Does a Human Rights Violation, Unfair Trial or Risk of Torture Lead to Removal of an INTERPOL Record?

On what legal basis does INTERPOL examine human rights violations?

Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution provides that the Organization shall ensure and promote the widest possible international cooperation between criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Rules on the Processing of Data also require that the processing of data in the INTERPOL Information System respect the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned.

Within this framework, the following rights are particularly important:

• The prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment,
• The prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention,
• The right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal,
• The right to life,
• Protection of private and family life,
• Effective defence and the benefit of interpreter assistance,
• The principle of non-refoulement.

Review under Article 2 of the Constitution differs from the prohibition in Article 3 on political, military, religious or racial activities. A file may be contrary to Article 2 because of the risk of torture even where it has no political character. Likewise, in a file where a claim of political prosecution is raised, Articles 2 and 3 may be invoked together.

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

Is the CCF a human rights court?

No. The CCF does not replace a national court or the European Court of Human Rights; it does not order a source State to pay compensation, does not annul a criminal case and does not decide extradition. Its task is to supervise whether personal data in the INTERPOL Information System has been processed in accordance with the Organization's rules.

Nevertheless, in carrying out this supervision, the CCF cannot disregard the human rights risk. If the purpose of the INTERPOL record is to locate the person and provisionally arrest them for extradition, what matters is whether that purpose can be achieved without violating the prohibition of torture, manifest injustice or the principle of non-refoulement.

Does every violation of fair trial rights lead to removal of the INTERPOL record?

No. In CCF practice, an ordinary or remediable procedural defect is not the same as a clear and grave denial of fundamental rights.

The CCF's Decision Excerpt No. 17 of 2017 shows that simple claims of possible procedural irregularities, or the mere likelihood of detention, do not reach the level of a breach of Article 2; the applicant must adequately substantiate the likelihood that its fundamental rights will be flagrantly denied.

When does an in absentia judgment create a strong objection?

An in absentia trial or conviction is not in itself an automatic ground for deletion. The CCF examines in particular the following questions:

• Was the person actually informed of the investigation and the hearing?
• Is there a concrete basis for the claim of flight or concealment?
• Was a defence counsel appointed, and was the counsel able to conduct an effective defence?
• After extradition or surrender, will the conviction be re-examined in all its aspects?
• Is the new trial merely formal, or does it allow the evidence to be argued again?
• Is it possible for the applicant to take part in the hearing and to cross-examine witnesses?

Where the requesting country offers a real and full right to a retrial after extradition, the effect of the earlier in absentia decision may be reduced. Conversely, the absence of any retrial route, or the offer of an only apparent objection right, may strengthen the human rights objection.

Is insufficiency of evidence the same as an unfair trial claim?

No. The CCF does not decide guilt. A statement that "I did not commit the offence" or "there is no evidence" is not in itself a human rights violation. However, if the requesting NCB cannot explain:

• which act the applicant committed,
• the date and place of the act,
• the form of personal participation,
• the element of intent or benefit,
• the link between the allegation and the person,

a separate ground for deletion may arise from data quality and from the insufficiency of the description of the criminal activities. Human rights, data accuracy and the inadequacy of the description of the offence should be raised together where this suits the file.

How can the risk of torture or ill-treatment lead to deletion of the record?

The prohibition of torture is absolute. The gravity of the offence charged, negative public perception or a national security justification does not make a real risk of torture acceptable.

For the CCF, the central question is whether the surrender or extradition to the requesting country would expose the person to a real and serious danger of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

How is a general risk separated from a personal risk?

Where general conditions are very serious and widespread, the applicant may not need to show any additional exceptional characteristic. In most files, however, general reports should be combined with personal evidence showing why the applicant falls into a particular risk group.

Does past torture prove a current risk?

Past torture or ill-treatment is a strong indicator, but the date of the event, its perpetrator, its connection with the investigation and whether the conditions in the country have changed are examined. The following documents are important:

• Forensic examinations and health reports,
• Photographs and treatment records,
• National or international court decisions,
• Complaints of torture and investigation documents,
• Witness statements,
• Events accepted in a refugee or protection decision,
• Reliable reports on the current practice of the same police unit.

