Our legal team identified serious violations in the use of Interpol’s system during Kazakhstan’s request for a Red Notice in connection with the Astana LRT case. By exposing these irregularities, we successfully contested the notice, ensuring that our client avoided unlawful prosecution and regained full protection of his rights.
The Facts
On 30 July 2019, Kazakhstan declared the former head of the Astana LRT company internationally wanted, leading to the issuance of an Interpol Red Notice.
In December of the same year, a former deputy chairman of the board of JSC “Kazakhstan Engineering” was also placed under search.
The Red Notice created significant restrictions and exposed the client to unlawful persecution despite the questionable grounds of the accusations.
The arguments we put to the Commission
Our lawyers conducted a thorough review of the case materials and discovered violations of Articles 12 and 35 of Interpol’s Rules, specifically concerning the improper processing of case-related data.
These violations undermined the legitimacy of the Red Notice and demonstrated that the request failed to comply with Interpol’s norms, standards, and procedures.
A preventive application was filed with the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF), detailing the breaches and requesting cancellation of Kazakhstan’s international search request.
What the Commission found
The CCF carried out a comprehensive investigation into the facts of the case.
It was confirmed that Interpol’s rules on data processing had been disregarded, casting doubt on the decision of the General Secretariat to issue the Red Notice at the request of Kazakhstan’s NCB.
The Commission recognized the inconsistencies and the distortion of factual circumstances presented in the request.
The Outcome
The request from Kazakhstan’s NCB was rejected following the Commission’s review.
The international search was suspended due to unreliable case circumstances and misrepresentation of facts.
The Red Notice was ultimately lifted, securing a fair resolution in favor of our client and preventing further unlawful prosecution.
When the defect is in how the request was made
Not every successful challenge attacks the accusation. Some attack the way the alert was put into the system: what the request omitted, what stage the proceedings had actually reached, whether the bureau followed the rules it is bound by when it asked. That body of reasoning sits in the decisions on procedure, and it is often the fastest route where the underlying case is contested but far from resolved. See our catalogue of CCF decisions for the ground argued in every released file.
Challenge a politically motivated notice with an Interpol Red Notice attorney.
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.