Does Refusal of an Extradition Request Lead to Deletion of an INTERPOL Red Notice?

Is a Red Notice the same thing as an extradition decision?

No. A Red Notice is an international police cooperation request published by INTERPOL at the request of a member country. It seeks the location of the person sought and, for the purpose of extradition, surrender or a similar lawful procedure, his or her provisional arrest. It is not an international arrest warrant, a conviction or an extradition decision.

Extradition, by contrast, is a separate judicial and, in most systems, administrative process carried out between the requesting state and the requested state, within national law and applicable agreements. The requested state examines within its own competence:

• whether the alleged conduct constitutes an extraditable offence,
• the conditions of dual criminality and penalty severity,
• the statute of limitations, res judicata and the principle of speciality,
• whether the request has a political or discriminatory purpose,
• the risk of the death penalty, torture, ill-treatment and an unfair trial,
• citizenship and refugee status,
• the adequacy of the request documents.

For this reason, a Red Notice may remain in force while a country refuses extradition; and, despite one country's refusal, another country may begin provisional arrest and extradition proceedings concerning the same person.

For the general framework of INTERPOL notices, CCF review and the extradition process, see our guide What Is INTERPOL and a Red Notice?.

Why can a Red Notice remain in the system after an extradition refusal?

An extradition refusal is often specific to the country and the file. For example, while country A does not extradite because of the person's citizenship, country B may not have the same obstacle. A refusal based on missing translations or documents does not necessarily prevent the requesting country from making a new request once it has completed the missing items.

Furthermore, an extradition court does not decide on behalf of INTERPOL. The refusal decision must be formally communicated to the CCF, to the INTERPOL General Secretariat or to the NCB of the requesting country, and the record must be separately examined under INTERPOL's rules.

What do INTERPOL's rules provide about the purpose of extradition?

According to Article 82 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), the purpose of a Red Notice is to locate a wanted person and to seek his or her arrest, detention or restriction of movement for the purpose of extradition, surrender or a similar lawful procedure.

Article 83 of the RPD requires a valid arrest warrant or a judicial decision with the same effect, together with sufficient judicial data. Under Article 84 of the RPD, the requesting NCB must give an assurance that, when the person is arrested, extradition will be requested in a manner consistent with national law and applicable agreements.

Under Article 81 of the RPD, a notice may be withdrawn or cancelled if its purpose has been achieved, if the conditions for publication no longer exist, or if the requesting state has found the person but has not taken the necessary steps and has not provided a reasonable explanation.

Article 12 of the RPD provides that data must be processed for a specific and explicit purpose and in a manner that is accurate, relevant, up to date and proportionate; and Article 51 provides that data must be deleted when the purpose of processing has been achieved.

Does every refusal of extradition end the purpose of a Red Notice?

No. Where extradition from other countries remains legally or factually possible, the refusal of extradition in one country does not by itself end the general purpose of a Red Notice.

CCF's published decisions state that the purpose of a Red Notice is not limited to locating a person; it also covers temporary arrest for the purpose of extradition. Knowing where the person is, or the fact that extradition is not possible in one country, may not by itself result in deletion where the requesting state still intends to seek extradition from another country.

Why is the ground of refusal decisive?

Extradition refusal decisions do not carry the same legal weight. For the CCF, what matters is not the heading of the decision or its "refusal" outcome, but the relationship between the fact that underlies the refusal and the INTERPOL rules.

Does a refusal on human rights grounds delete a Red Notice?

A final and reasoned refusal based on a risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment is one of the most important documents in an application for deletion before the CCF. Nevertheless, deletion is still not automatic.

The CCF assesses the following matters:

• Does the refusal contain an individual and case-specific finding of risk?
• Is the risk current, and do the conditions in the source country persist?
• Is the decision temporary or final?
• Does the refusal rest only on a particular prison or on a specific lack of assurance?
• Did the source state later provide assurances?
• Does the decision state that extradition is prohibited in all circumstances, or that it is not possible on the documents currently available?
• Are there similar findings by other countries or international bodies?

What does the ECtHR judgment in Liu v. Poland show?

