Our lawyers successfully contested Turkey’s politically motivated use of the Interpol system. By proving abuse of Interpol mechanisms, we secured the removal of the Red Notice, restored our client’s rights, and ensured his freedom of movement.
The Facts
Turkish authorities accused our client of two alleged thefts, initiating criminal prosecution.
A preventive measure was imposed: deportation with a 10‑year entry ban, depriving the client of the right to defend himself in court.
The Ankara court sentenced the client in absentia to six years of imprisonment.
Despite deportation, Turkey declared the client internationally wanted through Interpol, claiming he was evading justice.
The client, unaware of the Red Notice, lived in Europe until detained in Denmark during a routine document check.
The arguments we put to the Commission
Our lawyers emphasized that Turkey’s actions violated Interpol standards and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees access to justice.
We argued that deporting a person and then accusing them of evasion constitutes abuse of Interpol’s system.
A request was filed with the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) to remove the Red Notice and all related data.
What the Commission found
The Danish prosecutor’s office confirmed that Turkey’s request violated Article 6 of the Convention, leading to denial of extradition.
The CCF reviewed the evidence provided by our lawyers and recognized the abuse of Interpol’s mechanisms.
These findings became decisive in removing the Red Notice and excluding all information about the client from Interpol’s databases.
The Outcome
The extradition request was suspended and ultimately denied.
The Interpol Red Notice was lifted, restoring the client’s rights and freedom of movement.
This case reaffirmed the principle that Interpol must not be misused for politically motivated prosecutions or violations of human rights.
Conviction without a chance to defend
A person removed from the country and barred from returning cannot appear at his own trial. A conviction reached in those circumstances, then used as the basis for declaring him wanted, engages Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, which requires the organisation to act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — and defence rights are squarely within it. The decisions under Article 2 collect how the Commission has approached this, including what awaits a person after surrender. The whole 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.