In this article; the structure and international position of INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization), INTERPOL notices and remedies against these notices, precedent decisions made by the Interpol Commission for the Control of Files in applications against notices and the binding nature of these notices for the Republic of Turkey will be evaluated.

1. General Explanations about INTERPOL

At the meeting of the First International Criminal Police Congress in 1914, the idea of establishing a police organization that would ensure international cooperation in the fight against crime was put forward, but this idea could not be implemented due to the outbreak of the First World War. Following the end of the First World War, the Second International Criminal Police Congress was convened in 1923 with the participation of the representatives of the police organizations of 20 countries, including Turkey, and the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC) was established at this congress to ensure international cooperation among the police organizations of the country parties.

The Republic of Turkey decided to officially join the Commission with the Decree^[1] dated 08.01.1930. In order to make the Commission more modern and autonomous, in the General Assembly convened in 1956, the Constitution^[2] , which is still in force today, was adopted by the state parties, including the representative of Turkey, and the name of the Commission was changed to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL).

According to Article 2 of the Constitution regulating the purpose of INTERPOL, the purpose of INTERPOL is to ensure the widest possible mutual assistance among all police organizations, and to establish and develop institutions that can be effective in the prevention of crimes, taking into account the domestic laws of the countries and in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution, INTERPOL is prohibited from engaging in political, military, religious or racial activities.

According to Article 5 of the Constitution, the internal organs of INTERPOL are the General Assembly, the Executive Committee, the General Secretariat, the National Central Bureaus, the Advisers and the Commission for the Control of Files (CCF).

2. INTERPOL's International Position

INTERPOL is an organization established upon the coming together of the representatives of the police agencies of the countries and their agreement on cooperation. The Articles of Association adopted in 1956 were adopted without applying the procedures set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, such as the signature of the authorized representatives of the states, mutual exchange of documents, ratification and acceptance.

In this respect, it is argued in the doctrine that the Constitution adopted in 1956 do not constitute an international treaty and therefore INTERPOL does not have the status of an international organization^[3] .

ICPC (before the organization was renamed in 1956); although it was granted NGO status by the United Nations (UN) in 1947, this status was not fully compatible with the structure of INTERPOL, as this status applies to organizations formed by private individuals.

As a result, a cooperation agreement^[4] was concluded between the UN and INTERPOL in 1971, and it was requested that this agreement be registered with the UN General Secretariat on the grounds that it was concluded between the UN and an international organization, but the UN General Secretariat rejected this request on the grounds that INTERPOL's Constitution did not qualify as an international treaty and that its members were police agencies that could not represent a state.

After this development; in 1982, the UN Office of Legal Affairs, with its evaluation titled "The Status of INTERPOL before the UN"^[5] , evaluated the agreement made in 1971 and found it correct to qualify INTERPOL as an international organization.

In our opinion, INTERPOL is an organization recognized by the UN as an international organization, although the founding agreement, the Constitution, is not regulated in the procedures set out by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it should be accepted that it is an international treaty, considering that there is a will to be bound by the states parties.

3. INTERPOL Notices

INTERPOL, which aims to establish cooperation between the police organizations of the member countries for the prevention of crimes at the international level and the pursuit and apprehension of criminals, has databases that member countries can quickly exchange information and access through a secure communication system.

In addition, upon the request of member states and National Central Bureaus, INTERPOL may issue color-coded notices for the purposes of apprehending, extraditing or identifying reported criminals, and the process for this is regulated by INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data,^[6] , which entered into force in 2012.

In this framework, the red notice, blue notice, green notice, yellow notice, black notice, purple notice, orange notice, stolen art notice and UN Security Council Special Notice, which have different purposes and functions, are published by the organization in its member police agencies.

