In the previous installments of our “The Red Notice Empire” series, we examined allegations concerning how the People’s Republic of China has used international law enforcement cooperation mechanisms. Drawing on international reports, academic research, assessments by human rights organizations, and investigative journalism, we explored the INTERPOL Red Notice system, transnational repression mechanisms, the “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net” operations, and the targeting of Uyghurs, businesspeople, political dissidents, and other groups living abroad.

Standing opposite these mechanisms, however, is an important counterbalance: the European judiciary. Rather than evaluating Beijing’s requests solely through the lens of diplomatic relations or criminal investigations, European courts also assess them against fundamental rights and freedoms.

In recent years, extradition cases in countries such as France and Italy have demonstrated that China’s international arrest and extradition requests are no longer accepted automatically. European courts do not regard the existence of an INTERPOL Red Notice or an arrest warrant as sufficient grounds for extradition. Instead, they conduct detailed assessments of the right to a fair trial, the risk of torture or ill-treatment, the possibility of politically motivated prosecution, and the fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

As a result, several extradition requests submitted by China have been rejected by European courts in recent years. At the same time, a number of INTERPOL Red Notices found to be inconsistent with INTERPOL’s constitutional principle of political neutrality or incompatible with international human rights standards have been removed from INTERPOL’s databases through its internal review mechanisms.

In this chapter, we examine why European courts approach extradition requests originating from China with caution, review landmark rulings from France and Italy, analyze the notable findings of the Bordeaux Court, discuss examples of Red Notices removed from the INTERPOL system, and explore the broader approach of European law to such cases within the framework of judicial decisions and international legal principles.

What Do European Courts Examine?

One of the most common misconceptions surrounding INTERPOL is the belief that the issuance of a Red Notice automatically proves a person’s guilt or makes extradition inevitable. In reality, a Red Notice is not a criminal conviction. It is an international request asking member countries to locate and, where permitted under national law, provisionally detain an individual pending possible extradition proceedings. In other words, a Red Notice is neither proof of guilt nor an automatic extradition order.

For this reason, courts across Europe do not evaluate extradition requests from China—or from any other country—solely on the basis of criminal allegations. Instead, they conduct a comprehensive legal review by applying both domestic law and the safeguards established under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In particular, European courts seek answers to several fundamental questions:

• Is the extradition request politically motivated?
• Would the requested individual receive a fair trial before an independent and impartial judiciary?
• Is there a real risk of torture, ill-treatment, or inhuman or degrading punishment?
• Were the prosecution’s evidence and confessions obtained lawfully, or were they the result of coercion or forced confessions?
• Are the criminal allegations supported by credible and verifiable evidence, or do they form part of a politically motivated prosecution?
• Could the request violate Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution, which prohibits the Organization from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character?

These considerations are far more than abstract legal principles; they lie at the heart of extradition decisions throughout Europe. In cases involving China, courts frequently examine reports issued by international human rights organizations, assessments by United Nations experts, relevant international case law, and the individual circumstances of the person facing extradition.

Where judges conclude that extradition would expose an individual to a serious risk of fundamental rights violations, they may refuse the request altogether.

Consequently, in numerous cases across Europe, the allegations presented by Chinese authorities have not been considered sufficient on their own. Human rights safeguards, fair trial guarantees, and compliance with INTERPOL’s legal framework have become decisive factors in judicial decision-making. European courts have therefore sought to strike a careful balance between international police cooperation and the protection of fundamental rights, concluding in a number of cases that certain extradition requests from China failed to satisfy these legal standards.

France: The Landmark Bordeaux Court Decision

One of the most significant examples illustrating how European courts approach extradition requests originating from China is the case heard in Bordeaux, France. The proceedings raised not only the question of whether the individual was accused of a criminal offense, but also whether the judicial process they would face upon extradition to China would be compatible with European human rights standards.

In reviewing the case, the Bordeaux Court of Appeal did not rely solely on the criminal allegations and evidence presented by the Chinese authorities. Instead, the court conducted a comprehensive assessment within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), taking into account international reports on China’s criminal justice system, independent expert opinions, and findings published by international human rights organizations.

