There’s a lot of confusion, both in the media and among legal practitioners, about what an INTERPOL Red Notice actually is. People often think it’s an automatic trigger for arrest or that it guarantees extradition. But the truth is much more complicated.

Today, I address the five most frequently asked questions by clients regarding Red Notices and Extradition.

1. Is a Red Notice a pre-condition for extradition?

Not at all. While a Red Notice may indicate that a country is seeking the arrest of an individual, there is no legal requirement for a Red Notice to precede an extradition request. Many extradition proceedings are initiated directly between states through diplomatic channels, without any involvement of INTERPOL. For instance, within the European Union, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) mechanism facilitates fast-track surrender between Member States without the need for a Red Notice. Likewise, bilateral and multilateral treaties often provide robust frameworks for extradition outside INTERPOL’s infrastructure.

2. Does a Red Notice mean extradition is inevitable?

Absolutely not. A Red Notice is not an arrest warrant and carries no automatic legal effect. It is simply a request issued by one INTERPOL member state to the other 195, seeking the location and provisional arrest of a wanted person pending extradition.

Importantly, Red Notices are issued without judicial oversight. The decision to arrest or extradite remains at the discretion of each sovereign state, subject to its domestic laws, human rights obligations, and political considerations. Many extradition requests are ultimately refused due to concerns such as political motivation, risk of torture or ill-treatment, or procedural deficiencies.

3. Extradition was refused – why is the Red Notice still active?

This is a common and valid concern. Success in an extradition case in one country does not automatically lead to the deletion of the corresponding Red Notice. Unless a formal request for deletion is made and accepted by INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF), the Notice remains active.

As a result, the individual may continue to face travel restrictions, detentions, or questioning when crossing borders. In many cases, Red Notices become disproportionately punitive even after extradition proceedings are resolved, underscoring the importance of strategic legal action to seek their removal.

However, the refusal of extradition does not, in itself, justify the deletion of a Red Notice. As clarified in CCF Decision No. 2018-03 (§ 46) and CCF Decision 2018-15 (§ 37), the Commission considers the grounds for refusal, whether they are procedural or connected to INTERPOL’s core principles. In CCF Decision 2019-05 (§ 26), the Commission stated it “pays specific attention” to whether the refusal is based on analogous principles reflected in INTERPOL’s legal framework.

4. Can a Red Notice be removed simply because there’s no extradition treaty?

As a general rule, no. The CCF has consistently held that refusals based solely on the non-existence of an extradition treaty or the person’s dual nationality do not impact the compliance of the data with INTERPOL’s rules (see CCF Decisions 2019-03, § 40; and 2018-06).

However, human rights concerns are a different matter. In CCF Decision 2019-03, the Commission examined a national court’s refusal to extradite an individual due to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and denial of a fair trial (violations of Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). These risks stemmed from systemic discrimination in the requesting country’s justice and prison systems.

While such domestic rulings are not binding on INTERPOL member states, the CCF found they could not be ignored. The ruling contributed to a broader “body of corroborating evidence,” and in combination with concerns about the necessity and proportionality of the data, led the Commission to conclude that retaining the Red Notice would violate Article 2 of the INTERPOL Constitution, which mandates respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

5. What is the practical impact of a domestic court’s refusal to extradite on INTERPOL proceedings?

The significance is twofold:

a) Strategic Litigation: A favourable extradition judgment, particularly one based on human rights, can become persuasive evidence before the CCF, even though other jurisdictions may still cooperate with the Notice.

b) INTERPOL Accountability: Recent CCF jurisprudence has shown an increasing recognition of domestic rulings and their relevance in upholding INTERPOL’s human rights obligations. The CCF has affirmed that international police cooperation must not function in isolation from fundamental rights protections.

Taken together, these developments make one thing clear: extradition outcomes and INTERPOL decisions may be related, but they are not causally linked. A state’s refusal to extradite does not compel INTERPOL to delete a Red Notice, and the presence of a Red Notice does not guarantee extradition.