Multi-Forum Defence: A Practical Guide to Coordinating Criminal, Extradition and INTERPOL Proceedings

International defence rarely takes place on a single front. While criminal proceedings concerning guilt or innocence are pending in one state, a court in another may be deciding whether extradition or surrender is permissible. At the same time, the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) may be reviewing whether a Red Notice or Diffusion complies with INTERPOL’s rules. The same person and the same underlying facts may therefore give rise to several legally distinct proceedings. Each is governed by different legal standards and offers different avenues of defence.

The central question is consequently not simply how each individual proceeding can be defended. It is this: In which forum is a meaningful result realistically achievable? In cases of politically motivated prosecution, the solution may not lie in the requesting state at all, but in the extradition proceedings or before the CCF. By contrast, where the case concerns genuine serious criminality without a political dimension, the domestic arrest warrant and international alert may serve a legitimate purpose, while extradition may nevertheless be impermissible because of detention conditions or other human-rights concerns.

The appropriate strategy therefore depends on what can realistically be achieved in each forum and what practical benefit that result would have for the client.

A. What Is Multi-Forum Defence?

Effective international defence requires all relevant proceedings, together with their possibilities and limitations, to be considered collectively from the outset.

I use the term Multi-Forum Defence to describe the coordinated strategic conduct of several legally distinct proceedings arising from the same underlying facts. These will typically include domestic criminal proceedings, extradition or surrender proceedings and proceedings before the CCF concerning INTERPOL data.

The objective is to coordinate those proceedings across different jurisdictions and decision-making forums so as to achieve the best possible overall outcome for the client.

B. What Each Proceeding Can Achieve — and What It Cannot

I. Defence in Domestic Criminal Proceedings

Domestic criminal proceedings provide the traditional range of criminal-defence outcomes: an acquittal, discontinuance of the proceedings, potentially subject to conditions, a suspended custodial sentence or, where the relevant legal system permits it, disposal by penal order or an equivalent summary procedure.

Once the criminal case has been brought to a final conclusion, the basis for a domestic arrest warrant and the international alerts connected to it will generally fall away. This route is not always available, however. In some legal systems, criminal proceedings cannot be finally concluded in the absence of the accused. For an internationally wanted person, returning to the requesting state may involve substantial risks.

Those risks may arise from politically motivated proceedings, corruption within the justice system or detention conditions that fail to meet minimum human-rights standards. In many cases, the prospect of spending months in pre-trial detention is itself a decisive consideration.

There is also the ordinary uncertainty inherent in criminal litigation. Every experienced defence lawyer knows that even a carefully developed strategy may fail. A person who returns voluntarily to the requesting state may therefore expose themselves to the most severe possible consequence: prolonged deprivation of liberty with an uncertain outcome.

In a case involving allegations of a series of burglaries in Germany, my client was held in extradition detention in the United Kingdom on the basis of a German Red Notice. His wife was due to give birth to their child within weeks. His centre of life was in the United Kingdom, and he no longer had any substantial connection with Germany.

The British extradition proceedings were already at an advanced stage when local counsel contacted us. Initially, the purpose was merely to obtain documents from the German criminal case.

A review of the file showed, however, that the more effective strategy was to address the German proceedings directly. If extradited, the client would probably have spent several weeks or months in pre-trial detention. At the same time, it appeared likely that the proceedings would ultimately result only in a suspended custodial sentence.

We therefore opened discussions with the competent public prosecutor’s office. The case was eventually resolved by way of a German penal order. After security had been provided for the fine and procedural costs and the client had waived his right to challenge the order, it became final.

The domestic arrest warrant was withdrawn and the British authorities were informed. There was consequently no longer any basis for the client’s continued extradition detention. He was released before the British court was required to issue a final ruling on his extradition.

II. Extradition and Surrender Proceedings

In extradition proceedings, the competent court does not generally determine whether the person sought committed the alleged offence. The issue is whether extradition or surrender to the requesting state is legally permissible under the specific factual and legal circumstances.

If extradition is finally declared impermissible, the person sought may not be transferred. Any extradition detention must also be brought to an end. The person concerned may thereby obtain protection against extradition from that particular state, but not unrestricted freedom of movement.

The domestic arrest warrant remains in force. The same may apply to international alerts and other cross-border enforcement mechanisms.

This is particularly apparent in cases involving a European Arrest Warrant. If one EU Member State refuses surrender, other Member States are not necessarily bound by that decision. If the person sought travels elsewhere, they may be arrested again and subjected to fresh surrender proceedings.

