In general, attorneys advocate for fair treatment by encouraging equality. There are times, however, when equal treatment does not lead to a fair outcome. In today’s post, we will focus on Article 28 of INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data, and why the equal application of this rule to all INTERPOL member countries is not fair, or just.
Article 28 which states in a relevant part:
Data are… considered to be accurate and relevant when entered by a National Central Bureau, a national entity or an international entity into the INTERPOL Information System…
When a rule such as this is applied equally to all INTERPOL member countries, whether they have a strong due process and transparency record and low levels of corruption, like Denmark, or whether they consistently violate due process standards, have no transparency, and high levels of corruption, like Russia or China, INTERPOL is left vulnerable to countries which will abuse this level of trust.
Countries with high levels of corruption typically do not have the same level of transparency as those with lower levels of corruption. In those countries with consistently high levels of corruption, the absence of oversight can easily lead to the manipulation and/or fabrication of data for political and personal gain. For example, China has a history of unfairly targeting successful business owners who speak out against the government. When INTERPOL accepts data from such countries as being valid without enhanced oversight, it inadvertently creates a tool vulnerable to abuse which can be used to silence individuals rather than protect them.
To address these concerns, Estlund Law and other advocates have repeatedly suggested that INTERPOL implement additional safeguards and reviews of data submitted by countries with unreliable judicial systems or high abuse records. A more vigorous data checking process could perhaps improve the validity and legality of data entered.
Because INTERPOL has publicized little information regarding its treatment of data received from most abusive countries, it is difficult to guage whether it is applying a higher level of scrutiny to known abusive countries.
In 2022, INTERPOL did publicize its efforts to reign in and deter Russian INTERPOL abuse, and issued the following language in a statement:
. . . To prevent any potential misuse of INTERPOL’s channels in relation to the targeting of individuals within or beyond the conflict in Ukraine, heightened supervision and monitoring measures in relation to Russia have now been implemented by the Secretary General, a decision which was endorsed by the Executive Committee.
Effective immediately, diffusions can no longer be sent directly by NCB Moscow to member countries. NCB Moscow must now send all diffusions to the General Secretariat to be checked for compliance with INTERPOL’s Rules. Only if a diffusion is found compliant will the General Secretariat then disseminate it to member countries. This procedure is in addition to the General Secretariat’s current process of reviewing all Notice requests for compliance.
[Emphasis supplied.]
Such statements go a long way toward strengthening public faith in INTERPOL’s processes and providing transparency as to INTERPOL’s commitment to fairness and the rule of law.
As INTERPOL’s caseload and global activities continue to increase, it will be interesting to see whether its public statements on abuse prevention also grows.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.
[View source.]