      A. Red Notice

A red notice is issued upon request by a National Central Bureau or an international organization with jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute criminal matters, for the purpose of locating a person wanted pursuant to an arrest warrant or a judgment of a court, and for the purpose of detaining, arresting or restricting the movement of a person wanted for the purpose of extradition, surrender or similar legal action, as set out in Articles 82 to 87 of the second part of the second chapter of the Rules on the Processing of Data. The red notice is regulated in detail in the Rules on the Processing of Data and it is accepted that certain conditions must be met and some necessary information must be submitted to the General Secretariat, which is one of the bodies of INTERPOL, in order for a red notice to be issued about the person.

Article 83/1-a-(i) sets out the minimum criteria for the issuance of a red notice, stating that a red notice may not be issued in respect of crimes related to conduct and cultural norms that are disputed to constitute crimes in different countries, crimes related to family or private matters, and crimes arising from the violation of legal regulations of an administrative nature or arising from private law disputes, unless the act is intended to facilitate the commission of a serious crime or the act is suspected to be linked to an organized crime.

As stated in Article 83/1-a-(ii), in addition to these restrictions on the type of crime, a penalty limit is also stipulated and a red notice may be issued by the organization if the person is prosecuted for a crime that requires at least 2 years imprisonment or is sentenced to at least 6 months imprisonment or if at least 6 months of the sentence is not executed.

As an exception to these conditions, Article 83/1-b provides that if the General Secretariat, after consultation with the National Central Bureau or international organization requesting a red notice, considers that it would be important for international police cooperation to issue a red notice, a red notice may be issued even if the crime and punishment do not meet the conditions set out in the paragraph above. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 83/1-c, in the case of a request relating to more than one offense, the fact that one offense meets the requirements will be sufficient for the issuance of a red notice for all offenses.

In addition to these issues, according to Article 83/2, certain information about the person for whom a red notice is requested must be provided to the organization. In order to identify the person, personal information such as name, gender, date of birth, physical appearance, DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs must be provided. In addition, judicial documents containing findings on the offense subject to the request, the law governing the offense, the penalty for the offense or the length of the sentence imposed, and a valid arrest warrant or a court order to the same effect must be submitted.

Pursuant to Article 87, upon the General Secretariat's conclusion that all conditions have been met and sufficient information has been provided, the country where the person is located may take the necessary measures, including provisional arrest, and provide information to the requesting country, in the event that the person is located, pursuant to the red notice issued against the person. In Turkish Law, provisional arrest is regulated under Article 14 of the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and our detailed explanations on provisional arrest can be found in our article titled "Extradition Proceedings under the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters"^[7] .

The scope of the red notice is limited to informing other countries that a person under suspicion of a crime is wanted and the red notice is not generally binding on countries. However, countries may make the red notice binding through domestic legislation or international conventions. As a matter of fact, in the domestic law regulations of some countries, the red notice is considered as an arrest warrant in that country, while in some countries the red notice does not have such an effect and there is no obligation to arrest or detain the person even if there is a red notice^[8] .

      B. Other INTERPOL Notices

The red notice is regulated in the second part of the second section of the Rules on the Processing of Data, whereas the other notices are regulated in the third part under Articles 88 to 96.

The blue notice^[9] is published to obtain information about, locate or identify a person involved in an investigation.

The Green notice^[10] is published to warn about criminal activities of a person.

The Yellow notice^[11] is published to locate a missing person or to identify a person who cannot identify themselves.

The Black notice^[12] is published to identify unidentified bodies.

The purple notice^[13] is published to warn about the modi operandi, objects, tools and methods of concealment used by attackers or to request information about crimes to be useful in investigations.

The Orange notice^[14] is published to warn about an event, person, object, process or working method that could pose a threat to public safety and cause serious damage to property or persons.

The stolen work of art notices^[15] is published to locate stolen works of art or objects of cultural value, or to identify suspiciously found objects of this kind.

The INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notices^[16] is published to inform INTERPOL members that a person or organization may be subject to UN Security Council sanctions.

      C. Diffusions

Diffusions are regulated in Articles 97 to 101 of the Rules on the Processing of Data and are considered as letters sent by the INTERPOL unit of the relevant state to the units of other member states for the purposes of apprehending, searching, restricting the movement, locating, obtaining additional information about the person alleged to have committed a crime, warning about the criminal activities of the person, until a red notice is issued for the person, within the framework of the general conditions sought for a red notice^[17] .