In its judgment of 6 October 2022 in Liu v. Poland, application no. 37610/18, the European Court of Human Rights found that there was a real risk of ill-treatment if the person were extradited to China, and that the extradition would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the requested state could not rely on the claims of foreign authorities or an international search record alone; it must examine the risk independently and currently.

This judgment is not a CCF decision that cancels a Red Notice worldwide. It does, however, explain the binding human rights basis of the prohibition of extradition in states party to the Convention and the weight of qualified judicial findings that may be submitted to the CCF.

Do diplomatic assurances change the effect of a refusal?

The requesting state may give assurances that no torture will be used, that the person will not be held in a particular prison, that a retrial will be granted or that the death penalty will not be carried out. Not every assurance is sufficient.

An assurance must:

• be concrete and specific to the person,
• be given by a competent authority,
• be legally and practically enforceable,
• contain a monitoring mechanism and a consequence in the event of a breach,
• appear credible in light of the requesting state's past practice.

The judgment in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8139/09, 17 January 2012, is one of the leading decisions showing that the concrete reliability of diplomatic assurances and the risk of an unfair trial must be examined in detail.

What is the effect of a refusal on grounds of a political offence or political motive?

Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution strictly prohibits the Organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. A reasoned finding by the extradition court that the request is of a political nature, or that the person is being prosecuted because of his or her political opinion, carries very strong weight before the CCF.

However, the concept of a "political offence" and the assessment under Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution are not entirely the same. The CCF examines whether, across the whole file, the political elements predominate over the ordinary criminal elements. The assessment considers together:

• the nature of the charge and the factual description of the event,
• the person's political, public or professional profile,
• the general context of the requesting country,
• the time and causal relationship between the accusation and political activity,
• the findings of other states, courts or international bodies,
• the concreteness of the answer given by the requesting state.

Where an extradition refusal relies only on an abstract treaty provision such as "political offenders are not extradited", the decision must explain how it assessed the concrete facts.

What is the effect of a refusal on grounds of refugee status or international protection?

Where a person has been granted refugee status or protection against refoulement on account of persecution or a risk of serious harm in his or her country of origin, that status is of particular importance for an INTERPOL request by the country of origin concerning the same person.

CCF's published practice accepts that a valid protection status granted against the country of origin, which prevents return, may remove the possibility of achieving the purpose of a Red Notice or diffusion. For this to be relevant:

• the protection status must be official and valid,
• the protection must have been granted against the requesting country,
• the status must not have been cancelled or expired,
• the identity of the person and of the charge must clearly match,
• it must be shown that the circumstances have not materially changed since the status was granted.

A residence permit, a temporary visa or a humanitarian stay document does not always have the same legal effect as refugee status. The document must explain which non-refoulement protection it provides.

If citizenship has been the ground for refusing extradition, will a Red Notice be deleted?

Generally, no. Many states do not extradite their own citizens. Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye also provides that a citizen may not be surrendered to a foreign state for an offence, except for obligations arising from membership of the International Criminal Court.

A citizenship bar usually shows only that extradition cannot take place in the state concerned. If the person travels to a third country, the same obstacle may not exist under that country's law.

In the CCF Decision Excerpt No. 3/2023, the context of a dual national whose country of residence does not extradite its own citizen, and where the requesting state does not transfer the proceedings, is examined. The existence of a valid arrest warrant and the possibility of judicial cooperation in other countries mean that a citizenship bar alone does not end an active international search in every case.

In such files, the following should be assessed together for purpose, necessity and proportionality:

• the possibility of transferring criminal proceedings to the state where the person is present,
• the will of the requesting state to seek extradition from another state,
• whether the requesting state has taken no action for a long period, and
• whether the Red Notice in practice produces only a travel restriction.

What is the effect of a refusal on procedural grounds or missing documents?

An extradition request may have been refused because:

• a formal request note was not submitted within the time limit,
• the document lacks a translation or certification,
• the description of the event is insufficient,
• the copy of the arrest warrant was not submitted,
• the competent authority's signature is missing, or
• the formal requirement of the bilateral treaty was not met.

These grounds usually do not prevent the requesting state from seeking extradition again, either in the same or in another country, by remedying the defect. Nevertheless, where the defect shows that the mandatory data for a Red Notice is also absent, it becomes important for the CCF. For example, if the extradition court has clearly determined that the arrest warrant is invalid, the matter goes beyond a mere formal defect and directly engages Article 83 of the RPD.

