Preventive Request to Interpol – Proactive Protection Against Red Notices

INTERPOL’s own CCF activity reports recognise pre-emptive requests as submissions from individuals who believe that a National Central Bureau may attempt to have information concerning them processed through INTERPOL.

These requests are different from a standard access request or a request for deletion of data that are already being processed.

A preventive submission may provide INTERPOL with relevant documents and legal arguments concerning an anticipated Red Notice or Diffusion before the individual suffers the consequences associated with international circulation of the data.

This is particularly significant because incoming Red Notice and Wanted Person Diffusion requests are subject to legal compliance review by INTERPOL’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF).

Our solicitors can assess whether a preventive approach is appropriate and whether it should be combined with an INTERPOL access request or other legal measures.

Preventive action is most useful where there is a credible and identifiable risk rather than a purely hypothetical concern. The reasons for making a submission will depend on the nature of the anticipated proceedings and the INTERPOL rules potentially engaged.

An authorised Red Notice can make information available to law-enforcement authorities throughout INTERPOL’s 196 member countries.

Depending on domestic law and the existence of an underlying warrant, potential consequences may include:

A preventive request cannot guarantee that none of these consequences will arise. It can, however, provide INTERPOL with relevant information before an anticipated Notice is authorised.

Where an underlying foreign warrant already exists, our international arrest warrant lawyers can assess that issue separately.

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution strictly prohibits the Organisation from undertaking activities or interventions of a political, military, religious or racial character.

A preventive submission may therefore be appropriate where there is evidence that a criminal case is being used primarily to target:

The assessment is fact-specific. Merely describing a prosecution as “political” is not sufficient; the supporting circumstances and evidence must be presented clearly.

Where the case raises broader persecution or ECHR issues, our international human rights lawyers can assess those issues alongside the INTERPOL strategy.

A person who travels frequently for business, family or professional reasons may face substantial disruption if internationally circulated police data lead to border checks or detention.

A preventive request may help ensure that relevant exculpatory, contextual or human-rights information is available during INTERPOL’s compliance assessment.

However, filing a preventive request does not constitute travel clearance and does not guarantee that a person can cross borders without being arrested.

Where immediate travel is contemplated, the status of any national arrest warrant and potential extradition exposure should be reviewed separately.

Proceedings before the CCF are handled confidentially under INTERPOL’s framework.

Nevertheless, confidentiality does not mean that information submitted can never be shared within INTERPOL where this is necessary for the consideration of the case.

Applicants should therefore consider carefully:

A properly prepared submission should provide sufficient information to support the legal argument without making unnecessary or unsupported allegations.

Not every concern about a possible investigation justifies a preventive submission. There should normally be identifiable facts indicating a realistic risk that INTERPOL channels may be used.

A preventive request may be considered where reliable information suggests that a state intends to seek international police cooperation.

Relevant indicators can include:

The stronger and more specific the evidence of an impending INTERPOL request, the easier it is to explain why preventive consideration is justified.

Preventive action may be relevant where criminal proceedings appear inseparable from a broader political conflict.

Factors can include:

INTERPOL’s NDTF considers relevant external information when assessing compliance, including political context and an individual’s status as a political activist or refugee.

INTERPOL rules restrict the use of its systems for matters arising from private disputes or administrative offences unless the circumstances meet the applicable requirements.

Commercial disputes can become particularly relevant where criminal allegations appear to have been introduced primarily as leverage in:

A preventive submission should demonstrate the real background to the proceedings using objective documentation wherever possible.

A previous acquittal, dismissal, discontinued prosecution or other material procedural development may be relevant if a foreign authority later attempts to circulate information based on the same or related allegations.

Relevant documentation can include:

Such documents should be analysed carefully because a national procedural outcome does not automatically make an INTERPOL request non-compliant.

Refugees, asylum applicants and former officials may face particular risks where their country of origin seeks to use criminal proceedings after they leave the country.

