Stopped and searched at an airport, his passport seized because it appeared in INTERPOL’s stolen-and-lost-travel-document database as revoked. He asked why. The requesting bureau cited the wrong legal provision, then went silent when asked for the actual revocation decision and the arrest warrant behind it. The Commission deleted the record.
A different kind of data — but the same standard
This catalogue is dominated by Red Notices and Diffusions, but the same rules of accuracy and lawful basis apply to an entry in the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database. Here the applicant’s passport had been recorded as revoked, and border police detained the document when it matched that INTERPOL record during ordinary travel. He denied any involvement in criminal activity and argued the revocation had no lawful basis.
A citation that did not fit the facts
Asked to explain the legal basis for the revocation, the bureau pointed to a provision that, on examination, concerned the issuance of passports — not their cancellation. That mismatch alone raised a real question about whether the revocation had a coherent legal foundation at all.
The documents that were never produced
- Given the incoherent citation, the Commission moved to the next natural question: what were the specific, legitimate reasons for revoking this particular passport?
- It asked the bureau directly for a copy of the actual decision revoking the passport, and separately for a copy of the arrest warrant said to underlie the case.
- Despite repeated requests, the bureau supplied neither document.
- Because it could not confirm even the basic legal footing for the record — let alone the specific facts justifying it — the Commission held that the absence of appropriate answers itself prevented a finding of compliance.
Why silence, not innocence, decided the case
The Commission was explicit that it could resolve the matter on this basis alone, and did not need to reach the applicant’s own claim of innocence at all. The lesson generalises well beyond passport records: when a bureau is asked for the specific instrument behind a piece of data — the warrant, the court order, the revocation decision — and does not produce it after repeated opportunities, that absence itself becomes the basis for deletion, independent of whatever else either side argues.
What this decision teaches
- SLTD and other database entries are reviewed on the same footing as notices. A passport record needs a coherent legal basis and supporting documentation just as a Red Notice does.
- A citation to the wrong legal provision is a real defect, not a technicality. If the law cited governs issuance rather than cancellation, that mismatch is worth pointing out explicitly.
- Ask, specifically, for the underlying decision. A general assertion that a document exists is not the same as producing it, and repeated non-production is itself a ground for deletion.
- You do not need to prove your innocence to win this kind of case. Where the bureau cannot establish a lawful basis for the record at all, the Commission can dispose of the matter without ever reaching the merits of the underlying allegation.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2019-04 · 2019 · SLTD (passport) · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your travel document has been flagged in INTERPOL’s databases, ask the source bureau directly for the actual revocation decision and any warrant behind it — not just a description of one. Tell us what happened when your document was flagged and we will help you frame that request.
Passport records in the SLTD database
Does a passport listed as revoked in INTERPOL’s database need the same legal justification as a Red Notice?
Yes. The same requirement for a lawful basis and sufficient supporting information applies to entries in the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database.
What if the bureau cites a law that does not actually cover cancellation?
That mismatch is a real, checkable defect. A citation to a provision governing the issuance of documents does not establish the lawfulness of a decision to revoke one.
What happens if a bureau simply does not respond to requests for the underlying decision?
Repeated failure to produce the actual revocation decision or the arrest warrant behind a record has, by itself, been enough to prevent the Commission from finding the data compliant.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.