4. Remedies against INTERPOL Notices

The Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) is an autonomous supervisory body with its own secretariat, responsible for ensuring that all personal data processed in the INTERPOL Information System (IIS) are processed in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data, with the power to supervise and advise INTERPOL in this respect, and has the authority to examine and decide on applications concerning processed data.

INTERPOL notices are also published and entered into the Information System within the framework of the Rules on the Processing of Data, and applications against the notices issued can be filed before The Commission for the Control of  Files and the Commission acts as the decision-maker.

Requests for applications against the notices issued are limited to three issues: access to data, correction or deletion of data, and the rules regarding the applications are regulated in the Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files^[18] .

Upon an application, the Commission first examines whether the application is admissible or not, and in accordance with Article 30 of the Statute and the Procedural Guidelines For Applicants to the Commission published on INTERPOL's website^[19] , in order for an application to be admissible;

- The application must be made in writing or via the CCF Application Form^[20] ,

- The application must be made and signed by the person who owns the data subject to the application or by the authorized representative of this person,

- Submission of official documents showing the applicant's credentials and, if the application is made by a representative, a power of attorney authorizing the representative to access information in the person's INTERPOL files,

- The application must be submitted in one of INTERPOL's working languages, namely Arabic, English, French or Spanish,

- Sending the application to the Commission by post or email,

- A reasoned explanation of the purpose of the application (access, correction or deletion),

- If there is a request for access, a copy of the documents showing that the applicant has data processed at INTERPOL,

- If there is an application for correction or deletion, a brief and clear summary of the situation, a description of which rules have been violated, not exceeding 10 pages, and any information and documents to support the application, including information that may be useful during the review of the application,

It is stated that it is necessary.

Pursuant to Article 32 of the Statute, the Commission shall notify the applicant whether the application is admissible or not within 1 month from the date of receipt of the application. Following the Commission's decision that the application is not admissible due to incomplete information, the applicant may submit a new application to the Commission within 1 month from the date of receipt of this decision.

According to Article 33 of the Statute, following an application that is deemed admissible, the Commission will check whether there is data on the applicant processed in the INTERPOL Information System. If data on the applicant is identified and the application is a request for correction/deletion, the Commission will check whether the data on the applicant has been processed in accordance with the rules. If the application is for access only, the Commission will be able check this ex officio.

In this process, the Commission may request additional information from the General Secretariat or other organizations based on Article 34 of the Statute, and additional information and documents may be submitted by the applicant. Furthermore, Article 37 of the Statute provides that the Commission may take provisional measures in relation to the notice in the event of an undue delay in the applicant's case (if his/her extradition is imminent due to the INTERPOL notice or if he/she is under surveillance), but what kind of provisional measures will be taken is not explicitly regulated in the Statute.

As a rule, this process in which the application is examined is conducted through the file; however, according to Article 36 of the Statute, if the Commission deems it necessary, a decision may be taken by holding a hearing. However, the Statute does not specify the procedure to be followed in the event of a hearing and how the hearing will be conducted.

The Commission shall render a decision on the application within 4 months from the date of admissibility, if the application is merely a request for access, and within 9 months from the date of admissibility, if the application is a request for correction/deletion. Article 40 of the Statute recognizes that these deadlines may be extended, with justification, by informing the Secretariat General and the applicant, and does not set any limit on how long these deadlines may be extended.

As a result of the examination carried out by the Commission; if it is determined that the data processed about the applicant is in violation of INTERPOL data processing rules, it is decided to correct or completely delete this data. In this framework, if the data subject to the application is an INTERPOL notice, this notice will be corrected or removed. In addition to this decision, if it is clearly established that INTERPOL is responsible for the processing of the data in breach of the rules, the Commission may order INTERPOL to compensate the applicant's damages in accordance with Article 39 of the Statute.

