How to Have an INTERPOL Record Issued on Political Charges Cancelled

What is the limit of INTERPOL's authority over political files?

INTERPOL is neither a supranational court nor a police force. It does not declare a person to be a criminal, does not lift a national arrest decision, does not make an extradition decision and does not conduct investigations on behalf of a member state. The Organization checks whether the processing of data in international police cooperation channels complies with its own Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data.

Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution provides that cooperation between criminal police authorities is to be carried out in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 of the Constitution provides:

"It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."

This prohibition may apply, in addition to Red Notices, to diffusions, messages, passport and travel document records and other data processed in the INTERPOL Information System. Even where a state shows that a valid arrest decision exists in its domestic law, circulating that decision through INTERPOL channels must also comply with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

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

Does the CCF decide whether the national criminal case is justified?

No. The CCF does not replace the criminal court, does not hear witnesses, does not establish a conviction or acquittal, and does not make binding findings on the material elements of the crime under national law. However, in order to examine whether the INTERPOL record complies with the rules, it assesses:

• whether the alleged act is sufficiently and clearly defined,
• whether there is concrete information showing the person's personal participation in the crime,
• whether the request pursues an ordinary-crime cooperation purpose or a purpose of political pressure,
• whether the data is accurate, current, necessary and proportionate

Accordingly, the statement "the CCF does not weigh evidence" does not mean that the Commission will not examine the quality of the information in the file or the link between act and person at all. The limited authority of the CCF and the requirement that INTERPOL data rest on a sufficient and lawful basis should be read together.

Which charges may be accepted as political in character?

INTERPOL practice distinguishes pure political offences from relative or mixed offences, which combine political and ordinary-crime elements.

Pure political offences

Acts that are offences only because of their political, military, religious or racial content, and that contain no ordinary-crime element, fall as a rule within Article 3. Treason, the mere expression of political opinion, peaceful opposition or certain charges concerning the political structure of the state may fall within this group, depending on the nature of the concrete event.

The fact that the offence is regulated under the heading of "ordinary crime" in national law does not by itself change this result. What matters is less the label of the offence than what the act on which the record is based actually is.

Mixed or relative offences

Fraud, embezzlement, a tax offence, forgery, corruption, disturbing public order, violence, membership of a terrorist organization or a similar charge may be advanced in a political context. In such a case the record is not automatically political or automatically ordinary-crime. The predominance test is applied.

For example, where a "financial crime" file is opened against a political opponent immediately after an election, it is not explained when and what transaction the person carried out; persons in power engaged in similar activity are not prosecuted; the charge rests only on the link with the opposition movement; and no extradition request is in fact sent, the political element may become predominant.

On the other hand, where the personal participation of a person with a political identity in the concrete act of murder, serious violence, human trafficking or an act recognized by the international community as terrorism is reliably explained, the political identity alone will not be sufficient for the application of Article 3.

Diplomatic immunity and breach of international conventions

In a political-character objection, the status of immunity and exemption that the applicant holds under international law must also be taken into account separately. Records issued in respect of persons who enjoy the immunities and privileges of diplomatic or consular missions under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations or special mission immunities intersect directly with the prohibition in Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution on political and military matters.

Where a member state attempts to search through INTERPOL channels for a person under diplomatic protection or official immunity for the purpose of political settling of accounts, this amounts to abuse of police cooperation channels, and the record requires priority deletion.

Does a terrorism charge end the political-record objection?

No. The label "terrorism" or "membership of a terrorist organization" does not end the examination under Article 3. The CCF and the General Secretariat of INTERPOL in particular examine:

• whether there is international consensus on the nature of the organization,
• the active and meaningful connection of the person with the organization,
• the concrete act in which the person took part,
• whether the allegation rests only on membership, closeness, attendance at meetings, expression or association,
• whether violence and victims are present,
• the political or social context

Peaceful political activity, journalism, membership of an association or critical expression is not of the same legal weight as a concrete act of violence. Nevertheless, active and meaningful participation in a structure that enjoys strong international consensus as a terrorist organization may cause the ordinary-crime element to prevail.

How is the predominance test applied?

Under Article 34 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data and the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 of November 2024, all relevant elements are assessed together:

This list is not closed. The CCF may also assess the requesting country's past practice in similar INTERPOL requests, the records established against other persons in respect of the same event, and the international appearance of the request.

