Charlie Magri Co-Authors Harvard International Law Journal Article on INTERPOL’s Corrective Measures

Charlie Magri, Ted R. Bromund, and Sandra Grossman have co-authored an article in the Harvard International Law Journal, examining INTERPOL’s use of corrective measures against member states that misuse the Organization’s channels. Titled “Corrective Measures and the Problem of Transparency at INTERPOL”, the piece argues that the secrecy surrounding these measures undermines INTERPOL’s constitutional commitment to neutrality and shields abusive states from accountability.

The article sets out the corrective measures framework codified in the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), which equips the General Secretariat with a graduated range of supervisory powers, from re-examining individual records to suspending a National Central Bureau’s processing rights. The General Secretariat has consistently described these tools as remedial rather than punitive. Magri, Bromund, and Grossman challenge that framing: restricting a state’s ability to use INTERPOL’s systems is a sanction in all but name. They also question the assumption underlying the regime, that misuse stems from ignorance or limited capacity rather than deliberate intent. When abuse is repeated, persistent, and targeted at regime opponents, supervision alone is unlikely to produce compliance.

The core of the article addresses INTERPOL’s selective approach to disclosure. By April 2025, at least six countries were reportedly under corrective measures, including Russia, Belarus, and Syria. Russia and Syria were named publicly. Yet in a July 2025 ABA webinar, an INTERPOL official described a country with a 30 to 40 percent non-compliance rate over six months, many notices targeting activists and critics, without identifying the country. Choosing to disclose corrective measures for some states while keeping others anonymous is itself a departure from the neutrality that the mechanism is supposed to protect.

Magri, Bromund, and Grossman call for a public register of states subject to corrective measures, routine publication of statistics, and transparent criteria for imposing and lifting restrictions. Their conclusion is direct: the only truly neutral approach is to treat all states equally, by naming them all.