Criminal Defence · Extradition · INTERPOL

When the state hunts you across borders

Extradition requests and INTERPOL notices are two of the most powerful tools governments deploy against individuals internationally. Both can be resisted. Both have been — successfully.

Practice Area

Extradition defence

The existence of a treaty between two states does not mean extradition is inevitable. Every extradition request is subject to legal scrutiny, and a significant number are successfully resisted — on substantive, procedural, or human rights grounds. Our work begins before any formal request is lodged.

Treaty applicability and the threshold conditions

International extradition operates on a treaty basis. Where no treaty exists between the requesting and requested states, extradition can only proceed if the requested state voluntarily agrees — a weaker legal foundation that carries its own strategic implications. Where a treaty does apply, it determines everything: the offences covered, the procedure, the grounds for refusal, and the permissible scope of any eventual prosecution.

We advise on whether the applicable treaty covers the offence charged; whether the double criminality requirement is satisfied in both jurisdictions; and whether any treaty-based exception — notably the political offence exception — is available. The threshold conditions for extradition are strict. Where they are not met, the request should fail.

  • Double criminality — the conduct must constitute a criminal offence in both the requesting and requested state. Discrepancies in elements, penalties, or defences are frequently exploited.
  • Political offence exception — many bilateral treaties exclude offences of a political character from extradition. The scope of this exception is contested and jurisdiction-specific.
  • Human rights bars — extradition will be refused where there is a real risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting state. This is an autonomous assessment, not dependent on treaty terms.
  • Specialty rule — a person extradited may only be prosecuted for the offence specified in the extradition request. We enforce this rule to constrain the scope of proceedings.
  • Ne bis in idem — extradition may be refused where the person has already been tried or is being prosecuted for the same conduct in the requested state or a third jurisdiction.
  • Nationality exception — many civil law states refuse to extradite their own nationals. We identify and deploy this where available.

International representation network

Extradition proceedings are conducted in the courts of the requested state — which means local counsel is essential. When a client faces extradition proceedings in a jurisdiction where Stradalex does not hold rights of audience, we draw on an established network of specialist criminal defence practitioners to ensure appropriate representation is secured at the earliest possible stage.

Coordination across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously — where a client may be the subject of an extradition request in one state and parallel criminal proceedings in another — is part of our standard approach in complex matters.

Co-counsel network — key jurisdictions
LondonEngland & Wales
ParisFrance
FrankfurtGermany
BrusselsBelgium / EU
GenevaSwitzerland
WashingtonUnited States
SingaporeSoutheast Asia
DubaiUAE / Gulf
Tel AvivIsrael

Practice Area

INTERPOL notice deletion — a record of success

INTERPOL connects law enforcement agencies across 196 member states. It does not arrest anyone itself — but a single notice can trigger provisional arrest, travel bans, and account freezes across every jurisdiction simultaneously. Where a notice has been issued unlawfully, it must be challenged before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF), the organisation's independent supervisory body.

196
member states reached by every notice
8
notice colours — each with a distinct purpose
CCF
the independent body that can order deletion or correction

The Notice System

Eight notices. One mechanism for challenge.

Each notice has a colour and a purpose. Most target people. The newest one — the Silver Notice — targets assets. All can be challenged before the CCF where the applicable legal standards are not met.

🔴
Red Notice
Seeks the location and provisional arrest of a wanted person pending extradition. The most commonly abused — and the most commonly challenged before the CCF.
🔵
Blue Notice
Collects additional information about a person in relation to a criminal investigation. Can create reputational harm and banking difficulties even without arrest.
🟢
Green Notice
Warns police about persons who have committed crimes and are likely to repeat them. Frequently issued against clients with no live criminal proceedings.
🟡
Yellow Notice
Helps locate missing persons, often minors, or identify persons who cannot identify themselves.
🟠
Orange Notice
Warns of an imminent threat from persons, objects, or events. Carries severe reputational and travel consequences.
🟣
Purple Notice
Shares information on criminal methods, objects, and concealment techniques. Less commonly the subject of CCF challenge.
⚫
Black Notice
Seeks information on unidentified bodies.
INTERPOL Silver Notice
Silver Notice ★
The newest notice — and the only one that targets assets, not people. Traces criminal proceeds across borders. Full details →

Grounds for deletion

The CCF will delete or block a notice where the applicable legal standards are not satisfied. The most frequently invoked grounds are:

  • Article 3, INTERPOL Constitution — notices of a political, military, racial, or religious character are prohibited. Many abusive notices fail this test.
  • Lack of minimum gravity — notices must relate to offences of sufficient seriousness. Where the predicate allegations do not meet the threshold, the notice is invalid.
  • Completed sentence / ne bis in idem — a notice issued after a sentence has been served, or where proceedings in another state are ongoing, may be challenged on these grounds.
  • Data inaccuracy — errors in the underlying factual record — including mistaken identity and outdated information — are independent grounds for correction or deletion.
  • Procedural unfairness in predicate proceedings — where the underlying criminal process was fundamentally unfair, the CCF takes this into account in its proportionality assessment.

How a CCF challenge works

The CCF process — step by step
📋
Notice identifiedRed, Blue, Green or other notice active in INTERPOL's system
↓
📝
CCF request filedFormal submission setting out the grounds for deletion or correction
↓
🔎
CCF reviewIndependent panel assesses compliance with INTERPOL's Constitution and RPD
↓
✅
Notice deleted or correctedRemoval from INTERPOL's records, binding on all 196 member states

Stradalex

Instructing us

Stradalex acts for individuals and entities facing the full range of cross-border criminal enforcement action — from extradition requests at the earliest pre-judicial stage through to CCF challenges against INTERPOL notices that have been in force for years. In both contexts, the strategic question is the same: on what basis does the state's claim fail, and how do we press that argument most effectively?

Our record in CCF matters is strong. We have acted in cases involving politically motivated Red Notices, notices issued in respect of completed sentences, and notices that failed the minimum gravity threshold. Success at the CCF level produces a result binding on every member state simultaneously — a single decision that resolves exposure across multiple jurisdictions at once.

In extradition matters, we engage at the stage where it matters most: before any formal request is lodged. Early assessment of treaty applicability, the double criminality analysis, and available procedural bars gives clients the clearest picture of their options and the most time to deploy them.

Speak to us confidentially All practice areas