In our last post, we discussed the issue of former Red Notice subjects facing difficulty upon entry to the United States, even though their Red Notices had been removed or their criminal case has been resolved. Today’s focus is on whether to apply for one and when to do so.

How do I know if I could benefit from a Redress Control Number?

A Redress Control Number is not required to travel and will not be granted to everyone who applies. In many instances, however, travelers may have encountered issues that have hampered their travel experience even though they have resolved old criminal charges and/or had a Red Notice removed. The TSA offers the following travel-related issues that may qualify an individual for a redress control number:

  • Being denied permission to travel;
  • Encountering delays in boarding an aircraft;
  • Having difficulty printing a boarding pass at a ticket kiosk or online;
  • Repeatedly being referred to a second screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
  • Being advised by a Customs and Border Protection agent of the need to update your fingerprints, and
  • Being informed that the Federal Government is not authorizing you to travel or enter the country.

If someone is consistently experiencing any of the above situations, a Redress Control Number may be useful. Receiving a Redress Control Number does not guarantee that no additional screening will occur when traveling, but does make it less likely.

When should I apply for a Control Number?

We have seen in our practice that it takes some time for databases to be updated after we have assisted a client in removing a Red Notice or resolving another criminal matter. Based on this experience, we recommend waiting at least three months after a case is resolved to take any action that relies on the related data to be removed from a system. Additionally, many people will have no difficulty upon re-entry to the U.S. after their cases are resolved. Therefore, it is not recommended that one apply immediately after a case is resolved; it simply may not be necessary.

On the other hand, if a person has allowed ample time for the respective databases to be updated and has still experienced repeated difficulties upon entering the U.S., it is likely time to seek a Redress Control Number. Information on that process can be found at https://www.dhs.gov/redress-control-numbers or by contacting our office for assistance in applying for a Redress Control Number.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

(updated on 1/16/2026)

Many Red Notice subjects are concerned about whether they may face issues when traveling, even after their Red Notices have been removed from INTERPOL databases, or after a criminal case has been resolved. In some instances, although they are permitted to enter a country after a Red Notice has been removed, subjects either face delays or are denied permission to travel. For such people traveling to (or back to) the United States, a Redress Control Number may be appropriate.

What is Redress Control Number?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provides a secure flight screening program through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). This program was created to assist and simplify the watch-list matching process to prevent further misidentification of travelers. People who continually face delays and questioning upon their entry to the United States due to an old criminal case or Red Notice can apply to this program for relief.

Why is a Redress Control Number useful?

If an individual’s redress number application is approved, TSA assigns a seven-digit number that can ease the screening process for travelers who may have been added to a security watch-list or incorrectly marked as high-risk. This number can be added to travel reservations during booking, on a traveler’s frequent flyer profile, or added by an airport agent at check-in.

Our firm regularly assists clients who seek a redress control number. In the next post, we will address how to know whether and when to apply for a Redress Control Number.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post will address Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution and why it exists. 

When an INTERPOL member country’s Red Notice request appears to be predominantly motivated by political, military, religious, or racial reasons, Article 3 requires that the organization deny the request.

Using the example cited in part 1 of this series, Bosnian officials sought a Red Notice against Milorad Dodik, the former separatist leader. A Bosnian court sought a Red Notice after Mr. Dodik and his aide went abroad in defiance of an internal arrest warrant for allegedly attacking the constitutional order. The office of Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic reported, “We are informed that INTERPOL General Secretariat has evaluated, based on our protest note and explanation by the INTERPOL Belgrade, that the request is not aligned with Article 3 … and that the terms for issuing warrants have not been met.” 

What is Article 3, and why is it needed?

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution states specifically,

“It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”

INTERPOL adopted Article 3 in 1956 to help prevent member countries’ abuse of the organization. As INTERPOL develops, it adopts resolutions that aid in the development of interpretations of Article 3. In 2004, for example, the organization adopted a resolution pertinent to the interpretation of Article 3. INTERPOL has also established that notices are reviewed on a case-by-case basis which takes into account the context of each individual case. 

The primary objectives of Article 3 are: 

  1. To prevent the compromising of INTERPOL’s neutrality or otherwise affecting its mission to assist its member countries in combatting crimes
  2. To reflect international extradition law
  3. To protect individuals from persecution

Article 3 of INTERPOL’s constitution aims to safeguard the organization’s neutrality and ensure that it remains a tool for law enforcement cooperation rather than a mechanism for political persecution. By prohibiting involvement in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial nature, INTERPOL continues in its efforts to protect individuals from corrupt member countries.