The authenticity, date and connection with the applicant of each document must be explained. A translation that has not been made, an image whose source is unclear, or one unrelated to the event should not be placed at the centre of the file.

Probative weight of forensic reports in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol standards

For the physical and psychological ill-treatment suffered in the past to become an unshakeable piece of evidence before the CCF, it must be documented in accordance with medical ethics and international standards. Forensic medicine, psychiatric and physical examination reports prepared in line with the principles of the United Nations Istanbul Protocol scientifically establish the causal link between the physical and psychological marks of trauma on the person and the alleged ill-treatment.

An expert forensic report that meets the standards of the Istanbul Protocol raises, for the CCF, an abstract allegation of torture to the level of a concrete, objective risk of breach of Article 2 verified by medical science.

Why does the use of evidence obtained through torture matter separately?

A statement obtained through torture is not only a question of the reliability of evidence; it goes to the heart of the prohibition of torture. In the case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that a real risk that statements obtained through torture would be used in a retrial would amount to a flagrant denial of justice.

In a CCF application, the following should be made concrete:

• From whom the statement was taken and in what circumstances,
• Any health or court record confirming the allegation of torture,
• Whether the requesting court investigated the allegation,
• Whether the statement is decisive for the conviction,
• Whether it would be used again in a retrial

Which evidence is needed to personalise the human rights risk?

Independent court decisions and refusals of extradition

A refusal of extradition concerning the same person, the same requesting country and the same criminal file may be one of the strongest pieces of evidence. In particular, where the decision has reasoned findings on:

• the risk of torture or ill-treatment,
• the real possibility of a flagrant denial of justice,
• political prosecution,
• the principle of non-refoulement,

it carries great weight in the CCF's assessment.

However, not every refusal of extradition produces the same result. Reasons such as citizenship, a lack of formal documents, limitation, dual criminality or failure to complete the request within time are not the same as a human rights-based refusal. The full text of the decision, its finality and its link to the same act must be presented.

Refugee and international protection decisions

Where a protection decision has accepted a risk of persecution, torture or serious harm in the applicant's country of origin, that decision is strong before the CCF. The following should be explained:

• The State providing protection and the date of the decision,
• The grounds for protection,
• Whether the requesting State is the country of origin,
• Whether the criminal allegation was examined in the protection decision,
• Whether there is any ground for exclusion or termination of protection.

A residence permit, a visa, or a pending asylum application does not carry the same legal weight as a final refugee decision.

ECtHR, UN and other reliable sources

The following may be used where directly relevant to the applicant's risk group:

• ECtHR decisions,
• Decisions of the UN Committee against Torture and other treaty bodies,
• Reports of UN special rapporteurs,
• CPT reports,
• Decisions of competent national courts,
• Current reports of reliable international human rights organisations.

For each source, the date, the relevant section or paragraph, the source country, the risk group and the link with the applicant should be indicated. A few strong and directly relevant sources should be preferred to dozens of general internet printouts.

Personal health and vulnerability documents

Age, serious illness, disability, psychological trauma, pregnancy or the need for continuous treatment may personalise the risk of detention and of prison. A health report should show:

• The current diagnosis,
• The medication and treatment used,
• The consequence of an interruption of treatment,
• The specific risk that may arise under prison conditions.

A diagnosis document alone does not always establish that treatment will be unavailable in the source country or that the threshold of ill-treatment will be crossed.

Can a diplomatic assurance remove the risk of torture?

The source State may undertake that the person will not be tortured, will have access to a lawyer, or will be held in a particular prison. An assurance is not automatically regarded as sufficient. The following elements should be examined:

• Whether the assurance is concrete and specific to the person,
• Whether it was given by a competent and binding authority,
• Independent monitoring and the possibility of unannounced visits,
• Access for lawyers, family and consulate,
• A practicable consequence in case of breach,
• The compliance of the guaranteeing State with similar undertakings in the past,
• The existence of an independent mechanism to investigate allegations of torture.

