Temporary Blockingof Red Notice
Where a Red Notice creates a situation of genuine urgency (detention, arrest, imminent extradition, recognised protection), the CCF may adopt provisional measures under Article 37 of its Statute, including the temporary blocking of the data. Blocking suspends access to the data and limits INTERPOL police cooperation while the CCF reviews the case.
We prepare and file urgent requests designed to meet the CCF's strict urgency and evidence requirements.
View all INTERPOL legal services
Legal Basis and Purpose of Temporary Blocking
Temporary blocking is one of the provisional measures the Requests Chamber may order under Article 37 of the CCF Statute. The Article allows the Chamber, at any time during the proceedings, to decide on provisional measures in relation to the processing of the data concerned. Other measures available under the same provision include the removal of the data from INTERPOL's public website and priority processing of the main request.
Article 37 does not set out a test in so many words. In practice, the Commission applies the power in emergency situations requiring an urgent decision, typically where the applicant is subject to imminent extradition, is in detention due to data held in INTERPOL's files, or has been granted protective status. Even in those situations, the Commission may decide to conduct further checks before adopting a measure. A decision on provisional measures is not a determination on the merits of the underlying request.
When Temporary Blocking May Be Granted
The CCF may order provisional measures where a Red Notice creates a situation of genuine urgency. The Commission's practice recognises the following categories in particular.
Imminent Extradition
If extradition action is underway and the Red Notice is being relied on, we seek temporary blocking to prevent enforcement before the CCF has reviewed compliance. We have obtained blocking in cases where extradition was refused on human rights grounds.
Detention or Arrest Based on INTERPOL Data
If an individual is detained or subject to arrest because of information in the INTERPOL information system, the CCF may grant provisional measures to block access to that data. Read more about the emergency request procedure.
Refugee or Protective Status
When an applicant has been granted refugee status or another form of international protection, the continued circulation of a Red Notice may conflict with international law and INTERPOL's own rules. The CCF may block the data temporarily to avoid breaches of the principle of non-refoulement and to protect the individual's rights.
Other Situations
The three categories above are the ones the Commission has expressly recognised as triggers for provisional measures. Beyond them, Article 37 leaves the Chamber discretion to act in other exceptional situations where the circumstances of the file call for an urgent decision. The measure remains the exception rather than the rule, and the burden is on the applicant to document the urgency.
How We Handle Emergency Requests
Proceedings for the temporary blocking of a Red Notice require precision, urgency, and familiarity with the internal procedure of the CCF. We prepare and present emergency requests in accordance with Article 37 of the CCF Statute, ensuring that all conditions for provisional measures are met.
Urgency and Strategy
We assess the full circumstances of the case to determine whether the conditions for provisional measures are met and to identify the strongest basis for the request. This step ensures that the application meets the CCF's admissibility and urgency criteria from the outset.
Preparation of the Application
We compile the key documents the CCF can act on quickly: court decisions, detention records, extradition filings, protection decisions, and travel incidents, with a clean timeline and exhibits. The amended Operating Rules govern the main deletion request, and the emergency filing travels alongside it.
Filing and Follow-Up
We file directly with the CCF and manage all correspondence to keep the request moving and to protect the client's position pending the CCF's decision. If blocking is granted, we continue through the underlying deletion procedure so the strategy remains consistent.
Temporary Blocking Decisions Obtained
Red Notice | Extradition Refused
Temporary blocking ordered for a German national sought by Iran. The client was arrested in Europe, and extradition was refused due to credible risks of inhumane treatment, discrimination, and lack of fair trial guarantees.
Red Notice | Parental Child Abduction
Temporary blocking ordered in an international child abduction case. The client, a U.S. citizen sought by Argentina, had been repeatedly stopped and arrested on the basis of a Red Notice that appeared prima facie non-compliant with INTERPOL rules.
Red Notices | Article 3 (Political)
Temporary blocking ordered involving Red Notices against Iranian nationals. A commercial and financial dispute was later treated as a security-type offence, with allegations framed in broad terms and without individualised descriptions of each applicant's conduct.
Red Notice | 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 of INTERPOL's Constitution.
