within seven days of service, and notice of the case is given to the authority that made the decision. The right to remain in Türkiye pending the case is reserved, and a safeguard against deportation until the end of the proceedings is provided, subject to the foreigner's consent. The court's decision period in the current text is linked to the completion of the file or of the necessary interim procedures. It should not be confused with the simple earlier formula of "fifteen days after the case is filed". (S15, art. 53)

An objection to a decision of administrative detention is made to the criminal judgeship of peace. The application does not by itself stop administrative detention; the examination is required to be concluded within five days. A new application is possible on the claim that the conditions of detention have ceased or changed. The filing of a deportation case does not by itself give automatic release from administrative detention. (S15, art. 57/6)

Where there is a restriction, an entry ban or a residence procedure, the real basis of the decision must be discovered. Every administrative record is not the same as a Red Notice; the presence of a particular restriction code cannot be assumed to be in every INTERPOL file automatically. A CCF deletion decision may be important to submit to the administrative file; a further procedure before the competent administration and, where necessary, the court may be needed to lift or correct the act. For the general framework of this separate process, the explanations concerning deportation decisions may also be reviewed.

For the objection to administrative detention, see objection to a decision of administrative detention.

CCF decision examples show how an application should be framed

The following examples are anonymised excerpts of decisions published by the CCF on its official website. They are not presented as court case law. The publications made by the institution have been examined; the concealed information about the person, country, file or day and month has not been guessed. In place of procedural references in earlier decisions, the current Statute and Operating Rules should be used in the application.

2025/01: Conflicting custody decisions and the purpose of a Yellow Notice

In this example, a Red Notice for one parent and Yellow Notices for the children were examined. The CCF, assessing the custody dispute in two countries, the participation of the parties in the proceedings and the conflicting decisions, concluded that the Red Notice arose from a family matter. Because the location and situation of the children were known to the competent authorities, it also examined the purpose of the Yellow Notices. The data were ordered deleted. (S11, §§23–34)

The value of the decision for practice lies in the fact that it did not stop at saying "there is a family dispute". Custody decisions, participation and service status, and the known location of the children are separate evidentiary headings. The result cannot be extended to mean that all child abduction allegations are automatically outside the scope of the rules.

The position of child return disputes in Turkish law is explained in our article International child abduction and return of the child.

2024/03: A general claim of political pressure is not sufficient on its own

This decision, unlike the Red Notice, concerns the record of a cancelled passport in the SLTD database. The applicant alleged political misuse; the CCF assessed that the general news and reports submitted were not sufficiently linked to the personal event, while the source authority provided a judicial basis and an explanation. The data were found to comply with the rules. (S12, §§8–16 and operative part)

The example shows that not every application will be accepted and that focusing on the wrong type of data carries a risk. A general country report does not replace evidence supporting the personal event. A record relating to a passport may require separate assessment even if the Red Notice is deleted.

2023/05: Refusal of extradition, protection status and human rights are considered together

In this example, the CCF examined together the refusal of extradition, the applicant's refugee status and the information concerning the alleged act. It noted that the purpose of the notice had not ended merely with the refusal decision, since the requesting country had genuinely attempted extradition. Applying the protection-status distinction to the direct application of refugee policy, it nonetheless ordered the deletion of the data on the basis of the human rights findings and the other elements of the file. (S13, §§27–37)

This assessment shows the importance of expressly setting out alternative grounds in an application. Even if one ground is not regarded as sufficient alone, it may affect the outcome together with other concrete facts. For this reason, it is important to submit the reasoned text of the refusal of extradition and the scope of the protection order, rather than only the operative page of the refusal.

What steps are required after a deletion or refusal decision?

For the general course of the removal process, see our article How to remove an INTERPOL Red Notice and diffusion record.

The effect and limits of a deletion decision

The decisions of the CCF's Requests Chamber are final and binding on INTERPOL and on the applicant. The implementation of the decision and the process of notifying the members concerned are regulated in Article 41 of the Statute. The scope of the deleted or corrected data must be understood from the operative part of the decision and from the notice of implementation. It cannot be concluded that "all information about the person is deleted from every database in the world". (S7, arts. 38–41)

The removal of an INTERPOL record does not drop the national criminal case, does not create an acquittal, does not lift an independent national arrest order and does not automatically correct every visa, passport or bank transaction. It must also be examined whether the same country may transmit data on a different offence or on a new legal development. The earlier deletion decision and the basis of the new record must be compared.