Among the key issues examined by the court were:

• Allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees;
• International reports indicating that statements and confessions may be obtained through coercion or force;
• Serious concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch;
• Whether the right to a fair trial is adequately protected in politically sensitive or high-profile cases;
• Alleged human rights violations related to China’s prison system and conditions of detention.

The court considered not only legal principles in the abstract but also long-standing concerns raised by international institutions regarding China’s justice system. In particular, the absolute prohibition of torture and the potential violation of the right to a fair trial played a decisive role in the court’s analysis.

Following its review, the Bordeaux Court of Appeal concluded that extraditing the individual to China would be incompatible with the fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court determined that there were substantial grounds for believing the individual could face torture or ill-treatment and that serious doubts remained regarding the availability of fair trial guarantees. Consequently, the extradition request was rejected.

Beyond the outcome of a single case, the Bordeaux decision has come to be regarded as an important precedent demonstrating how European courts evaluate extradition requests submitted by China. The ruling makes clear that the existence of an INTERPOL Red Notice or a formal extradition request alone is not sufficient. European courts continue to examine the requesting country’s human rights record, the independence of its judicial system, and the potential risks to the individual’s fundamental rights before authorizing extradition.

The Bordeaux judgment also represents a concrete example of the delicate balance between international criminal cooperation and the protection of fundamental rights. Through this decision, the French judiciary reaffirmed that judicial cooperation between states cannot override the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

A Similar Approach in Italy

While the Bordeaux ruling attracted significant attention across Europe, a comparable legal approach has also emerged in extradition cases involving China before Italian courts. Rather than focusing exclusively on the criminal allegations presented by Chinese authorities, Italian judges have carefully examined whether the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned would be adequately protected if they were returned to China.

Guided by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Italian courts have assessed both the legal framework and the practical conditions awaiting individuals upon extradition. Their analysis has focused on whether the risks faced by the requested persons are not merely theoretical but real, foreseeable, and supported by credible evidence.

The principal issues examined by Italian courts include:

• International reports concerning China’s human rights record;
• The possibility that criminal proceedings may be politically motivated;
• Whether an independent and impartial trial can be guaranteed;
• The risk of torture or ill-treatment in detention and within the prison system;
• The possibility that forced confessions may be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings;
• Whether diplomatic assurances offered by Chinese authorities are sufficient and reliable under international law.

Particular attention has been given to the final issue. In several cases, Chinese authorities provided diplomatic assurances stating that the individuals concerned would not be subjected to torture, would receive a fair trial, and would be treated in accordance with international standards. However, Italian courts emphasized that such assurances cannot automatically eliminate concerns regarding potential human rights violations.

Instead, the courts examined whether these diplomatic commitments were concrete, credible, and capable of effective verification. Taking into account international human rights reports and previous documented practices, judges concluded in some cases that written assurances alone were insufficient to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. As a result, diplomatic guarantees provided by China were not considered adequate grounds for approving extradition.

The Italian approach reflects a broader trend that has become increasingly evident throughout Europe. While supporting international judicial cooperation, European courts continue to emphasize that fundamental principles—including the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, and the protection of personal liberty—cannot be subordinated to interstate extradition requests.

Taken together, the decisions issued in France and Italy demonstrate the emergence of a common European legal standard for evaluating extradition requests originating from China. This standard extends beyond the nature of the alleged offense and places particular emphasis on the potential human rights consequences that individuals may face if returned. Accordingly, European courts do not regard an INTERPOL Red Notice or an extradition request as sufficient legal grounds in themselves. Instead, each case is assessed individually through the lens of fundamental rights, the rule of law, and international human rights obligations.

How Are INTERPOL Red Notices Removed?

Contrary to a common public misconception, an INTERPOL Red Notice is not a permanent or irrevocable record. Within the INTERPOL system, an independent oversight mechanism exists to review the legality of published notices and, where necessary, order their correction or complete removal.

At the center of this mechanism is the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF). The CCF reviews applications submitted by individuals to determine whether data stored in INTERPOL’s databases complies with the INTERPOL Constitution, the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), and internationally recognized human rights standards.

