Does a Red Notice Lapse Automatically After Acquittal, Discontinuance, Dismissal of the Case or Enforcement of a Sentence?

Why might a Red Notice not lapse automatically?

A Red Notice is a request for provisional arrest, made in order to locate a person and to extradite, surrender or take similar legal action, for the purpose of prosecuting that person or enforcing a final sentence. It is not issued by INTERPOL following an independent criminal investigation; it is based on a valid arrest warrant or an equivalent judicial decision of the source country.

The decision in the criminal file of the source country and the technical and legal procedure in the INTERPOL record system are different layers:

• The national prosecutor or court decides on the criminal file.
• The competent national authority lifts or withdraws the arrest warrant.
• The NCB of the source country notifies the General Secretariat of INTERPOL that the Red Notice is withdrawn or that the data must be changed.
• The General Secretariat cancels, amends or deletes the record and sends notification to member countries.
• Member countries update the records they have downloaded from INTERPOL or transferred into their own systems.
• Any separate diffusion, national arrest record, extradition record, border restriction or migration record is handled under its own procedure.

Delay at any one of these stages may lead to the person being stopped at a border even though they do not appear on the public page, or to their being required to explain the position while travelling.

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

Does removal from the public list mean the record has been erased?

No. INTERPOL's public Red Notice page does not show the whole of the police database. Removal of the public summary does not, on its own, prove that:

• the closed Red Notice has been cancelled,
• the Wanted Person Diffusion record has been deleted,
• the arrest warrant in the source country has been lifted,
• member countries have updated their national copies, or
• no other criminal file exists.

What do INTERPOL rules require where the national decision changes?

The INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) require that data be accurate, up to date, relevant, linked to the purpose, and necessary for international police cooperation.

Under RPD Article 80, the NCB requesting the notice must continuously ensure that the data it has submitted remain accurate and relevant; it must forward to the General Secretariat any information that changes the content of the notice, and assess whether the change requires withdrawal.

Under RPD Article 81, where the purpose of the notice has been achieved, the notice no longer meets the conditions for publication, or the linked request on which it was based has ended, the notice must be withdrawn or cancelled by the General Secretariat.

Under RPD Article 83, a valid arrest warrant or an equivalent judicial decision is mandatory for a Red Notice. For a person sought for the purpose of enforcement, as a rule a prison sentence of at least six months must have been imposed and at least six months of the sentence must remain. The General Secretariat has discretion to make exceptional assessments, but the requirement of a valid decision, a legitimate purpose and up-to-date data cannot be removed.

Under RPD Article 51, data must be deleted once the purpose for which it was processed has been achieved; Article 52(2) prohibits keeping the same data for a temporary "criminal record" purpose where the person is cleared of the charges that gave rise to the first record.

Presumption of innocence and the prohibition on creating a criminal record (ECHR Arts. 6(2) and 8)

Once an acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution has become final, keeping the data in the INTERPOL Information System constitutes a clear violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of the right to respect for private and family life protected by Article 8. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), keeping in police databases an individual against whom no charge remains, in a way that creates a perception of being "wanted" or "a criminal", is unlawful.

The rule in RPD Article 52(2) that the data of a person cleared of a charge may not be kept for criminal record purposes should be raised before the CCF as a direct ground for erasure, together with the safeguards of ECHR Articles 6(2) and 8.

Is erasure the same as retaining limited technical data?

After the active Red Notice or arrest-purpose diffusion has been deleted, INTERPOL rules may, in certain circumstances, permit a small amount of identifying data to be kept for a different and limited purpose, such as directing later enquiries to the correct country. That data cannot be confused with an active search request and cannot be used as a request for arrest.

Where the person has been fully cleared of the charge, the option of keeping the first charge as a "criminal record" is also further restricted by the express prohibition in RPD Article 52(2). The specific record, and the purpose and status under which it was processed, must therefore be questioned.

Does an acquittal remove the Red Notice?

A final acquittal is one of the strongest documents for erasure where the basis of the Red Notice is the same act and the same criminal file. Where, following the acquittal, the person is no longer sought for prosecution and no valid arrest warrant remains, the core purpose and the mandatory judicial basis of the Red Notice fall away. The effect of the acquittal on the Turkish restriction record is examined separately in Does an acquittal or a decision of non-prosecution remove the travel restriction code?.

