An applicant challenged a notice on the ground that the underlying proceedings breached his rights and misapplied the domestic law of the requesting state. The Commission maintained the data, and explained why: it does not review the application of national law with the scrutiny of a human rights court or a treaty body. Understanding that limit is the difference between an argument that works and one that cannot.
What the Commission does not do
Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution requires that data respect the basic rights of the person in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 11 of the Rules on the Processing of Data requires processing with due regard for the laws of the country of origin. Read quickly, those look like an invitation to relitigate the national case. They are not.
The Commission stated the position directly: as a general practice it does not conduct a review of the same nature as those undertaken by international human rights treaty bodies or regional human rights courts, nor with the same degree of scrutiny over the application of domestic law.
Why the request failed
- The submissions were largely addressed to whether the domestic authorities had applied their own criminal procedure correctly — a question for the national courts.
- No decision of any court or independent body was produced finding a violation in this case.
- The complaints about the conduct of the proceedings were detailed but were the applicant’s own characterisation of them.
- Nothing connected the alleged procedural failings to the quality or lawfulness of the data recorded in INTERPOL’s files, which is the question the Commission answers.
What this decision teaches
An Article 2 argument has to be built out of findings, not grievances. The Commission is receptive to what other institutions have concluded about your case and cautious about being asked to conclude it first.
- Bring findings, not allegations. A judgment, a decision of a treaty body, a reasoned refusal to extradite — these are the currency.
- Do not ask the Commission to interpret foreign criminal procedure. It will decline, and the effort is wasted.
- Connect the violation to the data. The question is always whether the information in INTERPOL’s files complies with its rules, not whether the prosecution was conducted properly.
From one of our own files. The requesting state, courts, places, names and figures have been removed. Only the legal analysis remains.
If your complaint is about how the case was run at home, the productive path usually runs through the national courts first, and the resulting decision then becomes the document that carries the request here. Tell us where the national proceedings stand and we will tell you what is worth filing now and what is worth waiting for.
The limits of the Commission’s review
Does the Commission apply the European Convention on Human Rights?
It applies INTERPOL’s own rules, read in the spirit of the Universal Declaration. It is not a human rights court and does not carry out that kind of review, though findings by such courts about your case carry weight with it.
My trial was procedurally unfair. Is that irrelevant?
Not irrelevant, but it has to be established rather than asserted, and it has to be connected to the data. A finding by a competent body that the proceedings were unfair is far more useful than a detailed account of what went wrong.
Should I wait for the national courts before filing?
Often yes. A pending appeal that may produce a favourable finding is frequently worth more than an early request that spends the argument before the evidence exists.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.