Charlie Magri has co-authored an article published by the International Bar Association (IBA), alongside Sandra Grossman of Grossman Young & Hammond. The article, titled “The 2024 INTERPOL Repository of Practice: the unresolved tension between facilitating police cooperation and upholding human rights”, offers an analysis of the latest edition of INTERPOL’s Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.
The article opens by contextualizing INTERPOL’s dual role: as a global policing institution and as an actor bound by international human rights principles. It highlights how INTERPOL’s systems—particularly red notices and diffusions—are increasingly misused by authoritarian states to carry out transnational repression under the guise of criminal law enforcement.
The Inclusion of Article 2
For the first time, the 2024 Repository includes interpretive guidance on Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, which mandates that the organization operate “within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The article discusses how this inclusion clarifies that INTERPOL must proactively safeguard individual rights—not merely maintain neutrality. It further explains how the Repository incorporates references to international and regional standards, including the ICCPR and jurisprudence from the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights.
The authors critically assess the Repository’s evaluation framework under Article 2, including its focus on the requesting state’s human rights record, judicial independence, and the risk of harm to the individual. They note, however, that the guidance remains largely theoretical and lacks practical examples that could assist practitioners in evaluating compliance in complex cases.
They also identify troubling ambiguities—such as the suggestion that some rights violations (e.g., excessive pretrial detention) might not, in themselves, render a notice non-compliant. The article emphasizes the need for more clarity on when and how alternative forms of evidence (such as legal opinions or personal declarations) can be used to substantiate claims of abuse, especially in contexts where access to courts is impossible.
Guidance Under Article 3
Turning to Article 3, which prohibits INTERPOL from intervening in matters of a predominantly political character, the article reviews the Repository’s expanded treatment of cases involving political figures, protest activity, and terrorism-related charges. It welcomes the inclusion of practical examples, which help distinguish between genuine criminal charges and those used as a pretext for political persecution.
However, the authors highlight significant gaps—particularly in cases involving financial crimes, which are increasingly used to target political opponents and business figures. While the Repository acknowledges the potential for misuse, it does not provide sufficient criteria or examples to guide the assessment of politically sensitive economic offences.
The article draws attention to how these limitations affect “non-traditional” victims of INTERPOL abuse—such as businesspersons caught in politically motivated proceedings. The authors call for more robust guidance in these areas, along with greater institutional clarity on evidentiary standards and context-based assessments.
Conclusion
Magri and Grossman conclude that while the 2024 Repository reflects progress—particularly through its expanded scope and inclusion of Article 2—it ultimately fails to bridge the gap between principle and practice. They argue that without clearer scenario-based examples, and institutional support, the Repository remains aspirational rather than operational. They invite INTERPOL to prioritize clarity, consistency, and resource allocation in future revisions to ensure effective safeguards against misuse.