Does lack of dual criminality cause a refusal, and what is the effect?

Dual criminality means that the alleged conduct constitutes an offence both in the requesting and in the requested state. The absence of dual criminality in one country does not show that the same result will follow in other countries.

However, where the refusal shows that the conduct in reality concerns:

• a private law or family dispute,
• an administrative regulatory violation,
• expression or peaceful political activity, or
• conduct that is regarded as contested in some countries,

the refusal may be strong under the requirement in Article 83 of the RPD for a "serious ordinary-law offence".

In the application, the legal nature of the specific conduct alleged should be explained, rather than the word-for-word differences between the names of the offences.

What is the effect of a refusal on grounds of statute of limitations or res judicata?

Where extradition has been refused because of res judicata for the same act, an acquittal, enforcement of a sentence or the statute of limitations, the effect of the refusal may be broader.

Ne bis in idem and the CJEU decision in WS

In its Grand Chamber judgment in WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-505/19, 12 May 2021, EU:C:2021:376, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that where the principle of ne bis in idem within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is clearly established for the same acts, provisional arrest on the basis of a Red Notice cannot be maintained.

The judgment does not produce automatic worldwide deletion. It provides binding interpretation within EU and Schengen law. For a CCF application, the same person, the same material act, the finality of the decision and, where the sentence has been served, the enforcement must be documented.

Refusal of an EU extradition request (EAW) and the Petruhhin doctrine of the CJEU

Surrender procedures between European Union member states (European Arrest Warrant, EAW) differ from the classical international extradition regime. Where a member state refuses an EAW request, or where a person who is not an EU citizen is present in an EU member state, the CJEU's judgments in Petruhhin (C-182/15) and Pisciotti (C-191/16) come into play.

The CJEU examines whether, where a member state does not extradite its own citizen, the same criminal protection is also provided to other EU citizens, and first of all whether the proceedings were offered for transfer to the member state of which the person is a citizen. Where an EU state has refused surrender under the EAW framework and this has become final under EU law principles of free movement and ne bis in idem, the presence of the Red Notice in the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and at INTERPOL becomes inconsistent with CJEU norms.

Statute of limitations decision

Where the requested state relies only on the statute of limitations under its own extradition law, the result may differ in other countries. However, if the court of the source country has definitively determined that the arrest warrant or the sentence has ended because of the statute of limitations, the valid basis and purpose of the Red Notice may cease to exist.

How is an extradition refusal recorded in the INTERPOL file?

In Resolution AGN/53/RES/7 (1984) of the INTERPOL General Assembly, it is provided that where some countries refuse extradition, this may be communicated to other NCBs as additional information to the Red Notice.

CCF's Decision Excerpt No. 10/2017 concretely shows that refusal of extradition does not mean automatic deletion. Extradition was refused because the request documents did not sufficiently establish an extraditable offence, and the possibility of a new request remained open. The CCF considered that the refusal information should be added to the INTERPOL file rather than deleting the record.

The practical importance of this annotation is as follows:

• other states see the earlier refusal decision,
• the reason for the refusal may be taken into account in a new provisional arrest or extradition assessment,
• it can be questioned whether the source state has remedied the deficiency, and
• the risk of repeated deprivation of liberty on the same grounds can be reduced.

However, an annotation does not delete an active Red Notice, and it does not provide travel security in all countries.

What is the effect of several countries refusing an extradition request?

Where several states refuse an extradition request on the same ground, the position may be stronger as regards whether the purpose of the record can still be achieved and whether it is proportionate. In particular, where the decisions independently confirm:

• the same human rights risk,
• the same finding of political motive,
• the same res judicata obstacle, or
• the same invalidity of the arrest warrant,

the weight of the CCF application increases.

Nevertheless, where the decisions were made because of citizenship or a procedure specific to one country, the number alone is not decisive. Each decision must be compared separately in terms of its ground and scope.

Does the source country's failure to request extradition, or its inaction, affect a Red Notice?

Where the person's location is known but the source country for a long time does not request extradition, does not complete the request or does not send the necessary documents after arrest, the real purpose of the Red Notice may be questioned.

