Consideration of the case on international search on charges of timber smuggling: Russia — China — Interpol
The essence of the problem
An international investigation was initiated through Interpol regarding two applicants at the request of the Russian Federation. The basis was criminal cases concerning the smuggling of strategically important natural resources—valuable timber—allegedly carried out during the period from 2015 to 2019.
In the Interpol system were placed:
- a red notice regarding one of the applicants;
- Diffusion, subsequently replaced with Red Notice, — in relation to the second.
This entailed the risk of detention, extradition, and restriction of international movements.
The applicants appealed to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files (CCF) with a demand to delete the data, citing the illegality of prosecution, political motivation, and human rights violations.
The position of the prosecution
The Russian side indicated that:
- the applicants were part of an organized group;
- using forged documents, they carried out illegal export of timber to China;
- fictitious companies and fake CITES permits were used;
- the damage was estimated at hundreds of millions of rubles;
- the actions are qualified as smuggling of strategically important resources.
On this basis, the requesting party insisted on maintaining Interpol notices.
Analysis of the defense and the decision of the Interpol Commission on the case of international search
As part of this case, the defense presented a detailed position, building their argumentation on four key directions. First and foremost, the lawyers pointed out the lack of a clear description of the personal guilt of the applicants, noting that the accusation was generalized without individualizing roles and establishing a clear connection between the actions of individuals and the incriminated episodes. At the same time, the defense insisted on the administrative rather than criminal nature of the dispute, arguing that the proceedings concern customs regulation rather than general criminal offenses.
Particular attention was paid to the political background of the case. The applicants linked the prosecution to their anti-corruption activities and pressure from state authorities on business. In addition, systemic human rights violations were noted, including pressure on witnesses and the lack of guarantees for a fair trial.
Evaluation of the Interpol Commission
Having reviewed the submitted materials, the Commission reached ambiguous conclusions. On one hand, it rejected arguments regarding the administrative nature of the case, classifying the actions as criminal due to the scale of illegal export of strategic resources. Additionally, the Commission deemed the description of charges in the case materials sufficiently detailed, pointing to the presence of data on smuggling mechanisms and the roles of participants. Arguments about political persecution and human rights violations were not recognized as dominant, as the Commission did not find sufficient evidence of their systemic nature, leaving the assessment of evidence admissibility at the discretion of national courts.
Procedural result and final decision
Despite the fact that the Commission recognized the data as generally compliant with Interpol’s rules and refused to completely delete it, an important procedural success was achieved. The Commission ruled that the information in the organization’s database requires significant adjustments. The National Bureau was obligated to update the information, specifying the role of each applicant and clarifying the scope of illegal operations. A key condition was the establishment of a strict deadline for implementing these changes: if the requirements are not met, access to the data in Interpol’s system must be restricted.
Thus, the Commission effectively imposed a ban on the use of information in its previous, incorrect form.
The significance of precedent and recommendations
This case clearly demonstrates that even if an Interpol notice remains in the database, legal action allows for the revision of data and restriction of its dissemination. This confirms the existence of effective mechanisms to control abuses in international searches.
In situations where accusations are of a complex economic nature or are presented unilaterally, the timely involvement of specialized lawyers is critically important. Professional protection of rights at the international level allows not only to correct inaccurate information but also to effectively limit the scope of international search.
