Getting Ahead of the Red Notice: Pre-emptive Requests

By the time a client realizes their name is circulating through international channels, the damage is often already done. Travel plans fall apart. Banks tighten KYC and compliance reviews. Professional credibility becomes collateral in an opaque system of “international cooperation” that most people never think about until it starts working against them.

There is, however, an early-stage tool that is still widely underused: the pre-emptive request (also referred to as a pre-emptive submission). This is a proactive dossier submitted to INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), intended to place the client’s legal and compliance narrative in front of INTERPOL before a Red Notice or Diffusion is reviewed or circulated.

This article explains what pre-emptive submissions are — and what they are not — how INTERPOL says they are handled in practice, and how counsel can structure a submission that actually fits within INTERPOL’s internal compliance framework, rather than becoming a well-written letter that goes nowhere.

1. The basic mechanics: Notices, Diffusions, and why timing matters

INTERPOL uses two main operational channels for international alerts: Notices and Diffusions. Under INTERPOL’s Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), requests for international cooperation and alerts must be transmitted through one of these two mechanisms.

Importantly, INTERPOL’s review of Notices and Diffusions is not a formality. INTERPOL has publicly described its compliance and review framework, explaining that each alert is assessed against core governing instruments — including the INTERPOL Constitution, the RPD, relevant General Assembly resolutions, and the Repository of Practice interpreting Articles 2 and 3.

Put simply, Notices and Diffusions are treated as regulated data-processing actions, not automatic transmissions. A pre-emptive submission is designed to make sure the client’s compliance narrative is already in front of that internal review process, rather than arriving after an alert has begun to circulate.

2. What a “pre-emptive request” really is (in INTERPOL’s own framing)

INTERPOL addresses so-called pre-emptive requests directly in its CCF FAQ:

“An individual may submit information to the Commission, which the Commission will forward to the INTERPOL General Secretariat for its information and appropriate action if a request for police cooperation is received at a later stage concerning the individual.”

That single statement both shapes the strategy behind pre-emptive submissions and clearly defines their limits.

What it is

At its core, a pre-emptive request is a forwarded dossier. It is a structured submission that the CCF transmits to the INTERPOL General Secretariat so that, if and when a member country later seeks a Notice, Diffusion, or other form of police cooperation involving the individual, the Secretariat already has context. 

It is about positioning information in advance, not triggering an immediate decision.

What it is not

It is not a guaranteed “block” on future INTERPOL action, and it is not a substitute for a formal request for access to data or for correction or deletion.

INTERPOL’s own “How to submit a request” guidance makes this explicit. It explains that (i) the Statute does not formally recognize the term “pre-emptive request,” (ii) the term is generally used to describe requests asking INTERPOL not to process potential future data, and (iii) while the CCF will forward the submission to the General Secretariat, it will take no further procedural steps unless the individual later files a separate application for access and/or correction or deletion.

In short, a pre-emptive submission is about early narrative placement, not procedural relief.

3. Where the CCF fits in, and why your packet must be designed for administrative review

The CCF is INTERPOL’s independent body tasked with ensuring that personal data processed through INTERPOL’s systems complies with INTERPOL’s rules. In practice, that role has a very real drafting consequence: submissions need to be compliance-forward, not rhetorical.

INTERPOL’s own guidance makes clear that the CCF decides cases based on written submissions and supporting documents. Oral hearings are the exception, not the rule. This means there is no opportunity to “explain it later” or rely on advocacy flair — the record has to stand on its own.

For that reason, a pre-emptive submission should be written as something a compliance reviewer can work with immediately. That means:

• unambiguous personal identifiers,
• a concise, chronological narrative, and
• documentary references that clearly align with INTERPOL’s Articles 2 and 3 analysis (discussed below).

The goal is not persuasion in the abstract, but usability: a file that allows an internal reviewer to quickly understand the facts, test them against INTERPOL’s rules, and place the submission where it actually influences screening decisions.

4. The compliance “north star”: Articles 2(1) and 3, and the Repository of Practice

Two constitutional provisions sit at the core of any pre-emptive strategy.

• Article 2(1) requires INTERPOL to carry out its activities in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Article 3 imposes a strict prohibition on INTERPOL engaging in matters of a political, military, religious, or racial character.

These are not abstract principles. INTERPOL’s own compliance materials explicitly direct reviewers to consult the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 when assessing Notices and Diffusions.

Why the Repository matters

The Repository of Practice is INTERPOL’s public explanation of how Articles 2 and 3 are applied in real data-processing scenarios within INTERPOL’s Information System. It sets out the principles, decision factors, and illustrative examples that guide internal review. INTERPOL has also emphasized that updates to the Repository are intended to shed more light on how the organization enforces neutrality and its human rights obligations.

For counsel, the Repository functions as a calibration tool. It translates raw facts into the analytical language INTERPOL itself uses when deciding whether information can be processed or must be excluded under Articles 2 and 3.

5. What happens after you submit: procedural reality, timeframes, and expectations

A frequent mistake in practice is promising more than the process can deliver. A more accurate way to frame it is this:

A pre-emptive submission is forwarded to the INTERPOL General Secretariat for “information and appropriate action” if a relevant request is received later.  It is a positioning tool, not a decision in itself.

If binding relief is needed, it usually comes through a formal request to the CCF — either for access and/or for correction or deletion, depending on whether data are already being processed.

For those formal CCF proceedings, INTERPOL publishes indicative decision timelines once a request is declared admissible. Access requests are typically decided within four months, while correction or deletion requests are generally decided within nine months after admissibility.

These timelines do not apply to pre-emptive submissions, which follow a different procedural track. But they are critical for setting realistic expectations once a matter transitions from a pre-emptive posture into a formal access or deletion process.

6. When a pre-emptive submission is most useful: three recurring scenarios

Pre-emptive submissions are most defensible when both the risk and the story are clear.

A. The “imminent trigger” scenario
The client is about to travel, relocate, change immigration status, or appear in litigation — and the requesting state has a track record of escalation. The goal is simple: make sure the compliance record is already in place before any alert or cooperation request is submitted.

B. The “Article 3 profile” scenario
These are cases where the facts plausibly point to a political character — opposition activity, whistleblowing, public criticism of state actors, or prosecution patterns aligned with regime interests. The Repository is especially useful here, helping counsel translate real-world context into framing that maps directly to Article 3 analysis.

C. The “documentation-rich” scenario
The client already has solid materials: court filings, summonses (or evidence they were never served), expert opinions, credible media reporting, and identifiable procedural irregularities. In short, a record that an external compliance reviewer can quickly understand and work with.

Conclusion

Pre-emptive submissions aren’t a magic shield. But INTERPOL’s own public guidance makes one thing clear: individuals can submit information to the CCF, and that information may be forwarded to the General Secretariat for future “appropriate action” if a request for police cooperation arrives later.

Used properly, this tool isn’t about “winning” today. It’s about positioning. If a Notice or Diffusion request shows up tomorrow, INTERPOL’s compliance reviewers won’t be starting from zero — they’ll already have a structured, evidence-based record that speaks the same compliance language INTERPOL itself says it uses when assessing Notices and Diffusions.