Article 41 of the Statute sets out the time limits for the implementation of decisions, and the decisions rendered by the Commission shall be notified to the General Secretariat within 1 month from the date of the decision and shall be implemented by the General Secretariat within 1 month from the date of notification, unless additional information is required. Decisions regarding the access request shall be notified to the applicant and the source of the data within 1 month from the date of the decision, and decisions regarding the correction/deletion request shall be notified to the applicant and the source of the data within 1 month from the date of their implementation by the General Secretariat. In addition, decisions on rectification/deletion shall be notified to INTERPOL units of all Member States that have access to the data subject to the decision.

During the decision review process, in the event of new information that may change the decision, an application for reconsideration of the Commission's decisions may be filed within 6 months of the receipt of this information, pursuant to Article 42 of the Statute, and this application is examined and decided by the Commission in the same procedure.

5. Review of Precedent Decisions of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files

On the official website of INTERPOL, the precedent decisions of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF - Commission) regarding the applications made by individuals or their representatives for the deletion/correction of the notice can be found at^[21] . An examination of these decisions will provide guidance on what to pay attention to and what legal arguments should be used in applications.

The Commission's decisions include keywords such as "non bis in idem", "extradition proceedings", "establishing criminal acts"^[22] . Thanks to these keywords, it is possible to identify the relevant decisions and present them as precedent decisions or utilize them when preparing an application. Below, the decisions of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2023 are examined under headings. There are no decisions for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 in the link above.

      A. Whether the Notice was Politically Motivated

The issuance of a notice for political reasons is one of the grounds for deletion of the notice and the Commission in its Decision 2018/13 stated that “The rule reflected in RPD Article 34(3) requires analysis of all relevant factors, as to which the following appear to the Commission to be key in the present case:

- the nature of the offense, namely the charges and underlying facts;

- the status of the person concerned; and

- the general context of the case.”

It was stated that the notice should be examined in order to determine whether it was issued with political motives or not^[23] .

In the Commission's Decision No. 2018/08 which is argued that the applicant was a prominent politician in the main opposition party, and the proceedings subject to extradition were based on a confession that was later withdrawn because it was extracted under torture, and therefore the applicant's fundamental rights were likely to have been violated, the Commission stated that “On the balance, in view of the strong doubts identified above regarding the compliance with Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, and the strong political elements in the context of this case, the Commission held that that maintaining the data challenged could have adverse implications for the neutrality of the Organization, in that the Organization would be perceived as facilitating politically motivated activities.”

      B. Whether the Notice Endangers the Right to Life

In the two decisions below, it is stated that the health status of the person against whom the notice is issued should be taken into account during the data processing process, and that the notice about the person whose right to life will be jeopardized as a result of the extradition process should be deleted on the grounds that it violates fundamental human rights.

According to Commission Decision 2019/02: “The Commission recalled Article 99(2)(d) of the RPD requires that diffusions comply with Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, which stipulates that the data must be in compliance with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Commission furthermore noted that Article 25(1) of the UDHR references the right to health.”

In Commission’s Decision 2019/05, the Commission noted that “(…) clear elements were presented by the Applicant and confirmed by the […] Court (which had the power to weigh in all factors at hand) that an extradition proceeding could irreparably harm the Applicant and would be life-threatening according to medical professionals. It noted that added to the fact that the individual is seriously facing death within the next five years, the prospective threat to the right to be prevented from treatments degrading one’s health as a result of an extradition proceedings appears substantial to a point that cannot be safeguarded by Article 29(2) of the UDHR.

The Commission noted that though the NCB of […] proposed that the Applicant be provided with the assistance of a doctor and/or nurse in his journey to […], that no specific response appears to have been provided to explain palliative means or alternative avenues to prevent the potentially lifethreatening irreparable harm that would be caused by the extradition procedure, according to medical professionals.

Therefore, in this specific case, the Commission found that the situation of the Applicant appears to raise serious concerns that the data held in INTERPOL’s files can maintain a valid purpose to extradite the Applicant within the spirit of the UDHR, as requested by INTERPOL’s Constitution.

