Upholding Human Rights in INTERPOL: A Call for Comprehensive Action

UN human rights treaty bodies have consistently expressed concerns regarding the violation of human rights in several beneficiary states, including China, Russia, Azerbaijan, the DRC, Ethiopia, South Africa, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Mali, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan and Vietnam. These concerns cover a wide range of human rights violations that these states have been accused of committing.

These violations encompass various aspects such as torture, inhuman treatment and arbitrary detention. There are also reports of violations related to the right to privacy, freedom of expression and political participation. It is obvious that these states lack sufficient judicial independence to prevent or address abuses of power by their own governments.

The comprehensive practice of UN, derived from situations involving the respect for human rights in member states, holds significant and undeniable value that should not be overlooked by states and other international organizations, including INTERPOL. This practice develops and interprets the provisions set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its additional protocols.

One specific area that has raised significant concern is the misuse of the INTERPOL Red Notice system. Originally designed with the principle of political neutrality in mind for international cooperation in law enforcement matters (and its foundational principle of political neutrality with respect to the merits of Red Notices), it has been exploited by certain states as a means to target dissidents. This misuse has rightly drawn attention from civil society organizations (See, for instance: Civil Society Resolution on the Forthcoming 89th General Assembly of INTERPOL that will take place in Istanbul on 23-25 November 2021 and international institutions due to its implications for human rights abuses (See, for instance: Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, 'Misuse of Interpol's Red Notices and impact on human rights – recent developments' PE 603.472 (January 2019) and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 'Abusive recourse to the Interpol system: the need for more stringent legal safeguards’, Resolution 2161 (2017).

In the same context, it is noteworthy that INTERPOL Secretary-General Jürgen Stock recently made a remarkably transparent statement, acknowledging the inherent limitations of the organization in effectively preventing the misuse of its Red Notice system. This rare admission from such a high-ranking official within INTERPOL demonstrates the aforementioned systemic challenges that undermine the integrity of this crucial law enforcement tool. However, Stock's remarks, while honest, seem to convey a sense of resignation towards these flaws rather than a resolute commitment to urgently address and rectify them. In an era of rapidly evolving geopolitical dynamics, such a stance jeopardizes both the credibility of Interpol and the global trust it has painstakingly built over time.

It is important to note that this responsibility is not solely on member states but is also shared with INTERPOL's General Secretariat—the administrator of INTERPOL's database (Article 22 of the Rules on Processing Data (RPD)) —and with the CCF. The CCF operates as an independent and impartial body officially responsible for ensuring that INTERPOL's processing of personal data complies primarily with Article 2(1) of INTERPOL’s Constitution which aims “to ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all 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." Additionally, it ensures compliance with other applicable rules derived from Interpol’s Constitution.

Although Mr. Jürgen Stock's statement is commendable, it appears somewhat belated considering his final term expires next year. If he had raised alarm earlier and honestly acknowledged past abuses, more satisfactory results could have been achieved. In this case, Mr. Stock seems to prefer diplomatic language rather than addressing issues directly or providing a comprehensive picture regarding abuses related to Red Notices in order to preserve Interpol's authority and reputation intact—leaving the public perplexed without clear answers they seek through open sources and specialized analysis.

Mr. Stock refrains from explicitly mentioning that this responsibility is collective, and as the head of this Organization, he is not merely an observer exposing these abuses. INTERPOL bears the highest degree of responsibility, which should not be overlooked. INTERPOL has always possessed the capacity and necessary tools to counter any form of abuse, and this situation that has arisen did not happen overnight; it has been developing over time, even during Mr. Stock's tenure. This situation could have been prevented if double standards were not applied and if the practices of UN human rights treaty bodies and other experienced regional human rights jurisdictions were taken into account directly and uniformly without reservations.

Furthermore, we currently lack clear answers regarding the evaluation of measures undertaken by INTERPOL or the appropriate assistance and guidance provided to member states so that they can professionally understand INTERPOL's rules, comprehend concretely, for example, the significance of Article 3 in INTERPOL’s Constitution (which prohibits any intervention or activities of a political nature), grasp profound subtleties demonstrating when a specific case warrants considering a Red Notice as predominantly political, and fully appreciate their implications. It is unreasonable to expect satisfactory results from unqualified and unprofessional staff members who may lack proper training or resources.

