c. We learn from Decision Excerpt No. 9 that the CCF defers to the extradition courts of its members on certain human rights matters, finding that the question of whether the principle of double jeopardy (or ‘ne bis in idem’) has been violated is a matter for competent national courts. d. Decision Excerpt No. 5 confirms the weight which the CCF attributes to positions expressed either by other NCBs or by international institutions relating to human rights matters, including in relation to the violation of the right to a fair trial. In this particular case, such positions were determinative of the CCF’s decision that the INTERPOL alert should be deleted. Interpretation of article 3 136. INTERPOL has so far made no noticeable changes to the way it interprets Article 3 of its constitution, and as evidenced by published CCF decisions, it continues to apply the ‘predominance test’. This means that INTERPOL still holds the position that as a general rule, an offence committed in the context of a political struggle is characterised as ‘political’ only if the harm done is proportionate to the political aim. One possible exception to this approach is the Refugee Policy, given that INTERPOL does not make its own assessment on whether or not an offence is political when applying the Refugee Policy. This assessment is instead made by the asylum-granting authority in accordance with the 1951 Convention. 138. The CCF decisions published on INTERPOL’s website also provide some additional clarity on certain matters regarding the interpretation of Article 3: a. The decisions confirm that the CCF applies the predominance test in order to determine whether an INTERPOL alert complies with Article 3, and that it takes into consideration the factors listed in Article 34(3) of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data, which are the nature of the offence, the status of the persons concerned, the identity of the source of the data, the position expressed by another NCB or international entity, obligations under international law, the implications for neutrality of the case, and the general context of the case. 135 b. Decision Excerpts 3 and 5 confirm that the CCF attaches significant weight to the opinions provided by other NCBs and international organisations on the political nature of the case. INTERPOL, ‘Repository of Practice: Application of Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution in the contest of the processing of information via INTERPOL’s channels’ (February 2013). Available at: www.interpol.int/content/download/34480/452435/version/6/file/article%203-english-february%202013vb%20CD.pdf 135 These factors are: nature of the offence, status of the persons concerned, identify of the source of the data, the position expressed by another NCB or international entity, obligations under international law, implications for neutrality of the case, and the general context of the case. 134 62 137. INTERPOL has however, published its Repository of Practice on Article 3, which was previously not available to the public several years after it was last updated in 2013.134 This is a positive step that improves INTERPOL’s transparency, and it enables individuals affected by INTERPOL alerts and their lawyers to better understand INTERPOL’s rules and, if necessary, challenge the data more effectively.