Dismantling the Tools ofreport Oppression INTERPOL 2018 framework to the same degree as refugee status determinations, both are sovereign decisions that give effect to legal obligations under international law. For example, extradition refusals made on non-refoulement grounds, or due to the use of torture evidence apply well-established principles of international law. There is no obvious reason why INTERPOL should give more weight to one type of sovereign decision over another. regarding the prohibition of torture.133 We believe that it would be helpful for INTERPOL to develop and publish clear principles on how it will address such matters and the evidence which it will take into account. 135. In the recently published decisions of the CCF (discussed in more detail below), we find indications of where the CCF, at least, considers the limits of INTERPOL’s human Repository of practice on article 2 of the constitution a. rights obligations to lie. These can be summarised as follows: 133. In the Rules on the Processing of Data, an amendment brought into force following the 83rd General Assembly in 2014 requires INTERPOL to prepare a repository of practice on Article 2 of the Constitution. Given the distinct lack of clarity on how INTERPOL approaches its constitutional commitment, this was a welcome development. We understand, however, that more than 4 years later the process of developing the Repository is still underway. In Decision Excerpt No. 2, we see that the Commission will examine the risks of human rights violations on a case-by-case basis, and that it does not perceive its role to be “to assess a country’s law enforcement or judicial system”. The implication is that, in order to be successful, human rights arguments in favour of deletion of an INTERPOL alert will need to be specific to the case in question and not generic statements b. about the human rights record of the country in question. 134. INTERPOL has, nonetheless, met twice with the UN Committee against Torture with a view to seeking its input on how it should interpret its obligations in relation to the prohibition of torture and to identifying ways in which the UN Committee against Torture can contribute to INTERPOL’s decision-making.132 We acknowledge that INTERPOL faces challenges in finding the right balance between its primary role of facilitating international police cooperation and the need to do so without undermining human rights. We have been informed by INTERPOL that internationally recognised human rights standards regarding the prohibition of torture are being applied, and CCF decisions also confirm that INTERPOL recognises international human rights standards Decision Excerpt No. 12 provides some insight into how extradition refusals are taken into consideration by the CCF. This decision also confirms that INTERPOL recognises freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as guaranteed under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 5 UDHR as a fundamental right under international law. In this case, the CCF appears to have found that a decision made by an independent judiciary to refuse extradition on non-refoulement grounds provided evidence that the data in question violated Article 2 of the Constitution. INTERPOL General Assembly, Resolution AGN/543/RES/7 of 1984; CCF Decision Excerpt No 2 confirms that extradition refusals will, rather than automatically leading to deletion as Fair Trials has proposed, be recorded as an addendum to the original notice. Available at: https://www.interpol.int /content/download/34452/452069/version/2/file/Decision%20Excerpt%20N%C2%B02.pdf 131 CCF, Decision Excerpt 2 130 61