However, the following distinctions must be made:

• Has the acquittal become final, or is a remedy open?
• Does the acquittal cover all the charges, or only some of them?
• Is there a new arrest warrant for the same event through another defendant or another file?
• Has the removal of the arrest warrant following the acquittal been separately recorded?
• Does an appeal by the prosecutor or the complainant alter the effect of the decision?
• Was the Red Notice issued for prosecution or for the enforcement of another final sentence?

Is an acquittal that is not yet final sufficient?

A non-final acquittal is an important new fact; however, if the judgment is subject to review by an appeal remedy under the law of the source country, it must also be determined whether the national search has ended. The CCF does not replace the national court and does not decide that the acquittal has become final. The enforceable effect of the decision, the status of the arrest warrant and the explanation of the NCB are assessed together.

At this stage, rather than submitting only the first page of the decision to the CCF, the reasoned judgment, a certificate of finality or current evidence of the remedy available, the act lifting the arrest warrant and a letter from the competent authority should be provided together.

What happens in the case of a partial acquittal?

Where a Red Notice rests on more than one offence, an acquittal on one offence does not automatically end the record in respect of the other offences. RPD Article 83 may permit the notice to continue in a limited way for the appropriate offences, so long as at least one offence meets the necessary conditions.

In such a case, the request should be built on:

• deleting from the record the offences and events of which the person was acquitted,
• re-examining the penalty threshold and the ordinary nature of the remaining offences,
• correcting the summary of events in line with the acquittal, and
• assessing whether the notice as a whole is still necessary and proportionate.

What happens to the Red Notice after a decision of non-prosecution?

A decision of non-prosecution (kovuşturmaya yer olmadığı kararı, KYOK), which in Turkish law is referred to as "takipsizlik", may indicate that there is not sufficient suspicion to bring a public prosecution or that prosecution is not possible. In foreign legal systems a similar outcome may be regulated under different names such as "proceedings discontinued", "charges dropped" or "case closed".

Where the KYOK terminates entirely the investigation and the arrest warrant on which the Red Notice is based, the continuation of the active search purpose is seriously called into question. However, the following points are decisive:

• Has the decision been appealed, and has the period for appeal expired?
• Is the decision final in nature, or can the investigation be reopened on new evidence?
• Is the decision an acquittal on the merits, or a temporary closure on procedural grounds?
• Has the arrest warrant been expressly lifted?
• Has the source authority withdrawn the international search?
• Is another investigation or a separated file still ongoing?

Can the possibility of reopening the investigation on new evidence justify keeping the record?

The mere abstract possibility of reopening does not, without a valid arrest warrant and a continuing international search, justify keeping an active Red Notice. A Red Notice must rest on a current and specific purpose of prosecution or enforcement.

However, the position changes where the source country has reopened the investigation by a new decision and issued a valid arrest warrant. In an application to the CCF, not only the earlier KYOK but the status of the file on the date of the application, obtained from the official authority, must be submitted.

Does dismissal of the case remove the Red Notice?

A decision of dismissal produces different consequences depending on the nature of the ground that ended the case. Limitation, death, amnesty, withdrawal of a complaint, settlement, the disappearance of a condition for proceedings or another procedural bar do not all have the same legal effect.

Where the decision is final, the arrest warrant in the same file has been lifted and the person is no longer sought for prosecution or enforcement, the purpose and basis necessary for the continuation of the Red Notice may fall away.

Dismissal on grounds of limitation

A final decision on limitation is a strong ground for erasure where, under national law, it ends the possibility of prosecution or enforcement. However, the limitation calculation of the foreign state, the grounds for interruption or suspension, and the appeal status of the decision must be verified.

Where the source country states that "the arrest warrant is still valid", the CCF does not resolve the abstract dispute under national law; it looks at the text of the decision, the statement of the competent authority and the currency of the data. For this reason, the final court decision and a separate document lifting the warrant are important.

Dismissal on grounds of withdrawal of a complaint, settlement or amnesty

The effect of these grounds varies according to the law of the source country. Withdrawal of a complaint ends the case for some offences but has no effect for others. A settlement may have consequences only for the acts it covers. An amnesty may affect the conviction, the sentence or only the enforcement.

In an application, it must be explained not merely the name of the decision, but:

• which offences and acts it covers,
• whether it ends the prosecution, the sentence or only the enforcement,
• its effect on the arrest decision, and
• whether the decision has become final.

Dismissal on procedural or jurisdictional grounds

A decision that a court lacks jurisdiction or competence does not show that the search has ended where the file continues before another authority. Likewise, an interlocutory decision made because of the return of the indictment or a procedural defect may not finally close the criminal file.

