Applications forRevision
When the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) has ruled on a deletion or correction request, its decision is final. Article 42 of the CCF Statute opens one narrow exception: the discovery of a fact that could have led the CCF to a different conclusion, had it been known at the time the original request was processed.
Otherside prepares applications for revision where that new fact is genuine, documented, and strong enough to pass the CCF's admissibility test. The threshold is high and the drafting has to anticipate how every element will be tested.
View all INTERPOL legal services
What an Application for Revision Does
Decisions of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) are final. Article 42 of the CCF Statute opens one route back: the discovery of a fact that could have led the Requests Chamber to a different conclusion if it had been known when the original request was processed.
The fact has to be one that was not before the Requests Chamber when it ruled and that, had it been known then, could have led to a different conclusion. It may have existed at the time and only surfaced later, or it may have arisen after the decision (a subsequent court ruling, an asylum grant, an extradition refusal) so long as it bears on the reasoning of the original decision. All of this has to fit within the six-month window that runs from the discovery of the fact.
Under the CCF Portal procedure and the updated CCF Operating Rules in force since March 2026, a revision application opens with a two-page summary of the newly discovered fact. Full arguments follow only if the CCF considers the new fact serious enough to invite further submissions.
The Admissibility Test Under Rule 30(7)
Rule 30 of the CCF Operating Rules sets the admissibility conditions the Requests Chamber applies to every application for revision. The test is cumulative: the file has to clear each element before the Chamber will look at the substance.
A Discovered Fact
Rule 30(7)(a) requires the application to identify a fact that has been discovered. What matters is that the fact was not before the Requests Chamber when it decided the original request. The fact may have existed at that time and only come to light later, or it may have come into being after the decision (such as a later court ruling, asylum grant, or extradition refusal) so long as it bears on the reasoning of the earlier decision. Re-argument of material already before the Chamber will not qualify.
Capable of a Different Conclusion, and You Must Say Why
Rule 30(7)(a) and (b) require the fact to be one that could have led the Requests Chamber to a different conclusion, had it been known when the request was processed, and the application must indicate why. The link between the new fact and the reasoning of the earlier decision has to be made on the face of the submission.
Within Six Months of Discovery
Rule 30(7)(c) requires the application to be made within six months of the discovery of the fact. The clock is short and the CCF will check the chronology. Every date supporting discovery needs to be documented in the submission.
Two-Stage Format: Two Pages, Then Ten on Invitation
The submission runs in two stages. The initial filing through the CCF Portal is limited to a two-page summary of the newly discovered fact. If the CCF decides the new fact warrants further study, it invites a full submission, and Rule 30(8) then caps the description of arguments at ten pages and requires a list of documents with specific references to each item. Exceeding the cap or failing to reference appendices can be ruled inadmissible.
How We Prepare an Application for Revision
The threshold is high and the CCF tests each element before reopening. The way the application is structured at the admissibility stage will decide whether the full submission is ever invited. Three steps, consistently applied.
Assessment of the New Fact
We test the alleged new fact against Article 42 and Rule 30(7): was it outside the CCF's file when the original decision was taken, is it capable of changing the reasoning of that decision, and does the filing fall within six months of its discovery. The fact may pre-exist the decision and have surfaced later, or it may have come into being afterwards (a subsequent court ruling, an asylum grant, an extradition refusal). If any of those elements is missing, we say so before drafting.
Two-Page Summary of the New Fact
Under the CCF Portal procedure and the updated CCF Operating Rules in force since March 2026, the application opens with a two-page summary describing the newly discovered fact. We compress the case to its essentials: what the fact is, its source, the chronology supporting the six-month window, and why it would have changed the earlier ruling.
Full Submission on Invitation
If the CCF considers the new fact serious enough, it invites a full submission. We expand the reasoning to match the original file: up to ten pages of argument and twenty appendices under Rule 30(8) of the CCF Operating Rules, every assertion sourced and indexed.
What Counts as a New Fact
Not every development qualifies. The fact has to bear on the reasoning of the earlier CCF decision and clear Rule 30(7). These are the categories that, on our practice and the published CCF jurisprudence, have carried revision applications through admissibility.
Refugee Status or Asylum Grant
A refugee determination issued after the original decision, whether by a host State or UNHCR, speaks directly to the persecution risk in the requesting country and is one of the strongest categories of new fact.
Extradition Refusal
A reasoned refusal by a competent court to extradite on political, human rights, fair trial, or procedural grounds is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the underlying request.
Acquittal or Discontinuance in the Requesting State
A final acquittal or the formal discontinuance of the domestic proceeding removes the legal basis for the Red Notice.
Underlying Warrant Set Aside
An appellate or constitutional court ruling that quashes the domestic warrant on which the Red Notice rests cuts the Notice at its root.
Findings by International Bodies
Decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, or similar bodies finding violations connected to the requesting State's handling of the case engage the same Article 2 standards the CCF already applies.
Why Choose Otherside for Applications for Revision
Otherside is a boutique INTERPOL-only law firm based in Marseille, France. Article 42 applications handled directly by a former CCF Legal Officer with six years inside the Commission, on a transparent fee structure.
Inside View of How the CCF Decides
Six years as Legal Officer at the CCF. Revision applications are judged against the reasoning of the original decision; the practice frames them accordingly.
About the founderPrecision at the Admissibility Stage
Most revision applications fail on admissibility. The alleged new fact is tested before drafting; the firm declines to file when the Article 42 threshold is not met.
CCF decision practiceContinuity from Deletion to Revision
Where the firm filed the original deletion request, the file is already understood and the revision builds on existing analysis without duplicating work.
Red Notice removalTransparent Fees
Free 30-minute consultation where the file falls within scope. Fixed fee for the application, agreed upfront. A success fee on deletion, payable only if the CCF orders deletion on revision.
View fee structureA new fact since the CCF decision?
If a fact has come to light that was not before the CCF when it ruled, Article 42 may reopen the file. Otherside tests the new fact against the admissibility threshold before any drafting, and declines to file where the bar is not met. A free 30-minute Zoom consultation is offered where the firm's criteria are met.
Questions on Applications for Revision
How long do I have to file a revision application?
Rule 30(7)(c) of the CCF Operating Rules requires the application to be filed within six months of the discovery of the new fact. The CCF checks the chronology carefully, so the date of discovery and every supporting document need to be evidenced on the face of the submission.
Does a court ruling issued after the CCF decision count as a new fact?
Yes, provided it bears on the reasoning of the earlier decision. A post-decision judgment, extradition refusal, asylum grant, or annulment of the underlying warrant can qualify. What matters is that the fact was not before the Requests Chamber when it ruled and that, if it had been, it could have led to a different conclusion.
What happens if the CCF declines to examine my two-page summary?
If the CCF decides the new fact does not warrant further study, no invitation to make a full submission follows and the application closes at the admissibility stage. This is why the two-page summary has to do the work: frame the new fact precisely, tie it to the earlier reasoning, and document the six-month window on the face of the filing.
What kind of evidence does the CCF expect?
Primary documents wherever possible: certified court rulings, asylum decisions, extradition judgments, official records of case discontinuance. Rule 30(8) caps the appendices at twenty items and requires each to be referenced in the argument, so selection and indexing matter.
Does the CCF give reasons when it rejects a revision application?
Yes. The CCF notifies the applicant of the outcome, and where the application is declared inadmissible or rejected on the merits, the decision identifies the basis. Reasoning is usually concise but enough to understand the Chamber's view of the new fact and its link to the earlier decision.