RPD Article 81 allows an assessment of cancellation where the source state does not take the necessary action and does not give a reasonable explanation. RPD Article 87 also requires the source state to act promptly once the person is found and to transmit the necessary documents within the relevant time limits.

However, CCF's Decision Excerpt No. 16/2018 notes that knowing a person's location, or the fact that extradition from the country where the person is found is not possible because of citizenship, does not by itself remove the source state's will to seek extradition from other countries.

The application should establish the following chronology:

• When did the source state learn the person's location?
• When did the provisional arrest take place?
• On what date was the extradition request sent or not sent?
• Was the time limit for completion missed?
• Was a new request made after the refusal?
• How did the source NCB explain its inaction?
• Was the same process repeated in other countries?

RPD Article 84 and direct deletion for procedural delay

Where, after an extradition refusal, a state does not complete the missing documents within a reasonable time despite knowing the person's location, does not provide a new legal basis or remains passive, this constitutes a breach of Article 84 of the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD).

RPD Article 84 requires that the purpose of a Red Notice be a "real and legally possible extradition process". Where the source state leaves the process suspended after the refusal, it turns the Red Notice from an "extradition instrument" into a "punitive travel barrier", which CCF treats as grounds for complete deletion of the record.

Does an extradition refusal in Türkiye remove the Red Notice?

In Türkiye, the extradition process and the INTERPOL record are separate legal layers. The refusal of an extradition request by Turkish authorities is not a deletion decision that binds the INTERPOL General Secretariat or the CCF automatically.

Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye provides that a citizen may not be surrendered to a foreign state for an offence, except for obligations arising from membership of the International Criminal Court. In the surrender of foreigners, the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, applicable international agreements and human rights guarantees are assessed together.

What does the ECtHR judgment in M.C. v. Türkiye show?

In M.C. v. Türkiye, application no. 31592/18, judgment of 4 June 2024, the provisional detention and extradition process that began on the basis of a Red Notice published through the Russian NCB and an in absentia arrest decision was examined. The judgment shows that the application of an INTERPOL record in Türkiye is not independent of national law and the guarantees of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECtHR does not delete INTERPOL data, as the CCF does. It examines the lawfulness, arbitrariness and effective judicial review of deprivation of liberty. For this reason, a judgment of the ECtHR or the Constitutional Court may be presented to the CCF as a strong document; however, a separate deletion or correction route must be pursued for the INTERPOL record.

How is an application made to the CCF after an extradition refusal?

From 26 March 2026, 10.00 CET, applications to the CCF for access, rectification or deletion, and for review of a decision, are in principle accepted only through the secure online portal. E-mail and postal applications are not used, except in the exceptional cases covered by Article 25(2) of the CCF Operating Rules.

Can interim measures be requested before the CCF (suspension)?

After an extradition request has been refused, if the person faces an unavoidable danger of provisional arrest again in a third country, interim measures may be requested under Article 34 of the CCF Operating Rules.

Where the CCF sees a possibility of irreparable harm (for example, a chain extradition to a country where there is a risk of torture, or an urgent health or liberty restriction), it may temporarily suspend the visibility of the Red Notice or Diffusion to member countries (temporary suspension) until it issues its final decision on the merits of the file. An application for interim measures must document, with concrete risks, that the extradition refusal has become final and that the person is obliged to travel.

Access first, or direct deletion?

Where the person does not know the type and content of the record, an access request may be submitted first. Where the existence of a Red Notice or diffusion is known and the extradition refusal decision is in hand, a rectification or deletion request may be prepared directly.

An access request is more comprehensive than a name search on a public page, but the information the CCF can disclose may be limited by the source country's confidentiality restrictions.

Required documents

• Copy of identity card or passport,
• power of attorney or authorization document for the lawyer's application,
• a full and legible copy of the extradition refusal decision,
• a document showing the finality and current status of the decision,
• trial records and party statements,
• the requesting country's extradition request and its annexes,
• the arrest warrant or, where it exists, the decision that lifted it,
• refugee or protection status document,
• personal report and official findings on the human rights risk,
• acquittal, final judgment or enforcement documents for the same act,
• extradition refusal decisions issued in other countries,
• correspondence with the source NCB and the competent authority,
• reliable translations of the documents.

