The requesting state had not charged him and was not yet seeking his extradition — it was invoking a mutual legal assistance treaty to bring him in as a witness. The Commission held that a Red Notice exists to pursue extradition, not to obtain someone’s transfer to assist an investigation, and found the notice premature.
What the file showed
The requesting bureau confirmed that enquiries were still in progress and that no charge had yet been brought. Rather than seeking extradition, the authorities were in the process of invoking a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) with the country where the applicant lived, for the stated purpose of transferring him to assist in the investigation or give evidence.
The applicant argued there was no offence, that the matter was commercial rather than criminal, and that despite his whereabouts being known no extradition had been sought. The bureau answered that he had played an active role in the matter under investigation and that his presence was required for that investigation to proceed — but it did not dispute that no charge existed yet or that the MLAT route, not extradition, was the one being pursued.
The rule the Commission applied
- A Red Notice may be published only when sufficient judicial data exist, including a summary of criminal activities and charges under Article 83(2)(b) of the RPD.
- Article 84(2) requires that the request be coordinated with the authorities responsible for extradition, with assurances that extradition will be sought upon arrest.
- The Commission took no view on whether the MLAT could properly be invoked in this situation — that question was for the two governments to determine.
- What it did hold is definitional: the purpose of a Red Notice is to facilitate the seeking of extradition, not to obtain a person’s transfer to assist an investigation or give evidence. That the requesting state was proceeding under an MLAT was itself an indication that the investigation had not reached the stage at which extradition could be sought.
Why this matters beyond this one case
This decision draws a bright line that is easy to miss when a case is described only by its dramatic elements — an international wanted alert, an active investigation, a serious allegation. What decides the file is a narrower, almost administrative question: has the person been charged, and is extradition actually being sought under an extradition instrument, as opposed to some other cooperation mechanism aimed at moving the person for a different purpose?
A notice issued while a country is still gathering evidence, still deciding whether to charge, or using a channel meant for evidence-gathering rather than surrender, is vulnerable on this ground alone — regardless of how serious the underlying allegation eventually turns out to be.
The evidence question this raises for anyone under investigation abroad
This decision is useful precisely because it does not depend on the merits of the underlying allegation at all. It offers a checkable, almost mechanical test that can be run before any argument about guilt or innocence: has a charge actually been laid, in the requesting state’s own procedural terms, and is the cooperation instrument in play an extradition treaty rather than something else? Bureaux sometimes issue notices early, on the theory that an investigation already under way justifies international measures. This decision says that theory is wrong as a matter of the rules themselves.
The practical step is to obtain, in writing, what stage the domestic case has actually reached — an indictment, a formal charge, a prosecutor’s decision to proceed — and what specific treaty or instrument the requesting authorities are relying on to seek any transfer. Where that instrument is not an extradition treaty, or where no charge yet exists, the notice is vulnerable on structure alone, regardless of what is eventually alleged.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2017-01 · 2017 · Red Notice · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If you are wanted through a mechanism other than an extradition request — a summons, an MLAT transfer, a request to appear as a witness — that distinction is worth establishing precisely, in the requesting state’s own terms. Send us what you have been told about the legal basis and we will tell you whether it supports a Red Notice at all.
Red Notices issued before a charge exists
Can a Red Notice be issued while I am only a witness or a person of interest?
Not properly. The instrument exists to seek arrest with a view to extradition. Where a country is instead using another mechanism — such as a mutual legal assistance treaty — to bring someone in for an investigation, that itself indicates the case has not reached the stage a Red Notice requires.
My whereabouts are known but no extradition has been requested. Does that help?
It can, if the reason is that the investigation has not progressed far enough to charge or seek extradition. The Commission read exactly that combination as showing the notice was premature.
Does it matter which cooperation treaty the country is using?
Yes. A request proceeding under a mutual legal assistance treaty, rather than an extradition treaty, points toward a purpose other than extradition, which is the only purpose a Red Notice is meant to serve.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.