INTERPOL Red Notices and Extradition

What Is an INTERPOL Diffusion Record? How Does It Differ from a Red Notice?

Two separate files and a world map explaining the distinction between a Red Notice and a diffusion

Author: Av. Umut GüneşPublished: October 9, 2026About 17 min read

Institutional legal review and control: Güneş & Güneş Law Firm

Published by: Güneş & Güneş Law Firm

Short answer

An INTERPOL diffusion is a standardized international police cooperation request or alert sent directly by a member country’s National Central Bureau (NCB) or an authorized international organization to one, several or all selected members. Under Article 97 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), a diffusion may be aimed at arrest, locating a person, obtaining additional information, identification, warning about criminal activities or sharing information.

Not every diffusion is aimed at arrest. By contrast, a Wanted Person Diffusion (WPD) is sent for the arrest or detention of an accused person or convicted person, or the restriction of that person’s movements, and it produces serious judicial and administrative consequences similar to those of a Red Notice.

A Red Notice is published by the INTERPOL General Secretariat and, as a rule, is communicated to all members. A diffusion, by contrast, is transmitted directly to the recipients selected by the sending authority. Neither is an international arrest warrant; arrest, pretrial detention, administrative detention and extradition decisions are made under the national law of the state concerned.

What is an INTERPOL diffusion record?

According to Article 97 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), the diffusion system consists of standardized cooperation requests and international alerts corresponding to specific purposes. A diffusion is not an ordinary e-mail or correspondence between institutions. It is a rule-based cooperation tool used within the INTERPOL Information System (I-24/7), in which the sending authority can determine its recipients and the scope of access.

The basic features of a diffusion are as follows:

It is sent by a National Central Bureau (NCB) or an authorized international organization.
It may be addressed to one, several or all members.
It must serve a specific cooperation purpose.
It is processed using standard INTERPOL forms and technical mechanisms.
It may be recorded in the INTERPOL police database and queried by authorized users.
The source authority may restrict access, the conditions of use and the circle of recipients.
It is subject to the INTERPOL Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data.
It may be subject to NDTF review and, where the conditions are met, to an application to the CCF.

Key conclusion: The absence of a Red Notice does not make a diffusion a trivial information note. Its legal effect is determined by its type, its purpose, its recipient countries, the decision on which it is based and the domestic law of the country concerned.

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

For what purposes can a diffusion be sent?

Article 97 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data regulates the purposes of diffusions in six main groups:

Purpose of the Diffusion	Likely Content and Application
Arrest, detention or restriction of movements	The presence of an accused or convicted person for extradition, surrender or a similar legal procedure, and the application of an appropriate measure
Locating and tracking	Determining where a person or a related element is located
Obtaining additional information	Collecting information about identity, movements, activities or a connection to an investigation
Identification	Helping to identify a person, a missing person or a person of unknown identity
Warning about criminal activities	Sending members a warning about public safety or the risk of reoffending
Providing information	Sharing information about a specific investigation, method, person, object or risk

These purposes may overlap with the functions of color-coded notices. For this reason, the legal nature of a diffusion cannot be understood merely from the word “diffusion.” It must be determined which judicial or administrative act is requested in the record.

What is a Wanted Person Diffusion (WPD)?

A Wanted Person Diffusion (WPD) is an arrest-oriented diffusion sent about a person wanted for prosecution or for the enforcement of a sentence. Under Article 97/1-a of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data, the arrest or detention of an accused or convicted person, or the restriction of that person’s movements, may be requested.

In terms of function, a WPD is the type of diffusion closest to a Red Notice. However, it is not the same legal document. The circulation of a WPD may be limited to certain countries, and its initial transmission process differs from the way a Red Notice is published.

Important warning: The result “there is no publicly available Red Notice about me” does not show that there is no arrest-oriented diffusion. A WPD does not appear on the public Red Notice search page.

What are the key differences between a Red Notice and a diffusion?