In the ECtHR's Othman decision, detailed assurances given at the highest level and subject to independent monitoring reduced the risk that the applicant himself would be tortured; however, because there were not sufficient guarantees that evidence obtained through torture would not be used in the trial, the risk of a violation with regard to fair trial remained.

Othman and Tarakhel tests: rebutting so-called assurances

Written diplomatic undertakings by source States, stating that "no torture will be carried out" or that "prison conditions will meet the standards", cannot be accepted automatically, whether they are given to obtain access to data or extradition. Under the case law developed by the ECtHR in Othman v. United Kingdom and Tarakhel v. Switzerland, for a diplomatic assurance to be regarded as valid:

• The authority giving the assurance must be able to make the undertaking binding in its hierarchical and administrative structure,
• Impartial international bodies (CPT, the Red Cross or independent civil society) must be formally permitted to carry out unannounced, unimpeded and periodic prison monitoring after the surrender,
• A clear and enforceable legal sanction must be defined in case of breach.

Diplomatic assurances that lack an independent monitoring mechanism and consist only of a declaration of intent do not remove the risk of torture; this must be argued before the CCF on these criteria.

Key consequence: An assurance cannot be the basis for a conclusion that "there is no risk" unless its content and enforceability have been examined.

What do CCF decisions show about human rights objections?

CCF Decision No. 2 of 2024: detailed and personal risk led to deletion

The applicant presented in detail the risk of torture and forced confession in custody in the source country; the possibility that statements in the same file had been obtained through torture; independent court decisions and reliable reports; their health condition; and the lack of personal participation in the criminal allegation. The source NCB did not respond to repeated requests concerning the CCF's specific questions on human rights and the description of the criminal activities.

The CCF first prevented member States from accessing the data during the examination; it finally decided that the data did not comply with INTERPOL's rules and ordered its deletion.

Concrete lesson: A reliable report, personal risk, evidence linked to torture in the file, specific questions, and the non-response of the source NCB together had an effect.

CCF Decision No. 15 of 2018: refusal of extradition as new evidence led to deletion

The applicant's first deletion request had been rejected. Subsequently, an independent court refused extradition to the source country on the ground that there was a risk of torture and flagrant denial of justice. The CCF accepted this decision as a new fact capable of changing the earlier outcome.

The Commission explained that the refusal of extradition by a single State does not automatically render the INTERPOL data unlawful; however, the personal finding of torture and flagrant injustice made by an independent court could not be disregarded. The failure to submit the extradition documents on time and a long period of detention that had earlier produced no result were also considered together with the other evidence. As a result, the data was deleted.

Concrete lesson: It is the reasoning of a refusal of extradition that personalises the human rights risk, not its operative part, that is decisive.

CCF Decision No. 17 of 2017: abstract procedural claims were not regarded as sufficient

The applicant claimed that it had not been informed of the investigation, that the court was not independent, and that it would be arrested. The source NCB, for its part, provided the valid arrest warrant, information on the criminal activities and information on the applicant's personal participation. The CCF determined that a simple allegation of possible procedural irregularity or of the likelihood of detention would not amount to a breach of Article 2; the likelihood of a flagrant denial of fundamental rights was not sufficiently documented.

Concrete lesson: General criticism of the judicial system should not be relied on in place of the file-specific explanation of the source NCB.

CCF decision summaries are not binding precedent for national courts. They are anonymised examples of the Commission's practice and are strong supporting sources for understanding the evidential threshold and manner of assessment in a current application.

How should ECtHR decisions be used in an INTERPOL file?

Liu v. Poland: a Red Notice does not remove the duty of independent examination of the risk of extradition

In Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, decided on 6 October 2022, the applicant was arrested on the basis of an INTERPOL Red Notice and faced an extradition request from China. The ECtHR found that current reports of the UN and other reliable sources on the Chinese prison system had not been sufficiently examined; given widespread data on torture and ill-treatment, extradition would violate Article 3 of the ECHR. Prolonged detention pending extradition also constituted a violation of Article 5.

