The case
The Applicant, who was the chairman of an entity, is the subject of a Red Notice issued by the requesting country for abuse of authority on the basis of an arrest warrant. In its original decision, the Commission found the data compliant and did not oppose unblocking access to them, subject to recommendations that a caveat on the political elements of the case be added and that any extradition denial be recorded. A court in another country had denied his extradition, which the Commission found had already been known when that decision was taken, and he applied for revision seeking deletion of the data.
What the Applicant argued
- The proceedings are politically motivated, as shown by the large number of co-defendants who have asylum or whose cases have been declared politically motivated.
- A court in another country denied his extradition.
- The elements that led the Commission to recommend deletion of the data in another person's case, including three letters, should equally apply to him.
How the Commission decided
- 01
Arguments already considered
Revision requires the discovery of a fact that was not known when the request was processed. The political arguments had already been considered, and the extradition denial was known when the Commission decided the original complaint, so these arguments did not meet the standard of Article 42 of the Statute.
Paragraphs 12 to 14 and 17 - 02
Recording the extradition denial
The NCB confirmed that the court had denied extradition, and noted that a new request could be made if an extradition offence could be established. Applying General Assembly resolution AGN/53/RES/7 (1984), the Commission held that the denial should be reported in INTERPOL's files and that its earlier recommendation should be implemented.
Paragraphs 15 to 17 - 03
Letters and the other case
The letters were not known at the time of the original decision, but the elements that led to deletion in the other case were specific to that person's request. The letters described a general context already known to the Commission and gave no new fact concerning the Applicant, so revision could not lead to a different conclusion.
Paragraphs 19 to 23
Outcome
The conditions for revision are not met. The Commission confirmed that the Applicant's file shall be updated, under General Assembly resolution AGN/53/RES/7 (1984), to record that a court in another country denied the request for his extradition because the particulars to establish an extradition offence on the papers were not sufficient.
Why it matters
Here, new letters describing a general context already known to the Commission did not provide a new fact concerning the Applicant under Article 42 of the Statute. The Commission's recommendation to delete the data in a related person's case did not carry over to him, as it rested on elements specific to that person's request.
Charlie Magri, former CCF Legal OfficerFull decision text
As published by the CCFRead
Application for revision concerning […]
(Ref. CCF/R[…])
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(101st session, 26 to 29 June 2017) […], withdrawing based on Article 2.1(d) of the Operating rules of the Commission, The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (the Commission), sitting as the Requests Chamber,
composed of:
[…], Members,
Having deliberated in camera during its 101st session, on […], delivered the following Decision.
I. PROCEDURE
1.The Commission considered the Applicant’s complaint during its […] session and concluded, in light of the information provided by the Applicant and by the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL (NCB) of […] that the data recorded in INTERPOL’s files concerning the Applicant complied with INTERPOL’s rules. The Commission also held that it was not opposed to the unblocking of the access to the data provided by the NCB of […] concerning the Applicant, subject to the below recommendations:
– the following information is added to the Applicant’s file: “This case was studied by the
are political elements surrounding the case, but was not able to establish that they are predominant over the common law crime elements of the case.”
– should the authorities of the […] deny extradition, it is reported in INTERPOL’s files.
2.On […], the Commission informed the Applicant thereof.
3.On […], the Applicant submitted a request for revision to the Commission, requesting the deletion of the data concerning him recorded in INTERPOL’s files. He was informed that the Commission would study this request for revision during its 101st session, after which he provided additional information and documents on […].
4.The NCB of […] was consulted on the arguments set forth in the request for revision.
II. FACTS
5.The Applicant is a national of […].
6.He was the Chairman of […]. As such, he was a business associate of […].
7.He is wanted by […] for “abuse of authority”, on the basis of an arrest warrant issued on […] by […].
8.The summary of the facts, as recorded in the red notice from […], states the following: […].
III. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST
9.The Applicant applied for the revision of his case and the deletion of the data concerning him.