Red Notice | Article 3 (Religion)
Temporary blocking ordered for a Chinese national residing in the U.S. and seeking asylum. Charges such as fraud were used to target unregistered Christian worship, raising serious Article 3 concerns.
Red Notice | Article 3 (Political)
Temporary blocking ordered for a Chinese national residing in the United States and seeking asylum. The underlying prosecution targeted the applicant's public criticism of local government officials and anti-corruption activism.
Why Choose Otherside for Temporary Blocking
Otherside is a boutique INTERPOL-only law firm based in Marseille, France. Urgent Article 37 submissions handled directly by a former CCF Legal Officer with six years inside the Commission, on a transparent fee structure.
Exclusive CCF Focus
The firm acts only in CCF proceedings: access, deletion, revision, and Article 37 urgent measures. No general criminal defense, no extradition work. Every file handled directly by the founder.
About the founderEmergency Procedure Experience
First-hand knowledge of how the CCF evaluates emergency submissions under Article 37, what evidence demonstrates genuine urgency, and how the Commission handles provisional measures internally.
Case resultsContinuity of Representation
If blocking is granted, the firm stays on the file through the underlying deletion procedure. Same counsel, same strategy, all the way through the CCF process.
Red Notice removalTransparent Fees
Free 30-minute consultation where the file falls within scope. Fixed fees for the substantive work, agreed upfront. A success fee on deletion requests, payable only if and when the CCF orders deletion.
View fee structureNeed temporary blocking of a Red Notice?
Where a Red Notice is causing immediate consequences (detention, imminent extradition, recognised protection), Article 37 provisional measures may be available. Otherside prepares urgent submissions designed to meet the CCF's strict urgency and evidence requirements. A free initial review is offered where the firm's criteria are met.
Questions on Temporary Blocking
On what basis will the CCF order a provisional measure?
Article 37 of the CCF Statute allows the Requests Chamber to order provisional measures at any stage of the proceedings. The power is reserved for emergency situations requiring an urgent decision. The situations the Commission recognises in practice include clearly imminent extradition, detention of the applicant due to data held in INTERPOL's files, and the grant of protective status such as refugee recognition. Even where one of these triggers is present, the Commission may still decide to run further checks before adopting a measure.
What forms can a provisional measure take?
Article 37 is not limited to blocking. The measures open to the Requests Chamber include blocking the data so that it cannot be consulted by the National Central Bureaus, removing the data from INTERPOL's public website, and granting priority processing so the main request moves ahead of the queue. The right measure is the one that matches the risk on the file, which is why the application has to identify what is sought and why.
Does blocking delete the Red Notice?
No. Blocking is a provisional measure, not a substantive remedy. The Red Notice remains in INTERPOL's system but is rendered inaccessible to member countries while the blocking order is in force. Permanent removal requires a successful request for deletion on the merits, which the blocking application is designed to accompany, not replace.
How quickly does the CCF decide a request for a provisional measure?
Article 37 does not set a fixed deadline, which reflects its role as an emergency tool rather than part of the ordinary timetable. The Commission can move within weeks where the file documents a recognised trigger, and faster where the situation calls for it. The lever is not the calendar but the quality of the evidence tying the urgency to a concrete event such as a hearing date, a custody order, or a protective status decision.
What evidence does the CCF expect?
Contemporaneous documents that evidence one of the recognised triggers. For detention, the custody order and any pending extradition request. For extradition proceedings, the notification from the requested State and the hearing date. For protective status, the refugee or asylum decision and the instrument granting it. The Commission reads the file strictly; generic claims of fear or reputational damage will not carry a request under Article 37.
Can a provisional measure be sought without a deletion request on file?
No. Article 37 states that provisional measures may be ordered "at any time during the proceedings", which presupposes that proceedings are under way. In practice, the application is filed together with the request for deletion or shortly afterwards, so that the Chamber has both the provisional and the substantive files when it rules.
How does blocking take effect for member countries?
Once the Requests Chamber orders blocking, the data is restricted in INTERPOL's information system. The National Central Bureaus that would otherwise query the Red Notice no longer see it through their channels, which is the practical effect of the measure. Where the Chamber orders removal from the public website instead, the visible consequence is the disappearance of any corresponding entry from the public extract.