The CCF cannot hold a criminal trial or decide guilt. It can, however, review whether the processing of data meets the applicable INTERPOL standards. CIL focuses the application on those compliance questions rather than inviting the CCF to re-try the prosecution.
What a proper evidence audit asks
| Question | Example of potentially relevant inconsistency |
|---|---|
| Is the applicant individually identified? | Record mixes two people with similar names or dates of birth |
| What alleged acts are attributed to them? | Notice names a director but provides no clear personal conduct |
| Is there a legally relevant judicial basis? | The cited warrant was revoked or does not cover the person |
| Is the chronology consistent? | Alleged events occurred after the person demonstrably left the company |
| Is the purpose sufficiently explained? | Data are retained after a material change to the proceedings |
An allegation's seriousness does not establish that the person's role is adequately described; equally, a weak evidentiary defence under national law does not automatically invalidate INTERPOL processing.
Evidence that can sharpen the argument
- The actual indictment, charge sheet, warrant and amendments.
- Court findings about the applicant's alleged individual involvement.
- Reliable company registries, employment records, transaction statements and dated correspondence.
- Extradition decisions discussing the underlying allegations, noting the limited effect of those decisions.
- Verified corrections to personal identifying details and source documents.
- An issue-by-issue comparison between the data description and documentary reality.
Three different legal tasks
- Domestic criminal defence: contest the evidentiary case before the competent national authority.
- INTERPOL data-quality review: ask whether data processing complies with the organisation's rules.
- National detention or extradition defence: contest local coercive measures under the applicable law.
One legal team may coordinate all three, but they require different remedies and should not be conflated.
A model issue table for a CCF submission
| Source text | Verified contrary record | Compliance relevance | Requested action |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Director personally received the funds" | Certified bank record showing no transfer to the individual | Alleged criminal involvement may be incompletely described | Review data quality and possible deletion |
| "Warrant remains valid" | Authenticated order setting the warrant aside | Potentially outdated legal basis | Correct or delete as warranted |
| "Applicant is Person X" | Valid civil registry records identifying Person Y | Mistaken-identity risk | Correct identity and related data |
These are illustrative examples, not factual claims about a particular CIL client.
Frequently asked questions
Can I win simply by saying the prosecutor has no evidence?
No. Substantiate concrete deficiencies with reliable documents and explain why those deficiencies violate an INTERPOL processing standard.
What if a court has already refused extradition for lack of evidence?
Its reasoning may be powerful supporting material. The refusal does not automatically cancel the warrant or INTERPOL data.
Should I seek correction or deletion?
Correction may address a limited factual error; deletion may be sought where processing is itself non-compliant. The appropriate remedy depends on the record.
Primary official sources: CCF procedural rules and competence; CCF decisions archive.