Since the Commission could conclusively dispose of the matter in favor of the Applicant on the above basis, it decided not to examine the Applicant’s other contentions

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION

Decides that the data concerning the Applicant are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data, and that they shall be deleted from INTERPOL’s files.”

      C. Whether the Notice Violates the Fundamental Rights of Defense

In paragraph 67 of the Commission's decision 2018/01 on the application on the grounds that the notice issued on the basis of the proceedings held in the absence of the accused violated the fundamental right of defence; “In view of all these elements, and recalling the prior doubts identified the sufficiency of elements of effective participation, as well as the political elements surrounding the proceedings, and the decision of Country B’s authorities, the Commission concluded that on the balance, the data challenged are not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules applicable to the processing of personal data.^[24]”

In the Commission's decision No. 2019/10 on another application on the grounds that the notice issued on the basis of the trial conducted in the absence of the accused violated the right to a fair trial and, in this context, the fundamental right to defense where the applicant was tried in his absence in accordance with national criminal procedure law, where the applicant was given the opportunity to appeal against the decision rendered in his absence with a lawyer of his choice, and where the applicant was therefore given the opportunity to be tried in his presence and to present his defence with the assistance of a lawyer as a result of the legal remedy, it was held that the notice issued against the applicant was in accordance with INTERPOL rules^[25] . In the Commission's Decision No. 2017/12, in which it was alleged that the applicant's presumption of innocence had been violated, it was held that the red notice against the applicant did not violate the presumption of innocence and was therefore in accordance with INTERPOL rules, on the grounds that the news articles about the applicant did not relate to the criminal cases on which the red notice was based, and that the other articles were written after the finalized conviction, and that the national courts of professional judges had sufficient experience and training not to be influenced by such considerations.

      D. Whether the Notice Violates the Principle of “No More Than One Trial for the Same Act”

The principle of "no more than one trial for the same act (non bis in idem)" is a principle taken into account in the extradition of a person under a notice and according to Commission Decision 2023/02; “The objective of the principle of ne bis in idem is to ensure that a person is not tried, convicted or acquitted in a country more than once for the same facts. It is among the essential rights of the defense in national proceedings but it is not equally recognised at international level, except when explicitly accepted by States under bilateral or multilateral treaties. Two main conditions are required for the application of this principle:

- successive prosecutions for the same facts (in extradition treaties often referred to as successive prosecution for the same offenses);

- a final decision on guilt or innocence made by a court, i.e. a judgment of conviction or acquittal.

A ne bis in idem provision in an extradition treaty is often a ground for refusal of extradition only where the decision was taken by a court of the State from which the extradition is sought.”

In the Commission's Decision 2017/09 on the need for bilateral or multilateral treaties to apply the principle of "non/ne bis in idem" internationally “The Commission recalled that the Red Notice is an international instrument that is not linked to the applicability of the principle of non bis in idem by one country or by a group of countries.

There is no international legal basis for the application of the principle of non bis in idem in this case, nor is there a bilateral agreement between Country B and Country A on this matter.

The Commission decided that under these circumstances, the determination on the application of the principle of non bis in idem should be left to the competent national courts to be decided at trial or during extradition proceedings.”

      E. Whether the Criminal Offense was Clearly Established for the Publication of the Notice

In order for an INTERPOL notice to be published, the criminal acts of the person and the arrest or conviction of the person must be clearly established, and the Commission's decision 2023/02 states that “Therefore, it is required that sufficient information is provided regarding the charges and penalties, that demonstrates that the Applicant is charged with a valid arrest warrant and that shows his possible effective personal participation in the criminal conduct of which he is charged. In this regard, it is recalled that the Commission’s function is not to conduct an investigation, to weigh evidence, or to make a determination on the merits of a case. Only the competent national authorities may do so.” The Commission ruled that the notice, in which the criminal acts were clearly set out, complied with the rules^[26] .

