INTERPOL’s Updated Repository of Practice: A Welcome Step Toward Transparency

INTERPOL has released a significant update to its Repository of Practice concerning Articles 2(1) and 3 of its Constitution. This new version, which supersedes the 2013 edition, introduces essential guidance on interpreting and applying these articles, addressing long-standing calls for greater clarity and transparency within INTERPOL. This inclusion addresses recommendations from Fair Trials International, which as early as 2013, called for INTERPOL to adopt a clear policy on its commitment to human rights.

What Is the Repository of Practice?

The Repository of Practice, commissioned by the General Secretariat under Article 34(4) of INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data, is now available on INTERPOL’s website and has been shared with the National Central Bureaus (NCBs) of all member states. This 104-page document is described by Jürgen Stock, INTERPOL’s Secretary General, in the Foreword as “a reference guide, providing a general historical and contextual overview of Articles 2(1) and 3, as well as addressing specific topics and illustrating these with real-life examples from INTERPOL’s practice.”

INTERPOL and Human Rights

For the first time, the Repository provides detailed guidance on interpreting and implementing Article 2(1), which mandates that INTERPOL operate in accordance with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

This inclusion addresses recommendations from Fair Trials International, which as early as 2013, called for INTERPOL to adopt a clear policy on its commitment to human rights. The updated guidance clarifies how INTERPOL evaluates human rights concerns in the context of Red Notices, Diffusions, and alerts. Previously, practitioners relied on sporadically published case “excerpts” that often lacked broader application or clarity.

By way of illustration, the Repository explains how INTERPOL assesses “authoritative” judgments by national or international tribunals on human rights violations. Any such findings are reviewed for their relevance to the processing of data through INTERPOL’s channels. For example, a judgment confirming that a conviction was based on a confession extracted under torture would likely render the request non-compliant, whereas allegations of excessive pre-trial detention may not lead to the same conclusion.

The Repository also reinforces that general information about a country’s human rights record may not independently warrant a finding of non-compliance with Article 2. However, it emphasizes that specific information, such as evidence of the systematic persecution of a minority group, can provide essential context for evaluating a request’s compliance.

The Bar on Political Activity

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution explicitly prohibits the organization from engaging in activities of a political character. Its purpose is to maintain INTERPOL’s neutrality and safeguard against the misuse of its mechanisms for purposes that could undermine international trust and cooperation.

Historically, interpreting and applying Article 3 has posed challenges for INTERPOL, particularly in cases involving politically sensitive issues. The difficulty often lies in determining whether a request violates the neutrality clause, especially in complex geopolitical contexts.

The updated Repository of Practice represents a significant advancement in addressing these challenges. It offers detailed guidance and numerous additional case studies on how INTERPOL applies the predominance test under Article 3. Importantly, it introduces a structured framework for addressing cases involving alleged violations of both Articles 2(1) and 3, building on many of the case excerpts previously available. The Repository clarifies that, while evidence of human rights violations may not independently demonstrate non-compliance with Article 2(1), such evidence can still be relevant under Article 3. In these cases, human rights considerations are important factors in applying the predominance test.

Conclusion

Recent trends show an increase in the misuse of INTERPOL’s processes by member states with poor human rights records. Since INTERPOL does not assess the validity of charges presented in a Red Notice or Diffusion, this structural limitation allows rogue states to exploit the system. It is common for certain countries to issue politically motivated Red Notices, Diffusions, or alerts disguised as ordinary criminal law offenses.

Articles 2(1) and 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution serve as critical safeguards against such abuse. The Repository of Practice marks a significant step forward in fostering transparency and accountability in how INTERPOL addresses Red Notices and Diffusions involving human rights and political concerns. By offering a structured and accessible resource, the Repository provides a clearer understanding of how INTERPOL applies its constitutional principles. It is an invaluable tool for legal practitioners and stakeholders alike.

Berkeley Square Solicitors is a leading criminal defence law firm, and our team includes some of the UK’s leading Red Notice and Interpol Defence Solicitors. Get in touch using the links below for a free and confidential review of your case.