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
10.Application for revision:
▪ Article 42 of the Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files states that “Applications for the revision of decisions of the Requests Chamber may be made only when they are based on the discovery of facts which could have led the Requests Chamber to a different conclusion if that fact had been known at the time at which the request was being processed”.
V. FINDINGS
Application for revision
11.In his most recent filing, the Applicant first reiterates previous arguments already considered by the Commission, in particular that:
a) The […] is wholly owned by the […] government and is run by them,
b) The proceedings against the Applicant are politically motivated, as proven by […],
c) The large number of co-Defendants who have asylum or have had their cases declared politically motivated,
d) On […], the […] Court denied the extradition of the Applicant, and he provides a copy of the decision of the Court.
12.To determine whether an application for revision may be examined under Article 42 of the Statute of the Commission, the party seeking revision must establish the discovery of a fact that was not known at the time the request was processed.
13.Regarding the political character of the suits, the Commission found that concerning the data provided by […], even though there may be some political elements surrounding the case, the information provided was not sufficient to conclude that these political elements were predominant over the ordinary criminal law elements of the case.
14.Concerning the extradition denial, the Commission established this fact was known at the time it concluded on the original complaint during its […] session where it found that the request for extradition placed by the authorities of […] to the authorities of […] indicated the willingness of the authorities of […] to respect their obligations under applicable laws and to request the extradition or the surrender of the Applicant from […], if possible.
15.Nevertheless, the Commission consulted the NCB of […], which confirmed that the […] had denied the extradition of the Applicant and, that it was however possible for […] authorities to re-issue an extradition request if they are able to provide elements to establish an extradition offence. The NCB also confirmed that the Applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing and knew of the reasons for extradition denial.
16.The Commission recalled that INTERPOL General Assembly resolution AGN/53/RES/7 of 1984 states that “if certain countries refuse extradition, this is reported to the other NCBs in an addendum to the original notice”. The Commission held that this resolution applies to the present case and that […] extradition denial of the Applicant should be reported in INTERPOL’s files.
17.Therefore, the Commission finds that its recommendation to report in INTERPOL’s files the extradition denial from the authorities of the […] should be implemented and that the arguments mentioned in paragraph 11 above do not meet the standard provided for in Article 42 of the Statute of the Commission.
18.In his application for revision, in addition to the previous arguments, the Applicant also claims that the same elements considered by the Commission in the case of […], should be applied to the Applicant, to decide on the deletion of the data concerned, in particular the following documents:
a) A letter dated […] urging the persecution to stop.
b) A letter dated […].
c) A letter dated […].
19.Concerning the claim above, the Commission established that it is based on letters that were not known at the time the Commission concluded on the original complaint, during its […] session.
20.However, to determine whether an application for revision may be examined under Article 42 of the CCF Statute, the Commission must also establish whether the discovered fact “could have led the Requests Chamber to a different conclusion if that fact had been known at the time the request was being processed”.
21.Even though there are similarities to the cases of the Applicant and […], the elements on which the Commission based its decision in the case of […] cannot be directly applied to the case of Mr […]. As provided in the Commission’s decision concerning […] of which the Applicant provided a copy in his request for revision, the indicia that enabled the Commission to recommend the deletion of the data concerning her in INTERPOL’s files were not only based on her link with […], but on elements which were specific to her request.
22.Here, the letters provided by the Applicant, describe a general context of a case that was already known to the Commission at the time it took its decision, but does not provide a new fact that was not already known to the Commission concerning the Applicant.
23.In view of the information available, the Commission established that revision of the case may not lead to a different conclusion. Therefore, the Commission finds that these arguments do not meet the required criteria for revision established in Article 42 of its Statute.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION
1.Concludes that the conditions for revision are not met.
2.Confirms that, the following update shall be made to the Applicant’s file with regard to the extradition denial of the Applicant by […]: “In application of INTERPOL General Assembly resolution AGN/53/RES/7 (1984), please note that on […], the […] Court denied the request for extradition of […] issued by the authorities of […] as the particulars to establish an extradition offence on the papers were not sufficient.”