The judgment did not delete the Red Notice directly. However, an ECtHR decision that binds the risk of torture for the same person and the same extradition target carries a high weight of evidence in a CCF application.

Klein v. Russia: a diplomatic assurance is not sufficient on its own

In Klein v. Russia, Application No. 24268/08, decided on 1 April 2010, the ECtHR examined the risk of ill-treatment for an applicant whose extradition to Colombia was sought, and the sufficiency of the assurances given. In the light of the applicant's particular situation, official statements and country data, the ECtHR concluded that extradition would be contrary to Article 3.

The decision shows that assurances must not be accepted in the abstract; the authority giving the assurance, the monitoring system and the applicant's personal risk must be considered together.

Othman v. United Kingdom: evidence obtained through torture may create a flagrant denial of justice

In Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, Application No. 8139/09, decided on 17 January 2012, the ECtHR did not regard as sufficient, because of diplomatic assurances, the applicant's own risk of being tortured. Conversely, it held that the real risk that statements of co-accused persons obtained through torture would be used in a retrial would create an obvious injustice that would violate Article 6 of the ECHR.

This decision shows the high threshold applied in fair trial complaints and the particular weight of evidence obtained through torture.

M.C. v. Türkiye: an INTERPOL record does not replace national liberty review

In M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, decided on 4 June 2024, temporary detention and the extradition process based on a Red Notice and a foreign arrest warrant were examined from the standpoint of personal liberty. An INTERPOL record does not remove the conditions of national legality, the prohibition of arbitrariness and effective judicial review.

Distinction of legal weight: ECtHR decisions constitute the binding interpretation of the ECHR for States Parties; they do not give direct orders to the CCF. CCF decision summaries show practice within INTERPOL and are not national court judgments. Each source should be used within its own sphere of competence.

How is a human rights-based CCF deletion application prepared?

First establish the type of record and the source decision

The absence of a person's name on the public Red Notice page does not prove that there is no record. The record may be a closed Red Notice, a Wanted Person Diffusion or other INTERPOL data. If the record is unknown, a request for access to the CCF may be made.

The following information should be established:

• The source country and NCB,
• The type and purpose of the record,
• The date and number of the national arrest warrant,
• The alleged act, the criminal provision and the penalty range,
• Whether an extradition request has been sent,
• Earlier arrest and extradition proceedings.

Legal grounds should be built within a single legal system

Where suitable for the file, the following grounds may be used together:

• Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
• Torture, ill-treatment and non-refoulement,
• The risk of a flagrant denial of justice,
• Arbitrary or excessively long detention,
• The use of evidence obtained through torture,
• Accuracy and currency of the data,
• Insufficient explanation of the criminal activities and of personal participation,
• The purpose of the extradition not being achieved,
• Purpose, necessity and proportionality,
• Where suitable for the file, the risk of political persecution under Article 3.

Each ground should be linked to its own document; the same event should not be needlessly repeated under different headings.

Form of application and the portal

From 26 March 2026, at 10.00 CET, access, correction/deletion and review applications are, as a rule, made through the secure online portal of the CCF.

The deletion application should include:

• A legible, unredacted identity document,
• A signed request,
• Where the application is made through a lawyer, a power of attorney including authority to access the data in the INTERPOL file,
• The application text in Arabic, English, French or Spanish,
• Relevant translations of the documents in Turkish and in other languages,
• A statement of reasons not exceeding ten pages,
• A list of annexes and specific references to documents in the text.

Ideal annex index for a human rights file

Ideal human rights risk table

Can temporary restriction of access to the data be requested in an urgent case?

Where there is an imminent arrest, an extradition hearing, deportation, a serious health problem or a risk of torture, the CCF may be notified of the urgency and asked to block or restrict access to the data while the examination proceeds. The request should be supported by:

• The arrest or detention document,
• The date of the extradition hearing,
• The flight or deportation plan,
• The text of any interim measure of the ECtHR,
• A current health report,
• An explanation of imminent and irreparable harm.

