A notice removed for inaccuracy of the underlying data

A single border check can change everything. One moment a person is in transit. The next, an officer's screen flags an INTERPOL alert and the question of a provisional arrest becomes immediate and real. In our practice, we see this scenario regularly – and what follows in the hours after a stop is shaped almost entirely by decisions made long before the crossing.

This anonymised matter concerned a Red Notice that was removed on the ground that the underlying data held by INTERPOL was factually inaccurate. A Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is not an arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. Where the data supporting the notice does not withstand scrutiny under the RPD's data-accuracy requirements, deletion is a realistic outcome – though no honest practitioner guarantees it.

What follows is the situation as we encountered it, the strategy we built, and the outcome. All identifying details have been removed.

The situation

Our client was an entrepreneur operating across several jurisdictions. A Red Notice had been issued at the request of a national bureau in a jurisdiction where a commercial dispute had, over time, been characterised as a criminal matter. The client had become aware of the notice not through any formal notification – INTERPOL does not routinely notify subjects – but after a banking relationship was suspended and a travel query returned an unexpected result.

By the time the client came to us, the notice had been active for some time. An earlier, self-prepared submission to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files had been filed but had not succeeded. The file as submitted was thin: it asserted the notice was unjust but offered limited documentary support for that position. Filing to the CCF yourself rarely fixes a weak first submission, and a weak first file makes any subsequent review harder to mount. There is no appeal against a CCF decision; a fresh request requires new elements, and those elements must be assembled with care.

The strategy: examining the data at its source

Our starting point was not the merits of the underlying criminal allegation. It was the accuracy of the data INTERPOL was processing.

The RPD's data-accuracy requirements are exacting. The data INTERPOL holds must be accurate, it must be current, and the basis on which it was provided by the requesting bureau must be capable of verification. In this matter, a detailed review of the publicly available record in the originating jurisdiction revealed a series of material discrepancies between what the requesting bureau had stated in its notice request and what the documentary record showed.

Specifically, the procedural stage of the domestic proceedings had been misrepresented. The requesting bureau had described a stage of proceedings that had, in fact, not yet been reached under the applicable domestic law. The result was that a core factual predicate of the notice – the claim that the subject was wanted in connection with an active judicial process at a particular stage – was not supported by the evidence.

We built the CCF file around this discrepancy. The submission did not argue politics or motive. It argued data: what was stated, what the record showed, and why the gap between the two brought the notice into conflict with the RPD's data-quality and processing conditions. We supported every assertion with primary documentation drawn from the originating jurisdiction's own public record, coordinating with allied counsel in that jurisdiction to verify the chain of evidence.

In an analogous matter (a MENA-origin notice, spring 2025), we used the same methodology – a granular audit of the procedural claims in the notice against the domestic record – and obtained deletion after the CCF accepted that the data did not meet the accuracy standard. In a separate matter (a CIS-origin notice, autumn 2024), the same approach revealed that the predicate offence had been reclassified by a domestic court in a way that had not been communicated to INTERPOL, producing a comparable result.

The outcome

The CCF accepted the file. The notice was deleted.

The RPD provides that a deletion request is, once found admissible, to be decided within nine months. In this matter, the decision came within that window. The client was informed through INTERPOL's standard procedure, and the banking position was subsequently addressed using the CCF's confirmation as the evidential foundation.

We are careful not to overstate what this outcome means. A deletion on data-inaccuracy grounds does not resolve the underlying domestic proceedings in the originating jurisdiction; those continue under that state's own law. What it removes is INTERPOL's involvement – the circulation of the notice, the risk of provisional arrest at a border, and the downstream consequences for banking and travel that the notice was producing.

The honest observation from this matter is that the strongest CCF files are rarely the most ambitious. A narrow, evidenced argument grounded in the RPD's own accuracy standard – supported by primary documentation rather than assertion – regularly outperforms a broad attack on the political character of a prosecution. Both grounds exist. The data route works where the record supports it.

Related

• Red Notice removal – the CCF process from first assessment to deletion
• Extradition defence – acting at the first hearing and beyond, worldwide
• Data inaccuracy as a ground – how the RPD's accuracy standard applies in practice

Frequently asked questions

What are my options from here?

The options depend on where the matter stands. If no CCF request has been filed, a well-constructed submission on data-accuracy grounds – supported by primary documentation – is the natural first step. If a prior request was refused, the absence of any appeal means a fresh submission requires genuinely new elements. In parallel, extradition risk in any country you travel through needs to be assessed under that state's own law. Both tracks often need to run together.

How long might this take?

Under the applicable rules, a deletion request is to be decided within nine months of the request being found admissible. In practice, the admissibility stage itself takes time, and the overall process from initial submission to a decision can extend considerably beyond nine months. An access request – to confirm whether INTERPOL holds data – is to be answered within four months. Preparing a strong file before submission reduces the risk of delay caused by requests for additional information.

What decides the outcome?

The quality of the file. A CCF submission that asserts a ground without evidencing it rarely succeeds. The submissions that work are those where every factual claim is supported by primary documentation, where the argument maps precisely onto the RPD's requirements – data accuracy, data quality, processing conditions – and where discrepancies in the requesting bureau's own statements are demonstrated rather than inferred. A weak first file lowers the prospects for any review, since there is no appeal.

NORTHLARK is an independent international boutique. We act before the CCF and in extradition proceedings worldwide, without affiliation to any other firm or network. We act only on lawful mandates. We do not assist anyone in evading legitimate justice, and we take on a matter only where we see genuine grounds. The first assessment is confidential. Our enquiry form does not require your real name, and you can reach us through a secure channel – Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp. To discuss the grounds in your matter, write to us at info@northlarkfirm.com.