Can a person who is not a politician benefit from the protection of Article 3?

Yes. The political-character objection is not limited to members of parliament, party leaders or former ministers. Journalists, academics, human rights defenders, protesters, businesspersons, donors, public officials, lawyers or relatives of political figures may also be targeted.

In the CCF's 2024 Decision No. 2, the applicant was a businessperson, not a politician. Nevertheless, the Commission assessed together the political context, the failure to explain the personal participation of the applicant in the alleged financial act, the human rights risks, and the fact that the requesting NCB did not answer detailed questions, and decided that the data should be deleted.

Essential conclusion: What matters is not the person's formal political title but the real connection between the criminal proceedings and the political context.

Which evidence must be used to prove a political motive?

A successful application must establish two separate layers together:

• the general political and human rights context in the requesting country,
• the direct reflection of that context in the investigation of the applicant, the arrest decision and the INTERPOL record.

Presenting only the first layer is insufficient in most files.

Documents on the person's political profile

• records of party, trade union, association or civil society membership,
• documents of elected or appointed public office,
• records of journalism, academic work or human rights activity,
• peaceful assembly, speeches, articles and social media posts,
• disciplinary, dismissal or closure decisions taken on account of political opinion,
• records of threats, pressure and investigations directed at the applicant or family members.

The documents should not show only political identity; the connection of that identity with the charge and the arrest process must be explained.

Documents on timing and causation

Between political speech, an election, a protest, a change of power, leaving public office or joining an opposition group, and the start of the criminal investigation, a close temporal relationship may be strong. The following dates should be shown in a single timeline:

• the date of the political activity,
• the first threat or official statement,
• the opening of the investigation,
• the issuing of the arrest decision,
• the Red Notice or diffusion request,
• the attempts at extradition and their results.

Temporal proximity is not proof on its own; but when combined with selective prosecution and political discourse it may establish a strong link.

Documents on selective or discriminatory prosecution

• non-prosecution of similar persons who carried out the same act,
• targeting only opposition companies or persons,
• unexplained different treatment among co-accused,
• closure of files concerning persons or companies close to the government,
• a charge resting solely on political affinity or family relationship,
• public pre-judgment of the person by the authorities of the requesting state

should be presented in a comparative table.

Documents showing weakness in the criminal charge

Although the CCF does not decide on the merits of the national proceedings, the INTERPOL data must rest on a personal and concrete description of a crime. In the application:

• it is not explained which act the person committed,
• there is no information on date, place, method, victim or harm,
• holding a position as company manager is converted into automatic criminal liability,
• reliance rests only on the statement of a co-accused or on a statement taken under pressure,
• no personal benefit, intent or participation is shown,
• there is a contradiction between the arrest decision and the description in the bulletin

should be explained through documents.

Insufficient evidence standard and objection to abstract charges (RPD Article 83)

In political files, the requesting states often rely on abstract, general charges in which the time, place and method of the alleged act are not shown. Under Article 83 of the INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), before data is processed in the system it must be based on concrete, clear and individualized criminal activities.

When raising an Article 3 objection, the deletion should also be requested on data-quality grounds, documenting that the allegation lacks material evidence capable of creating "individual criminal responsibility", that no causal link has been established between the charge and the applicant, and that the account of the allegation is full of gaps.

Reliable country and human rights sources

Reports of UN bodies, decisions of the ECtHR, international or regional courts, official state reports and the work of reliable human rights organizations may be used. However, it is not sufficient that the report merely concerns the requesting country. The relevance of the relevant section must be explained in relation to:

• the applicant's group,
• the misuse of the same criminal norm,
• the same period,
• the same police or judicial authority,
• the same risk of detention or ill-treatment

Why is a general country report not sufficient on its own?

In the CCF's Decision No. 3 of 2024, the applicant argued that his country was misusing INTERPOL's database of stolen and lost travel documents against opponents and journalists, and submitted a newspaper article and a general report. The Commission found that these sources contained no concrete information on the political motive, or on the misuse of the channel, in the applicant's own file. The requesting NCB explained that the cancellation of the passport was based on a court decision and a criminal file. In the result, the data was found to comply with the rules.