After the decision, the following should be assessed together:

• Keeping the reasoned decision of the CCF and the notice of implementation; determining which records and offences it covers.
• Verifying the current status of the criminal and arrest file in the source country.
• Submitting the decision to the extradition, detention, administrative detention, entry-ban or passport file in the country where the person is located.
• Requesting from the competent authority an update of the national records based on the former INTERPOL data, and separately investigating any independent bases.
• Assessing existing obstacles for the countries to be visited and transited in the travel plan, and not treating the deletion decision as a general travel permit.

For monitoring national records after the deletion of a record, see our article Correcting national records after an INTERPOL record has been deleted.

Re-examination after a refusal is different from an ordinary appeal

Re-examination under Article 42 of the CCF Statute is not an automatic right to a second examination against every refusal. The application must be based on new facts which, if they had been known during the first examination, could have changed the outcome. The six-month period runs not from notification of the refusal but from the date the new fact becomes known. The date of learning and the effect of the fact on the earlier outcome must be shown clearly. (S7, art. 42; S8, rule 30/7)

Submitting the same allegations under a new heading is not sufficient. On the other hand, a subsequently annulled arrest order, a new final judicial decision or a verifiable development capable of affecting the outcome may, depending on its conditions, be the basis for a request for re-examination. It must also be borne in mind that not every new document automatically counts as a "new fact".

Application to a national court or to the ECtHR

It is not possible to appeal a CCF decision to the ECtHR as if it were an ordinary national appeal decision. The ECtHR examines allegations of violation arising from acts or omissions within the jurisdiction of a State party to the Convention, within its own admissibility conditions. National proceedings concerning extradition, detention or the risk of ill-treatment are therefore assessed separately. Domestic remedies and time limits must not be neglected on the ground that a CCF application has been made. (S16, arts. 1, 34–35)

In Türkiye, in addition to the relevant judicial and administrative remedies, an individual application to the Constitutional Court may arise where the conditions are met. The route to be used is determined by the authority that performed the act, the nature of the allegation, the date of service or learning and the effective remedies that must be exhausted. Sending the same petition to all institutions does not solve problems of competence and time limits.

Road map for preparing a file and common mistakes

The first step is to build a common chronology of the event and the records. The next step is to separate from which authority and what result is to be sought. The road map below shows that the CCF application and national procedures are not a single process awaiting one another.

Hypothetical example: Suppose a person is arrested in Türkiye on an allegation which they consider arose from a commercial debt, and a deportation decision has also been taken against them. Applying to the CCF on the ground of a private law dispute does not stop the time limits for the detention and deportation files. While the INTERPOL ground is prepared with contracts and payment documents, the application for national detention and the seven-day period for challenging deportation must be followed separately. No conclusion can be drawn without establishing whether the allegation arises merely from the debt relationship or from a concrete allegation of fraud.

Common mistakes include: treating the absence of a name on a public list as proof of no record; using the former e-mail application method; disregarding the ten-page limit for the statement of reasons; failing to connect a political allegation with personal evidence; assuming that an old decision is still current; and assuming that all authorities will reach the same result. A document map for each file reduces these mistakes but does not guarantee that the application will be accepted.

This article is for general legal information. The citizenship, protection status, the acts alleged, the countries concerned, the currency of decisions and the dates of service may change the result in a concrete file.

Conclusion

In assessing a Red Notice, the type and basis of the INTERPOL record must first be determined; then the CCF supervision, the national criminal file, and the extradition and migration procedures must be treated as separate legal routes. An effective application rests less on an abstract claim of injustice than on a concrete event, the correct rule, a current decision and an orderly relationship between documents.

The deletion of data by the CCF is an important legal result; however, it does not show that all obstacles of the person in every country have been removed. Determining the correct record and time limit before applying, and following the implementation of the decision and the relevant national records after it, are complementary parts of the process.

For information on INTERPOL records, extradition and international criminal cooperation, you may consult our service page INTERPOL Red Notice, Extradition and International Criminal Cooperation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Red Notice an international arrest warrant?

No. It is a notice published within the framework of international police cooperation. For the purposes of arrest or detention, the law of the country where you are and the applicable agreements are decisive. For details, see the conditions for a Red Notice.

Will I be informed before a Red Notice is published?

You should not act on the assumption that the person will be notified in advance. The publication of a notice does not require the person's consent. If you suspect there is a record, the access request may be considered; this in itself is not a guarantee against arrest.

If my name is not on the INTERPOL website, do I have no record?

No. The public page does not contain all records. Notices or diffusions that are not made public may exist. The scope of the official record query route must also be assessed separately.

