Lawyer
Dmitriy Konovalenko
Core Problem
An international police inquiry was initiated regarding the two applicants based on Interpol’s diffusion, published upon Russia’s request. The basis was criminal cases concerning timber smuggling of strategically important natural resources — valuable timber species — allegedly carried out from 2015 to 2019.
In Interpol’s system, the following were recorded:
- A Red Notice issued for one of the applicants;
-
Diffusion, later replaced by a Red Notice, for the other.
This led to the risk of detention, extradition, and restrictions on international movement.
The applicants turned to the Commission for the Control of Interpol Files (CCF), requesting the deletion of the data, citing unlawful prosecution, political motivation, and human rights violations.
Position of the Requesting State
The Russian side indicated the following:
- The applicants were part of an organized group;
- Using counterfeit documents, they carried out illegal timber exports to China;
- Fake companies and forged CITES permits were used;
- The damage amounted to hundreds of millions of rubles;
- The actions were classified as smuggling of strategically important resources.
Based on this, the requesting party insisted on maintaining the notifications in Interpol’s system.
Defense’s Position and Key Arguments
The defense built its argumentation in several directions:
1. Lack of Clear Description of Personal Guilt
It was pointed out that:
- The materials lacked clear role identification;
- The charges were generalized;
- No clear connection was made between the applicants’ actions and the alleged offenses.
2. Administrative, Not Criminal, Nature of the Case
According to the defense, the dispute concerned customs and export regulation, not public criminal offenses.
3. Political Underpinnings
The applicants referred to:
- Pressure from state authorities;
- Attempts to exert pressure on the business;
- Persecution following anti-corruption activities;
- The use of the criminal case as a tool of influence.
4. Human Rights Violations
It was noted that:
- There was pressure on witnesses;
- Possible use of testimony obtained under duress;
- Lack of guarantees for a fair trial.
Interpol Commission’s Evaluation
The Commission conducted a detailed analysis of the submitted materials and reached the following conclusions:
-
Regarding the Nature of the Crime
The Commission acknowledged that the alleged actions were criminal offenses, not administrative violations, as they involved the illegal export of strategically important resources on a large scale. -
Regarding the Adequacy of the Description of the Charges
It was established that:-
The materials contained descriptions of each applicant’s role;
-
The mechanism of smuggling was outlined;
-
The volumes, period, and method of the actions were specified.
-
-
Regarding Political Motives
The Commission found insufficient evidence that the case had primarily political motives or was aimed at persecuting the applicants for political reasons. -
Regarding Human Rights Violations
Despite the defense’s claims, the Commission stated that:
-
The provided data was insufficient to conclude that there was a systemic violation of rights;
-
The evaluation of evidence and admissibility of testimony falls under the competence of national courts.
-
Key Outcome of the Review
Despite the denial of full data removal, the Commission made an important procedural decision in favor of the applicants.
The Commission established that:
- The information in Interpol’s database should be clarified and brought into alignment with the case materials;
- The description of each applicant’s role must be specified;
- The scope of the alleged illegal actions should be correctly reflected;
- If the information is not updated, access to the data should be restricted.
Final decision
Based on the results of its review, the Commission decided:
- to recognize the data as generally compliant with Interpol rules;
- to require the National Bureau to update and clarify the information, including:
- the role of each applicant;
- the scope of the alleged illegal operations;
- to set a deadline for making changes;
- in case of non-compliance, to restrict access to the data in the Interpol system.
Thus, the Commission effectively recognized the need to correct the information and the inadmissibility of its further use in its previous form.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that even when Interpol notices remain in place:
- it is possible to have information reviewed and clarified;
- it is possible to limit the dissemination of incorrect data;
- there is a mechanism for controlling the misuse of international search warrants;
- it is possible to protect rights even in complex, multi-episode cases.
If You Find Yourself in a Similar Situation
If you are subject to:
- An international search warrant;
- A case that is formal or outdated;
- Extradition that has been denied;
- Signs of abuse of Interpol mechanisms;
It is advisable to immediately consult with specialists in international criminal law.
A well-constructed legal position allows you to:
- Achieve the correction or deletion of data;
- Restrict the international search;
- Protect your rights on an international level.