A temporary restriction of access is not automatic and does not cancel the national arrest order. Separate applications must be made against arrest, detention, extradition and deportation procedures in the country where the person is located.

How long does a CCF application take?

As a rule, the CCF notifies its decision on admissibility within one month of receiving the application. A request for correction or deletion is, as a rule, decided within nine months of the admissibility date. A reasoned and reasonable extension is possible.

The CCF's official page explains that delays are being experienced because of workload. The nine-month period is therefore not a fixed decision date or deletion date. A notification of urgency does not create an automatically shortened period either.

How does a CCF decision affect the national arrest and extradition process?

In a human rights file, four legal tracks should often be run together:

• A CCF access and deletion application,
• An objection to the criminal file and arrest warrant in the source country,
• An arrest and extradition defence in the country where the person is located,
• Applications for international protection, deportation and non-refoulement.

Does an ECtHR interim measure delete the INTERPOL record?

No. An interim measure ordered under Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court may place an obligation on the State concerned not to send the applicant to a particular country; it does not automatically delete the INTERPOL data. However, it may be presented to the CCF as strong evidence that the personal and imminent risk is considered serious before an international court.

UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT Article 3) and parallel pressure of interim measures

An interim measure (interim measures) ordered under Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court or under Article 3 of the UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT) halts, at the level of international law, the applicant's return to the country of origin.

When these decisions are presented to the CCF, they by themselves prove both the existence of a breach of Article 2 of the Constitution and the condition of urgency. An interim decision by an international judicial or supervisory body stating that "there is a risk of torture and irreparable harm on extradition" constitutes the body of evidence of the highest weight for the CCF to suspend access to the data immediately during its examination and to issue a final deletion decision.

How is a deletion decision implemented, and what follows?

A Red Notice deleted by the INTERPOL General Secretariat because of non-compliance with Article 2 or 3 is removed from the INTERPOL database immediately. According to the official INTERPOL statement, notice of the deletion is regularly communicated to member States; countries are informed of CCF deletion decisions so that they update their national databases and do not use INTERPOL channels. Where appropriate, a certificate may be issued stating that the person is no longer the subject of a Red Notice.

Nevertheless:

• The national arrest order,
• The bilateral police correspondence,
• The regional search system,
• Visa and migration records,
• Private banking and risk databases,
• A national copy held by a country that had received the diffusion earlier

may not be updated automatically. The decision and the notice of implementation should be kept, and a separate risk analysis should be carried out for the countries to be visited or transited.

Schengen (SIS II) and commercial compliance databases (World-Check, LexisNexis) clean-up

Although a CCF deletion decision clears the main INTERPOL system, the process does not end there. Personal data may previously have been entered into national or international sub-systems. For full legal protection, the following additional steps should be taken:

• SIS II and national alert records: An application should be made to the data protection authority (KVK/GDPR) of the relevant country to lift the entry restrictions in the national databases of Schengen/EU member States (SIS II).
• Commercial compliance (compliance) databases: Private databases used by global banks and financial institutions, such as World-Check, LexisNexis Bridger and Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, may automatically pull old Red Notice records and label the person as "High Risk / PEP / Criminal". The CCF deletion decision and the certificate of no record in the General Secretariat (attestation) should be sent to the legal departments of these companies, and a demand for correction and erasure of data should be made under the GDPR.

What can be done if a CCF application is rejected?

The CCF has no appeal or cassation in the classic sense. If a new and relevant fact emerges which, had it been known during the earlier decision, would probably have changed the outcome, a review may be requested within six months of learning of that fact.

Examples of new facts:

• A final refusal of extradition with human rights reasoning,
• A new ECtHR or UN decision,
• New refugee or protection status,
• New health or investigation documents confirming torture,
• Cancellation of the arrest order,
• A new incident showing that the source country's assurance has been breached.

Re-submitting the same claim and documents does not create a new right of review.