Core conclusion: The phrase "the case has been dismissed" is not sufficient on its own; the binding effect of the decision and the current status of the national search must be documented.

What happens to the Red Notice after enforcement of a sentence?

Where a person is sought only in order to serve a final sentence, and the sentence has been fully enforced, the purpose of extradition or surrender ends. As a rule, maintaining an active Red Notice is incompatible with the principles of purpose, accuracy and currency.

A document showing that enforcement has been completed must clearly contain the following elements:

• the identity of the judgment and of the file,
• the total sentence,
• deductions for detention and custody,
• whether the period of detention in another country was deducted,
• the status of conditional release or supervised release,
• the date on which the remaining sentence became zero, and
• the signature, seal or verifiable electronic record of the enforcement authority.

Does conditional release count as full enforcement?

Not always. Where there is a breach of the obligations during the period of conditional release, the sentence may be enforced again. Where the source country is still seeking the person for the purposes of enforcement, a release document alone may not be sufficient.

For the Red Notice, the current calculation of the "remaining sentence" is decisive. The general threshold in RPD Article 83 is that for enforcement a sentence of at least six months must have been imposed and at least six months must remain. If the remaining sentence falls below this threshold, the suitability of the notice must be reassessed; however, no automatic result should be assumed, because the General Secretariat may conduct a limited exceptional assessment in cases of particular importance to international police cooperation.

What if a fine, an ancillary penalty or a security measure remains?

Serving the prison sentence may not end every national consequence. The conversion into imprisonment of an unpaid judicial fine, confiscation, a security measure or another provision may lead to a new arrest decision.

The purpose and threshold conditions of RPD still apply to the continuation of a Red Notice. Where the file concerns only a measure against property, the suitability of an arrest-purpose Red Notice for that person must be separately questioned.

Comparison of four types of decision from the INTERPOL perspective

Ne bis in idem: what is the effect of a final decision on the same act?

Where a final acquittal or a decision that conclusively ends the case relates to the same person and the same act, the principle of ne bis in idem is raised in relation to new prosecution and arrest.

In its Grand Chamber judgment in WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑505/19, of 12 May 2021, EU:C:2021:376, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that where the applicability of the principle of ne bis in idem in respect of the same acts under Article 54 of the Schengen Convention is definitively established, the competent authorities cannot carry out a provisional arrest on the basis of a Red Notice or continue to detain the person.

The judgment is not a general decision that automatically cancels Red Notices worldwide. It provides a binding interpretation in relation to provisional arrest and data processing in EU/Schengen law. In a CCF application, however, the same act, the finality of the decision, whether the sentence is treated as enforced, and the legal framework between the source country and the requested country must each be shown separately.

What does the CCF examine in such applications?

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) does not review a national court decision on appeal. The task of the CCF is to supervise whether personal data in the INTERPOL system complies with the INTERPOL Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data.

The review concentrates in particular on the following questions:

• Is the arrest warrant on which the Red Notice is based still valid?
• Does the purpose of prosecution or enforcement continue?
• Does the decision cover all the offences and acts?
• Are the summary of the events and the person's status in the record accurate and current?
• Does the remaining sentence meet the threshold in the RPD?
• Has the source country updated the record although it was aware of the decision?
• Is the data retained for a different and legitimate purpose of international police cooperation?
• Is there another arrest warrant or file?

What do the published CCF decisions show?

CCF decision summaries are published with personal and country information removed; they are not precedents. Nevertheless, they are important in showing the criteria the Commission applies.

The summary of Decision No. 16 of 2018 explains that knowing where the person is located does not, by itself, end the purpose of a Red Notice; alongside the location, the purpose also includes arrest for extradition or a similar procedure. The NCB of the source country confirming that the prosecution and the arrest warrant remain valid was important in the Commission's assessment. This decision shows that a claim that "the file is closed" must be supported by current official records.

The summary of Decision No. 13 of 2018 shows that the CCF does not substitute itself for national authorities to decide material guilt; it assesses together the INTERPOL compliance criteria, such as the validity of the arrest decision, accuracy of the data, private law disputes, fair trial and political character.

The current Articles 51 and 52 of the RPD are the direct normative basis for the principle that data must be deleted once its purpose has been achieved, and that data about a person cleared of a charge must not be kept under the name of a "criminal record".

