Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution forbids the organisation from any intervention in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character. It is the ground most often argued against a Red Notice, and the one that most often succeeds: of the 19 published decisions that engage it, 10 ended with the data deleted. What decides them is not the label an applicant puts on the case but a structured weighing exercise the Commission calls the predominance test.
The predominance test, and the three factors it turns on
A prosecution is rarely purely political or purely criminal. The Commission therefore asks whether the political elements predominate over the ordinary criminal-law elements. Article 34(3) of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data requires all relevant factors to be analysed, and across the published decisions three recur as decisive:
- The nature of the offence — the charges themselves and the facts said to underlie them.
- The status of the person concerned — whether they hold or held political office, lead an opposition movement, work as a journalist, and so on.
- The general context of the case — the timing of the charges, the wider political situation, and what independent bodies have said about the prosecution.
Status is only one of the three, and it is not decisive on its own. In one 2018 decision the applicant was neither a politician nor a former politician, yet the data were still deleted because the criminal character of the offence was doubtful and the surrounding context was political. In another, membership of an opposition party did not save the application, because the acts charged had been committed in a corporate role and the file showed concrete personal gain.
What the Commission will not do
Applications fail on this point more often than on any other. The Commission is not empowered to conduct an investigation, weigh evidence, or determine the merits of a case — that is the role of the national authorities at trial or in extradition proceedings. It reviews whether the processing of data complies with INTERPOL’s rules, and it decides on information specific to the case in front of it.
The practical consequence is blunt: general material about a country does not win an Article 3 case. Human-rights reports on a judicial system, press articles about unrelated incidents, and extradition refusals granted to other people accused in the same affair have all been held insufficient. So has the bare assertion that a prosecution is political, however plausible the wider context.
What has actually persuaded the Commission
Reading the successful decisions together, the material that moved the outcome was almost always specific, documentary and external to the applicant:
- Prior findings by courts and tribunals. Where national courts, international bodies and arbitral tribunals had already found the wider prosecution politically motivated, the Commission held the political elements predominant and treated the political context and the fairness of the proceedings as inseparable.
- A judgment from the same court that issued the warrant. A later ruling dismissing the prosecution case and criticising the investigation carried strong weight even while under appeal.
- Inaction after an arrest. Where a journalist was detained abroad on the notice and the requesting authorities then never lodged an extradition request or explained why, the Commission found that keeping the data risked INTERPOL being perceived as facilitating politically motivated activity.
- Criticism by international institutions. UN reporting and statements by press-freedom organisations about the specific prosecution were relied on expressly.
- Evidence tainted by torture. Statements obtained through torture may not be invoked as evidence, and the Commission will examine whether a case rests on such material even though it does not assess evidence as a trial court would.
Two further patterns are worth noting because they sit next to Article 3 rather than inside it. Several political cases were won on the underlying paperwork — a decision that was not an arrest warrant within the meaning of Article 83(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules on the Processing of Data, or a description of criminal activity that never identified the person’s own acts, role or benefit. And in one case the requesting bureau’s refusal to disclose the material behind the notice, without justifying the restriction or accepting any counter-balancing measure, was itself held to breach the applicant’s rights.
Religion, refugee status and the same test
Article 3 covers religious character on the same terms. A religious dimension to a case is not enough; the applicant must show the religious elements predominate. In the one published religious-character decision the notice stood, because the requesting bureau supplied a proper public-safety assessment behind it.
Protective status obtained abroad is frequently argued alongside Article 3, and it does not operate automatically. In a 2023 decision the Commission held that protective status did not by itself trigger INTERPOL’s refugee policy, and that generalised claims about a country’s judicial system or about tensions between two states did not show the flagrant human-rights violation Article 2 requires — those arguments belong before the extradition judge.
The decisions
Every published excerpt engaging political, religious or refugee grounds, with the outcome and the Commission’s reasoning. The full anonymised document is attached to each entry.
19 decisions
-
Lack of action for extradition · Political character
General country reports, and extradition refusals granted to other people in the same case, do not establish that this applicant's own prosecution is political. The Commission will not assess a country's judicial system at large; it decides on information specific to the case before it.
Concludes that the data challenged is compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data subject to the recommendations below;
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Lack of action for extradition · Political character
Proximity to an ousted head of state and the timing of charges after a change of regime were not enough on their own. The Commission also held that issuing a valid Red Notice does not in itself infringe the freedom-of-movement right in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration, which is subject to lawful and proportionate limits.
Concludes that the data challenged is compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the recommendations below.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Due process · Political character · Trial in absentia
Where several national courts, international bodies and arbitral tribunals had already found the wider prosecution politically motivated, the political elements predominated over the ordinary-crime elements. The Commission treated political context and the fairness of the proceedings as inseparable and deleted the data without reaching the remaining arguments.
Concludes that the data challenged are not 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
-
Due process · Political character
Acquittal on some of the charges showed the trial court had not accepted the prosecution evidence uncritically. General reports on torture and prison conditions, and press coverage of an unrelated incident, could not establish a violation of Article 2 in this applicant's case.
Decides that the data challenged are compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, subject to the update of the Applicant’s file.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Political character · Private matter
Conduct that originates in a breach of civil or administrative rules can still be criminal for INTERPOL's purposes. The requesting bureau showed the charges had been brought lawfully and within its jurisdiction, so the Commission could not treat the matter as an essentially private dispute.