The practical value of this decision is clear:

• the allegation that "this country misuses INTERPOL" is not sufficient without establishing a personal connection;
• a general press article must show which act in the applicant's file was political, and why;
• a concrete answer must be given to the court and file documents submitted by the requesting state;
• the link between the charge, the timing and the political activity must be established in respect of the specific file.

CCF decision summaries are not binding precedents; they are anonymized examples of institutional practice showing the Commission's approach in concrete files. Nevertheless, they have high practical value in understanding how the current application should be documented.

Does refugee status or international protection automatically delete the INTERPOL record?

An automatic deletion result cannot be drawn in every case. The following are examined in respect of a refugee decision:

• which state issued it,
• whether the requesting state is the country of origin of the person,
• on which facts the protection rests,
• whether the criminal allegation arose before or after the protection decision,
• whether there is a ground for exclusion from protection or for its cessation,
• whether extradition or surrender would be contrary to the principle of non-refoulement

A record sent by the NCB of the country of origin, for the purpose of extradition, concerning a person recognized as a refugee against that country, is a strong ground for objection. However, a residence permit, a temporary visa, a citizenship application or a pending asylum claim is not the same as a definitive refugee decision.

Does the subsequent acquisition of another citizenship remove the basis of protection?

The CCF's Decision Excerpt No. 7 of 2018 shows that the subsequent acquisition of new citizenship by a former refugee does not entirely eliminate, as a historical fact, the risk of persecution that led to the initial protection decision. The Commission examined whether the risk conditions in the country of origin had materially changed. Non-refoulement, international human rights law and the place of extradition law mean that the subsequent acquisition of citizenship may still be important in certain conditions.

How effective is a refusal of extradition?

The effect of a refusal of extradition depends on its reasoning. A refusal given for limited reasons, such as citizenship, a formal documentary deficiency or time limits, is not of the same weight as a refusal based on the risk of political prosecution or ill-treatment.

To the CCF, the following must be shown, not merely the operative part of the decision:

• its full reasoning,
• information on its finality,
• the evidence on which it rests,
• that it concerns the same person, the same act and the same requesting state,
• whether the requesting state submitted new evidence after the refusal

Essential conclusion: Protection and the refusal of extradition are strong evidence; however, without establishing their connection with the record as regards the person and the act, they do not produce an automatic result.

How is an application to the CCF made for a political INTERPOL record?

First the type of record must be determined

The absence of a name on the publicly accessible Red Notice search page does not show that there is no record. A closed Red Notice, a Wanted Person diffusion, a message, a travel document record or other INTERPOL data may exist.

Where the type and content of the record are not known, an access request may first be made to the CCF. Where there is an urgent risk of arrest or extradition, access and deletion strategy should be assessed together on the basis of the information available. The fact that applications can be submitted together does not mean that the admissibility and reasoning conditions of each request are removed.

Preventive applications before a record has been issued (pre-emptive submissions)

Persons at risk of a Red Notice or diffusion being issued against them, because of political pressure, targeting during an election period or mass investigations directed at opposition groups, may make a preventive notification to the CCF (pre-emptive request) before the record has entered the INTERPOL Information System.

In this application, the existence of the ongoing political investigation, evidence of political motive and the fact that a possible INTERPOL request would violate Article 3 of the Constitution must be clearly documented. A preventive application is a critical protective tool that causes the General Secretariat's control mechanism (NDTF) to be alerted when a request enters the system, and ensures that the data is stopped before it is circulated.

The legal grounds for a deletion request must be framed together

In a political record application, relying only on Article 3 often creates unnecessary narrowing. Where the file allows, the following objections should be raised together:

• Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution: political, military, religious or racial character,
• Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution: human rights and non-refoulement,
• the failure to describe the criminal activities clearly and sufficiently,
• the absence of demonstrated personal participation and intent,
• the data being inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or misleading,
• the absence or revocation of a valid national arrest decision,
• the extradition purpose not being realistic,
• the absence of purpose, necessity and proportionality requirements,
• misuse of INTERPOL channels

Acceptance of one ground may be sufficient for deletion of the record. By contrast, a large number of abstract objections may reduce the visibility of the strong headings. Each ground must be tied to a separate group of evidence.

What are the formal requirements of the application?

From 10:00 CET on March 26, 2026, CCF applications are, as a rule, made through the secure online portal. An alternative channel may be used only in an exceptional situation accepted by the CCF.