Following a review, a Red Notice—or a diffusion notice—may be removed from INTERPOL’s databases if any of the following circumstances are identified:

• The request is political, military, religious, or racial in nature and therefore violates Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution;
• The request is incompatible with international human rights standards;
• The requested person’s right to a fair trial is at serious risk;
• The information provided is insufficient, misleading, or inconsistent with INTERPOL’s rules;
• The Red Notice has been used in a manner that undermines INTERPOL’s principle of political neutrality.

The CCF does not determine whether a suspect is guilty or innocent, nor does it retry the criminal allegations made by the requesting state. Its role is to ensure that INTERPOL’s mechanisms are not misused for political purposes or for matters falling outside the organization’s mandate. Consequently, where a request appears politically motivated or presents a substantial risk of human rights violations, the Commission may order the removal of the relevant record from INTERPOL’s databases.

In recent years, several decisions involving requests originating from China have demonstrated that this oversight mechanism functions in practice. In a number of cases, Red Notices or diffusion notices issued through the INTERPOL system were later reviewed by the CCF and removed after being found inconsistent with INTERPOL’s legal framework. These decisions have attracted particular attention in cases involving allegations of politically motivated prosecution and concerns over fundamental human rights.

This process clearly demonstrates that a Red Notice is not a criminal conviction or a determination of guilt. The existence of a Red Notice does not mean that an individual has been internationally recognized as guilty, nor does it prevent that notice from being subjected to independent legal review.

Taken together, the rejection of certain Chinese extradition requests by European courts and the removal of some Red Notices by the CCF reflect an important principle of international law: while states have the right to seek international judicial cooperation, such mechanisms must not be transformed into instruments of political persecution or used in ways that violate fundamental human rights. This approach seeks to preserve both INTERPOL’s political neutrality and international confidence in the global law enforcement system.

The European Legal Approach

The European legal approach to extradition requests originating from China is founded upon a careful balance between international criminal cooperation and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. While judicial cooperation between states is considered essential, European courts consistently maintain that it cannot override the inalienable rights of the individual.

Accordingly, under established European legal principles, neither an extradition request nor the issuance of an INTERPOL Red Notice is, by itself, sufficient to justify extradition. Before approving such requests, courts first determine whether the individual’s fundamental rights would be adequately protected in the requesting country. Where there is a serious risk of human rights violations, international judicial cooperation may give way to the obligation to safeguard fundamental rights.

In assessing extradition cases, European courts place particular emphasis on the following legal principles:

• The fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);
• The absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment;
• The right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal;
• The protection of the right to life;
• Protection against politically motivated prosecution or punishment;
• Safeguards against arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty.

These principles are not merely theoretical concepts. They constitute binding legal standards reinforced by decades of jurisprudence developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Consequently, national courts throughout Europe evaluate not only the criminal allegations submitted by the requesting state but also reports issued by international human rights organizations, assessments by independent experts, findings of United Nations bodies, and the individual circumstances of the person facing extradition.

Particularly in requests involving countries whose human rights records have long been the subject of international concern, including China, European courts undertake especially rigorous scrutiny. If judges conclude that an individual faces a genuine risk of torture, forced confessions, denial of a fair trial, or politically motivated prosecution, extradition may be refused.

This approach demonstrates that European law does not adopt a narrow criminal justice perspective focused solely on the alleged offense. Rather, courts examine the actual treatment an individual is likely to face after extradition, whether judicial proceedings would comply with international legal standards, and whether fundamental rights would be effectively protected.

Recent decisions issued in France, Italy, and other European countries illustrate this legal approach in practice. These rulings confirm that neither an INTERPOL Red Notice nor an extradition request is legally decisive on its own. Instead, the determining factors under European law remain respect for human rights, the rule of law, and effective guarantees of a fair trial. In doing so, European courts support international efforts to combat crime while simultaneously serving as an essential safeguard against the potential political misuse of INTERPOL mechanisms.

Conclusion

China’s growing use of international arrest and extradition mechanisms has generated significant debate not only among diplomatic and security experts but also within the legal community. While the INTERPOL Red Notice system and international judicial cooperation remain indispensable tools in combating transnational crime, allegations that these mechanisms have been employed for political purposes have prompted increasingly careful scrutiny by European courts.

