Dismantling the Tools ofreport Oppression INTERPOL 2018 Much will depend on the CCF having sufficient capacity and resources to meet the new demands on its time. The requirement to provide reasoned decisions in every case combined with the new procedural timeframes will alone create additional pressures on what we understand to be very limited resources. 109. In order to ensure effective implementation, the CCF will almost certainly need to consider additional measures. It appears that the CCF has already taken steps to cope with its increasing workload and responsibilities by requiring all applications for the deletion or amendment of INTERPOL alerts to be ten pages, or less.122 This is understandable given the capacity challenges faced by the CCF, but it is important that these changes are accompanied by the effective implementation of the new rules governing disclosure. Applicants need to have access to information about the data being held on INTERPOL’s databases, as well as the arguments being made, to justify the data. Without such information, applications will inevitably be based on guess work, and individuals cannot be expected to make focused, succinct complaints to challenge the data. 110. The CCF will also need to develop ways to ensure that all parties involved in request procedures comply with its directions and timeframes. In our December 2015 submission to the GTI, we recommended that the CCF be given powers to block or delete information if NCBs fail to comply with directions or to respect timeframes. Time will tell whether the CCF is able to fulfil the promise of the 2016 reforms without assuming such powers. 111. While the CCF’s decisions are now confirmed as binding on the General Secretariat, concerns remain as to how INTERPOL can ensure that Member States comply with these decisions. While NCBs are requested by INTERPOL to delete relevant information from domestic databases whenever notified that INTERPOL alerts have been deleted, there have been many occasions in which individuals have continued to face difficulties due to inadequate compliance by Member States.123 We appreciate that INTERPOL and the CCF cannot be held responsible for NCBs’ failure to respect their decisions, but more could be done by INTERPOL to ensure compliance. 112. The new presumption of disclosure of information is welcomed as it should introduce transparency to a procedure which has previously been undermined by its opacity. Only time will tell, however, whether this new presumption will make any difference in practice. There is a concerning gap in the protection offered by the disclosure rules set out in Article 35 of the CCF Statute in that an NCB’s failure to justify its objection to disclosure will not automatically lead to disclosure of the evidence by the CCF. The absence of a justification is simply a fact which may be taken into account by the CCF when deciding on the request.124 The implication is that the CCF may attribute less weight to evidence which the NCB has refused to disclose without justification, but it remains to be seen what impact this has in practice.125 113. The CCF reforms which came into force in March 2017 have done little to strengthen the remedies available to individuals subject Fair Trials, ‘Submission – Reform of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files and its data processing procedures’ (n 70) This has not be codified in the CCF Statute or the Operating Rules, but it is a requirement according to the CCF’s website: https://www.interpol.int/ About-INTERPOL/Commission-for-the-Control-of-Files-CCF/Your-rights/How-to-submit-an-individual-request 121 122 49