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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.