CCF applications are reviewed on the basis of written documents; apart from exceptional cases, no oral hearing is held. For this reason, the relevant paragraphs of the refusal decision, its legal effect and its link with the INTERPOL rules must be clearly shown in the application.

How should the legal reasoning be built?

An application should not rest only on the outcome "the court refused extradition". The following structure should be followed:

• a precise and accurate summary of the grounds for refusal,
• which person, act, file and arrest warrant the decision covers,
• whether the decision is temporary or final,
• whether the reasoning could apply in other countries as well,
• for RPD Article 12, purpose, accuracy, currency and proportionality,
• for RPD Article 81, the achievement of the purpose or the inaction of the source state,
• for RPD Articles 83–84, the valid judicial basis and the genuine will to extradite,
• for Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution, human rights,
• for Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution, the political character,
• if deletion is not considered possible, a request that the refusal decision be fully annotated on the record.

How long does a CCF application take?

As a rule, the CCF confirms receipt of an application within one month. If documents are missing, it asks for them to be completed; the main time limit runs from the date on which the application is accepted as admissible.

According to the CCF Statute and current statements:

• access requests are decided in principle within four months, and
• rectification and deletion requests are decided in principle within nine months.

Time may be extended because of the complexity of the file, the need to await information from the source NCB or the need for further examination.

A CCF application does not automatically stop national arrest, detention or extradition proceedings. Where there is an urgent risk of arrest or travel, parallel protective measures and judicial remedies must be pursued in the relevant country.

If the CCF has found a file suitable, can a new application be made on the basis of an extradition refusal?

Yes, but the conditions for a new application are different. Under Article 42 of the CCF Statute, a review of a decision must be based on new and relevant facts that were unknown during the earlier examination and that, if they had been known, could have led to a different result.

A new extradition refusal decision may have this character. The application must be made within six months of learning the new facts, and it must explain how the decision may change the earlier CCF assessment.

In CCF's Decision No. 10 of 2017, because the earlier refusal of extradition was already known, the condition for review was not met; nevertheless, it was considered that the refusal information should be recorded in the INTERPOL file. This decision shows the importance of timing and of explaining the "new fact".

Is travel safe after an extradition refusal?

No. An extradition refusal usually binds only the authorities of the state that made the decision. When the person travels to a third country, that country may:

• stop the person on the basis of the Red Notice or diffusion,
• issue a provisional arrest decision,
• request a new extradition from the source country,
• assess the earlier refusal decision against different legal criteria, or
• require the person to prepare a defense in a short time in the transit country.

Before travel, for every country to be visited and transited, the following should be assessed:

• the national legal effect given to a Red Notice,
• the power of provisional arrest,
• the applicable extradition agreement,
• citizenship and residence status,
• the likelihood that the earlier refusal reasoning will be recognized,
• urgent contact with a lawyer and the consulate.

An approach of "extradition was refused in one country, so I can travel freely everywhere" carries a serious risk of loss of liberty.

Which records may remain even if a Red Notice is deleted?

Deletion of a Red Notice does not by itself remove the following records:

• the national arrest warrant in the source country,
• the Wanted Person Diffusion,
• bilateral police or judicial cooperation messages,
• other regional search systems,
• national border, migration and law enforcement databases,
• detention or precautionary decisions in the extradition file,
• old information in private sector compliance and risk screening.

After the CCF decision, it must also be separately monitored whether the source NCB and the other member countries update their national records.

Action plan after an extradition refusal

The first 72 hours

• Obtain a full copy of the refusal decision and its finality status.
• Examine separately the decisions on release, judicial control and travel restriction.
• Determine the source country's right to appeal or to request again.
• Investigate the Red Notice and diffusion risk.
• Suspend close travel and transit plans and carry out a country-based risk analysis.
• Prepare a CCF application or a supplementary submission to the existing file.
• Request, from the source country's NCB, that the refusal information be recorded and, where the conditions exist, withdrawal of the notice.

Medium-term follow-up

• Monitor the outcome of appeals against the extradition decision.
• Check whether the source country has provided new assurances or new documents.
• Investigate whether there are extradition files concerning the same person in other countries.
• Monitor the implementation of the CCF decision and national data updates.
• Manage refugee, residence, deportation and visa processes on a separate legal basis.

