Yes or No?
As of today, 12 September 2025, the simple answer is “No” – one cannot sue INTERPOL for the harm occasioned by a Red Notice. Notwithstanding the growing number of individuals who assert that they have been subjected to politically motivated or abusive notices, INTERPOL is not amenable to proceedings before domestic courts. The recent judgment in El Omari v. INTERPOL before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed that INTERPOL enjoys immunity from suit pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). Such immunity protects the organisation from civil liability, even where its systems are alleged to have been misused, leaving affected individuals with but a single avenue of redress: the internal review mechanism of INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF).
Background of the Case
On 3 February 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered a significant ruling in Oussama El Omari v. The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), a case that tested whether an individual can bring civil action against INTERPOL in domestic courts.
The proceedings arose after Oussama El Omari, a U.S. citizen, discovered that INTERPOL had issued a Red Notice at the request of the United Arab Emirates, following a conviction in absentia, which he maintained was politically motivated. When CCF declined to delete the notice, El Omari commenced proceedings in the Eastern District of New York, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of his due process rights under the New York Constitution. The District Court dismissed the claim for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that INTERPOL is immune under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), a conclusion now affirmed on appeal.
The appeal turned on three issues: first, whether INTERPOL qualifies as a “public international organisation” within the meaning of the IOIA; second, whether INTERPOL had waived its immunity; third, whether the District Court erred in refusing jurisdictional discovery.
On the first issue, the Court held that INTERPOL does indeed constitute a public international organisation. Membership is confined to official police bodies designated by States, meaning that it is composed of government actors even though it was not formally created by treaty. This satisfied both the plain meaning of the term and the legislative history of the IOIA, which contemplated international organisations composed of governments as members.
On the second issue, El Omari contended that INTERPOL’s 2008 Headquarters Agreement with France, which includes an arbitration clause, amounted to a waiver of immunity. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Agreement applied solely to disputes arising in France, and that in any event, France and INTERPOL had clarified in 2016 that the arbitration clause did not extend to disputes concerning data processing such as Red Notices. There was therefore no waiver, whether express or implied.
On the third issue, the Court found that jurisdictional discovery into INTERPOL’s status under French law was immaterial to the immunity determination, and that the District Court had not exceeded its discretion in declining to order it.
The ruling confirms that, once designated by Executive Order, INTERPOL enjoys the same immunity from suit in the United States as foreign sovereigns (a status first conferred in 1983 and subsequently reaffirmed in 1995 and 2009).
For individuals who contend that Red Notices have been misused for political or retaliatory purposes, the decision underscores that domestic litigation does not provide a viable avenue of relief. The sole remedy remains the internal review procedure before INTERPOL’s CCF, a body with the power to examine and, where appropriate, decide on the deletion of the notices, albeit one whose transparency and accessibility are often questioned.
Lesson?
Lesson learnt: INTERPOL’s immunity creates a stark imbalance: on the one hand, it protects the organisation, but on the other hand, it leaves individuals hit by abusive Red Notices exposed and defenceless. Designed to safeguard neutrality and facilitate cooperation, in reality, it blocks accountability in national courts. The El Omari ruling drives home the hard truth that if authoritarian states such as China or Turkey misuse INTERPOL’s systems, victims have virtually no recourse outside the organisation’s own internal process. So the question is unavoidable: should INTERPOL’s absolute immunity be dismantled to prevent abuse, or is this untouchable status the price of global police cooperation? Food for thought…