The application must contain:

• a legible and unredacted identity document,
• a signed application,
• where submitted through a representative, a power of attorney expressly including the authority to access the information in INTERPOL files,
• text in one of the CCF's working languages, with necessary translations,
• a statement of reasons for correction or deletion not exceeding ten pages,
• a list of annexes and specific references to documents in the text

The CCF's working languages are Arabic, English, French and Spanish. The relevant parts of Turkish documents must be submitted with reliable and comprehensible translations.

Ideal evidence index for a political file

How should the evidence be converted into a written argument?

Each important claim should be built on four parts:

• Fact: What happened?
• Document: Which annex shows it?
• INTERPOL rule: Which article or assessment criterion has been breached?
• Result sought: Why should the data be deleted, corrected or closed to access?

For example, instead of "the applicant is an opponent", it should be shown together that the applicant made a statement on a specific date, that the next day the source authority made a declaration targeting the applicant, that an investigation was opened shortly afterwards, that similar acts by a comparison group were not acted upon, and that the arrest decision does not explain the specific act of the applicant.

Can a temporary access restriction be requested during CCF review?

Where there is an imminent arrest, extradition, a serious health risk or irreparable harm, the urgency may be documented and the CCF may be asked to restrict access to INTERPOL data during the review. In the CCF's 2024 Decision No. 2, member states' access to the data was blocked while the review continued, after the source NCB failed to answer questions within the set time.

However, a provisional measure:

• is not granted automatically,
• does not cancel the national arrest decision,
• does not of itself stop the arrest or extradition process in the country where the person is located,
• does not in every case eliminate other police cooperation channels

In an urgent application, a flight or transit plan, detention documents, the extradition hearing date, a medical report, a protection decision and the imminent concrete harm should be submitted.

How long does a CCF application take?

The CCF notifies the admissibility position, as a rule, within one month of receipt of the application. A request for correction or deletion is, as a rule, decided within nine months from the date it is declared admissible. A reasoned extension is possible.

Under the 2026 practice, the CCF is running a pilot involving remote review and delegation of authority, so that decisions are spread more evenly over the year. The official page nevertheless acknowledges that delays are being experienced because of increased workload. For this reason, the nine-month period is not a firm date for a final result or a guarantee that the record will be deleted within nine months.

The date on which the application was sent through the portal and the date of admissibility are not the same. Tracking of the period should be carried out separately by reference to the following dates:

• the portal submission,
• the notification of admissibility,
• the deadline for requests for additional information and responses,
• the notification of a CCF session or review,
• the notification of the decision and its implementation

How are strong and weak political files distinguished under the CCF decisions?

Effect of CCF Decision No. 2 of 2024

In that decision, the businessperson facing a charge of financial crime submitted detailed sources concerning torture, forced confession, fair trial and the political context. He argued that similar companies and persons had been treated differently, and that his own personal participation had not been explained. The requesting NCB did not answer the specific and repeated questions of the CCF. The Commission decided that the data was incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution and with the requirement of the Rules on the Processing of Data that criminal activities be described, and ordered its deletion.

Legal weight: This is an anonymized institutional decision summary; it is not a binding precedent for national courts. Because it directly shows the CCF's current approach to evidence and assessment, it is a strong supporting source in application practice.

Effect of CCF Decision No. 3 of 2024

The applicant argued that his passport had been recorded in INTERPOL's database of stolen and lost travel documents for political purposes. However, he did not present concrete political evidence on his own file; he relied on a general report and a newspaper article. The requesting NCB submitted a national court decision and a valid criminal file. The CCF found the data to comply with the rules.

Concrete lesson: General criticism of the application of a country's law does not prove political misuse without connection to the personal file.

Effect of CCF Decision Excerpt No. 13 of 2018

The Commission considered together the doubt about the real nature of the offence, the status of the person and the general political context. It stated that the CCF does not replace the national court, but applies the predominance test with all relevant elements. As a result, it showed that political elements together with deficiencies on an ordinary-crime basis may render a record non-compliant with the rules.

What do ECtHR and CJEU decisions provide in a political INTERPOL file?

ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye

In M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, decided on June 4, 2024, the provisional detention and extradition process based on a Red Notice published by Russia and an in-absentia arrest decision was examined. The decision shows that an INTERPOL record is not independent of national law, personal liberty and effective judicial review safeguards.