Cases like that of Mr. Dodik underscore the importance of Article 3 and demonstrate how critical it is for INTERPOL to evaluate requests to ensure they align with its requirements.  In our practice, we have assisted clients who are private individuals and journalists who have engaged in dissident speech and behavior and political activity for opposition parties. The protection afforded by Article 3 is often the difference between a Red Notice staying in place and being removed.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post will address political motivation requests from INTERPOL member countries, and the effect they have on individuals as well as the organization as a whole. 

As an example from last year, consider the case of Milorad Dodik. As reported by Reuters, INTERPOL has denied a Bosnian court’s request for a Red Notice for Mr. Dodik, a Bosnian Serb separatist leader, who is accused of attacking the constitutional order and allegedly went abroad in defiance.

The controversy reportedly began after Mr. Dodik, the president of Bosnia’s autonomous Serb Republic, defied rulings by the international envoy to Bosnia, whose role is to prevent the Balkan state from slipping back into conflict. The dispute pits Mr. Dodik and his allies, Russia and Serbia, against the United States and the European Union. Reuters reported this conflict as one of the biggest threats to peace in the Balkans since the 1990s conflicts that followed socialist Yugoslavia’s collapse. 

Following the accusations against Mr. Dodik, the Bosnian court ordered an international arrest warrant be issued for Mr. Dodik and his aide based on his alleged attack against the constitutional order after the two went abroad in defiance of an internal arrest warrant. The office of Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic said in a statement, “We are informed that INTERPOL General Secretariat has evaluated, based on our protest note and explanation by the INTERPOL Belgrade, that the request is not aligned with the Article 3 of the Statute and that the terms for issuing warrants have not been met.” (Article 3 will be discussed further in part 2 of this post)

Politically motivated Red Notices are a common topic for the Red Notice Law Journal, and for good reason. A large percentage of Estlund Law’s improper Red Notice cases concern invalid criminal charges or the allegation of criminal activity when the overarching motivation for the charge is political in nature.

INTERPOL denied the Red Notice request in Mr. Dodik’s case based on the organization’s prohibition against involvement in politically motivated matters. It appears that INTEPROL was able to quickly identify the matter as one of a political nature.

Certainly, there remain instances where the organization cannot immediately identify the political motivation behind Red Notice requests. In such cases, the subject of the Red Notice often only learns of the notice when she travels or applies for a change in immigration status. The notice may lead to detention, a denial of immigration relief, bank account closures, and reputational damage.

Our next post will address Article 3 of INTERPOL’s Constitution, how it affects the organization, and the reason it was established. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

INTERPOL is soon to host its 93rd General Assembly (GA) from the 24th to the 27th of November in Marrakech, Morocco. 

Each year, a different member country welcomes representatives from all over the world to discuss and vote on varying global law enforcement issues. Often, before an assembly, the Red Notice Law Journal discusses the country hosting, along with possible implications of its leaders’ influence. In this case, Morocco’s presence within INTERPOL appears to be relatively small. While the majority of INTERPOL Red Notices are not publicly available and are circulated for use by law enforcement only, the number of published notices provides some indication of how often a member country utilizes this INTERPOL tool. In the case of Morocco, out of over 6500 publicly listed Red Notices, Morocco currently only has 11.  This would seem to indicate a fairly low incidence of requesting Red Notices at all, let alone abusive Red Notices- obviously a good thing.

The country isn’t without its INTERPOL-related controversies, though. In 2022, Amnesty International wrote a call to action regarding Idris Hasan. The organization reported that in July 2021, Moroccan authorities arrested Idris Hasan at Casablanca’s airport based on a request from China. He was accused of terrorism, but in reality, his only “crime” was documenting human rights abuses against Uyghurs. INTERPOL quickly canceled the Red Notice against him, but Morocco still approved his extradition to China—where he would have faced imprisonment, torture, or worse. Despite widespread warnings that returning him to China would violate international law, Moroccan authorities kept him in detention for more than three years until February of 2025. During this time, activists worldwide campaigned to stop his extradition and demand his release.

