Asylum seekers flee persecution, violence, and human rights violations. To prevent criminals and terrorists from exploiting refugee status, INTERPOL’s 2017 Resolution No. 9 ensures – at least theoretically – that law enforcement cooperation does not compromise legitimate refugee protections. In practice, however, many countries manipulate INTERPOL’s system to undermine these safeguards, turning the asylum process into a trap.

This resolution aligns with UN Security Council directives, particularly UNSC Resolution 2178 (2014), which called on states to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from abusing asylum systems. However, these protections remain largely unenforced, leaving legitimate refugees vulnerable to wrongful detention, deportation, and refoulement.

Key Provisions of Resolution No. 9:

1. INTERPOL deletes Red Notices and Diffusions when a person is officially recognised as a refugee (*An asylum seeker whose application has been approved).
2. Member states must confirm refugee status to INTERPOL for deletion to occur.
3. If asylum is denied, INTERPOL retains the data.
4. If refugee status is revoked, the Red Notice or Diffusion may be restored.

In theory, this resolution should protect asylum seekers. In practice, it does not.

Reality: How Red Notices Still Harm Asylum Seekers

Countries such as Russia, China, Turkey, and Venezuela systematically abuse INTERPOL’s Red Notice system to falsely label asylum seekers as criminals, leading to detention, deportation, and even refoulement, the illegal return of asylum seekers to persecution in violation of international law.

Despite not being arrest warrants, Red Notices trigger Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detentions, visa cancellations, and travel restrictions. U.S. immigration judges misinterpret these alerts as proof of criminality, often denying bond and prolonging detention.

Case Study: A Venezuelan asylum seeker in the US was arrested after attending his asylum interview due to a politically motivated Red Notice. He was detained for months before successfully challenging the Red Notice at INTERPOL. His case exemplifies how Red Notices reverse the presumption of innocence, making asylum seekers guilty until proven innocent.

INTERPOL’s Failure to Prevent Abuse

INTERPOL’s Resolution No. 9 (2017) mandates the deletion of Red Notices once refugee status is confirmed. Yet:

1. ICE & DHS still detain individuals based on Red Notices.
2. INTERPOL lacks enforcement – deletions are delayed or obstructed.
3. Authoritarian regimes manipulate the system to keep political opponents flagged.

Challenging a Red Notice

1. Invoke INTERPOL’s Resolution No. 9: Demand immediate data deletion once refugee status is granted. Submit official asylum grant documentation to INTERPOL’s CCF (Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files).
2. Challenge Red Notices as Politically Motivated (Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution): Argue that the Red Notice violates INTERPOL’s neutrality clause by targeting a political dissident.
3. Expose Patterns of INTERPOL Abuse by Authoritarian States: Highlight Russia, China, Turkey, and Venezuela’s track record of Red Notice misuse. Obtain expert testimony on political repression and INTERPOL manipulation.

Conclusion

INTERPOL’s inaction allows authoritarian regimes to weaponise Red Notices, trapping asylum seekers in wrongful detention and deportation. Resolution No. 9 exists, but without strict enforcement, it is meaningless.

Refugees should not remain fugitives. INTERPOL must uphold its commitment to neutrality and human rights.