He said the warning against him existed only because he had converted to Islam and lived somewhere his faith made him a target. The requesting bureau said he remained an active adherent of radical ideology working to overthrow public order, and that disclosure of its file would compromise an ongoing operation. The Commission kept the notice.
The two accounts
The applicant described a life disrupted by his religion: threats and cruelty tied to his faith, restrictions on Muslim worship and education where he had lived, hostile media coverage, unlawful arrests and torture of Muslims generally. He said he had joined community organisations to help fellow Muslims, had committed no illegal act, and had only learned of the Green Notice once it began causing him practical difficulty.
The requesting bureau’s account was different in kind: it said he remained an active follower of radical ideology, continuing to spread it with the aim of overthrowing the established order, and that this made him a threat to public safety, confirmed by its counter-terrorism department. The notice had been triggered when authorities learned he intended to travel abroad and might make contact with terrorist organisations there. The bureau also asked that the underlying material not be disclosed to him, on the ground that disclosure would endanger its own operational efforts.
Why a religious dimension did not decide the case
The Commission applied the same predominance test used for political-character claims, adapted to religion, and set out the factors it considered key: the nature of the offence, the applicant’s status, the position of other bureaux or international bodies, obligations under international law, and the implications for the Organization’s neutrality.
- The offence as described was of an ordinary character, and the bureau had provided enough to indicate possible effective participation.
- He was not shown to be a religious leader, and no bureau or international organisation had taken the position that the prohibition on religious cases had been breached.
- The Commission cited its own guidance directly: restrictions on religious freedom that are lawful and necessary to protect public safety, order or the rights of others do not automatically turn a case into a pure religious offence.
- The offence did not appear to compromise the neutrality the Organization is required to maintain.
The Green Notice standard, applied
Separately from the religious-character question, the Commission checked whether the warning itself met the requirements for a Green Notice: that it rest on an assessment by a competent law-enforcement or international body, grounded in a previous conviction or other reasonable grounds, with data sufficient to make the warning relevant. It found that the bureau’s submission — an assessment by police authorities, confirmed by a specialised counter-terrorism unit — met that standard.
What this decision teaches
- A religious element is a starting point, not an ending point. The rules explicitly recognise that lawful, necessary restrictions on religious practice do not automatically make a prosecution a religious one.
- General suffering described to the Commission has to translate into a specific claim about this file. Country-wide accounts of discrimination against a faith group, however documented, are background unless tied to how this warning itself was produced.
- A properly sourced threat assessment from a specialised unit is hard to displace. Where a counter-terrorism authority has made and confirmed the underlying finding, a general denial of wrongdoing rarely outweighs it.
- Non-disclosure of the bureau’s file can itself be upheld where the requesting state shows disclosure would compromise an active operation — which limits how much of the underlying material an applicant will ever see.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2017-15 · 2017 · Green Notice · data maintained. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If your notice is tied to your religion or the community you belong to, the case has to be built around what the file specifically says about you, not around conditions facing your community generally. Tell us what the notice alleges and we will tell you what evidence would actually move it.
Religious character and Green Notices
Does a Green Notice that names my religion automatically breach the rules?
No. The prohibition targets offences that are predominantly religious in character, and lawful restrictions on religious practice that protect public safety or the rights of others do not, by themselves, make a case religious for these purposes.
Can INTERPOL withhold the file behind a Green Notice from me?
Sometimes, where the requesting state shows that disclosure would compromise an ongoing operation. The Commission has upheld such restrictions rather than ordering full disclosure.
What does a Green Notice need to be valid?
An assessment by a competent law-enforcement or international authority, based on a previous conviction or other reasonable grounds, with enough supporting detail to make the warning relevant to member countries.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.