The decision is not a judgment ordering the CCF to delete a record. It is a binding ECtHR decision showing that the arrest and extradition process begun in Türkiye or in another Council of Europe state must be separately reviewed under Article 5 of the ECHR and, depending on the concrete case, under Article 3.

ECtHR, Liu v. Poland

In Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, decided on October 6, 2022, it was found that there was a real risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition to China. A Red Notice or a foreign arrest decision does not release the requested state from its duty to examine the risk of ill-treatment independently and currently.

This decision does not directly resolve the political-character test; it shows the binding weight of the human rights and non-refoulement defence in the national extradition process.

CJEU, Grand Chamber, Ruska Federacija v I.N.

In the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Ruska Federacija v I.N., C-897/19 PPU, April 2, 2020, the surrender to a third state, on the basis of a Red Notice, of a person connected with the citizenship of an EFTA state and with international protection was considered, in terms of discrimination on grounds of nationality, freedom of movement and the examination of protective alternatives.

The decision does not erase an INTERPOL record worldwide. Within the field of EU law, it shows that an extradition process may not be executed automatically even where a Red Notice exists, and that the relevant EU law safeguards must additionally be applied.

Essential conclusion: The CCF supervises the processing of INTERPOL data; national and regional courts supervise arrest, extradition, protection and personal liberty. One process does not replace the other.

Which procedures should be run together in a political INTERPOL file?

An effective strategy usually involves four parallel lines:

A CCF application does not suspend national time limits. Objections to extradition, objections to detention, asylum applications or actions against a deportation decision must be made within their own time limits.

Why is cancellation of the arrest decision in the requesting state separately important?

Deletion of INTERPOL data does not of itself annul the national arrest warrant. The requesting state may use a new or different police cooperation channel. On the other hand, cancellation of the national arrest decision, closure of the investigation, acquittal or enforcement of the sentence constitutes strong new evidence for the CCF as regards the accuracy, purpose and currency of the data.

Does a deletion decision guarantee safe travel?

No. After deletion, the following should be separately investigated:

• national arrest records,
• bilateral police correspondence,
• Schengen or other regional systems,
• visa and migration records,
• private banking and risk databases,
• national copies in countries to which a diffusion has previously been sent

Travel and transit plans should be assessed on a country-specific basis.

Can a record be re-issued after the CCF deletion decision?

A requesting state re-circulating the same data without any change creates a problem under the INTERPOL rules. However, a new arrest decision, a new act, new evidence or a different legal basis may be asserted. In that case, the new data is also subject to independent conformity review.

The applicant should:

• keep the CCF decision and the notice of implementation,
• monitor changes in the criminal file of the requesting state,
• submit an access request to the CCF in case of suspicion of a new record,
• show the connection between the earlier decision and the same event,
• assess the six-month review period if there are new facts

There is no appeal or cassation route in the classic sense within the CCF. A review may be requested within six months from learning of new and relevant facts which, if they had been known at the time of the earlier decision, would probably have changed the result.

Procedure for direct notification of member state NCBs after a deletion decision

When the CCF decides to delete the data and the General Secretariat implements it, the decision removes the main record from the INTERPOL Information System. However, bilateral diffusion messages sent directly by the requesting state to other countries before that, or local copies that some countries have entered into their national police databases, may continue to exist.

To address this risk, once the CCF decision and the General Secretariat's confirmation letter (Attestation) have been obtained, formal legal notices should be sent to the National Central Bureaus (NCBs) of the countries to which the person is at risk of travelling or through which they will transit. By this notice, it is requested that national records also be updated immediately, and the data deleted, in accordance with the final decision of INTERPOL.

Common mistakes

• Saying only "I am an opponent" or "the country is anti-democratic",
• Not linking general country reports to the personal file,
• Not examining the full text of the charge and the arrest decision,
• Treating every ordinary-crime allegation as automatically political,
• Not carrying out an analysis of the organization and personal conduct in a terrorism charge,
• Presenting residence permits as if they were refugee status,
• Not submitting the reasoning and finality of a refusal of extradition,
• Not showing the timeline of the political activity and the criminal proceedings,
• Making a news report of unverified reliability the central evidence of the file,
• Using the CCF as if it were a national criminal court,
• Exceeding the ten-page limit for reasons or not preparing an annex list,
• Failing to document the urgency claim with a flight, detention or extradition document,
• Assuming that a CCF application suspends the national arrest and extradition time limits,
• Regarding the absence of a name in the public list as the absence of a record.