A continuing Red Notice may have a similar effect. The person concerned may still face arrest when entering another country or passing through border controls. A successful extradition defence can therefore create a form of safe haven in one state, while travel to other states remains risky for an indefinite period.

The requesting state may also later supplement its extradition request, correct deficiencies or submit additional information. A further extradition proceeding may therefore arise even in the same requested state.

A client was sought under a European Arrest Warrant in connection with allegations of large-scale migrant-smuggling offences and was arrested in Germany. The warrant arose from a major Belgian criminal investigation.

The defence in the surrender proceedings did not challenge the underlying criminal allegations. Instead, it focused on the specific conditions of detention to which the client would have been exposed following his surrender to Belgium.

After reviewing the available evidence, the competent extradition court concluded that there was a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Surrender was declared impermissible, and the client was released from extradition detention.

The Belgian criminal proceedings continued independently and later resulted in a conviction in absentia. The custodial sentence imposed in Belgium cannot be enforced by way of surrender from Germany for as long as the client remains there.

His freedom of movement within the European Union nevertheless remains substantially restricted.

III. Defence Against INTERPOL Red Notices and Diffusions

The CCF reviews whether the processing of data through INTERPOL, including data contained in Red Notices and Diffusions, complies with INTERPOL’s Constitution, rules and applicable data-processing standards.

If the CCF finds that the processing of the relevant data is non-compliant, the information is deleted from INTERPOL’s systems. This substantially reduces the risk of the affected person being arrested during international travel solely on the basis of the INTERPOL alert.

In practice, however, applicants must often be prepared for lengthy proceedings. Where travel restrictions and the risk of arrest remain in place, this waiting period can be exceptionally burdensome.

A favourable CCF decision does not affect the domestic arrest warrant or bring the underlying criminal proceedings to an end. Other mechanisms, such as a European Arrest Warrant, may remain in force. The requesting state may also submit a formal extradition request directly to the state in which the person is located, provided the relevant legal requirements are met.

There is nevertheless substantial overlap between CCF and extradition proceedings. Political persecution, serious deficiencies in the rule of law and human-rights risks may be central both before the CCF and before an extradition court. Evidence and findings obtained in one forum can therefore often be used in another.

A client was arrested in Turkey on the basis of an INTERPOL Red Notice. Extradition and deportation proceedings were being conducted there in parallel.

The underlying prosecution originated in Saudi Arabia and was, in my assessment, politically motivated. There were also substantial doubts as to whether the client would receive a fair trial if returned.

The client was represented both by Turkish counsel and by a lawyer in the requesting state. The Turkish extradition and deportation proceedings did not initially offer an effective means of removing the immediate basis for his detention.

An additional application was therefore submitted to the CCF seeking the deletion of the Red Notice.

The CCF granted the application. Following the deletion of the Red Notice, the client was released from custody. To date, no viable resolution of the underlying Saudi proceedings is in sight.

C. Establishing a Coordinated Defence Structure

Criminal, extradition and CCF proceedings conducted in parallel influence one another. They must therefore be treated from the outset as parts of a single overall strategy.

I. Coordination Instead of Isolated Defence

International criminal cases are frequently handled by several lawyers in different jurisdictions. One may be responsible for the domestic criminal proceedings, another for extradition, and a third for the proceedings before the CCF. Additional local counsel and experts may also be involved.

Each lawyer will naturally focus on the proceeding for which they have been retained. Acting in isolation, however, may damage the client’s overall position. A strategy that is entirely appropriate in one proceeding may create serious difficulties in another. Multi-Forum Defence is therefore as much a matter of coordination as it is of legal analysis.

Four questions should be addressed at the outset:

Who is responsible for each proceeding, and who will coordinate the overall strategy?
Which objectives take priority where they conflict?
Who decides which factual assertions may be made and what information may be exchanged?
Which submissions require coordination, and where is silence strategically preferable?

A separate case manager will not usually be necessary. What has proved effective, however, is a core defence team that communicates at regular intervals about new developments, the agreed factual basis of the defence and the next procedural steps. This becomes particularly important where a change in one forum may have an immediate impact on the others.

II. Building an Information Advantage Through International Cooperation

Counsel in the requesting state will usually have the best access to the underlying criminal case. They may be able to obtain access to the case file, examine the evidence, communicate with the domestic prosecuting authorities and assess directly how the proceedings are likely to develop.

