Red Notice
Removal Lawyer
An INTERPOL Red Notice can restrict movement across borders, trigger arrests at airports, block visa applications, freeze bank accounts, and cause lasting reputational damage. The consequences are immediate and often disproportionate.
At Otherside, we represent individuals and legal teams in challenging and removing Red Notices through proceedings before INTERPOL's Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF). The firm was founded by Charlie Magri, a former Legal Officer at the CCF who spent six years working within the body that reviews these requests.
View all our services before the CCF
What Is a Red Notice?
A Red Notice is a request circulated by INTERPOL to law enforcement worldwide at the request of a member country. It asks police to locate and provisionally arrest a named individual pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.
A Red Notice is published by INTERPOL's General Secretariat after review of the request submitted by the National Central Bureau (NCB) of the requesting country. Publication is subject to compliance with INTERPOL's Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), which set requirements relating to the purpose, legal basis, and quality of the data.
Red Notice vs. Arrest Warrant
A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. INTERPOL itself has no power to arrest anyone. Each member country decides independently whether to act on a Red Notice under its own domestic law and treaties. In practice, however, many law enforcement authorities treat a Red Notice as grounds for detention, and the practical effects can be severe: arrests at border crossings, denial of entry, visa cancellations, freezing of assets, and exclusion from banking and business relationships.
This gap between the legal status of a Red Notice and its practical effects is central to the work we do. A person subject to a Red Notice that does not comply with INTERPOL's rules faces real consequences, even though the notice carries no binding legal force.
Individuals Affected by Red Notices
Red Notices affect a broad range of individuals. The cases we handle at Otherside typically involve the following profiles.
Business Executives & Entrepreneurs
Facing allegations that stem from commercial disputes, joint venture breakdowns, or contractual disagreements that have been reframed as fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation in the requesting country.
Politically Exposed Persons
Opposition figures, former government officials, activists, and journalists targeted by states that use INTERPOL channels to extend domestic political campaigns across borders.
Refugees & Asylum Holders
Individuals granted international protection in one country but still subject to a Red Notice from the country they fled. INTERPOL's Refugee Resolution (GA-2017-86-RES-09) restricts processing in these circumstances, but enforcement is inconsistent. Learn how we challenge these notices.
Parents in Custody Disputes
Where one parent has obtained a Red Notice against the other through criminal allegations of child abduction, often in parallel with civil custody proceedings in another jurisdiction.
Nationals of Countries with Weak Rule of Law
Where the criminal justice system lacks independence, where allegations are vague or formulaic, or where proceedings were conducted in absentia without adequate notice or representation.
Grounds for Red Notice Removal
INTERPOL's Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data set strict conditions for the recording and retention of data in INTERPOL's information system. A Red Notice must comply with these rules in both substance and purpose. Where it does not, the CCF can order its deletion.
Article 3: Political Character
Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution prohibits activities of a predominantly political character. The CCF applies a predominance test, examining whether the case is driven by genuine law enforcement objectives or by political motives. Indicators include prosecution of opposition figures, timing linked to political events, and charges under vaguely defined statutes. We have obtained deletion and temporary blocking in politically motivated cases from Iran, Qatar, and China.
Article 2: Human Rights
Article 2(1) requires INTERPOL to act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The CCF examines whether underlying proceedings raise serious concerns: credible risks of torture or inhumane treatment, lack of judicial independence, trials in absentia without adequate notice, coerced confessions, or discriminatory treatment on grounds of race, nationality, religion, or political opinion.
Commercial or Private Disputes
Red Notices should not be used to pursue private commercial disagreements. Yet this happens regularly. A contractual dispute becomes a fraud allegation. A failed joint venture becomes embezzlement. The CCF has consistently held that data must reflect a genuine law enforcement purpose. We obtained deletion in a case where the CCF found the allegations depended on a commercial contract dispute and lacked a clear criminal basis. View case results.
Data Quality and Accuracy
Article 12 of the RPD requires that data in INTERPOL's files be accurate, relevant, and kept up to date. A Red Notice based on outdated information, vague allegations, or an insufficient description of the alleged conduct can be challenged on data quality grounds. This ground is often raised alongside others, and the CCF considers them together when assessing overall compliance.
Procedural Defects
The RPD sets specific requirements for the publication of Red Notices, including certain judicial documentation, a clear legal basis, and a sufficiently precise description of the alleged conduct. Where the requesting country has failed to meet these requirements, the notice is vulnerable to challenge.
Non Bis in Idem
A Red Notice may be challenged where the individual has already been acquitted, where the case has been finally dismissed, or where the sentence has been served. Continued processing of a notice in these circumstances conflicts with the principle of non bis in idem and the requirement that data remain relevant and necessary.
Protective Status
For individuals with refugee or asylum status, INTERPOL processing must be assessed in light of INTERPOL's Refugee Resolution and broader international protection principles.
How Red Notice Removal Works
All proceedings take place before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF), the independent body responsible for reviewing individual requests concerning data in INTERPOL's information system.
Case Analysis
Every Red Notice challenge starts with a detailed review of the notice, the underlying proceedings, and any available documentation from the requesting country. We assess compliance with INTERPOL's Constitution and the RPD, identify applicable grounds for deletion, and review relevant CCF decision practice.
This stage determines the strategy for the entire case. The strongest submissions are built on a clear legal framework supported by evidence, not on volume or speculation.
