Who can request an Interpol Red Notice?

A state's criminal justice system reaches only so far as its own borders. When an individual wanted for prosecution crosses into another country, the requesting authorities have one principal option within INTERPOL's system: ask for a Red Notice. Understanding who, precisely, sits behind that request is the first step in assessing whether the notice has any weakness worth pursuing.

Only INTERPOL's member countries – acting through their designated National Central Bureaux – can formally request an INTERPOL Red Notice. A notice is not an international arrest warrant and not a judicial decision. It is a request, circulated to all member states, to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition or similar lawful action. No international court, private body or commercial entity can initiate one.

This page explains the requesting mechanism in plain terms, what a diffusion is and how it differs, and what any of this means if a notice has been issued against you or someone you advise. As of mid-2025, this remains the correct characterisation under INTERPOL's Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data (the RPD).

Which bodies can formally request a Red Notice?

Every request originates with a National Central Bureau (NCB) – the designated liaison office that each INTERPOL member state operates within its own law-enforcement structure. A prosecutor, an investigating judge, or a police authority that wants a notice issues the request domestically. The NCB then submits it to INTERPOL's General Secretariat in Lyon for review and circulation.

The General Secretariat is not a rubber stamp. It reviews each submission against the RPD's data-quality and data-accuracy requirements, and against the constitutional standards set by INTERPOL's own rules. A notice can be refused at this stage if the file is deficient or raises an obvious compliance problem. In practice, though, the General Secretariat operates under real volume pressure, and some notices that should not pass do pass.

The requesting authority must be a member state's competent judicial or prosecutorial body. Interpol itself does not decide guilt, and the General Secretariat is not a court. A notice reflects only that one member state has asked for assistance locating a person – nothing more.

What is a diffusion, and who can issue one?

A diffusion is a separate alert mechanism that sits alongside the formal notice system but operates differently. Where a Red Notice must pass through the General Secretariat's review, a diffusion is circulated directly by a National Central Bureau to selected member states – or to all of them – without the same central clearance step.

The same category of body issues diffusions: NCBs acting on behalf of their national authorities. The lower procedural threshold makes diffusions easier to obtain, and in our practice we see them used precisely when a requesting state suspects a formal notice might attract scrutiny. A diffusion can also be challenged before the CCF (the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files), and that challenge often raises the same substantive grounds as a Red Notice challenge.

The distinction matters. A diffusion is not a Red Notice, but it produces many of the same practical consequences – border alerts, banking impacts, and reputational damage – and it is subject to the same rules on data accuracy, processing conditions, and the grounds for removal under the RPD.

Does a requesting state's motive affect the validity of the notice?

Yes, directly. INTERPOL's Constitution places two explicit limits on the use of the notice system. Article 3 bars any involvement in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character. Article 2 requires that INTERPOL's activities respect human rights, in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When a requesting state uses a notice to pursue someone for what is, in substance, a political prosecution dressed as an ordinary criminal matter, both provisions are engaged. In our CCF practice, we regularly see files where the stated charge is fraud or embezzlement but the background shows a selective prosecution driven by political conflict, business rivalry or a change of government.

The motive of the requesting authority is therefore directly relevant to whether the notice should stand. It is not enough to assert political character: the file before the CCF must evidence it. That means documents, procedural history, objective country-conditions material, and a legal argument that links each element to the applicable standard. A weak file at the first submission is damaging – there is no appeal against a CCF decision, and a review built on new elements must be constructed with care.

This is also where a data check can be valuable before a notice is issued. If you have reason to believe that a state intends to request a notice, an access request to the CCF can establish whether INTERPOL already holds data about you. We build that kind of pre-emptive picture routinely – our data-check service explains the process.

The steps above are the general picture. Whether any of this applies to your situation turns on the specific requesting state, the nature of the charges, and the underlying facts. That is exactly what a confidential assessment examines.

For an honest view of the prospects, or to begin a Red Notice challenge, contact us at info@northlarkfirm.com. You can also reach us via a secure channel (Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp).

Can you simply wait for a notice to expire?

This is one of the most persistent misconceptions in this area. The short answer is no. Red Notices do not expire on a fixed schedule. They remain in circulation for as long as the underlying criminal proceedings are active and the requesting state maintains the request. Some are reviewed periodically, but periodic review is not the same as automatic deletion.

The practical impact of waiting is significant. Banks close accounts first and ask questions later. Travel becomes unpredictable. Contracts and professional licences come under pressure. None of these consequences pause while you wait to see what the requesting state does next.

A challenge – whether through a formal CCF deletion request, a diffusion challenge, or coordinated extradition defence – requires active preparation. Our Red Notice removal service sets out the full process, including the honest CCF timelines and what the outcome depends on. And if the political character of the underlying prosecution is the core ground, our analysis of the Article 3 political-offence ground provides the legal foundation in depth.

Related

• Data Check – establish what INTERPOL holds about you before you travel
• Red Notice Removal – the CCF process, grounds, timelines and realistic prospects
• Article 3 – Political Offence Ground – the constitutional bar on politically-motivated notices

Frequently asked questions

What is the short answer?

Only INTERPOL member states can request a Red Notice, doing so through their National Central Bureau. The General Secretariat reviews the request before circulation. No court, private body or international institution outside this system can issue one. A Red Notice is a request to locate and provisionally detain – it is not an arrest warrant and does not establish guilt.

Does this create any obligation to arrest me?

No. A Red Notice does not oblige any country to arrest. Each member state decides what, if any, action to take under its own national law. Some states routinely detain on the basis of a notice; others treat it as intelligence only. The obligation – or absence of one – depends entirely on the law of the state where you are located at the time.

Where does this sit in the CCF process?

The CCF is the independent body that reviews the data INTERPOL processes about individuals. If you believe a notice or diffusion is unlawful – because it fails the RPD's data-quality requirements, or violates Article 2 or Article 3 of the Constitution – you can submit a deletion request. A deletion request is to be decided within nine months of being found admissible. There is no appeal if the first request fails; a review requires new elements.

NORTHLARK is an independent international practice focused on INTERPOL proceedings and related extradition matters. 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. Our team builds CCF files on INTERPOL's own rules, not on promises of outcome.

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). Write to us at info@northlarkfirm.com.