104. There is also a commitment on the part of the CCF to make its decisions public115 and, at the time of writing, fourteen redacted decisions have been published on the CCF website providing some much-needed insight into how INTERPOL’s rules are interpreted. These include interpretations of Articles 2 and 3 (see paragraphs 135 and 138 below),116 as well as the provisions of the RPD. In particular, the published decisions tell us how the CCF applies Article 35 of the RPD, which requires data on INTERPOL’s files to be ‘of interest for the purposes of international police cooperation’ in various situations.117 The excerpts also illustrate how the CCF interprets the provisions in the CCF Statute, including those that relate to re-examination of requests, demonstrating how stringently the requirement for “new material information” is applied.118 105. The CCF decisions also help us to understand the CCF’s approach to decision-making. We learn from these excerpts that it “is not empowered to conduct an investigation, weigh evidence, or make a determination on the merits of a case” as these tasks are the responsibility of national authorities.119 The CCF also refrains from making general assessments about a country’s legal system.120 106. The CCF tends to take a holistic approach in its decisions and, in cases where it finds that an INTERPOL alert is not compliant with INTERPOL’s rules, it does not always identify which specific provisions were violated. This approach is illustrated by Decision Excerpt No. 13, in which the CCF considered a range of arguments for the deletion of the Red Notice, including the assertion that the Red Notice was politically motivated, and that the dispute that formed the basis of the alert was a Analysis of reforms 107. Fair Trials is delighted by the significant reforms which have been introduced by the new CCF Statue and Operating Rules. Many of our recommendations have been taken on board and we consider there now to be a solid foundation upon which to build a more transparent and effective redress mechanism than has ever been available before in the INTERPOL context. We believe that these reforms bring the CCF’s procedures closer in line with the best practice examples we identified in comparable complaints bodies of international organisations in our submission to the GTI.121 108. These reforms must only be viewed, however, as a foundation. It is only through the effective implementation of these reforms that their potential can be fully realised, and this will not be straightforward. CCF Statute, Article 44 Available at: https://www.interpol.int/About-INTERPOL/Commission-for-the-Control-of-Files-CCF/Legal-texts-and-studies/Publications-of-the-Commission. 117 CCF, Decision Excerpts Nos. 11, 12, and 13 118 See Decision Excerpts Nos. 6 and 7. Available at:https://www.interpol.int/content/download/34450/452061/version/2/file/Decision%20Excerpt%2 N%C2%B06.pdf andhttps://www.interpol.int/content/download/34446/452045/version/2/file/Decision%20Excerpt%20N%C2%B07.pdf 119 See Decision Excerpt No. 2 (n 34) 120 CCF, Decision Excerpt No. 14 115 116 48 private matter. The decision does not state clearly which of these arguments the CCF agreed with. It does not explain whether or not the Red Notice was issued in violation of Article 3 of the Constitution, and it also does not make a clear finding on the private nature of the dispute. Instead, the CCF decided in this case that, on balance, the combined effect of the doubts that it had regarding political motivation and the private nature of the dispute meant that the Red Notice did not comply with INTERPOL’s rules. The availability of reasoned decisions is no doubt a very welcome improvement, but individuals and NCBs may need clearer explanations of how the CCF’s decisions were made to be reassured that they were not made in an arbitrary manner.