Case Overview
Our client was the subject of an INTERPOL Diffusion issued at the request of a foreign state. The allegations concerned human trafficking linked to assisted reproductive treatment, commercial surrogacy and the cross-border relocation of newborn children.
The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files found that the data did not comply with INTERPOL’s rules.
Background
The requesting authorities alleged that our client had participated in an organised scheme involving fertility treatment, surrogate mothers and the transfer of children to foreign biological fathers.
According to the allegations, assisted reproductive procedures had been used under the appearance of lawful fertility treatment, while medical and civil documents had allegedly been prepared to allow the fathers to register and take the children abroad.
Our client disputed the classification of the case as human trafficking. The defence argued that the matter concerned surrogacy arrangements and assisted reproductive technology, not the sale or exploitation of children.
The fathers had provided their own genetic material and later travelled with their biological children. The surrogacy arrangements were voluntary, and no coercion was alleged.
Legal Position
The key issue was whether the facts supported an international alert for human trafficking or whether the case was, in substance, related to gestational surrogacy and domestic reproductive regulations.
Although the requesting state referred to alleged irregularities in medical records, birth registration and paternity documents, our client was not internationally wanted for fraud or document falsification.
We argued that the legal classification had to reflect the actual conduct described, rather than the title given to the offence by the requesting authorities.
The Commission’s Findings
The Commission found that:
- commercial surrogacy was not itself prohibited in the requesting state at the relevant time;
- the men who travelled with the children were their biological fathers;
- the allegations mainly concerned surrogacy and assisted reproductive procedures involving single fathers;
- the case relied largely on alleged breaches of medical and civil regulations; and
- the conduct was more closely related to a gestational surrogacy offence than to human trafficking.
The Commission also noted that alleged document-related offences could not justify the Diffusion because they were not the offences for which the client was internationally wanted.
It confirmed that the minimum standards applicable to Red Notices apply equally to Diffusions. Because INTERPOL alerts may not be used for certain gestational surrogacy offences, the Diffusion did not meet the required legal criteria.
Outcome
The Commission ruled that the challenged data were not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules.
The decision confirmed that, in an INTERPOL human trafficking case, a requesting state cannot justify international police cooperation merely by describing a surrogacy-related matter as human trafficking. The underlying facts must correspond to the offence relied upon and satisfy INTERPOL’s own requirements.
This was a successful outcome for our client and removed the legal basis for continued processing of the Diffusion through INTERPOL’s systems.
Need Advice on an INTERPOL Case?
If you are the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice or Diffusion, or believe your data has been processed in violation of INTERPOL’s rules, legal advice at an early stage can make a significant difference. Every case is different, and the available legal remedies depend on the specific facts and procedural history. If you would like to discuss your situation, our team can assess your case and advise you on the available options.
Where this ground sits in the published record
What was really in dispute was the label. Assisted reproduction carried out under medical and civil documents is not trafficking, and a description that does not establish what the person is said to have done, when and by what means cannot support circulation to 195 countries. That is the reasoning collected in the decisions on data quality and seriousness. Because this was a diffusion rather than a Red Notice, it never passed the General Secretariat’s review at all — the point covered in the decisions on procedure. The full released corpus is in our catalogue of CCF decisions.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
One file is not a pattern. No two alerts turn on the same facts, and a ground that carried this case will not carry another where the underlying material is different. A case note shows the shape of the work and the kind of argument the Commission accepted — it is not a forecast of any other outcome.
Who will handle your case
Applications to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files are drafted and signed by a senior partner, and you deal with that partner throughout — the argument you file is the one you discussed.
Fees are set after a free assessment of the file, because the work depends on whether a notice exists at all, which country supplied the data and how far the case behind it has gone. See the full team on our team page, or speak to a partner directly: +357 96 447475.