Strategic step: preventive submission

Before any travel to a third country, a final extradition refusal decision obtained may be submitted to the CCF as a "Preventive Notice and Record Correction" request. The aim of this practical strategy is to have the CCF annotate the file or delete the data before the person is arrested at any border crossing.

Where the requesting country's Red Notice has been misused and the extradition request has already been refused on the merits by an independent court and this has been recorded in the system in advance, a possible provisional arrest decision may be prevented.

Common mistakes

• Assuming that a refusal of extradition automatically cancels the Red Notice.
• Presenting only the outcome page of the decision without explaining its reasoning.
• Failing to distinguish between refusal on procedural grounds and final refusal on human rights grounds.
• Travelling to a third country without a plan after refusal on grounds of citizenship.
• Failing to investigate the diffusion alongside the Red Notice.
• Assuming that a CCF application stops the national extradition file.
• Overlooking the source country's right to request again or appeal.
• Failing to request that the refusal decision be annotated on the INTERPOL file.
• Submitting a refugee status document as a mere residence permit.
• Failing to check national databases after deletion.

How does Güneş & Güneş work on these files?

Because the extradition refusal and the INTERPOL record are handled by different competent bodies, a single petition is often not sufficient. Güneş & Güneş Law Firm prepares, depending on the circumstances of the file, a work plan that manages international data review, the extradition trial and migration processes together.

Concrete legal work provided to the client

• Analysis of the grounds, finality and territorial effect of the extradition refusal decision,
• investigation of the Red Notice, diffusion and national arrest records,
• examination of the current status of the source country's arrest warrant and criminal file,
• preparation of CCF applications for access, rectification, deletion and review,
• documentation of defenses on human rights, political character, refugee status, res judicata and statute of limitations,
• preparation of a request that the refusal decision be annotated on the INTERPOL record,
• urgent travel and transit country risk analysis,
• coordination with local lawyers in provisional arrest, detention and extradition proceedings,
• separate examination of deportation, administrative detention, entry ban and international protection processes,
• monitoring of the updating of national records after the CCF decision.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has been based in Antalya since 1999 and provides legal services in Turkish, English, German and Russian across all 81 provinces of Türkiye and in cases with international connections. No outcome is guaranteed in any file; the competent bodies, options, risks and order of procedure are determined on the basis of concrete documents.

Frequently asked questions

Türkiye refused the extradition; was the Red Notice lifted?

No. A refusal decision in Türkiye does not automatically delete the Red Notice. Depending on the ground of refusal, an application for deletion or rectification should be made to the CCF, and an update of the record should be requested from the source country's NCB.

If extradition was refused on human rights grounds, is deletion certain?

It is not certain; however, a specific, current and final human rights finding is among the strongest grounds for deletion. The CCF separately assesses the scope of the decision and its relationship with the INTERPOL rules.

I was not extradited because I am a citizen; can I travel to another country?

This conclusion cannot be drawn. A citizenship bar usually applies only in your own country. A third country may begin provisional arrest and extradition proceedings on the basis of the Red Notice.

The extradition request was refused for lack of documents; can the source country request again?

In most legal systems, a new request is possible once the deficiency is remedied. Whether the refusal decision creates a final bar, and the relevant provisions of the treaty, must also be examined separately.

Is an extradition refusal recorded in the Red Notice?

Where the conditions exist, yes. The INTERPOL General Assembly's 1984 resolution and CCF practice allow the refusal information to be added to the file. It should be followed up to confirm that this has actually been done.

If several countries refuse extradition, is the record deleted automatically?

No. However, independent refusal decisions based on the same fundamental ground can form a strong file regarding the purpose of the record, its lawfulness and its proportionality.

Does a CCF application need a translation of the extradition decision?

A complete and reliable translation into one of the CCF's working languages should be submitted. In particular, the ground of refusal, its finality, the offences and the operative part of the decision must be translated in full.

What can be done if the CCF rejects the deletion request?

If there is a new fact that was unknown during the earlier examination and that, had it been known, could have led to a different result, a review application may be made within six months of learning of it. A new extradition refusal decision may be assessed within this scope.

Can I travel while a CCF application is awaited after an extradition refusal?

