He argued a warning notice from sixteen years ago, for a sentence already served, had outlived any purpose. The Commission disagreed — a Green Notice warns about future risk, not past punishment, and his gang membership still supported that warning. A completely separate notice against him, from a different country, had already been quietly deleted for an entirely different reason.
A warning notice is not a punishment notice
His argument had an intuitive appeal: the sentence was served, the underlying acts were sixteen years old, so what purpose could the notice still serve? The Commission’s answer draws out what a Green Notice is actually for, as distinct from a Red Notice or Diffusion. It exists to warn member countries about a person’s criminal activities where they remain a possible continuing threat to public safety — a conclusion that has to rest on an assessment by a competent authority, grounded in a prior conviction or comparable reasonable grounds, with enough supporting detail to make the warning meaningful.
- The bureau confirmed the conviction, described his membership in an organised gang, and explained the offence underlying that conviction with enough specificity to support its assessment.
- It stated plainly that he continued to be considered a threat to public safety, which other member countries needed to be warned about.
- The passage of time and the completion of a sentence did not, on these facts, undo the ongoing threat assessment — a served sentence answers punishment, not necessarily future risk.
A second, unrelated notice that resolved itself
At the time he brought his complaint, he was separately the subject of a different notice from another country, based on charges he said had already lapsed under that country’s own statute of limitations. He was right, and it required no fight before the Commission at all: while his request was pending, the requesting bureau itself asked INTERPOL’s General Secretariat to delete that data, after its own national authorities confirmed the limitation claim was accurate. His arguments about that notice simply became moot.
What this decision teaches
- A Green Notice answers a different question than a Red Notice. It asks whether a person remains a plausible risk going forward, not whether a specific punishment has been completed — so “time served” does not carry the same force it might elsewhere.
- Gang or organised-group membership is treated as ongoing context supporting a threat assessment. It is not simply historical background once a conviction is served — it speaks to future risk.
- Sometimes an argument resolves itself before the Commission needs to rule on it. Where a limitation claim is genuinely sound, requesting bureaux can and do act on it directly, without a formal Commission order being necessary.
- Two separate notices from two different countries need two separate analyses. Success on one does not automatically affect the other, and each has to be argued on its own facts and its own instrument.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2023-06 · 2023 · Green Notice · data maintained. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If you are challenging a Green Notice on the basis that your sentence is complete, the real question is whether you remain a plausible threat going forward, not whether the punishment itself has ended. Tell us what the notice says about ongoing risk and we will tell you whether that argument is available to you.
Green Notices after a sentence is served
I have already served my sentence. Should the Green Notice against me be deleted?
Not automatically. A Green Notice exists to warn about a continuing threat to public safety, which is a different question from whether a specific punishment has been completed.
Does membership in a gang or organised group matter after a conviction is served?
Yes, it can be treated as ongoing context supporting an assessment of continuing risk, rather than something that becomes irrelevant once a sentence ends.
If charges against me have lapsed under a statute of limitations elsewhere, do I need a Commission order to have that notice removed?
Not always. Where the claim is genuinely sound, a requesting bureau can ask INTERPOL’s General Secretariat to delete the data directly once its own authorities confirm the limitation has run.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.