In this regard, it is crucial to consider whether all member states have practical access to equally well-trained personnel who are qualified in matters related to INTERPOL's Constitution, RPD, and other INTERPOL regulations—personnel who receive initial training courses as well as ongoing professional development opportunities. Additionally, it is important to assess whether these states provide adequate remuneration for trained staff members who possess expertise in handling such matters effectively while in many countries there are directly confronted with a turnover of staff—namely, that professional staff capable of meeting challenges successfully.

If among the readers of this article there are individuals who have been somehow affected by certain cases previously examined by CCF, they may probably draw their own conclusions regarding how their individual complaints were treated "in accordance with the spirit of Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

It is worth highlighting some notable examples of straightforward and sensitive cases that have been or are currently being examined by the CCF. These cases are derived from publicly available sources.

INTERPOL GA adopted in 2015 a refugee policy regarding individuals who hold refugee status.The policy has already begun to be implemented; consequently, the names of several victims of political persecution have already been removed from the wanted list.

In fact, this Refugee Policy was subsequently updated in 2017 through General Assembly Resolution No. 9 GA-2017-86-RES-09, which stipulates that once the asylum seeker or refugee status is confirmed by the host state, the Red Notice must be deleted. Moreover, very recently, INTERPOL SecretaryGeneral Jürgen Stock, emphasized the significance of this "new refugee policy" to protect those who have been granted refugee status.

In particular, INTERPOL canceled the pursuit of several individuals for whom the Open Dialog Foundation had carried out an international defence campaign (Nikolai Koblyakov, Russian opposition activist, Tatiana Paraskevich and Artur Trofimov, defendants in the case of the Kazakh oppositionist Mukhtar Ablyazov; and Pavel Zabelin, a defendant in the YUKOS case). The Red Notice was also removed on the basis of INTERPOL's refugee policy in relation to Mr. Azer Samadov who left Azerbaijan for fear of political persecution in his country of origin.

At the same time, certain cases have been identified from open sources that illustrate a contrasting approach to the previously mentioned examples regarding INTERPOL's Refugee Policy. Additionally, on INTERPOL's dedicated CCF webpage, it explicitly states hat "cooperation with other governing bodies and members of the Organization is essential for it to operate effectively”. When information about the protective status of individuals becomes public, widely known, and disseminated in the media, INTERPOL has all the necessary tools at its disposal, as outlined in General Assembly Resolution no. 9, to communicate with host countries regarding the protective status of individuals who are subjects of INTERPOL notices.

According to Africa Intelligence, an open-source publication, the Gupta brothers, Rajesh and Atul Gupta, who are wanted by South African authorities, have applied for asylum in two other African countries. The Paris-based newsletter reports that Rajesh and Atul Gupta submitted their asylum applications to the authorities in Cameroon and the Central African Republic.The governments of both countries are considering the requests, it said. Bloomberg has also confirmed the same information regarding the protective status of the Gupta brothers. Although, as reported in the media, the governments of both countries are considering the requests of both Gupta brothers, their situation remains uncertain as the Red Notices against them are still valid and active.

Similarly, the UN human rights treaty bodies adopt a similar approach.The right to an effective remedy for any breaches of rights is a fundamental principle of international human rights law (ICCPR, Article 2(3).) Human rights law imposes obligations to make available effective remedies to people whose rights have been violated. This right to a remedy has often been identified as one of the most fundamental aspects of an effective framework for human rights protection (See, for instance: Report of the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, UN Doc. A/56/341 (2001), [9] and Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women on Cultural Practices in the Family that are Violent Towards Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/83 (2002), [116]).

The jurisprudence of all international human rights bodies has consistently established that for remedies to be effective, they must satisfy the criteria of: being prompt (HRC, General Comment 31, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004), [15]; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 33, [11] and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 (6 October 1987), Series A No. 9, [24]); being practical rather than theoretical (CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 33, [1] and [14]); being determined by an independent authority (HRC, General Comment 31, [15]); and being accessible (without undue practical or financial barriers). (CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 33, [36]-[37]).

It is thus in the interest of INTERPOL itself that the CCF fulfills the criteria to be recognized as an effective remedy. The CCF's main function is to provide effective redress to anyone targeted by an abusive Red Notice - which would then also justify Interpol's judicial immunity.

Whether the CCF can be considered an effective remedy or a reasonable alternative means of ensuring access to justice depends on several factors. These include the independence of the CCF, non-discriminatory treatment of cases, consistency in decisions on similar facts, fairness of proceedings (including the right to be heard and informed of grounds for suspicion), and effectiveness of relief granted by the CCF (such as providing effective remedies, jurisprudential coherence, timely proceedings, interim relief possibilities, and binding effect of CCF's findings on INTERPOL.