A co-defendant in the same affair had her data deleted, on documents that included letters he now produced as well. He argued the same result had to follow for him. It did not: what deleted her data was specific to her own case, and general context already known to the Commission is not a new fact that can reopen his.
The case, and the request that had already failed once
The applicant, a business associate of a well-known figure, was wanted for abuse of authority. His first complaint had already been decided: the Commission had found some political elements around the case but not enough to predominate over the ordinary criminal elements, and it had ordered an extradition refusal reported in an addendum. He now sought revision, repeating those same arguments and adding a new one — that letters produced in a co-defendant’s successful case should apply equally to him.
Two different tests, and why each failed
The Commission split the analysis into two questions, and the distinction is the value of this decision. First, on the arguments already made: political character, ownership of the company by the state, the number of co-defendants who had obtained asylum or a political-motivation finding, and the extradition refusal itself. All of these were known to the Commission when it decided the first complaint, so none could support revision under Article 42 of the Statute, which requires a fact not known at the time.
Second, on the new letters: these genuinely were unknown before, so the threshold question became whether they could have changed the outcome. The Commission held they could not, and explained precisely why the co-defendant’s success did not transfer:
- The indicia that led to deletion in her case were not based solely on her association with the same figure — they included elements specific to her own request.
- The letters the applicant now produced described the general political context of the affair, which the Commission already knew about when it decided his case.
- A general context, however genuinely new the documents describing it are, is not the same as a fact specific to this applicant that could have changed his own outcome.
- The extradition-refusal argument was resolved separately: the addendum recommendation from the first decision was simply confirmed, since the refusing state had also said the requesting authorities could reissue the request if they produced elements establishing an extraditable offence.
The lesson for anyone relying on a co-defendant’s result
This is the clearest statement in the catalogue of a limit applicants often misjudge: success in a closely related case is not a template that can simply be copied. What has to be shown is that the specific reasoning behind the other person’s deletion applies to your own file — not merely that you share a co-defendant, a company, or a general political backdrop. Before filing a revision request built on someone else’s success, it is worth reading their decision line by line and asking which of its findings are actually about you.
Reading a co-defendant’s decision the right way
When a genuinely favourable decision exists for someone connected to your case, the productive exercise is not to cite the outcome but to reverse-engineer the reasoning. Go through the decision paragraph by paragraph and mark which findings are about the co-defendant personally — their specific role, their specific documents, a specific gap in the evidence against them — as opposed to findings about the affair in general. Only the first category is transferable, and even then only if the same specific gap exists in your own file.
It is also worth checking whether an extradition-refusal argument has already been spent. Once the Commission has ordered an addendum recording a refusal, filing the same refusal again as a ground for revision adds nothing new — the remedy for that fact has already been given, and revision requires something the Commission has not already acted on.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2017-10 · 2017 · Red Notice · maintained subject to an update. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If you are relying on a co-defendant’s successful outcome, the question that matters is which specific finding in their decision is also true of your own file. Send us the decision you are relying on and we will tell you what, if anything, transfers.
Relying on a co-defendant’s success
My co-defendant had the same data deleted. Can I just cite that decision?
Not on its own. The Commission looks at whether the specific reasoning behind their deletion also applies to you individually, not merely at the fact that you share a case or an association.
Is a document about the general political context of my case a “new fact” for revision?
Only if the Commission did not already know about that context. Where the general background was already known, describing it in newly obtained letters does not meet the threshold, even if the letters themselves are new.
An extradition refusal already led to an addendum in my file. Can I use it again?
Not to reopen the underlying decision. Once an addendum has been ordered on that basis, a further filing on the same refusal typically just confirms that the addendum stands.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.