Filing the Request for Deletion
All requests are now filed through the CCF's dedicated online portal. The submission identifies the specific rules breached, sets out the facts and legal arguments, and is supported by documentary evidence: court decisions, procedural records, expert reports, political context materials, and other relevant documents. The amended Operating Rules impose strict format requirements, including a 10-page limit on the summary of arguments and a cap of 20 appendices. These are admissibility conditions, not guidelines.
Working within these constraints requires precision and selectivity. Six years of experience within the CCF Secretariat means we understand the internal review process, what the Requests Chamber needs to assess a case efficiently, and how to structure a submission that fits the format without losing any of its force.
CCF Procedure and Timelines
After filing, the CCF reviews the request for admissibility. Once admitted, the CCF typically seeks observations from the requesting country's National Central Bureau (NCB) and from INTERPOL's General Secretariat.
Under Article 40 of the CCF Statute, the Requests Chamber has nine months from the date of admissibility to issue a decision on deletion requests. During this period, we monitor the procedure, respond to any requests from the CCF, and where appropriate file supplementary submissions or updated evidence.
9-month statutory timelineProvisional Measures
In urgent cases, we file a request for provisional measures under Article 37 of the CCF Statute alongside or before the main deletion request. If granted, the CCF orders the temporary blocking of the Red Notice while the deletion request is examined. Blocking suspends access to the data and limits INTERPOL police cooperation, providing immediate protection against arrests, extradition, and travel disruption.
The CCF may order temporary blocking where a Red Notice creates an immediate risk and continued circulation could cause irreparable harm, such as imminent extradition, ongoing detention, or conflict with refugee or protective status. We have obtained temporary blocking in cases involving Red Notices from Iran, Argentina, Qatar, and China.
The CCF Decision
The Requests Chamber issues a written decision. If it finds the Red Notice non-compliant with INTERPOL's rules, it orders deletion of the data. INTERPOL's General Secretariat then implements the decision and circulates the update to all member countries.
If the request is rejected, the applicant may file an application for revision under Article 42 of the CCF Statute, provided there are newly discovered relevant facts that were not available during the initial review. Under the current portal procedure, revision applications begin with a two-page summary describing the new facts. The full submission and supporting evidence are only filed if the CCF requests them.
Selected Outcomes Before the CCF
Commercial Dispute
Deletion ordered by the CCF. The allegations depended on a commercial contract dispute and lacked a clear criminal basis or substantiated link to the applicant. Extradition had been refused in Europe on human rights grounds.
Article 3 (Political)
Temporary blocking ordered. A commercial and financial dispute was later treated as a security-type offence, with allegations framed in broad terms and without individualized descriptions of each applicant's conduct.
Parental Child Abduction
Temporary blocking followed by deletion. The client, a U.S. citizen, had been repeatedly stopped and arrested. The CCF ordered deletion after the Argentina NCB failed to cooperate and provide the information required to justify continued processing.
Article 3 (Political)
Temporary blocking ordered in a multi-client case arising from a high-profile prosecution linked to a broader internal purge. Submissions demonstrated strong indicators of political character engaging Article 3.
Article 3 (Religion)
Temporary blocking ordered. The Red Notice targeted a Chinese national residing in the U.S. and seeking asylum, with charges such as fraud used to target unregistered Christian worship.
Built on Precision
Proceedings before the CCF demand precision, consistency, and a thorough understanding of the rules that govern INTERPOL's data processing. At Otherside, our work rests on four principles.
Case Assessment
We analyze the Red Notice and the underlying proceedings to identify the strongest grounds for deletion under INTERPOL's rules. Not every ground applies to every case. The strength of a submission depends on selecting the right arguments and supporting them with the right evidence.
Evidentiary Preparation
We build a clear, evidence-led file that enables the CCF to verify facts and assess the submission efficiently. Poorly organized or speculative submissions slow down proceedings and weaken the case.
Procedural Precision
We ensure strict compliance with the procedural requirements and deadlines under the CCF Statute and Operating Rules, including the format and admissibility conditions imposed by the CCF's portal, filing requirements, and response timelines.
Alignment with CCF Practice
We structure every submission in line with the CCF's established decision practice and reasoning patterns. This is where direct institutional experience matters. Knowing how the CCF has decided similar cases in the past allows us to frame arguments in terms the Requests Chamber recognizes and can act on.
Why Choose Otherside for Red Notice Removal
Former CCF Legal Officer
Before founding Otherside, Charlie Magri served for six years as a Legal Officer within the CCF Secretariat. That period included work across access requests, deletion requests, provisional measures, and applications for revision. This background provides a clear understanding of how the CCF operates and how requests are assessed in practice.
About the founderExclusive Focus on INTERPOL
We do not handle general criminal defense, extradition, or sanctions work. INTERPOL matters and CCF proceedings are all we do. This focus means every resource and every hour of research is directed at the rules, procedures, and institutional dynamics that determine the outcome of a Red Notice challenge.
View servicesInternational Scope
We represent clients worldwide, including in Europe, the Middle East, North America, Asia, and Africa. Where needed, we coordinate with local counsel on domestic proceedings while keeping all communications with INTERPOL centralized, consistent, and procedurally sound.
View resultsContact an INTERPOL Lawyer for Red Notice Removal
If you or someone you represent is subject to an INTERPOL Red Notice, we can assess the notice and advise on a request for deletion before the CCF. Where the situation is urgent, we can also advise on provisional measures to seek temporary blocking while the main request is examined.