HomeDeletion of INTERPOL Data in a Case Initiated by Kenya: Successful Defence of a UK Client
Overview of the Case
A British national became the subject of an international search through INTERPOL following the publication of a Red Notice at the request of the Kenyan law enforcement authorities. The Notice was issued in connection with allegations of involvement in fraud and document forgery relating to the sale and transfer of a cargo aircraft.
An INTERPOL Red Notice is an instrument of international law enforcement cooperation that requests member states to provisionally arrest or locate and identify the person named therein. Its publication alone carries substantial legal consequences, irrespective of whether the underlying allegations have been established by a competent judicial authority.
As a direct result of the Red Notice, the client faced the risk of detention in any INTERPOL member state, severe restrictions on international travel, and significant obstacles to conducting legitimate business activities. The circumstances required prompt engagement with the legal mechanisms available within the INTERPOL framework.
Position of the Requesting Country
According to the information submitted by the Kenyan National Central Bureau, the client was one of six individuals named in proceedings concerning the alleged forgery of airworthiness certificates and registration documents for a Transall C160 aircraft. The aircraft had purportedly been purchased on behalf of two companies and subsequently transferred from Kisumu Airport in Kenya to Uganda without the seller’s consent.
The client was accused of conspiracy to commit fraud and of participating in the unlawful transfer of the aircraft, which was valued at approximately USD 4 million. The Kenyan authorities characterised his role as material to the alleged scheme.
However, a preliminary review of the case materials revealed that the allegations were framed in general terms. The documents submitted did not differentiate the client’s purported conduct from that of the other individuals named in the proceedings, nor did they identify any specific acts attributable to him personally.
Defence Strategy and Key Arguments
The client’s legal representatives submitted an application to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), seeking the deletion of the data from INTERPOL’s systems. The CCF is the independent supervisory body mandated to review compliance of INTERPOL-processed data with the organisation’s Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data.
In support of the application, the defence advanced the following arguments:
- the Red Notice did not contain a clear and individualised description of the client’s role in the alleged offence;
- the case materials contained internal inconsistencies, including discrepancies in the chronology of the alleged events;
- the client held no authority to act on behalf of the companies referred to in the proceedings and was not involved in the registration or transportation of the aircraft;
- the documents submitted contained no specific facts linking the client to document forgery or to any personal benefit derived from the alleged conduct.
In the course of its review, the Commission requested further materials from the Kenyan side, including evidence of the client’s individual role and clarification of the factual and chronological inconsistencies identified. The Kenyan National Central Bureau did not provide any new information and failed to resolve the discrepancies or to substantiate the client’s alleged involvement in the offences in question.
In substance, the materials placed before the Commission consisted solely of general assertions unsupported by particularised facts. None of the documents submitted established a direct and reasoned connection between the client and the specific criminal acts attributed to the group as a whole.
Assessment by the Commission
The Commission specifically emphasised that the publication of a Red Notice requires a sufficient factual basis capable of establishing a concrete and individualised link between the named person and the alleged offence. General assertions of involvement, without a detailed account of the specific role of the person concerned, do not satisfy this standard.
The absence of clear individualisation meant that the Notice effectively attributed to the client collective responsibility for the acts of multiple individuals, without distinguishing his alleged conduct from that of the remaining subjects. This approach is incompatible with the principles governing the processing of personal data under INTERPOL’s normative framework.
The unresolved chronological contradictions further undermined the reliability of the factual account underlying the allegations. The combination of these deficiencies — the lack of individualisation, the insufficiency of the evidentiary basis, and the requesting state’s failure to substantiate its claims — formed the decisive basis for the Commission’s assessment of the lawfulness of retaining the data.
Final Decision
Following its review, the Commission concluded that the retention of data concerning the client did not comply with INTERPOL’s rules governing the processing of personal data. The central ground for this finding was the failure to demonstrate that the information met the requisite standards — in particular, the requirement that allegations be sufficiently specific and individually attributable to the person named in the Notice.
On that basis, the Commission ordered the deletion of the client’s information from INTERPOL’s central databases and from the organisation’s official website. The decision had immediate operative effect, extinguishing the international alert and all associated legal consequences flowing from the Red Notice.
Result for the Client
As a result of a carefully structured defence and persuasive legal submissions, the client was removed from international circulation. The risk of detention through INTERPOL channels was eliminated, and the client’s freedom of movement was fully restored. He regained the ability to travel internationally and to conduct his affairs without the restrictions imposed by the Red Notice.
This case illustrates that the CCF complaint procedure, when conducted with rigorous legal analysis, constitutes an effective mechanism for the protection of rights of individuals subjected to international alerts. The decisive factor in securing a favourable outcome was the systematic examination of the factual record and the identification of specific derogations from the evidentiary standards established under INTERPOL’s internal rules.
The matter confirms that the existence of criminal proceedings in the requesting state does not, of itself, constitute a sufficient basis for retaining personal data within INTERPOL’s systems. Each notice must independently satisfy the standards of lawfulness and evidentiary adequacy — and it is precisely that compliance which the CCF procedure is designed to scrutinise.
