Today’s post serves to show how INTERPOL notices can be re-issued, utilizing a recent case to highlight the implications in a real-life scenario.
What are Red Notices?
Red Notices are requests to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. Red Notices are based on an arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities in the requesting country. Member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest a person in response to a Red Notice “hit.”
What is the difference between a Red Notice and an arrest warrant?
One of the most significant distinctions between a Red Notice and an arrest warrant is the that a Red Notice does not mandate INTERPOL’s member countries to take action. Once a Red Notice subject is encountered by law enforcement authorities in INTERPOL’s member countries, they may choose not to act on the Red Notice, or to question the subject, or to detain him briefly, or to move toward extradition proceedings. On the other hand, an arrest warrant is an official document issued by a judge or magistrate that requires law enforcement officers to arrest someone accused of a crime.
When do countries renew Red Notices?
Countries typically renew Red Notices when a case remains active and the individual is still wanted, to keep the alert current in INTERPOL’s system and encourage international cooperation. Red Notices are not indefinite and must be renewed every five years. To maintain the notice, the requesting country must revalidate the warrant every five years and confirm that the request remains legally justified. Our clients sometimes question whether a Red Notice can still be acted upon after 5 years- they can, and they merely need to be renewed with reassurance that their purpose is still valid.
Example of a renewed Red Notice
One example of this is the case of Luis Guaman, for whom the US still has an active Red Notice issued, an Ecuadorian man for whom authorities originally obtained an arrest warrant for in 2011. He is wanted for the murders of his wife and son. Their bodies were found the day prior to Mr. Guaman flying from JFK Airport in New York to Ecuador. After an arrest warrant was issued, a copy of the warrant was hand-delivered to Ecuadorian embassy officials in Boston. Ecuador refused to extradite Mr. Guaman to the United States, citing its constitution’s prohibition on extraditing its own citizens. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz strongly objected and urged then-Secretary of State and other national lawmakers to press Ecuador to return Mr. Guaman for prosecution in Massachusetts, where he would have faced life in prison without parole if convicted. In Ecuador, he faced a maximum sentence of 16 to 25 years.
Despite US officials’ objections, an Ecuadorian court conducted a two-day trial in 2012, found Mr. Guaman guilty, and sentenced him to 25 years in prison.
Our next post will detail the specifics of a member country renewing a Notice.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.