By contrast, extradition counsel or the lawyer handling the CCF proceedings may have access only to limited information. The extradition documents and the material transmitted through INTERPOL will primarily reflect the requesting state’s account of the case.

Without access to the domestic case file, neither the evidential position nor the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted can be assessed reliably.

The involvement of local defence counsel therefore provides a significant informational advantage, including over the prosecutors and courts dealing with extradition, which will often possess only a condensed extradition file.

A comparison with the domestic case file may reveal omissions, incomplete accounts, translation errors or a misleading presentation of the facts. At the same time, it protects the defence from relying on speculation or conclusions that can easily be disproved.

If access to the case file is refused in the requesting state without adequate justification, that may indicate broader rule-of-law concerns. Depending on the circumstances, such a refusal may carry significant weight in extradition proceedings or before the CCF as evidence of a potential breach of fair-trial guarantees.

Where access is lawfully restricted, for example to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation, the extradition file may nevertheless enable domestic defence counsel to obtain an initial picture of the allegations and the procedural posture of the case.

III. A Consistent Communication Strategy

Statements rarely remain confined to the proceeding in which they were made. Written submissions, documents and evidence may enter other proceedings through diplomatic channels, mutual legal assistance, supplementary requests for information or informal exchanges between authorities.

A statement made in domestic criminal proceedings may later be used against the client in extradition proceedings. Conversely, submissions made in the extradition case may complicate the defence in the underlying criminal proceedings. Even documents that appear exculpatory in one forum may have damaging implications in another.

It is therefore not sufficient merely to avoid direct contradictions. Every material factual assertion must be assessed for its potential consequences across all relevant proceedings.

The disclosure of assets, bank accounts or corporate structures, for example, may trigger additional investigations or cross-border restraint and confiscation measures.

A coherent communication strategy therefore does more than protect the credibility of the defence. It also preserves future strategic options.

IV. Feasibility and Prioritisation

Every international defence team must continually ask two questions: What is realistically achievable under the circumstances, and what practical benefit would that outcome have for the client?

In extradition cases, counsel in the requesting state should therefore be involved as early as possible. Only local counsel can provide a reliable assessment of how long pre-trial detention may last following extradition, whether prompt release is realistic, what sentence may ultimately be expected and whether a negotiated or consensual resolution is available.

That assessment allows the team to determine whether a costly fight against extradition lasting months or years is genuinely in the client’s interests.

Sometimes the better solution lies in the underlying criminal proceedings.

Multi-Forum Defence does not mean pursuing every conceivable legal avenue to its ultimate conclusion. It means choosing the battlefield wisely.

My client was arrested at a German airport during a layover under a European Arrest Warrant concerning allegations of white-collar offences in Romania.

Because he had neither a residence nor any substantial personal ties in Germany, the competent extradition court refused to release him from extradition detention subject to conditions.

The extradition defence had a realistic prospect of success. On the information available at the time, there were serious doubts as to whether detention conditions in Romanian prisons met the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Obtaining a final court ruling would, however, probably have taken several months. During that period, the client would have remained in extradition detention in Germany.

Romanian criminal defence counsel was therefore instructed in parallel. He succeeded in negotiating a solution with the competent authorities under which the client was released from pre-trial detention immediately after his surrender. He remained at liberty until trial. The criminal proceedings ultimately resulted in a fine.

For the client, this was the materially better outcome. As an entrepreneur, he depended on being able to travel within the European Union. A successful extradition defence in Germany might have protected him against surrender from Germany, but would have left him unable to conduct his business normally.

Following his surrender and release, he was able to resume travelling, continue running his company and conclude the Romanian proceedings without the burden of prolonged detention.

D. Conclusion

The decisive point of intervention in an international criminal case is not always found in the proceeding in which the problem first becomes visible.

Multi-Forum Defence therefore focuses on the interaction between all relevant proceedings and decision-making forums. The central question is which step, in which forum, will produce the best overall result for the client under the specific circumstances.

Coordinated defence also depends on choosing counsel whose experience matches the relevant forum. Practical selection criteria are set out in Choose Your Fighter: How to Pick the Right INTERPOL Lawyer.

About the Author

Dr. Julius Hagen is a German lawyer and criminal defence counsel at RATH HAGEN. He represents clients in cross-border criminal cases, extradition and surrender proceedings and proceedings before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files.

International Criminal Defence Requires Coordination

RATH HAGEN advises clients and international defence teams on the coordination of domestic criminal proceedings, extradition and surrender proceedings, INTERPOL alerts and other cross-border enforcement measures across multiple jurisdictions.