How is a CCF erasure application prepared?

From 26 March 2026, requests to the CCF for access, correction or deletion, and for review of a decision, are made as a rule through the secure online portal. The application is free of charge and is conducted confidentially by the CCF.

First stage: identifying the record and the underlying file

A name search on the public page is only an initial check. If the person does not know the content of the record, they may ask the CCF, through a request for access, whether data exists and what its disclosable content is. Where the record is known and a new national decision exists, a request for correction or deletion may be prepared directly.

Through a lawyer or competent authority in the source country, the following should be investigated:

• the file and case numbers,
• the current status of the judgment or the prosecutor's decision,
• the date of the arrest warrant and whether it was lifted,
• whether the international search has been withdrawn,
• the date of notification to the NCB,
• whether there is any other file, decision or diffusion.

Second stage: assembling the document file

Where possible, the application should include the following documents:

• a copy of the identity card or passport,
• a power of attorney or authority document valid for the application, where a lawyer is acting,
• the reasoned acquittal, KYOK, dismissal or enforcement decision,
• a certificate of finality or an official document showing the status of any remedy,
• the decision lifting the arrest warrant or ending the search,
• correspondence with the prosecutor's office, the court, the enforcement institution or the NCB,
• the calculation of the sentence and of deductions,
• decisions showing that the extradition request has been withdrawn or refused,
• documents showing a border stop, detention or visa action,
• reliable and legible translations of the documents.

Where the authenticity of a document may be questioned, an apostille, consular certification, a verifiable electronic signature or confirmation from the issuing authority should be considered.

Third stage: building the legal argument

The application should not consist only of the sentence "I was acquitted, delete the record". Each document should be tied to the following legal consequences:

• RPD Article 83: there is no valid arrest warrant or no remaining sentence requirement.
• RPD Article 80: the data is no longer accurate and current.
• RPD Article 81: the purpose of the notice has been achieved or the condition for publication has ended.
• RPD Article 51: the data must be deleted because the purpose of processing has been achieved.
• RPD Article 52(2): data relating to a person cleared of a charge may not be kept for criminal record purposes.
• INTERPOL Constitution Article 2: the human rights framework of data processing and its effect on fundamental rights must be assessed.

How long does a CCF application take?

Under the CCF Operating Rules of 26 March 2026, receipt of an application is as a rule confirmed within one month. If the application is incomplete, supplementary documents are requested; the application is treated as admissible for examination once all the necessary documents have been received.

Within the general framework of the Statute and the Operating Rules, four months are provided for access requests and nine months for correction or deletion requests. The period runs from the date on which the application becomes capable of examination. Extension is possible because of the complexity of the file, correspondence with the source NCB or a need for additional information, and the applicant must be informed.

A CCF application does not automatically suspend the national arrest or extradition process. Where there is an urgent travel, detention or extradition risk, the urgent judicial remedies in the country concerned should be pursued alongside the CCF process.

Should applications to the source country and to the CCF be made together?

In most files, yes. The most effective approach is parallel but consistent action:

• Obtain a certificate of finality and a current file document from the court or authority that made the decision.
• Ask the authority that issued the arrest warrant to lift it.
• Apply to the NCB of the source country for the international search to be withdrawn.
• Submit to the CCF an access, correction or deletion request.
• Lodge a national application against arrest, extradition or immigration action in the country where the person is located.
• After deletion, confirm that the national systems have been updated.

The deletion of the data by the CCF does not automatically lift the arrest warrant in the source country. The reverse is also true: lifting the national warrant does not guarantee that all international and national copies are deleted at the same time, unless the technical notification has taken place.

Cancellation of bilateral diffusion messages by formal legal letter between NCBs

Even if the Red Notice is removed from the central system, bilateral diffusion messages that the source country has previously sent directly to particular countries (Wanted Person Diffusion) may remain as local copies in the archives of the National Central Bureaus (NCBs) of those countries. Together with the acquittal or enforcement document, a formal legal notice may be sent to the NCBs of the target countries to which the person will travel or with which the person has links, requesting that they promptly delete from their national police archives the bilateral diffusion records, in accordance with the deletion decision in the INTERPOL central system.

Which checks should be made after a deletion decision?