Criterion	Red Notice	Diffusion
Authority that acts	The INTERPOL General Secretariat publishes it at the request of a member country or authorized organization	An NCB or authorized organization sends it directly to the recipients it selects
Scope of circulation	As a rule, communicated to all INTERPOL members	One, several or all members may be selected
Purpose	Locating the wanted person and provisional arrest for extradition	Locating, information gathering, identification and warning, including arrest
Arrest effect	Its basic purpose is a request for provisional arrest	Arrest is the basic purpose only in a WPD and an arrest-oriented diffusion
Visibility	Some summaries may be made public at the request of the source country	Not published on the general public search page
Control of distribution	Broad, organization-wide circulation	The source authority may restrict recipients and access
NDTF review	Reviewed before it is published and becomes searchable	Reviewed; there is a special technical situation regarding the initial e-mail transmission of a WPD
CCF application	Access, correction, deletion and reexamination are possible	May be subject to the same types of applications
Legal consequence	Not an international arrest warrant	Not an international arrest warrant

Is a diffusion a lighter form of a Red Notice?

No. The description “lighter” is misleading both technically and in practice.

A diffusion is a separate method of communication and data processing. A diffusion with a purpose other than arrest may create a different and more limited interference compared with a Red Notice. A WPD, by contrast, has practical consequences strong enough to initiate arrest, provisional arrest, administrative detention and the extradition process in the selected countries.

The fact that geographic circulation is limited does not mean that the risk is low in the selected countries. If a WPD has been sent only to the countries where the person is located, resides or is expected to travel, its targeted effect may be high.

Is a diffusion the same as an INTERPOL message?

No. The INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data draw clear lines between the notice, diffusion and message tools:

Tool	Basic Nature	Relationship to the Database
Notice	A color-coded request or alert published by the General Secretariat	Published in the INTERPOL database
Diffusion	A standardized request sent by an NCB directly to selected recipients	Recorded within the INTERPOL system and opened to rule-based access
Message	Direct communication between authorized users	As a rule, not a cooperation request recorded in the database

Calling a document a “diffusion message” at the national level does not erase the distinction between diffusion and message under the INTERPOL rules. The technical status of the specific record must be investigated from the official documents.

Why is a diffusion preferred?

Under Article 99/3 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data, an NCB or authorized organization should use a diffusion instead of a notice in the following cases:

If it wants to limit a cooperation request or alert to selected NCBs or organizations,
If it wants to restrict access to the data to a limited number of authorized recipients,
If the request does not justify the publication of a notice or does not meet the conditions for a notice.

The fact that a request does not meet the conditions for a Red Notice does not mean that the same data can be circulated through a diffusion without rules. A diffusion must also comply with data accuracy, lawfulness, purpose, necessity, proportionality, human rights and the limits of Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution.

Is sending a diffusion a way to bypass Red Notice review?

Legally, no. A member country cannot put the same unlawful data into circulation through a diffusion because it thinks a Red Notice request may be rejected. The INTERPOL Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data apply to both tools.

The NDTF examines identity and judicial data, the purpose of the request, its relevance to international police cooperation, the accuracy and currency of the data, human rights conditions, any political, military, religious or racial character, and refugee status.

According to INTERPOL’s official statement, cooperation through INTERPOL channels cannot continue for a notice or diffusion that is rejected for violating Article 2/1 or Article 3.

What is the difference in role between the NDTF and the CCF?

The NDTF and the CCF are not two authorities that carry out the same review:

Authority	How the Review Begins	Basic Function	Effect of the Decision
NDTF (Notices and Diffusions Task Force)	Internal review of new or existing data	To review whether the request complies with INTERPOL rules	Determines the General Secretariat’s approval, rejection or deletion
CCF (Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files)	Application by the individual or the individual’s representative	To review whether the processing of personal data complies with the rules	Its decisions are final and binding for INTERPOL

The NDTF is a unit within the General Secretariat. The CCF is an independent supervisory body. The CCF’s Requests Chamber decides on requests for access to, correction of and deletion of personal data.

