Not every challenge to the description of an offence succeeds. Here the Commission found the requesting authorities had supplied enough: a summary of facts identifying the conduct, the time and the place, together with judicial documents. The request was refused and the data maintained. Knowing what “sufficient” looks like is as useful as knowing what fails.
The rule
Article 83(2)(b)(i) of the Rules on the Processing of Data allows publication only where sufficient judicial data has been provided, and defines the minimum as a summary of facts giving a succinct and clear description of the criminal activities of the wanted person, including the time and location of the alleged activity. INTERPOL’s own standards add that the facts must link the wanted person to the conduct.
The requirement is a floor, not a standard of proof. The Commission is not asking whether the allegation is true or well evidenced; it is asking whether the file says clearly enough what the person is supposed to have done.
Why the challenge failed
- The summary identified specific conduct attributed to the applicant personally, not merely participation in a scheme.
- It gave the time and the place of the alleged activity, which are express requirements of the rule.
- The requesting authorities produced the judicial documents underlying the notice when asked.
- The applicant’s objections went to whether the allegation was correct — a question the Commission does not decide.
What this decision teaches
- Test the description against the rule, not against the truth. The winning version of this argument says the file does not state what you did; the losing version says the file is wrong about what you did.
- Time and place are checkable. Where they are missing or inconsistent with the national file, that is concrete. Where they are present and consistent, this ground will not carry the case.
- A bureau that answers questions strengthens its position. The failures in this area are usually failures to respond, not failures to draft.
Taken from one of our own files. Names, the requesting state, the courts, places and dates have been removed; nothing here identifies anyone.
Before building on this ground, read the summary of facts as if you were a stranger and ask whether it tells you what this particular person did, when and where. If it does, the argument lies elsewhere in your case, and finding that out early saves a year. Send us the text and we will tell you.
When a description is sufficient
The description is short. Is that a defect?
Not by itself. The rule asks for a succinct and clear account, not a detailed one. Brevity fails only when it omits your role, the time or the place.
The facts stated are simply untrue. Does that help?
Not before the Commission, which does not weigh evidence or decide the merits. That objection belongs to the national proceedings, though a judicial finding there can later support a request here.
What if the description matches the national file exactly?
Then this ground is closed and the case has to be made on other grounds — purpose, seriousness, political character or human rights. Recognising that early is worth more than pressing it.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.