Dismantling the Tools ofreport Oppression INTERPOL 2018 102.To assist the CCF110 in meeting these new time limits, NCBs are required to respond diligently to the requests from the CCF. Furthermore, the CCF is required to provide information to individuals on relevant timeframes and keep the applicant informed of the status of the request and any relevant developments, either at its own initiative or in response to a request from the applicant.111 This is a very positive change, given that the frequent delays to the CCF’s procedures have compromised its effectiveness as a redress mechanism. CCF Decisions – Before and After The CCF’s Decision in the case of Petr Silaev (above), dated October 2014 in response to an application for the deletion of his Red Notice had two sentences, confirming that the application had been received, and that his Red Notice was deleted. By contrast, the redacted CCF decision published on INTERPOL’s website in 2017 (right) is evidently much more detailed. Reasoned and public decisions 103.The CCF’s recently introduced practice of providing reasoned decisions has been formalised in Article 38(2) of the CCF Statute and Rule 32 of the Operating Rules. The decision should include, at the very least, “a summary of the proceedings, the submissions of the parties, a statement of the facts, the application of INTERPOL’s rules and an analysis of legal arguments and operative parts.”112 There is also the requirement for reasoning to be provided in relation to the decision on admissibility.113 The extent to which the CCF is required to provide reasoning for decisions to withhold disclosure of information relating to the request is not entirely clear, but the CCF statute states that such decisions need to be “justified”. 114 CCF Statute, Article 41(1) CCF Statute, Article 41(2) CCF Statute, Article 41(3) 109 CCF Statute, Article 41(3) 110 CCF Statute, Article 5(2) 111 CCF Statute, Article 31 112 CCF Statute, Article 38(2) 113 CCF Statute, Article 32(3) 114 CCF Statute, Article 35(4) 106 107 108 47