INTERPOL Red Notices and Russia: challenging politically motivated requests
By George Hepburne Scott, specialist extradition barrister and Head of Extradition at Church Court Chambers
Concerns about Russia’s use of INTERPOL highlight a wider problem: how can individuals protect themselves when international police cooperation is used to pursue a politically motivated prosecution?
Writing in The Times on 7 October 2026, my good friend and fellow extradition barrister, Ben Keith, calls for stronger action against Russia’s misuse of Red Notices and diffusions. His article highlights the consequences of delay for people challenging abusive alerts.
The issue extends beyond Russia. In their joint statement of 23 September 2026, United Nations human rights experts identified the misuse of INTERPOL mechanisms and extradition procedures as forms of transnational repression. They called for timely review of complaints and stronger measures against repeated abuse.
I have practised in extradition since 2006. My work includes contested extradition hearings,
High Court appeals and applications to INTERPOL for the removal of Red Notices. These matters require careful attention to both the underlying allegations and the legal mechanism being used against the individual.
What is an INTERPOL Red Notice?
An INTERPOL Red Notice asks law enforcement authorities internationally to locate and provisionally arrest someone pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action.
A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. Each country applies its own law when deciding whether an arrest is authorised. Nor does a notice establish that the person committed the alleged offence. Someone sought for prosecution remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.
A diffusion is another means of circulating police information or requests directly between member countries. Diffusions must also comply with INTERPOL’s rules. INTERPOL acknowledges that wanted-person diffusions may reach recipient countries before its compliance review has been completed.
For the person concerned, identifying precisely what has been circulated is an essential first step.
When can a request be challenged as political?
Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution prohibits the organisation from undertaking interventions or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. Article 2 also requires its work to respect the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A political connection does not automatically make every criminal allegation improper. Equally, describing an allegation as fraud or another ordinary criminal offence does not resolve whether the request is predominantly political.
INTERPOL’s assessment considers the underlying facts, the person’s position, the source of the request and the wider context. The question is whether political elements predominate over the ordinary criminal character of the case.
The practical task is therefore to demonstrate the connection between the alleged political purpose and the particular proceedings. A general criticism of the requesting government will rarely explain the individual case sufficiently.
How can a Red Notice be challenged?
The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files, usually called the CCF, is the independent body responsible for reviewing compliance with INTERPOL’s rules governing personal data.
An individual can request access to information held about them and seek its correction or deletion. The appropriate application depends on what is known about the alert and the grounds of challenge.
A properly prepared application should explain the relevant rules, identify the disputed information and support the challenge with documents. It should also make any immediate concerns about detention or impending extradition clear.
Under INTERPOL’s current application procedure, new requests must generally be submitted through its dedicated online portal, introduced on 26 March 2026. The process principally involves written submissions and supporting documents.
How does this relate to UK extradition proceedings?
An INTERPOL challenge and an extradition defence address different legal questions.
The CCF considers whether information is being processed consistently with INTERPOL’s rules. The extradition court considers whether the person can lawfully be extradited. The CCF expressly states that it does not replace the national courts responsible for extradition decisions.
Where proceedings arise under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, two potentially important protections are:
Section 81: extraneous considerations. This can bar extradition where the request is actually made to prosecute or punish someone because of their political opinions or another protected characteristic. It also addresses the risk of specified prejudicial treatment for those reasons.
Section 87: human rights. This requires the judge, at the relevant stage, to determine whether extradition would be compatible with Convention rights and to discharge the person if it would not.
These statutory tests are distinct from INTERPOL’s constitutional rules. The same evidence may be relevant to both processes, but the submissions must address the decision each body is authorised to make.
My practice at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and in the High Court includes challenges involving human rights, the validity of extradition requests and abuse of process. That experience is relevant when assessing how an INTERPOL application should fit alongside court proceedings and work undertaken by lawyers overseas.
What evidence matters?
The evidence needed will depend on the case. Matters worth examining include:
The timing of the allegations compared with political activity, public criticism or a dispute with state officials.
The original warrant, charging documents and any inconsistencies in the account given to different authorities.
Relevant court judgments, asylum decisions or findings concerning persecution.
Reliable evidence of threats, pressure or interference with the criminal process.
Developments such as discontinued proceedings, an acquittal or the withdrawal of a warrant.
The aim is to connect the documents to a clear legal argument. In a complex international case, a concise chronology can help expose a discrepancy or explain why an apparently ordinary prosecution requires closer scrutiny.
Why early advice matters
A pending INTERPOL challenge should not be treated as clearance to travel. The CCF does not determine whether someone can travel abroad without being arrested. Advice may be needed in the country where the individual lives and in any proposed destination or transit country.
Nor does the removal of an INTERPOL alert necessarily cancel the underlying criminal proceedings or prevent cooperation through other channels. Those issues require separate consideration.
In my view, effective protection requires both careful scrutiny and a timely response. A successful challenge may come too late to prevent a period of detention or serious disruption to someone’s family and professional life.
For an individual concerned about a Russian Red Notice—or a potentially abusive request from any other country—the immediate priorities are to establish the position, preserve the relevant evidence and obtain advice on the available challenges.
Advice on INTERPOL notices and extradition
George Hepburne Scott advises on INTERPOL Red Notice challenges, extradition proceedings and appeals. He welcomes enquiries from individuals, UK solicitors and overseas lawyers seeking assistance with the English extradition aspects of an international case.
This article provides general information. The appropriate response to an INTERPOL alert or extradition request depends on the circumstances and the countries involved.