Common mistakes

• Criticising the source country only in general terms,
• Failing to link personal risk with a country report,
• Presenting every procedural violation as a flagrant denial of justice,
• Failing to examine the real possibility of a retrial after an in absentia judgment,
• Failing to support the allegation of torture with a health or court document,
• Presenting only the operative part of a refusal of extradition,
• Describing a residence permit as refugee status,
• Relying on old reports as the sole basis of current risk,
• Failing to examine a diplomatic assurance for content and monitoring,
• Failing to explain the weight in the trial of a statement obtained through torture,
• Using the CCF as if it were a national criminal court,
• Exceeding the ten-page limit for reasons,
• Assuming that a CCF application stops arrest or extradition,
• Treating the absence of a name on the public Red Notice list as proof of no record.

What should be done in the first 72 hours?

• Unplanned international travel and risky transit should be stopped,
• Copies of the arrest, border, visa or extradition documents should be obtained,
• The type of record, the source country and the national file should be identified,
• Extradition, refugee, ECtHR and protection decisions should be collected,
• Health and past ill-treatment documents should be kept securely,
• The parts of current country reports relating to the person should be selected,
• Contact should be established with an extradition and immigration lawyer in the country where the person is located,
• The options of CCF access, deletion and urgent restriction of access should be considered together.

Identity and passport images should not be uploaded to informal "INTERPOL check" websites.

How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm work on these files?

The Güneş & Güneş Law Firm does not limit a human rights objection to a general account of the country; it assesses the general risk, personal characteristics, criminal file, extradition and protection decisions within a single legal system.

Concrete work offered according to the circumstances of the file:

• Analysis of the INTERPOL record type and the arrest and travel risk,
• Preparation of the CCF access application,
• Building a risk file on torture, ill-treatment and a flagrant denial of justice,
• Matching general country data with personal risk,
• Examination of the legal effect of refusals of extradition, refugee status and ECtHR decisions,
• Turning health and vulnerability documents into a legal basis,
• Analysis of the enforceability of diplomatic assurances,
• CCF deletion, correction and review applications,
• Applications for urgent restriction of access in urgent files,
• Coordination of applications against the arrest order in the source country,
• Defence against arrest, detention, extradition and immigration in the country where the person is located,
• Following up national and third-country records after deletion.

The Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has provided legal services from its base in Antalya since 1999, across all 81 provinces of Türkiye and in files with international links, in Turkish, English, German and Russian.

No outcome is guaranteed. Evidence gaps, competent authorities, urgent deadlines, travel risks and parallel avenues of application are clearly explained to the client.

Frequently asked questions

Is it enough to say that I will not receive a fair trial in order to have the record deleted?

No. The claim must be supported by concrete evidence about the events specific to the person, independent decisions, reliable reports and the absence of an effective route to redress.

If I was convicted in absentia, will the Red Notice be deleted?

Not automatically. It is examined whether you were aware of the decision and whether, after extradition, there is a real and full right to a retrial.

Does the seriousness of the charge matter if there is a risk of torture?

The prohibition of torture is absolute. A serious charge does not make a real risk of torture or ill-treatment legitimate.

Is a general human rights report sufficient?

In most files, no. The report must be linked to the applicant's group, the prison, the police unit, the criminal file, the health condition or past ill-treatment.

Does a refusal of extradition automatically remove the Red Notice?

No. The reason for the refusal must be submitted to the CCF and a separate deletion request made. A human rights-based, final decision concerning the same file is strong evidence.

Does refugee status automatically result in deletion?

It does not produce an automatic result in every case. The status's effect against the source country, its reasoning, its connection with the accusation and the risk of non-refoulement are assessed.

Does a diplomatic assurance remove the risk of torture?

Only a concrete, personal, binding assurance that is open to independent monitoring can be effective. A general undertaking alone is not sufficient.

What happens if an extradition is based on a statement obtained through torture?

The real risk that the statement will be obtained through torture and used decisively in the trial makes an objection of flagrant injustice strong.

Is a CCF application free of charge?

The CCF does not charge a fee for an application. Translation, notarisation, apostille, obtaining documents, foreign lawyers and attorney's fees may arise separately.

How long does a deletion application take?

As a rule, a decision is made within nine months from admissibility; reasonable extensions and de facto delays are possible.

