IN PROTECTING REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS, THE COMMISSION FOR THE CONTROL OF INTERPOL’S FILES LOOKS BEYOND INTERPOL’S REFUGEE-ASYLUM-SEEKER POLICY

In late 2014 – early 2015, INTERPOL introduced its refugee-asylum-seeker policy according to which “in general, the processing of Red Notices and diffusions against refugees will not be allowed if the following conditions are met: the status of a refugee or asylum-seeker has been confirmed, the notice/diffusion has been requested by the country where the individual fears persecution, and the granting of the refugee status is not based on political grounds vis-à-vis the requesting country.”  Since its adoption, the policy has become a true lifeline for many individuals targeted by abusive government requests disseminated via INTERPOL’s channels.  It is arguably the most straightforward way to fight an abusive Red Notice or diffusion.

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files has very rarely publicly opined on its application of the refugee-asylum-seeker policy.  Until recently, the Commission’s decision not to grant the relief provided by the policy to individuals who challenge government requests after they become the nationals of countries that have granted them asylum has been the most notable development.  In my opinion, this decision to limit the application of the policy is wrong.  This issue, however, deserves special attention, and I will give my reasoning in another publication.  Today, I want to discuss the Commission’s recent disclosure in which it signals its willingness to protect refugees and asylum-seekers from INTERPOL abuse even when the refugee-asylum-seeker policy does not apply.

In the disclosure, the Commission describes a case of an individual targeted by a Red Notice which also involves three different countries: (1) the country-source of data (the Red Notice), (2) the country of the individual’s nationality, and (3) the country that has granted him refugee status because of persecution in the country of his nationality and refused to extradite him to the country-source of data, citing possible violations of his fundamental rights by the latter if he is extradited.  In this regard, it is important to remember that under the second prong of the INTERPOL refugee-asylum-seeker policy, it applies to “notice[s]/diffusion[s] requested by the country where the individual fears persecution” (emphasis added).  Because the country of the individual’s nationality, whose conduct became the reason for the decision to grant the individual refugee status, was not the source of data in this case, the Commission refused to apply the policy and delete the Red Notice on this basis.  At the same time, the Commission did not ignore the individual’s refugee status either.

Following its consideration of all available evidence, the Commission, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, ruled in the individual’s favor, citing, among other reasons, his refugee status.  In this regard, the Commission reasoned that although the INTERPOL refugee-asylum-seeker policy did not apply stricto sensu in this case, the fact that the individual was granted asylum could still serve as evidence, an “aggravating factor,” as the Commission put it, that INTERPOL’s involvement in the case may lead to a violation of Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution.