Our post today details the ins and outs of Red Notice Blocking for individuals attempting to remove their INTERPOL Red Notices.
Removing a person’s name from INTERPOL’s wanted list and its website
One of the primary concerns of most Red Notice subjects is obviously having their names removed from INTERPOL’s wanted list. As that process takes time, it often happens that individuals request their data be blocked, often referred to as suspension, in INTERPOL’s databases so that their information is inaccessible while their cases are being studied by the CCF.
The majority of INTERPOL’s Red Notices are unpublished, but when they are published on INTERPOL’s websites, clients certainly want to ensure they are removed from the website as well as the database.
Individuals with Red Notices are often unable to travel, have difficulty banking, and experience reputational damage and lost business opportunities. If an individual believes his or her Red Notice to be politically motivated or includes fabricated information, or is otherwise invalid, they can request that it be corrected or removed. Evidence to validate a claim that a Red Notice or diffusion is required to support requests for correction and/or deletion of personal data, and for that data to be blocked while the CCF studies the case.
Notification of blocking or suspension
When the CCF’s initial review of a removal request generates a sufficient level of concern that a case may involve violations of its rules, the CCF will block the data (whether it is a Red Notice or diffusion) during the time that it is studying the case. No rule requires INTERPOL to notify people if their notice is blocked- sometimes the CCF notifies the subject that the data has been blocked, and sometimes it does not acknowledge the blocking until after the case has been resolved.
It has been my experience that blocking often precedes removal, though not in every case. A decision by the CCF to block a mnotice is generally a positive sign, as it suggests the Commission has identified a potential issue or inconsistency warranting further review.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.