Can I apply to the CCF from Türkiye or from another country?

Yes. It is not necessary to go to Lyon in person to apply. The current general method is the online portal reached from the official page. The conditions for application do not disappear according to where you are. See the section Portal and representation.

Can I send a new application by e-mail or by post?

As a general rule, no. Since 26 March 2026 the portal is used. In the exceptional case where the portal is unavailable, an alternative method requires the Commission's permission. For a file started earlier, the CCF's specific instruction must be followed.

Can I apply to the CCF without a lawyer?

Yes. A personal application is possible. The requirements of signature, identity, language and reasoning must still be met. The function of lawyer support, and its distinction from the official application fee, are described in the section Fee and the lawyer.

Can the application be made in Turkish?

The CCF's working languages are Arabic, English, French and Spanish. The application and the supporting annexes must be submitted in one of these languages, or a suitable translation must be prepared. Turkish alone is not sufficient.

Must a power of attorney always be notarised and apostilled?

The CCF's current general rule is a signed authorisation giving the representative access to information; it is not an automatic notarisation or apostille requirement. A power of attorney to be used for a national case or before another authority is assessed separately. See the document requirements.

Can a CCF application be made anonymously?

No. The application is submitted with a document verifying the identity of the person concerned and with a valid signature. The confidentiality of the file does not mean an application without identity. The review and confidentiality rules apply.

Is a CCF application charged?

The CCF application itself is free. Legal fees, translation and the costs of national procedures may be separate. They should not be presented as an official "record deletion fee".

How many months does it take to delete a record?

For correction/deletion requests, the basic decision period in the Statute is nine months from admissibility. Because there are extension, implementation and notification stages, no guaranteed total period can be given. The decision period for an access request is four months. The time table separates the starting points.

Does arrest or extradition risk stop when I make an application?

No. An application does not produce an automatic suspensive effect. An interim measure before the CCF, and national protection and objection routes in the country concerned, are assessed separately. The emergency section explains this distinction.

Can a record be deleted while a criminal case is continuing?

Yes, where the conditions are met. A pending case does not require that data contrary to the INTERPOL rules be kept. A deletion decision also does not end the criminal case. The application must be linked to the grounds for deletion.

Does an acquittal or the lifting of an arrest order automatically produce deletion?

The effect and scope of the decision must be verified, the update of the source authority must be followed and, if necessary, a CCF application must be pursued. There may be another offence or a valid decision still in force. See the section Record that has lost its currency.

Does refugee status remove all Red Notices?

This result cannot be established automatically for all records. Verification of the status, the country from which the fear of persecution arises, and the relationship between them are important. Searches by a third country are also examined separately. The distinctions in the section Protection status apply.

Is there a separate deletion method for an application by an Iranian citizen?

There is no separate automatic deletion method tied solely to Iranian citizenship. The source decision, the nature of the allegation, personal political or human rights claims and protection status are assessed with concrete documents. It cannot be assumed that all files concerning a particular country are the same.

Can a Red Notice be issued over a commercial debt or a family disagreement?

A private dispute alone is not sufficient for a Red Notice. However, the nature of the actual conduct in the file and the conditions in the RPD must be examined. The existence of a serious criminal allegation within a commercial relationship is not the same as an ordinary dispute over performance. The private law distinction is important.

Can a diffusion record also be the subject of a CCF application?

For diffusion data processed in the INTERPOL Information System, a request for access, correction or deletion may be assessed. The CCF's special limit on power in relation to direct bilateral sharing of information is reserved. See the diffusion section.

Can I be arrested when entering or transiting Türkiye?

Action may be taken because of a concrete record and applicable law. The existence of a Red Notice does not automatically mean extradition, and its absence does not mean a certain safe passage. National decisions, travel documents and entry procedures are also examined separately.

Can I travel freely once the record is deleted?

A deletion decision alone does not give such a guarantee. National arrest, passport, visa, entry-ban and transit country records may also be effective. Address or residence obligations do not disappear automatically either. A post-decision check should be carried out.

Does a Red Notice automatically cancel a passport?

A Red Notice and the cancellation of a passport or the SLTD record of a travel document are separate procedures. The validity of the document, the cancellation decision and the source of the record are determined separately. The CCF Decision 2024/03 example shows that a passport record may be examined separately.

When a record is deleted, do visa, bank and employment problems also end?

It cannot be said that they will end automatically. The record and legal authority on which the organisation relies must be investigated; where necessary, the decision should be submitted and an update requested. The CCF's authority does not cover all private and national databases.