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
-
Lack of action for extradition · Lawfulness-Validity of proceedings · Political character
The judicial decision underlying the notice was not an arrest warrant within the meaning of Article 83(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules on the Processing of Data. That the earlier Red Notice had itself been used to obtain the later decision added to the doubts, and together with weak evidence of participation and political elements the data were found non-compliant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged 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
-
Religious character
A religious dimension to a case is not enough by itself: the applicant must show that religious elements predominate over the ordinary criminal elements. The Green Notice stood because the requesting bureau supplied a proper public-safety assessment supporting the warning.
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
-
Lack of action for extradition · Lawfulness-Validity of proceedings · Political character
The decision relied on was not an arrest warrant within the meaning of Article 83(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules on the Processing of Data, and the first Red Notice had been used in obtaining the later judicial decision. Combined with doubts over the applicant's effective participation and the political elements around the proceedings, the data were found non-compliant.
Decides that the data challenged 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
-
Lawfulness-Validity of proceedings · Political character · Purpose
A later judgment of the very court that had issued the arrest warrant, dismissing the prosecution case and criticising the investigation, carried strong weight even though it was under appeal. Read with doubts about an underlying private dispute and the political context, it tipped the balance to deletion.
Decides that the data challenged 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
-
Due process · Political character · Purpose
Applying the predominance test, the Commission weighs the nature of the offence, the status of the person and the general context. Membership of an opposition party did not carry the case where the acts were committed in a corporate role and the file showed concrete personal gain.
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: 2.
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Access to files · Asylum-Refugee · Political character
A journalist was detained abroad on the notice, yet the requesting authorities never lodged an extradition request or explained the omission, and press-freedom bodies and UN reporting had criticised the prosecution. Maintaining the data risked INTERPOL being perceived as facilitating politically motivated activity.
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-Torture and mistreatments · Political character
Statements obtained through torture may not be invoked as evidence in criminal proceedings, and the Commission will review whether a case rests on such material even though it does not assess evidence as a trial court would. With strong political elements alongside, retention would have compromised the Organization's neutrality.
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
-
Misuse of INTERPOL channels · Political character · Status of the person
Even a Blue Notice, which seeks information rather than arrest, requires concrete elements showing the person's own participation. The file did not explain how the applicant had bribed anyone or benefited, and his post had been a political appointment.
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
-
Access to files · Political character
A bureau that withholds the material behind a notice must justify the restriction as relevant and proportionate and accept counter-balancing measures such as a redacted summary. Unexplained secrecy that leaves the applicant unable to answer the case breaches his fundamental rights.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION Decides that the data challenged are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files if the NCB of
Download decision (PDF) Source: INTERPOL, Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
-
Accuracy-Quality · Due process · Political character
Under the predominance test the person's own status is only one factor. An applicant who was never a politician still succeeded, because the criminal nature of the offence was doubtful and the general context of the case was political.
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 · Political character · Private matter
Minor discrepancies in the summary of facts or in identity particulars do not breach the data-quality requirement in Article 12 of the Rules on the Processing of Data, where they neither prevent identification nor undermine the coherence of what is necessarily an abridged statement.
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
-
Description of criminal activities · Political character · Purpose
Protective status granted abroad does not by itself trigger INTERPOL's refugee policy. Generalised claims about a country's judicial system or about tensions between states do not show the flagrant human-rights violation Article 2 requires; those arguments belong before the extradition judge.
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
-
Article 3 · Description of criminal activities · Due process · Human rights
The description of criminal activities must identify the person's specific role, acts, timing, means and any benefit. When the requesting bureau left the Commission's questions on those points unanswered despite extended deadlines, Article 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data was not satisfied.
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 3 · Misuse of Interpol_s channels
An allegation that INTERPOL's channels are being misused politically must rest on case-specific evidence. General reports about a country's use of the stolen documents database did not displace the bureau's showing that the passport had been cancelled by court order under national law.
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
The pattern across these 19 decisions is consistent enough to plan around. An Article 3 case is built from documents that speak to this prosecution: judicial findings, records of what the requesting state did or failed to do after an arrest, institutional reporting that names the case. It is not built from the general reputation of a country’s courts, however well founded that reputation may be.
The other grounds interact with it constantly — the same files were often decided on the validity of the warrant, the adequacy of the description of the offence, or access to the file. Our index of published CCF decisions covers all 65 excerpts across every ground, and the procedure for filing with the Commission is set out separately. If you are weighing whether your own file supports these arguments, our Red Notice defence team can assess it.
Article 3 and political motivation: common questions
What is the predominance test?
It is how the Commission decides whether a case is political for the purposes of Article 3 of INTERPOLu0027s Constitution. Rather than asking whether any political element exists, it weighs whether the political elements predominate over the ordinary criminal-law elements, analysing the nature of the offence, the status of the person concerned and the general context of the case.
Do human rights reports about a country prove political motivation?
On their own, no. The Commission has repeatedly held that general reports on a judicial system, press coverage of unrelated incidents and extradition refusals granted to other people in the same affair are not sufficient. It decides on information that is specific to the prosecution being challenged.
Does a person have to be a politician to win an Article 3 case?
No. Status is only one of three factors. In one published decision the applicant was neither a politician nor a former politician, and the data were still deleted, because the criminal character of the offence was doubtful and the general context of the case was political.
Does refugee or protective status automatically remove a Red Notice?
No. The Commission has held that protective status granted by another state does not by itself trigger INTERPOLu0027s policy on refugees, and that generalised claims about the requesting countryu0027s courts do not establish the flagrant human-rights violation required under Article 2. Those arguments are ordinarily for the extradition court.
How often do political-motivation challenges succeed?
Among the excerpts INTERPOL has published, 10 of the 19 decisions engaging political, religious or refugee grounds ended with the data deleted. That is not a general success rate: the Commission publishes only a selected minority of its decisions, and the selection is made for instructional value.