After confirmation of deletion or withdrawal has been received, and before the file is closed, the following checks should be made:

• Has the Red Notice, and any public summary, been removed?
• Has the Wanted Person Diffusion also been expressly cancelled?
• Has the NCB of the source country sent an update to all recipients?
• Have the national databases of the countries that previously stopped the person been updated?
• Is there independent data in Schengen, visa, migration or border restriction records?
• Is a correction mechanism needed for old information in bank, compliance or private-sector screening?
• Does a problem of name similarity or identity matching continue for the same person?

According to official INTERPOL statements, a notice or diffusion found to be inappropriate is cancelled; the decision is notified to all member countries and they are asked to remove the information from their national databases. Whether this has actually been carried out in each country should be separately verified.

Obtaining an official "Attestation" (certificate of no record) from the General Secretariat

Where the CCF has deleted the record following an acquittal, a decision of non-prosecution or the completion of enforcement, the applicant or their representative should request from the INTERPOL General Secretariat an official Attestation (certificate of no record) confirming that there is no active search or data record concerning the person in the system. This document is the most authoritative official proof for removing refusals of visa applications, preventing the risk of unlawful detention at border crossings and clearing blocks in commercial compliance databases used by global banks, such as World-Check or LexisNexis.

Schengen Information System (SIS II) records and the EU Law Enforcement Data Protection Directive (LED)

Even where the Red Notice has been deleted following an acquittal in the national criminal file, some EU member states may keep an alert active in their national police systems or in the Schengen Information System (SIS II), relying on the source country's earlier notification. This situation is contrary to Articles 4 (accuracy of data) and 13 (right to erasure) of the EU Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680 – LED). Together with the national acquittal decision and the CCF deletion notice, the deletion of SIS II alerts and local border restriction records should be requested by applying to the national Data Protection Authority (DPA) of the relevant EU country or to its SIRENE bureau.

Most common mistakes

• Assuming that a non-final decision automatically removes all records.
• Relying only on the result shown on the public page.
• Failing to investigate whether the arrest warrant has been separately lifted.
• Overlooking that an acquittal or dismissal covers only some offences.
• Treating a "released" document as proof that the sentence has been fully enforced.
• Failing to enter foreign detention periods deductible from the sentence in the official calculation.
• Not checking diffusion when the Red Notice is being lifted.
• Thinking that a CCF application stops the national arrest or extradition process.
• Submitting the decision without context and without translation.
• Failing to follow the update of national records after deletion.

What should be done in the first 72 hours?

Where the person is about to travel shortly after the decision, or has been stopped at a border:

• The travel plan and transit countries should immediately be subjected to a legal risk review.
• A complete and verifiable copy of the decision and a certificate of finality should be obtained.
• The current status of the arrest warrant should be investigated the same day.
• A lawyer competent in criminal and extradition law in the country concerned should be instructed.
• If the conditions for a CCF application are met, a request for urgent handling should be prepared.
• Confirmation of the withdrawal should be requested from the source NCB.
• A passport or identity document should not be uploaded to unofficial "INTERPOL check" websites.

How Güneş & Güneş works on these files

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm sets up a file-specific action plan, recognising that the national decision in the criminal file and the international record are separate layers of law.

Concrete legal work provided to clients

• Analysis of the scope and finality of an acquittal, decision of non-prosecution, dismissal or enforcement decision,
• Investigation of the current status of the file and arrest warrant in the source country,
• Risk analysis of the Red Notice, Wanted Person Diffusion and other INTERPOL data,
• Preparation and follow-up of CCF access, correction and deletion applications,
• Coordination of the request to the source NCB for withdrawal and updating,
• Establishment of the enforcement and deduction calculation with official documents,
• Application of the final judgment and ne bis in idem defence to the file,
• Coordination with local lawyers in arrest, provisional detention and extradition processes,
• Separate review of deportation, administrative detention, entry ban and migration records,
• Follow-up of the updating of national records after deletion,
• Preparation of a file on false matches and name similarity.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, active since 1999 and based in Antalya, provides legal services across Türkiye and in cases with international connections. No outcome is guaranteed; the available routes, risks, time limits and competent authorities are determined on the basis of concrete documents.

Frequently asked questions

I have been acquitted. Can I pass through the airport immediately?

No guarantee can be given. The risk of travel is not treated as ended until the finality of the acquittal, the lifting of the arrest warrant, the NCB notification, and the diffusion and transit-country records have been checked.

The prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. Was the Red Notice unlawful?

Where the decision of non-prosecution conclusively ends the same file and no arrest warrant remains, continuing an active record may be strongly challenged. The finality of the decision and whether there is another file must be documented.

