The colours of Interpol notices, explained

INTERPOL issues several categories of notice, each with a distinct colour code and a distinct purpose. Most people encounter one only when something has already gone wrong – a flag at a border, a frozen account, a call from a panicked local lawyer. Understanding what each colour actually means, and what it does not mean, is the first step towards a clear-eyed response.

The colours of INTERPOL notices, explained in plain terms: each notice is a request by a member country's national central bureau to other member states, asking them to act in a particular way. A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. No notice establishes guilt. The colour signals the nature of the request, not the severity of the underlying allegation. As of mid-2025, the system encompasses eight colour-coded notice types alongside a separate mechanism called a diffusion.

The sections below set out each colour, what it asks, and why the distinction matters – particularly if you are considering a data-check or a challenge before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF).

What does each colour actually mean?

Each colour corresponds to a specific operational request. The table below describes the eight notice types in plain English.

• Red Notice – a request to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is the most familiar colour and the most frequently mischaracterised. It does not compel any state to arrest; each country decides under its own extradition law.
• Blue Notice – a request to collect additional information about a person's identity, location or activities. There is no detention request.
• Green Notice – a warning that a person is considered by the requesting state to represent a potential danger. Often linked to prior criminal records or patterns of offending.
• Yellow Notice – a request to help locate a missing person, typically a minor. Humanitarian in character.
• Black Notice – seeks information about unidentified bodies. Humanitarian and forensic in purpose.
• Orange Notice – a warning about a person, object or event that poses a serious, immediate threat to public safety. Most commonly issued in connection with explosives or weapons.
• Purple Notice – a request to share information about criminal methods, objects, devices or concealment techniques. Not directed at a specific individual.
• Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notice – targets individuals or entities subject to UN sanctions. Published separately from the eight colour-coded series.

In our experience, clients who contact us after an unexpected border incident are almost always the subject of a Red Notice or a Blue Notice. The Red Notice triggers the provisional-detention question. The Blue Notice triggers the surveillance question. Both can be challenged before the CCF on the grounds set out in INTERPOL's own rules.

What is a diffusion, and how is it different from a notice?

A diffusion is an alert circulated directly by one national central bureau to selected or all member states, outside the formal notice system. It does not pass through INTERPOL's General Secretariat for publication. That makes it faster to issue – and, in practice, harder for the subject to detect through a standard data check.

Diffusions are used for the same operational purposes as Red Notices. A country may issue a diffusion requesting provisional arrest even when it does not have a published Red Notice. A diffusion can also be challenged before the CCF, and the same grounds under INTERPOL's Constitution and the RPD's data-accuracy and processing requirements apply. The key practical difference is that a data check must be designed to capture diffusions as well as formal notices – a superficial check that returns no published notice does not mean no alert exists.

This is one of the points we press hardest with clients. An absence of a Red Notice on a public database search is not a clean bill of health.

Which colours can actually be challenged?

Any notice or diffusion that concerns a specific individual can be reviewed by the CCF. The most common grounds are drawn from INTERPOL's Constitution and the RPD by branch:

• Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution bars processing linked to offences of a political, military, religious or racial character.
• Article 2 requires INTERPOL's activity to respect human rights, in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• The RPD's data-accuracy and data-quality requirements mean that a notice based on demonstrably inaccurate or outdated information can be challenged on those grounds alone.
• Refugee or asylum status, or a finding of non-refoulement by a competent body, is consistently relevant to a Red Notice challenge – particularly for notices of political character.

An access request to the CCF – to establish whether INTERPOL holds data about you and in what form – is, under the applicable rules, to be answered within four months of the request being found admissible. A deletion request is to be decided within nine months of admissibility. There is no appeal against a CCF decision; a fresh request requires new elements.

The colour matters here too. A Red Notice filed against someone with recognised refugee status is a different proposition from a Green Notice warning based on an old conviction. The challenge must be calibrated to the specific notice type, its legal basis and the underlying conduct alleged.

For a detailed look at the strongest legal ground for political or state-directed prosecutions, see our analysis of Article 3 political-character grounds.

A common misconception worth correcting

Many people assume that if a national court acquits them, the Red Notice automatically falls away. It does not. Deleting the notice at source – before the CCF – is a separate process from any national court result. A favourable judgment at home does not instruct INTERPOL. The CCF considers whether INTERPOL's own rules permit the continued processing of the data. These are parallel tracks, not the same track.

The corollary matters equally: a conviction in the requesting state does not mean a notice is permanently beyond challenge. Where the prosecution was politically motivated, where the underlying data is inaccurate, or where the notice continues to be processed in breach of the RPD's retention and review conditions, there are grounds to pursue regardless of the domestic outcome.

While a notice of any colour stands, the consequences are real. Travel restrictions, banking difficulties and reputational harm compound quickly. That is why timing matters – and why understanding what you are dealing with is the starting point, not a preliminary step.

If you are uncertain whether INTERPOL holds data about you, or in what form, the first practical move is to understand your options for challenging a Red Notice and, separately, to file a properly constructed access request before any travel that carries risk.

Related

• Data check service – confirm what INTERPOL holds before you travel or relocate
• Red Notice removal – grounds-based challenge and CCF file construction
• Article 3 political-character grounds – the constitutional bar on politically motivated notices

Frequently asked questions

What is the short answer?

INTERPOL uses eight colour-coded notice types, each representing a different request from a member state to other member states. Red is the most serious: a request to locate and provisionally detain with a view to extradition. No notice is an arrest warrant and no notice establishes guilt. A separate mechanism, called a diffusion, operates outside the formal notice system but carries comparable practical consequences and is equally challengeable before the CCF.

Does this create any obligation to arrest me?

A Red Notice – or any other colour – does not oblige any country to arrest you. Each state decides whether to act, and on what basis, under its own domestic law. In practice, some states detain automatically on sight of a Red Notice; others conduct a legal review first. The variation is significant and depends on the country in which you are located or travelling to. Understanding the local position before travel is an essential part of any risk assessment.

Where does this sit in the CCF process?

The CCF – the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files – is the independent body that reviews the data INTERPOL processes about individuals. An individual may file an access request to learn what data is held, or a deletion request to challenge and remove it. Under the applicable rules, access requests are to be answered within four months of admissibility; deletion requests within nine months. There is no appeal against a CCF decision, which makes the quality of the first submission critical. Our team builds files on INTERPOL's own rules, not promises.

About NORTHLARK

NORTHLARK is an independent international boutique focused on INTERPOL proceedings and cross-border extradition matters. We are not affiliated with any regional network or parent firm, which is a deliberate and protective feature for clients whose notice originates from politically sensitive jurisdictions. We act only on lawful mandates. We do not help anyone evade 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 – as well as by email at info@northlarkfirm.com. No honest practitioner guarantees a CCF or extradition result, and you should be wary of anyone who does.