He argued the notice was pointless: his own country does not extradite its citizens, his address was on file with the courts, and his request to have the whole case transferred to his home country was refused. None of it moved the Commission — a country’s sovereign choice not to hand over a case to another state is not, on its own, a violation of anything.
Known address, non-extraditable nationality, and a purpose argument that still failed
He had left the requesting country years earlier, and his registered address appeared on court documents the requesting authorities themselves had issued. He argued this proved they had never genuinely tried to locate him, and that in any case his country of nationality — where he now lived — does not extradite its own citizens, making the notice futile from the outset. Documents even showed related searches against him had already been formally terminated by a separate prosecutor’s office, and no extradition request had ever actually been transmitted.
The bureau confirmed the prosecution remained valid, provided detail on his alleged participation, and — tellingly — never confirmed or denied whether an extradition request had actually been sent. Despite that silence, the Commission held to its settled position: a known address does not defeat the purpose of an arrest notice, and non-extraditable nationality does not, by itself, require cancellation, since a person may still be located and dealt with in other countries.
The transfer-of-proceedings argument, and the sovereignty answer
His stronger and more original argument was that he had formally asked for the criminal proceedings themselves to be transferred to his home country, under an applicable transfer treaty — and the request was refused, on the basis that such transfers are discretionary rather than mandatory and must be assessed case by case.
- The Commission treated the two countries as what they are: separate sovereign states, each entitled to decide for itself whether to accept a transferred prosecution.
- A discretionary refusal to accept a transfer, reasoned on a case-by-case standard rather than an arbitrary or blanket policy, is not itself contrary to INTERPOL’s rules or to international standards.
- This is a different question from an extradition refusal reasoned on human-rights risk, which the Commission treats very differently — the refusal here said nothing about the fairness of the underlying case, only that transfer was not mandatory.
What this decision teaches
- A refusal to transfer proceedings is not the same as a refusal to extradite on human-rights grounds. Only the latter tends to carry real weight before the Commission; a discretionary sovereignty-based refusal generally does not.
- Non-extraditable nationality is a limit, not an exit. It explains why one country cannot surrender you; it does not establish that the notice itself has become unlawful.
- A bureau’s silence about whether it ever sent an extradition request is a real gap — but on its own, without more, it was not enough here to overturn the presumption that the state still intends to pursue the matter.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2018-16 · 2018 · Red Notice · data maintained. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If you have asked for your case to be transferred to your home country and been refused, that refusal alone is unlikely to remove a notice — the argument needs a different foundation. Send us the transfer request and the refusal and we will tell you what else the file needs.
Non-extraditable nationals and transfer of proceedings
My country does not extradite its own citizens. Does that cancel the notice?
No, not by itself. The notice can still serve its purpose in any other country where you might be located, so non-extraditable nationality alone does not require cancellation.
I asked to have my prosecution transferred to my home country and was refused. Is that a violation?
Generally not. A country’s discretionary, case-by-case refusal to accept a transferred prosecution is treated as a sovereign choice between two separate states, not a breach of INTERPOL’s rules.
Does it matter that the requesting authorities never confirm whether they sent an extradition request?
It is a relevant gap, but on its own has not been enough to overturn a notice where the bureau otherwise confirms the prosecution remains valid and active.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.