Making a CCF application does not remove the risk of arrest. The type of record, the transit countries and national law must be examined before any travel is considered safe.

Conclusion

A refusal of an extradition request is not a universal decision that removes a Red Notice by itself. The refusal primarily has consequences in the state that made the decision; the requesting country's national arrest warrant and its ability to seek extradition from other countries may continue.

Refusals based on human rights, political character, refugee status, res judicata or an invalid arrest warrant carry great weight before the CCF. Refusals based on citizenship, lack of documents or a procedure specific to a country usually result in an annotation to the record or a limited rectification, rather than deletion.

An effective strategy analyses the refusal decision for its reasoning and finality, tests the purpose and basis of the INTERPOL record, makes a documented application to the CCF, requests an update from the source NCB, and separately manages the national risk of each country travelled to. In addition, the strategic use of interim measure requests, preventive applications and unreasonable delay by the source state can significantly increase the success rate of INTERPOL data deletion applications.

Final legal conclusion: Refusal of extradition is not, on its own, an automatic ground for deleting a Red Notice; it is a legal basis of strength proportionate to the link between the ground of refusal and the INTERPOL Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data.

Confidentiality and legal notice

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used only for legal assessment and service purposes, and are protected under the attorney's professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and legislation on the protection of personal data.

This article is for general legal information purposes. It does not constitute a legal opinion or a guarantee of outcome without an examination of the current law of the concrete case's extradition refusal decision, the source country, the type of record, the arrest warrant, the person's status and the countries to be travelled to.

Official, judicial and academic sources

INTERPOL official sources

• INTERPOL — Red Notices: The nature of a Red Notice, its extradition purpose and the fact that it is not an international arrest warrant.
• INTERPOL — Compliance and Review: Prior and continuing compliance review of notices and diffusions.
• INTERPOL Constitution: Article 2, the human rights framework, and Article 3, the prohibition on neutrality.
• Rules on the Processing of Data: In particular Articles 12, 35, 51, 80–87 and 100.
• CCF — How to Submit a Request: Portal procedure from 26 March 2026, types of application and the procedural framework.
• CCF — Frequently Asked Questions: The CCF's limits of competence, time limits and review.
• CCF Operating Rules — 26 March 2026: Admissibility, portal, interim measures (Article 34), correspondence and decision procedure.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 10/2017: Summary of a decision showing that refusal of extradition may result in an annotation to the record rather than automatic deletion.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 16/2018: Knowledge of location, purpose of extradition and the will of the source state to act.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 3/2023: Citizenship bar to extradition and the context of transfer of proceedings.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 4/2023: Non-refoulement protection, the purpose of a Red Notice and the nature of protection status.

Turkish official source

• Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye: Prohibition on surrendering a citizen to a foreign state, Article 38.

Judicial decisions

• ECtHR, Liu v. Poland, App. No. 37610/18, 06.10.2022: Risk of ill-treatment in case of extradition to China and Article 3 of the Convention.
• ECtHR, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 8139/09, 17.01.2012: Diplomatic assurances and the risk of a manifestly unfair trial.
• ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye, App. No. 31592/18, 04.06.2024: Provisional detention and extradition process based on a Red Notice, and personal liberty.
• CJEU Grand Chamber, WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑505/19, 12.05.2021, EU:C:2021:376: Red Notice, provisional arrest, ne bis in idem and data processing in the Schengen area.
• CJEU Grand Chamber, Petruhhin, C-182/15, 06.09.2016, EU:C:2016:630: The rule that a member state does not extradite its own citizen and the protection afforded to other EU citizens in third-country requests (EAW context).
• CJEU Grand Chamber, Pisciotti, C-191/16, 10.04.2018, EU:C:2018:222: Extradition requests within the EU-US extradition agreement and the protection of EU citizens.

Academic sources

• Machiko Kanetake, “INTERPOL’s Red Notices: Human Rights Safeguards for Targeted Individuals”, AJIL Unbound, vol. 120, 2026, pp. 17–22. A current academic assessment of the actual effects of Red Notices and human rights review.
• Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL, Hart Publishing, 2010. A monograph on INTERPOL's institutional and legal foundations; the official rules in force should be used for current procedure.

---