Crimes are increasingly becoming transnational in nature. Criminals take advantage of borders to commit crimes from other jurisdiction. Interpol provides an excellent facility for Police officers across the globe to facilitate detection.

3 Things to understand before proceeding

1. You are not "filling out a notice", you are submitting a request. The draft form you complete internally never goes to INTERPOL as-is. NCBs submit the structured data through INTERPOL's secure communications network (I-24/7), and the General Secretariat publishes the actual Red Notice only after a legal review. The form is a tool to make sure you have gathered everything the General Secretariat needs.

2. A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. It is a request to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition or similar lawful action. Whether to act on it rests entirely with the country where the person is found, according to that country's own law. The United States, for example, does not treat a Red Notice alone as a sufficient basis for arrest. Build your request knowing that other jurisdictions will scrutinize it against their own standards.

3. Every request is legally reviewed. Since 2016, the Notices and Diffusions Task Force (NDTF), a multidisciplinary body of lawyers, police officers, and operational specialists, checks every request for compliance with INTERPOL's Constitution and the Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD) before publication. Non-compliant notices are refused or, if already published, cancelled. The single biggest reason a notice is rejected or later deleted is a request that fails one of the thresholds described below. Getting these right at the drafting stage is the whole point of this guide.

The Gateway Test: Will This Offence Even Qualify? (Article 83 RPD)

Complete this check before you spend time on the rest of the form. Under Article 83 of the RPD, a Red Notice may only be published if three cumulative criteria are all met. If any one fails, the request will not be published (absent the narrow exception noted below).

Criterion 1, Serious ordinary-law crime. The offence must be a serious ordinary-law crime. It must not be a private or family dispute (inheritance fights, alimony, custody), a purely administrative or regulatory infraction, a behavioural/cultural matter, or an offence of a political, military, religious, or racial character (the last category is barred by Article 3 of INTERPOL's Constitution). Typical qualifying offences: fraud, corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, serious violent crime, and terrorism-related charges.

Criterion 2, Penalty threshold. This depends on what the person is wanted for:

• Wanted for prosecution (not yet convicted): the conduct must be punishable by a maximum of at least two years' imprisonment.
• Wanted to serve a sentence (already convicted): the sentence imposed, or the portion remaining to be served, must be at least six months.

Be careful with offences that only marginally clear the threshold (e.g., a flat six-month conviction). The CCF has deleted notices where a barely-qualifying sentence, combined with doubts about seriousness, tipped the balance. If your case sits near the line, strengthen the seriousness showing in the summary.

Criterion 3, International police-cooperation interest. The data must be of genuine interest for international police cooperation. This is normally satisfied by any real cross-border element. Watch for the dual-criminality trap: if the conduct is a crime in your country but would not be recognized as an offence in many other member states (the classic example is "uttering unfunded cheques"), other NCBs cannot act on it, and the notice may be found to lack international interest.

The Article 83(2)(b) exception. The General Secretariat has a narrow discretionary power to publish even where the seriousness or penalty criteria are not met, but only after consultation with the requesting NCB and only in exceptional circumstances. Do not plan your request around this; treat the three criteria as mandatory.

Section-by-Section: Completing the Form

The headings below follow the standard Red Notice draft form. The guiding principle throughout: accuracy and completeness. The reviewing Task Force assesses the request on the information available to it, and a foreign officer who later detains the subject relies on these exact fields. Vague, padded, or speculative entries are the enemy.

1. Identity Particulars

This block exists to identify one specific human being beyond doubt.

• Family name / Forename: Enter the legal name exactly as it appears on identity documents. Where the name is in a non-Latin script, complete the original script / Chinese Telegraphic Code fields as well, transliteration alone causes mismatches at borders.
• Family name at birth: Complete if different (e.g., maiden name). This is frequently the name on older records.
• Sex / Date and place of birth: Give the full date; if only a year is reliably known, say so rather than inventing precision. Town/Region and Country of birth should be as specific as the records allow.
• Nationality(ies): List every confirmed nationality. Mark the "Confirmed" status honestly, an unconfirmed nationality should be flagged as such, not presented as fact. Dual nationals can be missed if a second nationality is omitted.

2. Caution Flags

These tick-boxes (Armed, Dangerous, Violent, Escape Risk, Infectious, Suicidal, liable to commit sexual offences involving minors, etc.) are officer-safety and public-safety information for whoever encounters the subject. Tick only what is supported by evidence or genuine operational assessment. Two failure modes to avoid: under-flagging a genuinely armed or dangerous subject (a safety risk to the locating officer) and over-flagging without basis (which undermines the credibility of the whole request). Use "Other" for specific, articulable risks not covered by the checkboxes.

3. Alias and Nicknames

Every documented alias, alternate spelling, and nickname raises the chance of a border-control hit. For each alias, complete the full sub-record (family name, forename, DOB, town/region, country) where known, an alias with its own date of birth is far more searchable than a bare name. Do not invent aliases; list only those that are documented or reliably reported.

