Article 3 forbids INTERPOL from any activity of a political, military, religious or racial character — and it is the single most important ground for deleting a Red Notice in cases of persecution. Where a prosecution is predominantly political rather than an ordinary criminal matter, the CCF can find that processing the person's data breaches the Constitution and order it deleted. The difficulty is never the principle; it is proving predominance.
"It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."— Article 3, Constitution of INTERPOL
Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution are read together. Article 2 requires the Organization to act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 3 keeps it out of political, military, religious and racial matters. Together they draw the boundary of what INTERPOL may lawfully do: cooperate on ordinary-law crimes, and nothing else.
When a member state asks INTERPOL to circulate a Red Notice, that request must stay inside the boundary. If the true character of the case is the suppression of a political opponent, a journalist or a business figure who has fallen out with the authorities, the request offends Article 3 — regardless of the criminal label attached to it.
This is why the criminal charge on the face of a notice is rarely the whole story. The CCF looks behind the label at the predominant character of the case.
The CCF does not ask merely whether a political element exists — it asks whether that element predominates over the ordinary-law nature of the case.
It considers the general context: the person's activities, the nature of the conflict, the identity of the complainant, and the political situation in the requesting state.
Recognition of protection status abroad (asylum, refugee status) carries real weight, though it is not automatically decisive.
The burden in practice falls on the applicant to build the evidential picture — the CCF has no discovery, no cross-examination and no appeal.
The principle is the easy part. Whether it works depends on the evidence behind it. We assess that honestly, before any engagement.