Updated 14 July 2026 · 9 min read
Article 3 in numbers
ban on political cases
independent review body
verifiable sources decide the outcome
What Article 3 prohibits
Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution expressly forbids the organisation from involvement in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character. It is a key protection for those whose prosecution stems not from a real crime but from political motives.
If a case is shown to fall under Article 3, INTERPOL must refuse to process the data or delete a notice already published.
What Article 3 actually says
The wording of Article 3 is short: “It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” It sits in INTERPOL's Constitution and binds every part of the Organization.
In practice Article 3 is applied together with Article 2 (the duty to act 'in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights') and INTERPOL's data-processing rules. The General Secretariat must screen every request against these norms before publication, and the CCF applies them when published data is challenged.
The key criterion is the predominance test: the Commission weighs whether the ordinary-crime element or the political context predominates in the case. Even a formally economic charge falls under Article 3 where a political motive drives the prosecution.
How to prove a political motive
A political character is proven by a combination: the context of the prosecution, the person's public and civic activity, the timeline of the case, reports by human-rights organisations and international bodies, and signs of selective justice.
What matters is not an emotional assessment but a structured file with verifiable sources — that is what the CCF reviews.
The role of the CCF
The Commission for the Control of Files is an independent body that reviews complaints about breaches of INTERPOL's rules, including breaches of Article 3. It can recommend deletion of data, and that recommendation is implemented.
The procedure is written and adversarial: the applicant's position must anticipate the requesting country's arguments and rely on the Constitution and the Commission's precedents.
Defence strategy
The strategy centres on proving a political motive and procedural violations. Article 3 is often combined with other grounds: inaccurate data, expired time limits, lack of dual criminality.
A conscientious specialist does not promise a guaranteed result but builds a position that makes full use of the Constitution's protections.
Country-by-country guides
Confidential consultation
Ready to discuss your situation?
Describe your question — we will assess the situation and suggest next steps. Communication over secure channels, complete confidentiality.
All enquiries are handled confidentially.
Frequently asked questions
What does Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution prohibit?
Any INTERPOL intervention or activity of a political, military, religious or racial character. Where a case falls under Article 3, INTERPOL must refuse to publish the notice or delete one already published.
Is it enough to claim the case is political?
No. A structured file with verifiable sources is needed — an unsupported claim will not convince the CCF.
Does Article 3 guarantee deletion?
There is no guarantee, but with a proven political motive it is one of the strongest grounds for deletion.
Does Article 3 work for economic charges?
Yes — if you show that a political context predominates behind the formally economic case (the predominance test): pressure on a business, prosecution for a public stance, selective justice.
An article cannot review your case
This is the general order of things. What it means for you specifically, whether a notice exists and what to do in the coming days — we will go through your situation. Confidential, no obligation.
All enquiries are handled confidentially.