If the case lapsed because of limitation, am I considered innocent?

A decision of dismissal is not of the same nature as an acquittal. However, where it conclusively ends the possibility of prosecution or enforcement, it may be decisive for the purpose and basis of the Red Notice.

I served my sentence in another country. Will it be deducted?

Deduction depends on the law of the source country and the relevant decisions. Without an official document showing that the period of detention in the foreign country has been entered in the source country's enforcement calculation, one cannot confidently conclude that "no remaining sentence exists".

If my remaining sentence is less than six months, is the Red Notice deleted immediately?

Under the general threshold in RPD Article 83, this is a strong ground for reconsideration; it is not automatic deletion. A current remaining-sentence document should be submitted, and any possible exception and other offences should be checked.

If extradition was refused, is the Red Notice lifted?

The refusal of extradition by a single country does not automatically lift the Red Notice. The reason for refusal, such as a final judgment, human rights, limitation or procedure, may be important for the CCF. Whether the source country still intends to seek extradition from other countries is also assessed.

Must I bring a case in the source country before applying to the CCF?

No. A CCF application is independent. However, the lifting of the national arrest warrant and documentation of the finality of the decision considerably strengthen the CCF file.

If the CCF deletes the record, is my criminal record also deleted?

No. The CCF supervises only the suitability of the data within the INTERPOL Information System. National criminal records, police, migration or court records are subject to their own legal remedies.

If the decision is in Turkish, is a translation needed?

A clear and reliable translation into one of the working languages of the CCF allows the application to be examined effectively. The critical operative part, the finality and the arrest warrant sections should be clearly marked, and fragmentary translation that would lose context should be avoided.

Conclusion

An acquittal, a decision of non-prosecution, the dismissal of the case or the complete enforcement of a sentence are important developments that legally affect the continuation of a Red Notice; however, because of the technical and institutional structure of the records, an assumption of automatic and simultaneous deletion is not safe.

A final full acquittal and complete exoneration from the charge are among the strongest situations for deletion. In a decision of non-prosecution or dismissal, the finality, the possibility of reopening and the status of the arrest warrant are decisive; in enforcement, the official remaining-sentence and deduction calculation is decisive.

The right strategy is to determine the scope of the national decision, have the arrest warrant lifted, request withdrawal from the source NCB, make a documented application to the CCF, and then follow up the national copies after deletion.

Final legal outcome: The conclusion of the criminal file may remove the reason for continuing a Red Notice; however, a safe outcome is achieved only when this change has been officially implemented in INTERPOL and in the relevant national systems and that has been verified.

Confidentiality and legal notice

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used only for legal assessment and for the purpose of the service; they are protected under the rules on lawyer professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data.

This article is for general legal information purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or a guarantee of outcome without examination of the documents of the concrete case, the source country, the finality of the decision, the arrest warrant, the type of record, and the current law of the country where the person is located or intends to travel.

Official, judicial and academic sources

INTERPOL official sources

• INTERPOL — Red Notices: The purpose of a Red Notice, that it is not an international arrest warrant, and the prior and continuous compliance review.
• INTERPOL — About Notices: Types of notice and legal conditions.
• INTERPOL Constitution: The purpose of INTERPOL, the human rights framework and the prohibition on political, military, religious or racial activities.
• Rules on the Processing of Data: In particular Articles 12, 44, 50–53, 80–87 and 100.
• CCF — How to Submit a Request: Current portal, types of application and basic conditions.
• CCF Operating Rules — 26 March 2026: Admissibility, time limits, correspondence with the parties and decision procedure.
• Statute of the CCF: The Commission's powers and the framework of application time limits.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 16/2018: Purpose of the record, examination of valid prosecution and arrest warrant.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 13/2018: Accuracy of data, valid judicial basis and the CCF's limited power of review.

Judicial decision

• CJEU Grand Chamber, WS v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑505/19, 12.05.2021, EU:C:2021:376: Red Notices, provisional arrest, ne bis in idem and data processing in the EU/Schengen area.

Academic sources

• Machiko Kanetake, “INTERPOL’s Red Notices: Human Rights Safeguards for Targeted Individuals”, AJIL Unbound, Vol. 120, 2026, pp. 17–22. An academic work is not a binding source of law; it provides a current analysis of the practical effects of Red Notices and of supervisory mechanisms.
• Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL, Hart Publishing, 2010. A systematic monograph on the institutional and legal structure; for current procedure, the applicable official rules must be followed.

---