If the CCF rejects my application, can I object within six months?

The route under Article 42 of the Statute is re-examination on the basis of new facts capable of changing the outcome. The six months run from learning of the new fact; they are not a general appeal period running from service of the refusal. See the section Post-refusal route.

Does a deletion decision mean that all my personal information is completely deleted?

The data and the process covered by the decision are the basis. There may be separate records kept on another legal basis, or the Commission's own file retention rules. It is not accepted that national archives are automatically deleted as well. The limit of the deletion must be determined.

Can the same country transmit a new record?

The basis of the new data, the scope of the earlier deletion decision and the INTERPOL rules are examined together. Re-submitting the same data on an unchanged ground is not the same as there being a new and different legal development. The earlier decision must always be preserved.

Does a criminal case fall because of a CCF decision?

No. The CCF does not substitute itself for a national criminal court. Proceedings against the national prosecution or the arrest order are conducted under the law of the country concerned. The CCF decision may be submitted to those files; its effect is assessed separately.

Can I take a CCF refusal directly to the ECtHR?

The ECtHR is not the ordinary appellate body for the CCF. Where the act or omission of a State party to the Convention is concerned, an application may be assessed within the admissibility conditions and time limits. The distinction in the section Judicial application is important.

Which documents are important if I am arrested?

The basis of the act, the arrest and detention orders, service documents, identity details, any refusal of protection or extradition, and correspondence with the CCF are important. Legal assistance in the country where you are and the time limits for applications must be assessed without delay. The CCF process does not replace national procedures.

Sources and legal bases

Access to sources and research date of this version: 13 October 2026. CCF decisions are officially published anonymised excerpts of decisions; they are not full copies of confidential files. The links below lead to the publications of the source institutions themselves.

S1 — INTERPOL, What is INTERPOL? The organisation's mission, its intergovernmental nature and information on its 196 members. Source link

S2 — INTERPOL, Our history. The 1923, 1956 and later institutional developments. Source link

S3 — INTERPOL, Constitution of the ICPO-INTERPOL, in particular arts. 2, 3, 5 and 36. Official current document links: Source link

S4 — INTERPOL, Rules on the Processing of Data, 2025 version, in particular arts. 10–12, 34, 46, 49–51, 81–87 and 97–100. Source link

S5 — INTERPOL, About Notices. Coloured notices, the Silver Notice pilot and diffusion. Source link

S6 — INTERPOL, Red Notices. Legal nature, public disclosure and conformity review. Source link

S7 — INTERPOL, Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, text including the amendments of 27 November 2025, in particular arts. 3, 6, 20, 23, 28 and 30–45. Source link.pdf)

S8 — INTERPOL CCF, Operating Rules, last amended 26 March 2026, in particular rules 25–31. Source link

S9 — INTERPOL CCF, How to submit a request. Announcement of access to the official portal and the application channel. Source link

S10 — INTERPOL, Refugee Resolution; within the framework of GA-2017-86-RES-09. Source link

S11 — CCF, 2025 Decision Excerpt No. 1, family matter, purpose of the notice and international interest; in particular §§23–34 and operative part. Official list of decisions: Source link

S12 — CCF, Decision No. 2024-03, Article 3 / Misuse of INTERPOL's channels; in particular §§8–16 and operative part. Published on the official list of decisions cited in S11.

S13 — CCF, Decision No. 2023-05, Extradition / Refugee policy / Description of criminal activities / Due process; in particular §§27–37 and operative part. Published on the official list of decisions cited in S11.

S14 — Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (6706 sayılı Cezaî Konularda Uluslararası Adlî İş Birliği Kanunu), current consolidated text, in particular arts. 1–5 and 10–21. Source link

S15 — Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (6458 sayılı Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu), current consolidated text, in particular arts. 4, 53, 55, 57 and 57/A. Source link

S16 — European Convention on Human Rights, in particular arts. 1, 3, 5, 6, 34 and 35. The Turkish text of the Convention on the ECtHR website: Source link

S17 — United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1982, "Status of INTERPOL with the United Nations", assessment dated 14 December 1982, printed pp. 179–180. Source link

S18 — INTERPOL CCF, CCF sessions and decisions. Official statement on the session schedule and delays. The official page cited in S11.

S19 — Constitutional Court, First Section, Samira Alakbarova, Application No. 2018/19302, 22 February 2022; in particular §§54–70, 73–79 and operative part. Official Gazette, 20 April 2022, No. 31815; full text of the decision: Source link