Are Red Notice requirements applied to a Wanted Person Diffusion?

The NDTF review of a WPD covers the identity, judicial data, purpose and other conditions of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data. For an arrest-oriented WPD, at least the following are required:

The person is wanted as an accused or convicted person,
There is a valid and verifiable national judicial basis,
The accusation is of a serious ordinary crime,
There is sufficient identity data,
The purpose and necessity of international police cooperation are present,
Compliance with Article 2/1 and Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution.

Can a diffusion reach the recipient country before NDTF review?

Yes; however, two different technical situations must be distinguished here. According to INTERPOL’s current official statement, new Red Notice and WPD data do not become searchable by member countries in the INTERPOL Information System until the NDTF review is completed and approval is given.

However, unlike a Red Notice, a WPD can reach the NCBs of the recipient countries selected by the sending authority in the form of an e-mail before the NDTF review is completed. This e-mail contains a warning that the diffusion is under legal review.

This distinction has the following consequences:

Before the review, a WPD is not yet an approved record that can be searched in the INTERPOL database.
Even so, the selected NCBs may have seen the first direct transmission.
The recipient country must act by taking into account the warning and its own national law.
If the NDTF later rejects the record, the General Secretariat asks the recipient NCBs to update their national records.

How can I find out whether there is a diffusion record about me?

There is no publicly available definitive diffusion search screen. A person may submit a request for access to personal data to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).

Since March 26, 2026, CCF applications have been made through a secure online portal. The portal accepts requests for access, correction/deletion and reexamination of a decision.

Admissibility and decision periods in a CCF application

Under the current CCF Statute:

The Commission informs the applicant about admissibility within one month at the latest from receipt of the application.
An access request is, as a rule, decided within four months from the date of admissibility.
A correction or deletion request is, as a rule, decided within nine months from the date of admissibility.
The General Secretariat informs the Commission whether data is being processed within 45 days from the CCF’s inquiry.
Reexamination of a decision must be requested within six months from the discovery of a new fact.

Confidentiality and limits on access to information in the CCF

CCF applications are confidential. The source authority may restrict the disclosure of some information to the applicant for reasons such as protecting the investigation or security. Confidentiality does not prevent the CCF from seeing the data; however, it may narrow the scope of the information communicated to the applicant.

How do the judicial and administrative processes proceed in Türkiye because of a WPD?

When a diffusion alert is received in Türkiye, the process runs along two parallel tracks: the Judicial Extradition Process under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and the Administrative Detention and Restriction Code Process under Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.

                           INTERPOL Diffusion Record (WPD)
                                         │
                   ┌─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┐
                   ▼                                           ▼
          [JUDICIAL PROCESS: Law No. 6706]          [ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS: Law No. 6458]
                   │                                           │
         Ministry of Justice Review                    Entry of the G-87 Restriction Code
                   │                                           │
         Police Custody / Public Prosecutor            Referral to the Removal Center
                   │                                           │
        Before a Judge Within 24 Hours              Administrative Detention Order (Art. 57)
                   │                                           │
   Provisional Arrest / Judicial Control (Art. 14)      Deportation Order (Art. 54)
                   │                                           │
      High Criminal Court Extradition Trial         Annulment Action at the Administrative Court

1. Judicial Process: Arrest, Provisional Arrest and Extradition (Law No. 6706)

Arrest and Being Brought Before a Judge: Under Article 14/3 of Law No. 6706, the person arrested is brought before a criminal judge of peace (sulh ceza hâkimi) within twenty-four hours at the latest for a decision on provisional arrest.
Duration of Provisional Arrest: On the basis of reciprocity, provisional arrest lasts at most forty days. Under Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition (SİAS), a period of 18–40 days applies.
Detention in Extradition Proceedings (Article 16): Detention ordered by the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) after the formal extradition request has arrived falls under Article 16. The forty-day limit on provisional arrest does not apply to Article 16; however, the detention must be reviewed at intervals of thirty days each at the latest.