INTERPOL has specific rules and practice concerning refugees, and refugee status may be highly relevant to the assessment of data requested by the country from which the person fears persecution.

Where appropriate, preventive submissions should include formal evidence of refugee or asylum status and the factual basis of the alleged persecution.

Preventive submissions must be grounded in INTERPOL’s actual legal framework. The strongest arguments identify specific provisions or compliance concerns rather than relying only on general assertions that a prosecution is unfair.

Article 3 states that it is strictly forbidden for INTERPOL to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.

Whether Article 3 applies depends on the overall circumstances of the case.

Relevant factors may include:

A preventive request can provide information relevant to this assessment before a future Notice or Diffusion is authorised.

INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data establish requirements governing the recording and circulation of information through the organisation.

Among other matters, INTERPOL reviews:

For Red Notices, Article 83 also imposes specific conditions concerning the seriousness and nature of the underlying offence.

The CCF is an independent body responsible for overseeing the processing of personal data within INTERPOL’s Information System.

INTERPOL’s recent CCF activity reports expressly recognise pre-emptive requests as a category of “other requests”.

A preventive submission should nevertheless be distinguished from the formal procedures publicly described by the CCF for:

Since 26 March 2026, the CCF’s public submission system operates through its secure online portal. The current public guidance expressly describes access, correction/deletion and revision procedures. The appropriate filing route for a pre-emptive submission should therefore be checked against the CCF’s current portal and procedural guidance when the application is prepared.

The practical process depends on whether INTERPOL already holds information about the individual and how advanced the national proceedings are. A preventive strategy should therefore begin with verification of the available facts rather than a generic submission.

The first step is to determine whether there is a credible risk that a Red Notice or Diffusion may be requested.

Our solicitors may review:

It may also be appropriate to submit a separate INTERPOL access request to determine whether data are already being processed.

The submission should focus on evidence directly relevant to INTERPOL’s compliance framework.

Depending on the case, this may include:

The purpose is not to retry the national criminal case before INTERPOL but to demonstrate why future processing through INTERPOL channels may fail to comply with its rules.

The legal submission should clearly explain:

Care is required under the 2026 CCF procedure. The current CCF portal expressly identifies access, correction/deletion and revision applications, while CCF annual reports separately recognise pre-emptive requests among “other requests”.

The correct method of transmitting a preventive submission should therefore be verified against the CCF’s current procedural instructions at the time of filing rather than assuming that a dedicated preventive-request form exists.

A preventive submission does not give an individual a right to obtain an injunction against a National Central Bureau.

Its practical purpose is to place relevant information before INTERPOL so that it may be considered if data are submitted for processing.

The General Secretariat’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force separately reviews incoming Red Notice and Wanted Person Diffusion requests for compliance.

Incoming Red Notice requests are not searchable by member countries through INTERPOL’s Information System until the NDTF has reviewed and authorised them.

Where relevant information from the individual is already available, it may be considered as part of that compliance assessment.

A preventive request should not be treated as the end of the matter.

Further steps may include:

If data are later recorded, a substantive challenge through Red Notice removal proceedings may be required.

A properly prepared preventive submission can have several strategic advantages, although none should be presented as guaranteed.

Providing information before compliance review. The NDTF usually assesses information submitted by the requesting NCB, other member countries and external sources. A pre-emptive submission may ensure that relevant information from the affected person is also available.

Establishing a documented record. A prior submission can create a clear record of political, human-rights or procedural concerns if data are subsequently submitted.

Supporting a later challenge. If a Notice is nevertheless authorised, documents already collected for preventive purposes may assist in preparing a subsequent deletion request.

Coordinating wider legal strategy. Preparing a preventive request frequently identifies related issues involving national warrants, extradition, asylum or human-rights proceedings that require parallel action.

A preventive request should not be described as guaranteeing continued travel or immunity from arrest. National warrants and other police-cooperation mechanisms may continue to operate independently of INTERPOL.

