Services

Start With Your Situation, Not With the Service Name

People arrive here having just learned that something exists in INTERPOL’s systems, and the first question is never which service to buy — it is what stage the problem has reached. The route follows from that, and choosing the wrong one costs months. Below is the honest map.

• You suspect something exists but cannot confirm it. Start with a request for access to your data. Only a portion of Red Notices are published, and diffusions never appear publicly, so a blank search proves nothing either way.
• A Red Notice exists and you want it gone. That is an application to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files — see Red Notice removal for the procedure, the statutory deadlines and what the published decisions show.
• What you are facing is a diffusion, not a notice. Same Commission, different evidence: a diffusion never passed the General Secretariat’s prior review, which is itself an argument. See diffusions.
• Nothing has been issued yet, but you expect it. The Commission can be addressed before an alert is circulated — see preventive requests. This is the cheapest moment to act and the one most often missed.
• The Commission has already refused you. There is no appeal, but there is revision where a new fact has appeared, within six months of learning of it: application for revision.
• Proceedings have started where you are. The alert and the surrender request are separate matters on separate timetables — see international extradition, and the European Arrest Warrant where EU states are involved.

What we bring to it that is checkable

INTERPOL has released the reasoning behind a body of Commission decisions, and we publish all of it — the ground argued and the outcome in each file — as a catalogue of CCF decisions: 65 decisions, of which the applicant obtained deletion or blocking in 32. Arguments are chosen against that record rather than from scratch. Where the case has a local dimension, the country pages set out what changes from one jurisdiction to another — see countries and jurisdictions — and our case notes show the shape of files we have run.

Applications are drafted and signed by a senior partner, Dmytro Konovalenko or Dr. Anatoliy Yarovyi, and that partner stays on the file.