2. Administrative Process: Restriction Code (G-87) and Administrative Detention (Law No. 6458)

When a WPD concerning foreign nationals or dual nationals reaches Türkiye, the G-87 (Activity Against General Security) restriction code is entered into the system by the Presidency of Migration Management (Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı) of the Ministry of Interior (İçişleri Bakanlığı).

A Deportation decision is issued about the person under Article 54/1-k of Law No. 6458.
The person is referred to a Removal Center (GGM) and placed in Administrative Detention under Article 57.
Legal Protection: Even if release is obtained from the judicial extradition court, the person cannot be released unless the administrative detention and the G-87 code are lifted. For this reason, an objection to the administrative detention order must be filed at the administrative court (İdare Mahkemesi), and an action for annulment of the deportation act must be brought.

CJEU, ECtHR, Constitutional Court, Council of State and Court of Cassation Precedents

CJEU: WS v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Case C-505/19, May 12, 2021)

The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a groundbreaking decision on INTERPOL diffusions and Red Notices. According to the decision:

The ne bis in idem principle (no double prosecution for the same offense) applies under Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
If there is a final conviction or acquittal in an EU member state or a Schengen state for the same act concerning a person, another member state cannot provisionally arrest or detain the person on the basis of an INTERPOL diffusion.

Constitutional Court (Plenary Assembly): Application of S.K. (Application No: 2018/24280, March 17, 2021)

In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), it was stated that detentions for extradition made on the basis of an INTERPOL record are subject to the requirements of lawfulness, proportionality and effective judicial review under Article 19 of the Constitution. Detention exceeding a reasonable time and administrative delays in the arrival of the extradition documents were regarded as grounds for a violation.

Constitutional Court: Application of Oktay Şener (Application No: 2020/9407, March 3, 2022)

In the provisional arrest and extradition process that began in Türkiye upon a diffusion record sent by Austria, the exhaustion of legal remedies and the safeguards of personal liberty were examined. The decision confirms that the diffusion must be directly reviewed by national judicial bodies.

Council of State 10th Chamber: G-87 Restriction Code Decision (E. 2021/4102, K. 2023/1184)

The Council of State (Danıştay) held that G-87 restriction codes entered on the basis of an INTERPOL diffusion through abstract allegations, and the deportation decisions connected to them, must be annulled. The administration is obliged to submit the concrete information and documents on which the diffusion is based.

Court of Cassation 9th Criminal Chamber: Precedent Decision in Extradition Proceedings (E. 2022/1104, K. 2022/3512)

The Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) held that, under Law No. 6706, the offense that is the subject of the diffusion record must also constitute an offense under Turkish law (dual criminality) and must not be of a political or military nature, otherwise the extradition request will be held inadmissible.

Does a positive match (hit) mean definitive identification?

No. A match with INTERPOL data in a passport or name query (a hit) does not establish that the person stopped is the wanted person. Transliteration errors, the use of false identity or similar names lead to false matches.

Identity comparison table for a wrong-person claim

Element to Examine	Person Stopped	Person in the Diffusion	Document to Use
Name-surname variations	All alphabets and previous surnames	All spellings in the record	Civil registry record, passport
Date and place of birth	Official record	Diffusion data	Birth certificate
Biometrics	Fingerprint / Facial recognition	Data in the source record	Comparison by the competent authority
Location on the date of the offense	Records of where the person was	The scene of the alleged event	Passport entry-exit records, residence

Which legal remedies can be used against a diffusion?

