A Red Notice can be deleted where the case against you is predominantly political in character. Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution forbids the organisation from any intervention in matters of a political character, and the Commission applies a predominance test: it weighs the nature of the offence, the status of the person and the general context of the case.
What the predominance test actually asks
The test comes from Article 34(3) of the Rules on the Processing of Data. Three factors are weighed together: the nature of the acts alleged, the status of the person concerned, and the general context in which the case arose. No single factor decides the outcome on its own.
This matters in practice. Being a politician does not by itself make a case political, and not being one does not prevent a finding that it is. The Commission looks at whether the political elements predominate over the ordinary criminal ones.
How the Commission has applied it
The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files publishes extracts of its decisions. In our reading of the published corpus, 16 decisions turn on this ground, and the data were deleted or blocked in 9 of them. Each decision below links to the full text on our political persecution page, where the reasoning is set out in detail.
- Findings of other courts and tribunals carry weight. Where several national courts, international bodies and arbitral tribunals had already found the wider prosecution politically motivated, the political elements predominated and the data were deleted.
- A later judgment of the issuing court itself is powerful. A judgment of the very court that had issued the arrest warrant, dismissing the prosecution case and criticising the investigation, carried strong weight.
- Status is one factor, not the test. An applicant who had never been a politician still succeeded, because the criminal nature of the allegations did not hold up.
- Silence from the requesting authorities counts against them. Where a person was detained abroad on the notice and the requesting authorities never lodged an extradition request nor explained the omission, the notice was deleted.
What we see in our own Article 3 cases
Article 3 is the ground we argue most often and win most often. Our record covers 16 decided cases in which political character was argued, and the data were deleted in 11. That is a higher proportion than the 56% we measured across the published corpus, which we read as a reflection of case selection rather than of advocacy: we take on Article 3 cases where the third-country judicial findings already exist.
For context, the two corpora agree on the headline: 49 of our requests have been decided on the merits with 24 deletions, the same 49% we measured across the 65 published decisions. The catalogue hub holds the full breakdown.
Aggregate figures only. Our clients’ files are privileged and confidential, and nothing here identifies any individual.
What tips a case one way or the other
- Judicial findings from a third country about the same prosecution — these are the strongest single category of evidence.
- Documented refugee status or asylum granted on grounds connected to the same facts.
- A timeline showing the charges followed political activity rather than preceding it.
- Reports of international bodies that address the applicant’s own case, not general country conditions.
- What does not work: general country reports alone, refusals of extradition concerning other people in the same case, or bare membership of an opposition movement where the conduct alleged is genuinely commercial.
If your case is politically coloured, the evidence you will need is documentary and takes time to assemble: judgments from third countries, asylum decisions, findings of international bodies. Start by establishing what INTERPOL actually holds about you — an access request is the first step, and we can review your documents before you file anything.
Questions about politically motivated notices
Does being a member of an opposition party make my case political?
Not on its own. It is one of the three factors in the predominance test. The Commission has deleted data where the applicant was never a politician, and maintained data where the applicant was a prominent one, because in each case it looked at whether the political elements predominated overall.
Do I need a decision from a court in another country?
It is not a formal requirement, but in the published decisions it is the most influential category of evidence. Findings by a court, tribunal or independent judicial body about the same prosecution weigh heavily.
How long does an Article 3 challenge take?
Across our record the median time from filing to decision is 14 months, with most cases falling between 11 and 18 months. The Commission decides on the documents; there are no oral hearings.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.