Does a CCF application stop extradition or deportation?

No. The relevant routes in the country concerned must be used separately and within their time limits.

Does an ECtHR interim measure delete the record?

No. It may impose on the State concerned an obligation not to return the person, and it may be strong evidence before the CCF; it does not automatically remove INTERPOL data.

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

No. Separate legal routes are required for the criminal file in the source country and for the national arrest order.

Conclusion

A human rights violation, a flagrant denial of justice or a risk of torture may lead to the deletion of an INTERPOL record; however, the result is not automatic. The CCF does not assess the judicial system of the source country in the abstract. It seeks concrete risk concerning the person's file, status, past and the consequences of extradition.

The strongest files are those that combine current and reliable country data with personal risk, present independent extradition or protection decisions, show the role of evidence obtained through torture, discuss the source country's assurances, and explain the conflict between the purpose of the INTERPOL data and human rights.

A CCF application does not replace national arrest and extradition defence. Data deletion, the criminal file in the source country, freedom and extradition measures in the country where the person is located, and the international protection process must be managed together.

Final legal consequence: The right question is not only "is there a human rights violation in the country?" It is: "For this person, because of this file, if they were surrendered to these authorities, which fundamental right would be genuinely endangered, on which concrete and reliable evidence?"

Confidentiality and legal information

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

This article is for general legal information only. Without examination of the source country, the type of record, the alleged acts, the health and protection status of the file, the country in which the person is located or will travel, and current practice, it does not constitute a legal opinion or a guarantee of outcome.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Official sources of INTERPOL and the CCF

• INTERPOL Constitution: Article 2, based on the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the CCF's supervision of data.
• Rules on the Processing of Data: Fundamental rights, accuracy of data, purpose, description of criminal activities and conditions for Red Notices.
• Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 — Third Edition, November 2024: Current official practice on human rights, non-refoulement, the source State, the status of the person and international obligations.
• CCF — How to Submit a Request: The portal of 26 March 2026, document types and limits of competence.
• CCF Operating Rules — 26 March 2026: Application, representation, ten-page statement of reasons, list of annexes and admissibility.
• Statute of the CCF: Competence, time limits, decision and review.
• INTERPOL — Compliance and Review: Pre-publication and continuing compliance checks and notifications to member States after deletion.
• CCF Sessions and Decisions: Current sessions, explanation of delays and anonymised decisions.

CCF decision summaries

• CCF Decision No. 2024-02: Torture, fair trial, non-disclosure of personal participation, temporary restriction of access and deletion.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 15 (2018): Acceptance of a human rights-based refusal of extradition as new evidence and deletion.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 8 (2018): Joint assessment of allegations of torture and political character.
• CCF Decision Excerpt No. 17 (2017): Insufficiency of abstract procedural and detention claims, and the threshold of a manifest denial of fundamental rights.

Judicial decisions

• ECtHR, Liu v. Poland, Application No. 37610/18, 06.10.2022: Real risk of ill-treatment on extradition to China and prolonged detention pending extradition.
• ECtHR, Klein v. Russia, Application No. 24268/08, 01.04.2010: Extradition linked to a Red Notice, personal risk of ill-treatment and assurances.
• ECtHR, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, Application No. 8139/09, 17.01.2012: Use of evidence obtained through torture creating an obvious injustice, and diplomatic assurances.
• ECtHR, M.C. v. Türkiye, Application No. 31592/18, 04.06.2024: Guarantees of personal liberty in temporary detention and extradition process linked to a Red Notice.

Academic sources

• Machiko Kanetake, “INTERPOL’s Red Notices: Human Rights Safeguards for Targeted Individuals”, AJIL Unbound, Vol. 120, 2026, pp. 17–22.
• Kristina Daugirdas, “The Durability of Protections Against Abuse at INTERPOL Amidst Rising Authoritarian Pressures”, AJIL Unbound, 2026.
• Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Legal Foundations of INTERPOL, Hart Publishing, 2010; current procedures should also be determined on the basis of the official rules in force.

---