to abusive alerts. Our recommendations relating to the use of interim measures such as blocking INTERPOL alerts or addenda have not been taken on-board, and individuals are still denied the right to appeal the decisions made by the CCF either internally or through an external complaints mechanism. 114. Member States have an important role to play in the effective implementation of the CCF’s reforms. As pointed out above, it is crucial that NCBs comply with the CCF’s decisions, but it is also important that NCBs support and respect the CCF’s efforts to implement the improved transparency and the equality of arms promoted by the CCF Statute. Member States should recognise the importance of the CCF’s work in protecting INTERPOL’s effectiveness and reputation in its interactions with the CCF, and they must also support its work by ensuring that it is adequately resourced. We have also seen in our own cases that NCBs can make positive contributions to the CCF during complaints procedures, by supplying it with helpful information regarding an individual. This problem is illustrated by the case of Ales Michalevic, whose Red Notice was deleted by INTERPOL, but was arrested in April 2011 in Poland, possibly on the basis that the Polish authorities had not acted fully in accordance with INTERPOL’s decision to delete the information. Further information available Fair Trials, ‘Data Protection Day highlights plight of INTERPOL victims’(28 January 2014), Available at: https://www.fairtrials.org/data-protectionday-highlights-plight-of-interpol-victims/ 124 CCF Statute, Article 35(4). 125 For a more detailed analysis of the new disclosure regime, see Alex Tinsley, ‘Echoes of Kadi: Reforms to Internal Remedies at INTERPOL’, EJIL: Talk! (20 January 2017), available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/echoes-of-kadi-reforms-to-internal-remedies-at-interpol/ 126 PACE Report (n 50), para. 64 123 50 115. The PACE Report proposes that there should be a right to financial compensation for individuals who are found to have been subject to abusive INTERPOL alerts, and that the fund for compensation “should be fed by contributions from States proportionately to the number of unjustified notices requested by their NCBs”.126 While we fully support, in principle, the suggestion that victims of rights violations should be entitled to compensation, in our view the priority should be to ensure that limited funds are focused on efforts to ensure that requests for INTERPOL alerts are adequately scrutinised before being circulated and to improve the CCF’s ability to function as an effective redress mechanism.