In its Decision 2023/11 on the application for the expungement of a notice relating to a no longer valid proceeding and issued without sufficient information, the Commission stated: “In view of the information provided, the Commission considers that the NCB of CCC has not demonstrated sufficient cooperation with it in the context of the study of this case, and has not provided a concrete counterbalance, verified by its judicial authorities, to the Applicant’s acquittal claims. The Commission holds that this lack of cooperation prevents it from ensuring that the retention of the data in INTERPOL’s files is compliant with Article 83(2)(b)(v) of the RPD.” The Commission decided that the notice on the applicant was not in accordance with INTERPOL rules and should be deleted, as it was based on a concluded and invalid proceeding, since no documentary evidence to the contrary had been provided against the applicant's claim of acquittal.

      F. Whether the Notice Violates the Principle of "Legality in Crime and Punishment" and the Principle of "Retroactivity of the Penalty"

The Commission also examines whether the notice violates the principle of "legality in crime and punishment" and the principle of "retroactivity of criminal law". In the Commission's decision no. 2023/07, it was argued that the notice was published on the basis of judgments arising from the retroactive application of criminal law;

The Commission notes that the principle of legality in criminal law (often referred to through the latin maxim “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”, no crime or punishment unless prescribed by law) is a paramount principle protecting individual rights against potentially arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment. It mainly embodies the principles that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty and that criminal law must not be extensively construed to a defendant’s disadvantage, for instance by analogy, and its direct corollary is to prohibit any retroactive application of criminal law (unless the new legislation is more favorable to the defendant).

This being said, the Commission underlines that many criminal legislations recognize a category of criminal offences as continuing (or continuous), as they are repeated or extend over time. Such an offence is considered to constitute a single act, whose classification in criminal law has to be assessed under the law in force at the time of completion of the last occurrence of the offence. Analysing the established standards set by international or regional human rights bodies interpreting the principle of legality in relation to continuing offences, as well as the existing practice of member countries, the Commission notes that the application of newly introduced law to continuing offenses which have started prior to its entry into force is seen as not amounting to a retroactive application of a stricter criminal law to the defendant, particularly when the criminalization of the prosecuted behaviour was sufficiently foreseeable.” it was held that the diffusion in the case of a person documented to have committed a chain of offences where the provision of the law criminalizing the relevant conduct was in force at the time of the last criminal act was in compliance with INTERPOL rules.

      G. Whether the Notice Relates to a Serious Crime with International Relevance

In its Decision No. 2019/07, the Commission examined whether the red notice issued against the applicant, who had been tried and convicted for stealing cell phones and stealing an identity document with the intention of selling the stolen phones, complied with INTERPOL rules; that theft is an internationally recognized ordinary crime and that the penalty limits were met in the concrete case; however, considering that the applicant was between 18 and 21 years old at the time of the crime and that the crime committed by the applicant did not cause any serious public or private damage considering the value of the stolen phones, it was decided that the red notice issued against the applicant was not in compliance with INTERPOL rules on the grounds that the crime committed by the applicant was not serious enough to issue a red notice and therefore it should be deleted.

In Commission Decision No. 2019/01, the Commission decided that the red notice issued against the applicant for issuing dishonoured cheques was not in accordance with INTERPOL rules and should be deleted, not only on the grounds that the act of issuing dishonoured cheques did not constitute a sufficiently serious offence to warrant the issuance of a red notice, but also on the grounds that it was not in line with the objective of achieving international police cooperation.^[27]

In its Decision 2019/08, the Commission examined how to assess whether the notice is compatible with the objective of achieving international police cooperation, recalling that “according to the Commission’s practice, these rules shall be appreciated in light of other dispositions of the RPD, which call for:

a) the “seriousness” of a crime, for the issuance of red notice,

b) the “relevance” of data,5

c) and the “non excessive” character in relation to the purpose for which it is processed.

In order to appreciate these criteria, the Commission generally assesses the following elements:

a) the acts for which the individual is subject to data in INTERPOL’s files (for example, the type of criminality or the elements characterizing his/her effective participation in the acts he/she is accused of),

b) the general purpose for the processing of data (for example the arrest an individual in view of extradition, or his/her location),

c) the possible actions against the person (for example, the sentence rendered).”

