INTERPOL Dismantling Strengthening the Tools of Oppression ii) Deletion of data: Whenever the CCF finds that an alert does not comply with INTERPOL’s rules, it must delete the data, make the decision public (subject to necessary redactions), notify all NCBs and issue a letter to the individual to confirm the deletion. iii) Addenda: Addenda should only be used as interim remedies, or where the CCF wants to alert users of its systems that there is a good reason for a cautious approach to be taken when deciding whether to act on an alert. In the absence of any policy requiring the deletion of alerts where extradition has been refused on the basis of political motivation and/ or the risk of refoulement, this might include cases in which there have been refusals of extradition.Addenda should appear on all public alerts and should be available automatically to other NCBs. 83. During 2015 and 2016, while the GTI was still conducting its review, we started to see changes in the way in which the CCF was operating, further demonstrating INTERPOL’s commitment to reform. These changes included an increase in the number of sessions from three to four per year, each lasting for three days rather than the previous two. The CCF also started to make decisions between its sessions, particularly in straightforward cases (such as those to which the Refugee Policy applies). We understand that this was made possible by adopting a new procedure under which the CCF delegates certain powers to the CCF chairperson and/or the rapporteur, so that they can make decisions on some types of cases on a weekly basis. 84. In November 2015, the General Assembly adopted a resolution which strongly indicated that Member States were on board with the reform agenda. The Resolution urged members to cooperate promptly with the General Secretariat and the CCF, tasked the General Secretariat with developing proposals for reform of the CCF, and required the General Secretariat to implement the decisions of the CCF (i.e. making the decisions binding).72 85. In 2016, the CCF’s new website was launched, giving the public clearer, more accessible information about the CCF’s role and procedures that will help individuals to exercise their right to challenge data being held on INTERPOL’s databases, particularly if they are not being assisted by a lawyer. During the same year, we started to see the inclusion of reasoning in the decisions provided by the CCF and other lawyers representing clients with INTERPOL Alerts have confirmed the same. 73 86. During 2015, the CCF also began to include with deletion decisions a “to whom it may concern” letter which confirms that the applicant “is not subject to a Red Notice or a Diffusion and is not known in INTERPOL’s databases”. These letters are a valuable document for people who have previously been subject to INTERPOL alerts which have been deleted to carry with them when travelling given the risk that data relating to a deleted INTERPOL alert will remain on national police databases. In June 2015, 10 months after his Red Notice was deleted by INTERPOL, Bahar Kimyongür was detained for two and a half hours in a Greek airport on the basis of a national register of wanted persons and while the authorities checked with INTERPOL to INTERPOL, Resolution 9, AG-2015-RES-09 ‘Supplementary measures associated with the processing of notices and diffusions’ (November 2015) See for example Michelle Estlund, ‘INTERPOL Red Notice removal cases – a sample of results from 2016’, Red Notice Journal (10 January 2017) Available at: http://www.rednoticelawjournal.com/2017/01/interpol-red-notice-removal-cases-a-sample-of-results-from-2016-part-1/ 72 73 41