What should be done in the first 72 hours of suspicion of a political INTERPOL record?

• Unplanned travel and in particular risky transit should be stopped,
• Copies of the arrest, border, visa or police documents should be obtained,
• The type of record, the requesting state and the file number should be identified,
• The national arrest decision and the documents of the alleged crime should be collected,
• Refugee, extradition, protection and residence decisions should be gathered,
• The timeline of political activity and investigation dates should be combined in one table,
• Contact should be established with a lawyer in the country where the person is located concerning arrest or extradition,
• The options of CCF access, deletion and urgent interim measures should be assessed together.

Identity and passport images should not be uploaded to unofficial "INTERPOL check" websites. The public Red Notice screen is not a definitive or complete search.

How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm work on political INTERPOL files?

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm connects the concrete link between the criminal file and international data processing, without leaving the political-character claim at the level of general political rhetoric. Depending on the circumstances of the file, the legal work provided includes:

• risk analysis of Red Notices, diffusions and other INTERPOL data,
• preparation of a CCF access application and tracking of the portal,
• establishing a crime, status, source and context analysis for the predominance test,
• preparing a timeline of political activity, investigation, arrest and extradition,
• documenting selective prosecution and comparison with similar persons,
• assessing the legal effect of refugee, non-refoulement and extradition refusal decisions,
• preparing objections on human rights, data accuracy, purpose, necessity and proportionality grounds,
• conducting CCF deletion, correction and review applications,
• documenting a request for temporary restriction of access in an urgent file,
• coordinating criminal, arrest and extradition matters with lawyers in the requesting country and in the country where the person is located,
• monitoring the updating of national and third-country records after a deletion decision

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has been providing legal services since 1999 from Antalya, across all 81 provinces of Türkiye, and in cases with international connections in Turkish, English, German and Russian.

No result is guaranteed in any file. The client is clearly informed of the type of record, evidence gaps, arrest and travel risks, the competent authorities and the correct order of procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Red Notice automatically deleted if there is a political charge?

No. Pure political offences fall within Article 3 as a rule; in mixed offences, which of the political and ordinary-crime elements predominates is examined on the basis of the concrete case.

Can I make a political-character objection if I am not a politician?

Yes. A journalist, activist, academic, businessperson, lawyer, former public official or relative of a political figure may also raise the claim of political targeting with personal evidence.

Does a charge of membership of a terrorist organization prevent a deletion application?

No. The character of the organization, international consensus, the active and meaningful connection of the person and the concrete acts alleged are examined. The criminal label alone does not determine the result.

Does refugee status remove a Red Notice?

Not automatically and not in every case. The state requesting the record, the reasoning of the protection decision, the risk of non-refoulement and the relationship of the criminal allegation to the protection decision are assessed.

Does the CCF have to delete the record if extradition has been refused?

No. A refusal based on the risk of political prosecution, ill-treatment or unfair trial is strong evidence; however, a separate deletion application must be made to the CCF and it must be shown that the decision concerns the same person, the same act and the same country.

Is a general human rights report sufficient?

Usually not. The report must be linked to the applicant's group, the criminal norm, the investigation period, the relevant authority and the personal risk.

Does the CCF ask the source country for information?

Yes. The CCF may request information from the source NCB, the General Secretariat and, where necessary, other bodies. A failure by the source NCB to answer specific questions may, together with other elements in the file, create serious doubt about compliance with the rules.

Is a CCF application confidential?

CCF files are confidential. When an application is accepted, information may be shared with the General Secretariat and, where necessary, the relevant NCB for the purposes of review. Information expressly designated as confidential is not shared; however, this may narrow the CCF's ability to verify the document and examine the claim.

Is a CCF application free of charge?

The CCF does not charge a fee for an application. Translation, notarization, apostille, obtaining documents, foreign lawyers and legal services may entail separate costs.

How long does a deletion application take?

As a rule, a decision is made within nine months from admissibility; a reasoned extension and delays in practice are possible.

Does a CCF application stop arrest or extradition?