Preventive and access requests serve different purposes.

An INTERPOL access request asks whether personal data concerning an individual are currently being processed in INTERPOL’s Information System and, subject to disclosure restrictions, seeks information about that processing.

A preventive request addresses a different situation: there is credible concern that a state may attempt to circulate data in the future, and the individual wishes to provide information relevant to INTERPOL’s compliance assessment before or at an early stage of that process.

The two approaches may sometimes be used together.

For example, an access request can help establish whether information is already recorded, while a preventive strategy addresses the possibility of a new submission.

If a Red Notice is already confirmed, the appropriate procedure is generally a request for correction or deletion of the Red Notice, rather than relying solely on preventive representations.

Timing matters because INTERPOL reviews incoming Red Notice and Wanted Person Diffusion requests before authorising their visibility in its databases.

The relevant timeframe depends on several factors:

There is no published universal processing period allowing an individual to predict exactly when a member country will submit a request or when the NDTF will complete its review.

Accordingly, the objective is not simply to file something as quickly as possible, but to provide sufficiently specific and credible information before the relevant INTERPOL decision is made.

If there is already an immediate threat of arrest or surrender, a preventive INTERPOL request should not replace advice on the underlying extradition proceedings or national warrant.

Individuals may need to coordinate several distinct legal issues at the same time: INTERPOL compliance, foreign criminal proceedings, extradition, asylum and human rights. Legal representation can help keep these procedures separate while ensuring that the arguments made in one forum do not undermine another.

A preventive submission requires familiarity with:

The legal argument should identify the relevant INTERPOL rules and connect them directly to documentary evidence.

Cases involving potential INTERPOL action frequently require information from more than one jurisdiction.

Coordination with foreign counsel can help establish:

National proceedings remain legally separate from the INTERPOL process.

A strong preventive submission should be tailored to the case rather than based on generic accusations of unfairness.

The strategy may involve:

The same analysis may later support a substantive CCF deletion request if information is recorded.

Some cases require prompt preparation because a warrant or extradition request has recently been issued.

Urgent work may include:

Urgency does not remove the need for accuracy. Unsupported allegations can weaken rather than strengthen a preventive submission.

A preventive request may be relevant where there is a credible international-search risk combined with a potential INTERPOL compliance issue.

Common examples include:

Political opposition and activism. Politicians, opposition figures, activists and human-rights defenders may face proceedings that require analysis under Article 3.

Journalistic activity. Journalists targeted after reporting on corruption or politically sensitive issues may need to document the relationship between their work and subsequent criminal proceedings.

Business disputes turned into criminal allegations. A commercial conflict may raise INTERPOL concerns where the criminal proceedings originate primarily from a private dispute.

Former government officials. Changes of government can result in proceedings against former officials that require careful separation of political and ordinary-law elements.

Refugees and asylum cases. Formal refugee status or documented persecution concerns can be highly relevant to INTERPOL’s assessment.

Asset recovery disputes. Cross-border asset proceedings may overlap with criminal allegations and require separate analysis of the underlying facts and the purpose of the requested police cooperation.

The existence of one of these scenarios does not automatically make an anticipated Notice unlawful. The particular evidence remains decisive.

The quality of documentary evidence is usually more important than the volume of material submitted. Evidence should be organised around the specific INTERPOL compliance issues raised by the case.

Useful material may include:

Reports should be linked clearly to the applicant’s circumstances rather than submitted only as general criticism of a country.

Legal materials may include:

The CCF and NDTF are concerned with compliance of INTERPOL data, not with replacing the national criminal court.

Relevant personal evidence can include:

Personal circumstances should be connected to the legal basis of the preventive argument.

Important documents may include:

An underlying international arrest warrant should be analysed separately because preventing or deleting INTERPOL data does not automatically cancel the national warrant.