Human Rights Watch has recently published a report on Morocco’s record of arresting and prosecuting human rights activists, dissidents, and journalists. But that scrutiny has not seemed to affect Morocco’s popularity as a beloved travel destination rich in culture and tradition. It also seems unlikely to affect INTERPOL itself in the near future; none of the candidates for the open seats in the Executive Committee are from the host country this year.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Today’s post will cover INTERPOL’s upcoming General Assembly from 24 to 27 of November. 

INTERPOL’s General Assembly is an annual event hosted for INTERPOL’s member countries to discuss and vote on varying global law enforcement issues. The 93rd meeting will take place this year in Marrakech, Morocco. The traditionally 4-day event is always hosted by one of INTERPOL’s member countries. Attending representatives vote on issues to ensure that INTERPOL is meeting the needs of its member countries. The General Assembly is INTERPOL’s supreme governing body and there are either one or several representatives (typically police chiefs and ministry officials) elected from each of INTERPOL’s current 195 member countries. Each country may cast one vote on issues discussed.

The agenda this year includes: 

  • Identifying and disrupting transnational organized crime.
  • Dismantling transnational scam centres.
  • Expansion of INTERPOL’s global policing capabilities.
  • Women in policing.
  • Silver Notice pilot project results.
  • Promoting the ratification of the United Nations’ Convention Against Cybercrime.

The Assembly will also vote for new members of the Executive Committee, including the President, as their mandates come to an end.

Our next post will address Morocco’s hosting of the event, why INTERPOL may have chosen it, and how the country behaves within INTERPOL. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Many thanks to my friends and colleagues at Red Notice Monitor for inviting me to join in today’s discussion ahead of major elections at INTERPOL during this year’s General Assembly.

The talk was chaired by Rhys Davies, with fellow speakers Ted Bromund and Ben Keith.

For anyone who missed it, the link to the conversation is here.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

For the past fourteen years, I have accepted very few INTERPOL cases wherein people were subjects of U.S.-requested Red Notices. The United States has historically been one of the countries that scores highest on due process observation, human rights protection, and application of law to proven facts. Our justice system is certainly not without flaws; anyone who practices regularly in any courtroom knows this.

But by and large, the courts have operated in accordance with applicable procedural and substantive rules, and law enforcment officials at the federal and state levels have at least maintained a record of compliance with their governing statutes and codes. This has meant that court files contained demonstrable proof of:

  • notice of proceedings,
  • observance of time limits and deadlines,
  • announcement of the rights to which every defendant or respondent has available in that venue, and
  • reference to evidence of the alleged law violation.

Moreover, the vast majority of court proceedings (with few exceptions) in the U.S. are public, with publicly available court records, hearing calendars, and discovery schedules, processed with due observance to domestic law.

Because of this record of compliance with the law and transparency, U.S.-requested Red Notices have been much less suseptible to attack: there is usually proper service, a translator, public proceedings, substantive and individualized bond hearings, and the like.

And there is usually not torture; pressure against family members to convince a person to return to the jurisdiction by seizing the family members’ pension; or public stated preferences by a member of the executive branch regarding the outcome of a case. There is relatively little record of politically motivated prosecutions, executive branch commentary on judicial activity; or pressure against the judiciary to rule a certain way. All of these safeguards have resulted in U.S.-requested Red Notices being less vulnerable to challenges.

Until now.

The current administration has begun to engage in prosecutions that are described by insiders and observes as being political, and firings of prosecutorial staff for refusing to support those efforts, or for appearing “disloyal” to the Trump administration. These actions include:

  • Firing a career prosecutor for refusal to file an an indictment unsupported by law and fact (link here);
  • Firing a federal prosecutor based on an anti-Trump post from several years ago, leaving the prosecution of serious federal cases in jeopardy (link here); and
  • Pressuring a federal prosecutor to resign for refusal to charge a political opponent (link here).

The current administration has publicly stated that it:

  • Has and will continue to kill suspected criminals in international territory with no efforts to provide any due process (link here);
  • Will no longer allow immigration courts to make findings regarding a person’s danger to the community or risk of flight in a bond hearing for any undocumented immigrants, even if they have no disqualifying criminal record (link here);
  • Will send troops to selected U.S. cities led by party opponents to fight a “war from within;” such cities include New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland (link here and here). Courts have intervened to prevent these military actions.

The U.S. has recently been added to a global human rights watchlist over “declining civil liberties” under the Trump administration. It also reached its “lowest score ever” of 65 out of 100 on Transparency International’s corruption metric.