An effective legal strategy should be conducted on three levels:

                            THREE-LEVEL LEGAL STRATEGY
                                         │
         ┌───────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┐
         ▼                               ▼                               ▼
 [1. CCF & INTERPOL]            [2. JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS]    [3. SOURCE COUNTRY]
         │                               │                               │
- CCF Individual Application     • Law No. 6706 Extradition Defense     • Objection to National Arrest
- Refugee Status / Violation of Art. 3 • Administrative Court (G-87 Annulment) • Acquittal / Dismissal / Statute of Limitations
- Interim Measure (Art. 37)      • Objection to Administrative Detention (Criminal Judge of Peace) • NCB Withdrawing the Record

CCF and INTERPOL Level: An application is made to the CCF to request the deletion or correction of the data, or an interim measure (suspension of the use of the data under Article 37). Under the CCF’s 108th Session Decisions of Principle, persons holding refugee status (violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution) can have their records deleted by this route.
Turkish Judicial and Administrative Courts Level: An objection to provisional arrest is filed before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), the defense against extradition is raised before the High Criminal Court, and annulment actions against the G-87 restriction code and the deportation decision are brought before the administrative court.
Source Country Level: An objection is made to the national arrest decision in the country where the accusation originates, and a non-prosecution or acquittal decision is obtained so that the NCB withdraws the diffusion.

Quick decision table for the client

Record or Situation	Purpose of Arrest	Publicly Available?	Primary Authority	First Step
Red Notice	Yes	Only some summaries	CCF, Source Country, High Criminal Court	Analysis of the underlying decision, extradition and travel risk
Wanted Person Diffusion (WPD)	Yes	No	CCF, Administrative Court, Criminal Judge of Peace	Determining the recipient circle, the G-87 code and the judicial situation
Information / Locating Diffusion	As a rule, no	No	CCF and the relevant NCB	Purpose of data use and restriction
CCF Deletion Decision	No	Decision is confidential	INTERPOL and National Authorities	Monitoring the updating of national databases

Frequently asked questions

What is an INTERPOL diffusion?

It is a standardized international police cooperation request that an NCB or authorized organization sends directly to the countries it selects.

Is a WPD the same as a Red Notice?

No. Their purposes may be similar; however, their methods of circulation and publication differ. A diffusion is transmitted directly to the selected countries.

Does a diffusion automatically result in arrest in Türkiye?

No. The decision on pretrial detention is made by a Turkish judge under Law No. 6706. In addition, administrative detention may be applied by entering the G-87 code on the administrative side.

Does a CCF application stop administrative detention or extradition?

No. A CCF application does not automatically stop national judicial proceedings. Requests for a stay of execution and for release must be raised separately before the national courts.

Are CJEU decisions binding on Türkiye?

CJEU decisions are not directly binding on Türkiye; however, they constitute qualified precedent that courts take into account in extradition proceedings and in interpreting principles of international law (for example, ne bis in idem).

Confidentiality and legal notice

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are protected under professional secrecy and the KVKK. This article is for general information purposes; it does not constitute a legal opinion without review of the documents of the specific case.

Sources and legal bases

INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD)
Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF)
CJEU Judgment: WS v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-505/19, May 12, 2021.
Constitutional Court Plenary Assembly Decision: S.K., Application No: 2018/24280, March 17, 2021.
Constitutional Court Decision: Oktay Şener, Application No: 2020/9407, March 3, 2022.
ECtHR Judgment: Hernadi v. Croatia, Application No: 29998/15, September 26, 2019.
Council of State 10th Chamber Decision: E. 2021/4102, K. 2023/1184 (G-87 annulment).
Court of Cassation 9th Criminal Chamber Decision: E. 2022/1104, K. 2022/3512 (refusal of extradition).
Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.
Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.

To assess your legal situation, review the legal aspects of a planned transaction or identify the available remedies, you can share a short summary of the matter, your request and your preferred language.

It helps to mention any file or transaction details, decisions, notifications or notices with deadlines, and important dates you know of. The scope of services, required documents and fees are assessed separately.

Scope of the article

The applicable law and available remedies may vary with the facts, the parties' circumstances, documents, notifications, deadlines and current judicial or administrative practice.

Confidentiality and personal data

Information and documents shared with us are handled under professional secrecy and data protection principles, for the purpose of legal assessment and, if the matter is accepted, for carrying out the service.

About the image

Image created with artificial intelligence for this article; it does not show a real client or file.