Trust
Editorial policy
This editorial policy describes how the platform's materials are built: where the facts come from, who checks them, what we refuse to publish and what we do when we get something wrong.
In this subject the price of an inaccuracy is measured not in reputation but in somebody else's freedom of movement. The rules below are therefore working constraints we check every text against before publishing, not a statement of intent.
Materials are educational, not legal advice
This is not boilerplate but a description of a boundary. An article explains how a procedure works and what usually affects the outcome — but it does not know your facts, your initiating country, your documents or your deadlines. Two people with seemingly identical Red Notices get different recommendations because everything else differs. So we write «as a rule», «in most jurisdictions», «depends on», and ask you to read those words literally: your case may be different.
Who prepares the materials
Materials are prepared by the platform's editorial process and published in its name. We deliberately do not sign articles with invented names or attribute non-existent credentials to them: in a field where someone's freedom depends on the text, a fake byline is worse than none. Everything you read is checked against primary sources, which the materials cite.
What we rely on
Primary sources rather than retellings: INTERPOL's Constitution, the Rules on the Processing of Data, the CCF Statute, official General Secretariat publications, ECHR case law under Article 3, bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties, and the national law of specific countries. Where a statement rests on practice rather than on a rule, we say so — and separate the two in the text itself.
What we never publish
Never: case details that could identify a person, even with their consent — the people they are hiding from can recognise them too. Never: promises of an outcome, deadlines for removing a notice, or «guaranteed» schemes. Never: advice on concealing identity, obtaining documents outside the law, or misleading a border service. We do receive such requests, and the answer is always a refusal.
How we handle numbers
Every figure must be verifiable: 195 INTERPOL member countries, CCF processing times, fee levels. We do not write «in 90 per cent of cases» when nobody has counted those cases. Where data does not exist, saying so is more honest than inserting a plausible number — a reader who once catches us inventing a figure will rightly stop believing the rest.
Dates and currency
Every material shows its publication date and the date it was last updated. The publication date comes from the repository's history and is never backdated to make an article look fresher. Reading time is calculated from the actual length of the text rather than estimated: if it says six minutes, there really is about six minutes of reading.
When a material is revised
Planned revision: when a rule the text relies on changes, when a significant CCF or ECHR decision appears, when a particular country's practice shifts. Unplanned: when a reader or a colleague points out an inaccuracy. A material we can no longer support with a source is withdrawn rather than left standing with a caveat.
Corrections
Found an error — write to us. We correct factual inaccuracies without argument and without asking why you want to know. If a correction changes the substance of a recommendation rather than its wording, we reflect that in the material's update date. We do not quietly delete inconvenient texts or pretend the error never happened.
Keeping materials separate from services
The knowledge base does not exist to walk a reader towards a purchase. A good share of our materials end with «in your case you most likely need do nothing», and that is a normal result. We separately describe what we do not do, and we decline work that does not suit us — there is a dedicated section on that.