      H. The Effect of the Extradition Proceedings on the Compliance of the Notice with the Rules

In Commission Decision No. 2023/02, it was stated that the inadmissibility of extradition proceedings in one country against a person against whom a red notice has been issued is not sufficient by itself for the red notice to be deleted, since it is possible that the person against whom the red notice has been issued may be apprehended in another country and subjected to extradition proceedings, and therefore the red notice was found to be in compliance with INTERPOL rules^[28] .

In Commission Decision No. 2018/17; “Extradition proceedings are undeniably complex processes, often involving considerations based on the national laws of the requesting and the requested States, on the provisions of criminal cooperation agreements (bilateral, regional or international), and on their interplay with other international obligations (human rights law or refugee law). The grounds for extradition refusals can therefore be very diverse, depending on the particular bilateral extradition situations. They can be either related to procedural or to substantive elements, connected to a specific criminal case or rather linked to the requested person’s individual situation. Moreover, they are not always ascertainable to the Commission, or not always conveyed to it.

Yet, the Commission acknowledged that in some cases, national decisions denying the extradition of an individual on the basis of the risks that his human rights would be violated upon surrender to the requesting State may be regarded as additional evidence supporting the Applicant’s claims of non-compliance with Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Likewise, national decisions denying the extradition of an individual on the basis of the political character of the case may be taken into account as additional evidence supporting the Applicant’s claims of political predominance and non-compliance with Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution.” and decided that in the concrete case where the applicant's extradition request was rejected on the grounds that the applicant's right to life might be violated, that torture might be applied and that he would not receive a fair trial, the notice on the applicant was not in accordance with INTERPOL rules and should be deleted^[29].

Other Decisions of the Commission

In the Commission's Decision No. 2018/10, in which the request for deletion of the blue notice was put forward and the scope and competence of the Commission to examine the application was assessed; " The Commission is not empowered to conduct an investigation, weigh evidence, or make a determination on the merits of a case. That is the function of the competent national authorities.

Rather, in carrying out an Article 2 analysis, the Commission considers all relevant information to determine whether the Applicant has convincingly demonstrated the likelihood that a flagrant violation of procedure took place. It also highlighted that a blue notice does not require the existence of a valid arrest warrant as its purpose is to locate, but does require that a criminal investigation be ongoing.”

In the Commission's decision no. 2018/09 on the application for the deletion of the green notice issued against the applicant's child, who was allegedly abducted without his custody;

"The Commission considered the elements of the case and that the Applicant is charged with “International Parental Kidnapping” of the Child who is her biological son. In that context, the Applicant submitted documents to support her contention that she has obtained legal and exclusive custody of the Child in […] and that the Child’s father provided his consent for the renewal of the Child’s passport in […], thus after the alleged kidnapping. (…)

Therefore, the Commission is faced with a case that concerns, in essence, a situation of a dispute between member countries, which derives from competing and contradicting national court decisions, namely where the court in the requesting country granted custody to one parent, while a court in another country granted custody to the other parent.

Since INTERPOL is not the appropriate forum to address situations of competing custodial disputes, in view of the all of the elements above and its previous reservations concerning the purpose for the publication of the Notices against the Child and the Applicant, the Commission finds that it cannot determine that the retention of the data concerned would be compliant with INTERPOL's rules, and

that a decision concerning custody or to extradite the Applicant should be left to national competent police authorities and national courts.^[30]”

6. Binding of INTERPOL Notices for the Republic of Turkey

The Republic of Turkey has sent representatives to the general assembly meetings of INTERPOL since 1923, officially joined this Organization with the Decree dated 08.01.1930 and is among the member countries today. Within this framework, in accordance with the Constitution, there is the INTERPOL-EUROPOL Department, which carries out the activities of the National Central Bureau within the General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Interior. This Department carries out the duties of representing Turkey before INTERPOL, carrying out international cooperation within the scope of the fight against crime, carrying out the necessary procedures for international criminals and issuing INTERPOL notices on behalf of Turkey.

