Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution requires the organisation to act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In practice this ground succeeds when the risk is documented by someone other than the applicant — a court, a medical professional, a state that has already examined the case — and fails when it rests on general criticism of the requesting country. Five of the eight published decisions in this family ended with the data deleted.
What persuades: a finding by another state’s court
The strongest pattern in the record is corroboration from an independent judicial body. In two decisions the Commission held that the conclusions of another country’s court about the risks the person would face on extradition cannot be ignored in its own review. In one of them that assessment was reinforced by the fact that a long detention had never produced an extradition because the requesting authorities missed the deadline for the documents; in the other, by earlier interim findings on the political character of the case. In both the data were found non-compliant.
Health as a ground, and its limits
Two decisions, opposite outcomes, and the difference is evidential.
- Deleted. Medical professionals warned that the extradition journey itself risked life-threatening, irreparable harm, and no response explained palliative measures or alternatives. The Commission doubted the data could retain a valid purpose within the spirit of the Declaration.
- Maintained. The applicant relied on his health and age but produced nothing certifying that his right to health was threatened or that the treatment he needed was unavailable — and had said he trusted the care he was receiving. Whether his condition bars extradition was left to the national authorities.
Defence rights after surrender
A 2024 decision shows how Article 2 and the bureau’s silence combine. The applicant’s requests for a retrial and his appeals had all been rejected in his absence, which raised the question whether he would retain any right to a retrial or an appeal if surrendered. The Commission asked the bureau to confirm the position. It did not reply. That silence, together with doubts about the seriousness of the offence, cumulatively raised concern over compliance with Article 2.
What fails under Article 2
- General country reports. Criticism of a legal system by outside organisations that does not address the applicant’s own prosecution cannot establish a violation: the Commission works from information specific to the person concerned.
- Freedom of movement. Article 13 of the Declaration is not infringed by the mere issuance of a valid notice or diffusion; that right is subject to lawful, necessary and proportionate limits under Article 29.
- Assertion without documents. Across this family, every successful application rested on a document produced by a third party — a judgment, a medical report, a refusal of extradition — rather than on the applicant’s own account.
The decisions
The eight published decisions whose reasoning turns primarily on Article 2. Where a case was also political, its home is the Article 3 page; where the objection was to the conduct of proceedings, see procedural grounds.
8 decisions
-
Article 2-Torture and mistreatments · Lack of action for extradition
The findings of another state's judicial body on the risks of extradition, together with a long detention that never led to extradition because the requesting authorities missed the deadline for the documents, formed a body of corroborating evidence making retention incompatible with the spirit of the Universal Declaration.
2) Decides, upon revision, that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Access to files · Article 2-Right to life
The same corroboration approach: an independent judicial body's assessment of the risks on extradition, combined with earlier interim findings on the political character of the case, made the data non-compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Article 2-Right to security in sickness · Lack of action for extradition
Health and age may bar an extradition, but that assessment belongs to national authorities: absent elements certifying that the right to health was threatened or that the needed treatment was unavailable — and where the applicant said he trusted the care he was receiving — the Commission could not find the data non-compliant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the following update of the Applicant’s file: the informati
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Article 2-Right to security in sickness
Where medical professionals warned of potentially life-threatening, irreparable harm from the extradition journey itself and no response explained palliative measures or alternatives, the Commission held that the data could no longer maintain a valid purpose within the spirit of the Universal Declaration.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Article 2-Right to life · Ne bis in idem
Multiple national decisions declining to cooperate on the case raised serious concerns about the coherence of the charges and the applicant's effective personal participation, which together with earlier Article 2 doubts made the data non-compliant.
Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files .
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Article 2-Right to movement within a state · Trial in absentia
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration is not infringed by the mere issuance of a valid diffusion: freedom of movement is subject to lawful, necessary and proportionate limitations under Article 29, and the notice rests on an order of a competent authority.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Accuracy-Quality · Article 2 · Family matter · Seriousness
The bureau's silence on whether the applicant would retain any right to a retrial or an appeal after surrender — his earlier requests having been rejected in his absence — combined with doubts about the seriousness of the offence, raised cumulative concern under Article 2.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Accuracy-Quality · Article 2
General reports and outside criticism of a country's legal system that do not address the applicant's own prosecution cannot establish a violation of Article 2: the Commission works from information specific to the person concerned.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
No decisions match these filters.
What this means for an application
Do not lead with the country’s reputation. Lead with a document about you: a court decision refusing extradition or describing the risk, a medical report that ties a specific condition to the specific journey or detention, an asylum decision, a record of proceedings held in your absence. Then ask the Commission to put the one question the bureau has to answer — in the published record, the bureau’s failure to answer has decided more cases than any argument. See how we build the application.
Article 2: common questions
Is a bad human-rights record in the requesting country enough?
No. The Commission does not act on general reports or on outside criticism of a legal system that does not address your own prosecution. What has worked is documentation specific to you — most often a finding by another state’s court about the risk you would face.
Can illness prevent a Red Notice from being kept?
It can, but only with evidence. Where medical professionals warned that the extradition journey risked irreparable, life-threatening harm and no alternative was offered, the data were removed. Where health and age were asserted without certification, the Commission left the question to national authorities.
Does a refusal of extradition by another country help?
Often decisively. The Commission has held that it cannot ignore the conclusions of another state’s independent judicial body about the risks of extradition, and has treated such findings as corroborating evidence that the data should not be kept.
Does a Red Notice violate my freedom of movement?
Not as such. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration is subject to lawful, necessary and proportionate limitations under Article 29, and a valid notice rests on an order made by a competent authority.
I was convicted in my absence and refused a retrial. Is that an Article 2 point?
Yes, and a strong one when the bureau will not clarify it. In a 2024 decision the applicant’s requests for a retrial had been rejected in his absence, the bureau did not answer the Commission’s question about his rights after surrender, and that silence contributed to the data being found non-compliant.