No. National legal remedies against arrest, detention and extradition decisions in the country where the person is located must be used separately and within their time limits.

If the record is deleted, is the national arrest decision also lifted?

No. Deletion of INTERPOL data does not of itself remove the criminal file in the requesting state or the national arrest decision.

Can the record be re-issued after deletion?

The requesting state may make a new request based on a new act, decision or evidence. The new data is also subject to the INTERPOL rules; its relationship with the earlier CCF decision must be separately examined.

Conclusion

Deletion of a political INTERPOL record depends not on the charge being called "political", but on concrete and personalized evidence showing that international police cooperation has in reality become an instrument of political pressure.

Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution is a strong protection; however, in mixed files that bear an ordinary-crime appearance, the predominance test is applied. The real nature of the offence, the status of the person, the requesting state, the attitude of other states and international bodies, human rights obligations, the neutrality of the Organization and the general political context are weighed together.

A CCF application is not by itself a sufficient defence system on its own. Proceedings against the arrest decision in the requesting state, the arrest and extradition defence in the country where the person is located, and international protection and migration applications should be conducted simultaneously where necessary.

Final legal conclusion: An effective application does not merely say "the file is political"; it brings together the political activity, the criminal proceedings, personal targeting, the lack of evidence, the human rights risk and the reason why the INTERPOL channel cannot be used, in a single and reviewable legal account.

Confidentiality and legal notice

Identity, passport, criminal investigation, political activity, refugee, extradition and other information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used solely for legal assessment and service purposes; they are protected under the professional secrecy of the lawyer, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data.

This article is for general legal information only. No legal opinion or guarantee of result is given without examination of the requesting state of the concrete file, the charges alleged, the type of record, the protection status, the countries in which the person is or will travel, and current official practice.

Sources and legal bases

INTERPOL and CCF official sources

• INTERPOL Constitution: Article 2, and Article 3 regulating the prohibition on political, military, religious or racial activity.
• Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 — Third Edition, November 2024: Predominance test, pure and mixed offences, current official practice on expression, assembly, State security, terrorism, and military, religious and racial elements.
• Rules on the Processing of Data: Article 34 and the conditions of notices, diffusions, data quality, purpose and description of criminal activities.
• INTERPOL — Compliance and Review: NDTF pre-publication and continuing compliance review.
• CCF — How to Submit a Request: Portal of March 26, 2026, types of application, document formats and limits of authority.
• CCF Operating Rules — March 26, 2026: Portal, admissibility, representation, ten-page statement of reasons, list of documents and procedure for additional information.
• Statute of the CCF: Authority of the CCF, review, time limits, decision and provisions on re-examination.
• CCF Sessions and Decisions: 2026 sessions, statement on delays and anonymized decision summaries.

CCF decision summaries

• CCF Decision No. 2024-02: Human rights, political context, failure to explain personal participation, non-response of the source NCB and deletion decision.
• CCF Decision No. 2024-03: Failure to link a general country report to the personal file and rejection of the claim of political misuse.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 13 (2018): Data quality, fair trial, political context and predominance test.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 7 (2018): Refugee status, subsequent citizenship and assessment of non-refoulement.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 4 (2023): Non-personalized criticism of the general judicial system and the distinction of authority between the CCF and national extradition courts.

Judicial decisions

• ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, 04.06.2024: Provisional detention and national-law and judicial review safeguards in an extradition process based on a Red Notice.
• ECtHR, Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, 06.10.2022: Risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition and the duty of independent, current review.
• CJEU Grand Chamber, Ruska Federacija v I.N., C-897/19 PPU, 02.04.2020: Red Notices, international protection, freedom of movement and safeguards against surrender to a third state.

Academic sources

• Machiko Kanetake, “INTERPOL’s Red Notices: Human Rights Safeguards for Targeted Individuals”, AJIL Unbound, Vol. 120, 2026, pp. 17–22: Review under Articles 2–3, the CCF and the practical effects of Red Notices.
• Kristina Daugirdas, “The Durability of Protections Against Abuse at INTERPOL Amidst Rising Authoritarian Pressures”, AJIL Unbound, 2026: The durability of institutional safeguards against the political misuse of INTERPOL channels.
• Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL, Hart Publishing, 2010: The institutional and legal foundation of INTERPOL; the currently applicable official rules must also be treated as authoritative for current procedures.

---