Cases heard in France, Italy, and other European jurisdictions clearly demonstrate that the existence of a Red Notice alone is insufficient to justify extradition. European courts examine not only the criminal allegations submitted by the requesting state but also the legal and factual conditions awaiting the individual upon return. Concerns relating to politically motivated prosecution, the risk of torture or ill-treatment, judicial independence, and fair trial guarantees remain central to these assessments.

Likewise, decisions by the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) to remove certain Red Notices illustrate that international police cooperation mechanisms are neither absolute nor immune from legal review. INTERPOL’s internal oversight system is designed to preserve the organization’s political neutrality and ensure that international police cooperation remains consistent with internationally recognized human rights standards.

Taken together, the rejection of certain extradition requests from China and the removal of some INTERPOL Red Notices should not be viewed merely as isolated legal outcomes. Rather, they represent concrete examples of the ongoing effort to balance international criminal cooperation with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

At the same time, international investigations continue to examine allegations that China has relied not only on formal legal mechanisms but also on informal methods to pursue individuals abroad. Investigative journalism projects and court records have pointed to allegations involving diplomatic pressure, economic influence, and unofficial intermediaries in efforts to secure the return of targeted individuals.

In the next installment of “The Red Notice Empire,” we examine one of the most striking examples of these allegations. Based on court documents and evidence uncovered by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the investigation explores the remarkable case in which the name of one of China’s most prominent business figures—Jack Ma—emerged in connection with efforts to persuade an overseas target to return to China. The case offers a closer look at the alleged informal pressure tactics said to operate beyond official legal channels and their broader international implications.

 

East Turkestan Bulletin News Agency / NEWS CENTER

 

REFERENCES

1. INTERPOL – Red Notices

https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices

Official INTERPOL explanation of what a Red Notice is, how it works, and its legal status.

2. INTERPOL – Notices

https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices

Overview of all INTERPOL notice types and their operational purpose.

3. INTERPOL – View Red Notices

https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices/View-Red-Notices

Official INTERPOL public database for searchable Red Notices.

4. INTERPOL – Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF)

https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Commission-for-the-Control-of-INTERPOL-s-Files-CCF

Information about the independent body responsible for reviewing requests concerning INTERPOL’s data and Red Notices.

5. INTERPOL – Constitution of INTERPOL

https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Constitution-of-INTERPOL

Official legal framework governing INTERPOL, including Article 3 prohibiting political, military, religious, or racial intervention.

6. INTERPOL – Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD)

https://www.interpol.int/en/Who-we-are/Legal-framework/Rules-on-the-Processing-of-Data

Official rules governing the processing and publication of INTERPOL data and notices.

7. European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe)

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

The legal foundation protecting human rights in extradition and deportation cases across Europe.

FURTHER READING

1. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)

China Targets Investigation
https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/

Complete investigative series examining China’s transnational repression.

2. ICIJ

Chinese authorities exploited Interpol and strong-armed one of the world’s richest men to pursue a target
https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/interpol-red-notice-police-warrant-jack-ma/

Investigation into allegations that Chinese authorities used INTERPOL mechanisms and informal pressure in pursuing overseas targets.

3. ICIJ

Inside China Targets: The data footprints of China’s transnational repression
https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-targets/inside-china-targets-the-data-footprints-of-chinas-transnational-repression/

Analysis of data and documents behind China’s overseas repression campaign.

4. Le Monde (ICIJ Partner)

Interpol: A Tool in China’s Arsenal of Transnational Repression
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/04/29/interpol-a-tool-in-china-s-arsenal-of-transnational-repression_6740746_4.html

Investigation examining allegations that INTERPOL mechanisms have been used within China’s broader transnational repression strategy.

5. Safeguard Defenders

No Room to Run: China’s Transnational Repression
https://safeguarddefenders.com/

Research and reports documenting China’s overseas pressure operations and transnational repression cases.

6. Freedom House

Out of Sight, Not Out of Reach
https://freedomhouse.org/report/transnational-repression

Global report on transnational repression practices, including case studies involving China and other governments.

7. Human Rights Watch

China Country Page
https://www.hrw.org/asia/china-and-tibet

Reports and analysis on China’s human rights record, criminal justice system, and rule of law issues.

8. Amnesty International

China
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/east-asia/china/

Annual reports and human rights assessments related to China, including fair trial concerns and treatment of detainees.