INTERPOL is a judicial law enforcement force, which, although it does not have judicial functions, fulfills the requests of judicial organizations, i.e. judicial units, and operates as a Department within the General Directorate of Security under the Ministry of Interior and has directorates in each province. The Gendarmerie also acts in cooperation with the Police in this regard.

In order to request a red notice for a suspect/defendant or a convicted person on trial in Turkey, there must be an arrest and detention warrant issued against the suspect/defendant pursuant to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 248/5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or an arrest warrant issued by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for the execution of the sentence imposed on the convicted person. The authority to request a red notice based on this arrest warrant is exercised by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office during the investigation phase, by the competent court during the prosecution phase, and by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for convicts^[31] .

The relevant information and documents are sent by the competent authority to the Ministry of Justice to be forwarded to the Ministry of Interior, and upon receipt of this information and documents, the INTERPOL-EUROPOL Department of the General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Interior submits a request for a red notice to the INTERPOL General Secretariat^[32] .

If a person for whom a red notice has been issued upon Turkey's request is apprehended abroad and the relevant country is informed about it, the relevant authorities will prepare an extradition document and request the extradition of the person. Similarly, if a person wanted by another country with a red notice is apprehended in Turkey and the relevant country is informed about this, the relevant country may request the extradition of the person and an extradition proceeding will be held in accordance with the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters and the extradition of the person may be decided according to the outcome of this proceeding.

However, considering that the red notice is not binding on its own, that it is essentially intended to inform other countries that the person is wanted, and that its binding nature varies according to the domestic legal regulations of the countries, it is also possible that the person against whom a red notice has been issued is not apprehended and not extradited.

In terms of Turkish Law, if the state issuing the red notice is a party to the European Convention on Extradition to which Turkey is a party and there is a request for provisional arrest pursuant to Article 14 of the Convention, or if there is a bilateral agreement between Turkey and the state requesting the issuance of the red notice, the red notice is accepted as grounds for provisional arrest and a provisional arrest warrant can be issued against the person pursuant to Article 14/1 of the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters^[33] .

In this respect, it is accepted that the red notice is not binding on the Republic of Turkey and that the red notice issued by INTERPOL does not constitute an arrest warrant, but may constitute a reason for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a provisional arrest warrant.

In addition, even if the person for whom a red notice has been issued is arrested or temporarily detained in Turkey, it is possible that the person will not be extradited to the requesting country, as there is no obligation to extradite the person. As a matter of fact, in the presence of the circumstances regulated under Article 11 of the Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, the extradition request will not be accepted even if there is a red notice on the person.

In the light of all these explanations, we must state that INTERPOL is an international organization, of which Turkey is a member, whose main purpose is the prevention of international crimes and the apprehension of criminals, that INTERPOL notices, especially red notices, are issued for the international search and apprehension of criminals, that applications can be made against these notices for their correction or deletion due to the lack of issuance criteria, that a red notice is not binding on its own for the Republic of Turkey and that it is possible not to extradite the person against whom a red notice has been issued.

It should be noted that with the ongoing independence of states against the outside and the sole user of public power, criminal organizations have developed a lot, they have increased their technical means, international crimes have intensified, especially the crimes committed on the internet, also called IT and cyber, and their cooperation, again, not only conventional but also non-conventional structures have become stronger, they can commit crimes that can deeply affect the international community and hide by going to other places, Considering that they are able to strengthen and maintain their criminal organizations in these countries, that they are weak when there is no joint international cooperation against them, and that they do not intervene against those who commit crimes and come to their own countries based on the principles of interest or non-interference in the internal affairs of other states in some political issues, it would be beneficial to increase the effectiveness of international official organizations, In this context INTERPOL, should be fair and equal for each INTERPOL member state. In fact, INTERPOL is an international police organization and derives its material and moral strength from its member states. In these times, the way to break and neutralize the power of criminal organizations with international power and potential to commit crimes is through strengthening inter-state cooperation and making official organizations such as INTERPOL effective.