Extradited to his own country to face the same charges, he was ultimately discharged there for lack of evidence — and still remained wanted in the country that had first sought him. Two states each blamed the other for failing to cooperate, and the Commission left the standoff exactly where it found it: unresolved between the states, but not a reason to remove the notice.
A discharge that did not travel
After his extradition request in a third country was refused in favour of a competing request from his own country of nationality, he was sent there instead — and was ultimately discharged in those proceedings for lack of evidence. He argued the original requesting country’s alert had therefore lost its purpose entirely, particularly since his own government now held primary jurisdiction and continued to monitor him directly.
A jurisdictional standoff, documented in detail from both sides
What makes this decision unusually valuable is how thoroughly it exposes the mechanics of a stalled transfer-of-proceedings dispute. Each country pointed to specific, dated requests the other had ignored or refused: his home country’s prosecutor had asked for the proceedings to be formally transferred and been refused; had asked to use evidence gathered abroad in its own domestic case and been refused that too; and had made further, still-unanswered requests for a transfer and for supporting evidence. The original requesting country, for its part, explained that it refused a transfer because a lead defendant held its own nationality, and separating the case against this applicant from his interconnected co-defendants would damage the coherence of the whole prosecution.
- A known location, combined with parallel proceedings in a person’s home country, does not by itself defeat a notice’s purpose where the original requesting state continues taking active steps of its own — here, a formal extradition request to a third country and repeated demands for cooperation from the home country.
- Discharge for lack of evidence in one country’s proceedings does not automatically end a separately maintained prosecution over the same conduct in another country — the two cases remain legally distinct absent a formal transfer.
- Where two states each accuse the other of failing to cooperate, the Commission has been clear that resolving that inter-state dispute is not its role; the conflict of jurisdiction belongs to the states themselves.
The remedy that followed: transparency, not removal
Rather than choosing a side in the jurisdictional dispute, the Commission ordered a caveat added to the file recording the plain facts: that the applicant had been extradited for prosecution over the same conduct and had been discharged there for lack of evidence. That single addition gives any officer who later encounters the notice the full, honest picture, without the Commission purporting to resolve a dispute between two sovereign prosecuting authorities.
What this decision teaches
- Being discharged in one country does not erase a live prosecution in another. Absent a formal transfer, the two proceedings are legally separate, however connected the underlying facts.
- A jurisdictional standoff between two states is not the Commission’s dispute to resolve. It will document the standoff honestly rather than pick a winner.
- Document every specific request and refusal between the states involved. A precise, dated record of who asked what and who refused is exactly the kind of material that shapes how the Commission frames a caveat.
- A caveat recording a discharge is a real, obtainable remedy even where deletion is not. It ensures the full context travels with the notice, which can matter enormously if you are ever stopped on its basis.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2023-10 · 2023 · Diffusion · 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 have been discharged or acquitted in one country while still wanted by another for the same conduct, that outcome may not remove the notice — but it can be added to the file as a caveat, which is worth pursuing in its own right. Send us the discharge decision and the notice and we will tell you what caveat is realistically available.
Discharged at home, still wanted abroad
I was discharged in my own country for the same facts. Does the original notice have to go?
Not automatically. Without a formal transfer of proceedings between the two countries, the cases remain legally distinct, and the original notice can survive even after a discharge elsewhere.
Two countries blame each other for failing to cooperate on my case. Can the Commission force a resolution?
No. It has been explicit that resolving a jurisdictional dispute between two sovereign states is not its role — it will document the situation rather than decide who is right.
What can I realistically get if the notice itself will not be deleted?
A caveat recording the outcome of your other proceedings — such as a discharge for lack of evidence — added to the file, so that anyone encountering the notice later sees the full picture.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.