Dismantling the Tools ofreport Oppression INTERPOL 2018 C. Overview of Fair Trials’ concerns and recommendations 28. Since 2012, Fair Trials has worked to highlight cases of injustice caused by INTERPOL alerts issued in violation of INTERPOL’s own constitutional rules (which we have referred to as ‘abusive’). We found that INTERPOL faced significant challenges regarding its ability to prevent and remove abusive INTERPOL alerts. 29. Fair Trials has encouraged INTERPOL to take action to address concerns in three main areas: (a) the mechanism for preventing publication of alerts which do not comply with INTERPOL’s constitutional rules; (b) the process through which those affected by INTERPOL alerts can seek access to the information being disseminated through INTERPOL’s channels and request deletion of INTERPOL alerts which do not comply with INTERPOL’s own rules; and (c) the interpretation of its Constitution which requires INTERPOL to respect political neutrality and human rights. Protection from abuse 30. The gatekeeper of INTERPOL’s alert system is the General Secretariat, which is responsible for reviewing requests for INTERPOL alerts from Member States, publishing INTERPOL alerts, and keeping them under review thereafter. 31. We know, however, that the General Secretariat has not always been able to detect and prevent abusive alerts from being disseminated, even in cases where there is very strong evidence to suggest they are either politically motivated or based on, or likely to expose individuals to serious human rights violations, such as torture. a. Bahar Kimyongür: Bahar, a journalist and activist, was detained in Italy in November 2013 pursuant to a Red Notice16 issued at the request of the Turkish Government. Bahar had previously been detained in the Netherlands (in April 2006) and Spain (in June 2013) On the basis of the same Red Notice. The Red Notice arose following a peaceful protest in the European Parliament. The Government of Italy refrained from extraditing Bahar following the intervention of the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of freedom of expression. The intervention raised a number of concerns, including that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bahar may be subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment if extradited to Turkey”.17 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture “welcomed the decision of the Government of Italy to refrain from extraditing him and thereby complying with Article 3 of the UNCAT”.18 The Red Notice remained in place despite these findings and following an initial application to the CCF submitted by Bahar. It was not until Fair Trials made a further application on Bahar’s behalf that the alert was eventually deleted in August 2014. However, the letter confirming the deletion of the Red Notice contained no reasoning. Fair Trials, ‘Bahar Kimyongur – Turkey’ Available at: https://www.fairtrials.org/bahar-kimyongur/ United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint Urgent Appeal ITA 3/2013 (17 December 2013) Accessible at: https://spdb.ohchr. org/hrdb/24th/public_-_UA_Italy_17.12.13_(3.2013).pdf 18 United Nations Human Rights Council, Twenty eighth session, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Mendez –Addendum’, (6 March 2015) A/HRC/28/68/Add.1 16 17 17