INTERPOL does not charge applicants a CCF filing fee.

Professional legal fees, however, depend on the complexity of the case, the amount of documentation requiring review, the number of jurisdictions involved and the urgency of the work.

A preventive matter may involve:

The objective should be to select measures proportionate to the actual risk rather than assume that every possible international procedure is necessary.

The next stage depends on whether a foreign country actually submits data to INTERPOL and whether any information is already being processed. A preventive filing therefore requires follow-up rather than an assumption that the risk has permanently disappeared.

There is no specific published statutory decision period for a pre-emptive request equivalent to the four-month period for access requests or the nine-month period for correction/deletion requests.

Preventive requests have been recognised in CCF activity reports as “other requests”.

Accordingly, applicants should not rely on promises that a preventive request will be determined within a fixed number of weeks or months.

It may be appropriate to monitor whether circumstances change after the submission.

This can include:

It is important to remember that most Red Notices are not publicly displayed, so an online search alone cannot establish that no data exist.

If a Red Notice or Diffusion is subsequently processed, the strategy should be reassessed immediately.

Possible steps may include:

Our Red Notice removal solicitors can assess whether a substantive CCF challenge is appropriate once data exist.

A preventive request cannot provide permanent immunity from future national or international proceedings.

Circumstances may change because of:

The legal position should therefore be reassessed when material developments occur rather than relying indefinitely on an earlier preventive request.

A preventive INTERPOL strategy often forms only one part of a wider cross-border legal response. Related proceedings should be coordinated carefully because each forum has different powers and legal tests.

Where possible, local counsel in the requesting jurisdiction may challenge:

Success in the national case can materially affect the basis for continued INTERPOL processing.

Where genuine human-rights violations arise, other legal mechanisms may also be relevant.

Depending on jurisdiction and admissibility requirements, these may include:

Our human rights solicitors can assess these issues separately from the INTERPOL request.

In some politically sensitive cases, public or diplomatic measures may form part of the wider strategy.

They should be approached carefully because publicity can affect:

Political engagement is not a substitute for a properly evidenced INTERPOL submission.

Criminal proceedings may sometimes coincide with freezing, confiscation or asset-recovery measures.

Those issues should be assessed under the applicable national and international legal framework rather than treated as an automatic consequence of an INTERPOL Notice.

Where cross-border asset measures are involved, separate advice may be required alongside the INTERPOL strategy.

If there is credible evidence that a state may seek an INTERPOL Red Notice or Wanted Person Diffusion against you, early assessment may allow relevant compliance concerns to be documented before data are authorised.

The first step is to determine what already exists: the national proceedings, arrest warrant, extradition request and any INTERPOL information.

Our solicitors can then assess whether the appropriate response is a preventive submission, an access request, a substantive Red Notice removal request or coordinated action in several jurisdictions.

Our team advises on INTERPOL matters alongside the underlying extradition and cross-border criminal issues.

We can assist with:

The objective is to use the correct procedure for the actual stage of the case rather than present a preventive request as a guaranteed mechanism for blocking all future international cooperation.

If you believe that a foreign state is preparing to circulate information about you through INTERPOL, contact our team for an assessment before taking action.

We can review the available documents, determine whether INTERPOL data already exist and advise whether a preventive request or another procedure is appropriate.

Where an existing Red Notice is identified, we can advise on INTERPOL Red Notice removal. If the concern involves a possible but undisclosed record, an INTERPOL access request may also be required.

Dr. Anatoliy Yarovyi

Senior Partner

Anatoliy Yarovyi is a doctor of Law, holds a Master’s degree in Law from Lviv University and Stanford University. He was one of the candidates for a judgeship at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Specializes in representing clients’ interests at the ECHR and Interpol in matters concerning extradition, personal and business reputation, data protection, and freedom of movement.

Phone: +357 96 447475

Email: [email protected]

Messengers:

Please leave this field empty. Book a consultation