Things have changed in the U.S. – our case evaluation process must reflect these changes. The current administration’s actions have rendered the U.S. legal system subject to valid skepticism by the international community. We are seeing increased documentation of the failures of the U.S. government’s separation of powers and judicial independence, and that documentation can be used to support valid removal requests, along with individual evidence in a given case.

It brings me no pleasure to make this observation about this country that has always been my home, but it cannot be denied. It is likely only a matter of time before other countries and INTERPOL choose not to support certain U.S.-based requests for extradition.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

In today’s post, we deviate from our usual formatting to answer some of the questions frequently posed by Red Notice subjects:

 Q: How can a Red Notice be issued based on false charges? 

 A: As written in a similar blog posted previously, INTERPOL allows its member countries to request or issue Red Notices if certain application criteria are met.  Those criteria do not include proof of guilt (although a record of a conviction is acceptable to INTERPOL as well.) If a member country submits a Red Notice request that is based on a false accusation, INTERPOL often has no way of knowing the false nature of the charge. INTERPOL acts as an information conduit, not as a court that determines guilt or innocence. 

Q: How long will INTERPOL take to respond to an application for removal, revision, or relief?

A: INTERPOL’s rules require, as noted in the CCF’s frequently asked questions page that requests for correction and/or deletion shall be decided within nine months after becoming admissible. After a decision is made, the CCF will notify the applicant within one month.  However, the CCF advises that it is currently behind schedule, resulting in delayed decisions.

Q: What/who is involved in removing a Red Notice?

A: An application for removal of a Red Notice should include the domestic, international, and INTERPOL’s rules- based violations, and proof of those violations. If a Red Notice has been wrongly issued, it is advisable to contact a qualified, experienced lawyer to assist you in your removal request. Requests are sent to INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL Files(CCF) for review. If the request has been submitted following INTERPOL instructions and the notice was improperly issued, it should be removed from INTERPOL’s databases. 

Q: Can I travel as a Red Notice Subject?

A: Technically, yes. However, traveling as a Red Notice subject includes the risk of being detained, questioned, or arrested. Countries handle Red Notices differently, but there is always a risk when traveling for Red Notice subjects, particularly given that the purpose of a Red Notice is to assist in the detention and extradition of wanted people. 

Q: How do I find out if I am the subject of a Red Notice?

A: The most reliable way to confirm whether you are a Red Notice subject is for the potential subject or her attorney to reach out to INTERPOL’s CCF. INTERPOL’s website has a small number of subjects listed publicly, however the vast majority are kept private as the subjects are easier to find and detain. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed. 

On July 30, from 12 PM to 1:30 PM EDT, Michelle Estlund will be joining fellow panelists in a discussion regarding the latest developments in INTERPOL’s efforts aimed at curbing transnational repression and abuse of its channels. 

Panelists will discuss: 

  • Challenges faced by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF)
  • New CCF case law, and recently proposed changes to the CCF Statute and INTERPOL’s efforts to engage the public in the discussion of the proposed changes
  • The new (third) edition of the INTERPOL Repository of Practice on the Application of Articles 2 and 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution, which require that the Organization act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strictly forbids it to engage in politically motivated criminal prosecutions
  • Recently adopted changes to INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data
  • Work of INTERPOL’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force and its participation in the prevention of the abuse of INTERPOL’s resources
  • Silver Notices recently introduced by INTERPOL which are designed to target criminal assets
  • Effect of current U.S. immigration policies and practices on individuals targeted by government requests disseminated via INTERPOL’s channels
  • Due process and human rights considerations in the context of extradition of non-U.S. citizens who are targeted by the government

Bruce Zagaris, Partner, Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP, (USA), is the moderator of this event, and panelists include:

  • Teresa McHenry, Chairperson of the Supervisory and Advisory Chamber for the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s files. 
  • Theodore Bromund, Senior Research Fellow, Anglo-American Relations, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.)
  • Michelle Estlund, Estlund Law, P.A. (Miami, FL, USA)
  • Yaron Gottlieb, Director, Head of the Notices and Diffusions Task Force, Executive Directorate, Legal Affairs, INTERPOL (Lyon, France)
  • Yuriy Nemets, Managing Member, Nemets PLLC (Washington, D.C.)

You can register for this event at https://www.americanbar.org/events-cle/mtg/web/452187150/.