4. Details (Family, Occupation, Languages, Likely Destinations)

• Marital status, parents' names, occupation: These corroborate identity and help distinguish the subject from same-named individuals.
• Languages spoken: Practical for the locating jurisdiction.
• Regions/Countries likely to be visited: Be concrete and base this on intelligence, known family ties, business interests, prior travel, last known direction of flight. A focused list (as in the McGovern/Dubai example, where the subject was known to be living in a specific city) makes a notice operational rather than merely symbolic. A scattershot "everywhere" list helps no one.

5. Identity Documents

For each passport, ID card, or travel document: type, number, dates of issue and expiry, and country and town of issue. Document numbers are among the most powerful matching fields at a border, a single accurate passport number can trigger a hit that a name never would. Transcribe them with extreme care; a transposed digit defeats the purpose.

6. Identification Material

Attach whatever biometric and physical-evidence material exists: photographs (recent, clear, full-face), fingerprints, DNA profile, dental information, blood group, and descriptions of clothing, jewellery, and other personal effects. A current photograph is the most valuable single item here. The richer this section, the more reliably the subject can be identified, and the harder it is to challenge the notice as a case of mistaken identity.

7. Physical Description

Height, weight, hair, eyes, build, and, critically, distinguishing marks (scars, tattoos, amputations, prominent features). Distinguishing marks are what let an officer confirm identity in the field when documents are absent or forged. Record them precisely (location on body, description).

8. The Case, Facts of the Case

This is the heart of the request and the section the Task Force and foreign authorities scrutinize most closely.

• Date / Town / Country: When and where the offence occurred.
• Offence code(s): Use the correct INTERPOL offence classification.
• Summary (max ~1,000 characters / ~200 words): Write a clear, succinct narrative of what the person actually did, the conduct, the time, and the location. This is a factual account of the alleged acts, not a recitation of statute numbers and not rhetoric. A reviewer (and a foreign judge) must be able to read this short paragraph and understand the concrete criminal behaviour alleged. Within the character limit, be specific: amounts, dates, roles, victims. Avoid political characterizations, conclusory labels, and anything that could make the case look like a private dispute or a politically motivated prosecution, these are the patterns that draw CCF scrutiny and lead to deletion.
• Additional facts of the case: Supporting detail that did not fit the summary.

9. The Legal Basis, Choose the Correct Track

The form splits into two mutually exclusive paths. Use the one that matches your case, and complete every field in it.

Track A, Fugitive wanted to serve a sentence (already convicted):

• Charge(s) on which convicted; the law covering the offence(s); sentence imposed; remainder of sentence to be served; and the time limit for enforcement.
• Details of the arrest warrant or judicial decision ordering execution of the sentence (or European Arrest Warrant): number, date of issuance, the issuing/competent judicial authority, place and country, and the name of the signatory.
• The in absentia questions are critical and routinely decisive. Answer truthfully: Was the subject present in court when judgment was rendered? Will the subject have the opportunity to have the case retried in their presence? Did the subject have sufficient notice of the trial or the opportunity to arrange a defence? A conviction in absentia without a guaranteed right to retrial is a classic fair-trial (Article 2) problem. If the honest answers expose a gap, address it, for example by confirming a retrial right, rather than glossing over it, because the CCF will test exactly these points.

Track B, Fugitive wanted for prosecution (not yet convicted):

• Charge(s); the law covering the offence(s); the maximum penalty (this is what must meet the two-year threshold); and the time limit for prosecution or expiry date of the warrant.
• Details of the arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect (or European Arrest Warrant): number, date of issuance, issuing/competent judicial authority, place and country, and name of signatory.

In both tracks, a valid, currently-in-force arrest warrant or equivalent judicial decision is mandatory. There is no Red Notice without it. Confirm the warrant has not expired and that the issuing authority is correctly named, these are basic data-quality checks the Task Force performs.

Pre-Submission Checklist

Run through this before transmitting the request:

• The offence is a serious ordinary-law crime (not political, military, religious, racial, private, family, or purely administrative).
• The penalty threshold is met: max ≥ 2 years (prosecution) or ≥ 6 months imposed/remaining (conviction).
• There is a genuine international cooperation interest, and the conduct would plausibly be recognized as criminal in other member states (dual criminality considered).
• A valid arrest warrant or equivalent judicial decision exists, is in force, and is fully and accurately referenced (number, date, authority, signatory).
• The summary of facts clearly describes the conduct, time, and location within the character limit, in neutral factual language.
• Identity data (names in original script, DOB, nationalities, document numbers) is accurate and complete.
• Identification material (photo, prints, distinguishing marks) is attached and current.
• Caution flags reflect evidence-based assessments only.
• For convictions, the in absentia / retrial / notice questions are answered truthfully and any fair-trial gap is addressed.
• The request complies with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution (no political/discriminatory motive; respect for human rights). This is what the legal review will test.

Why This Discipline Matters

A poorly prepared request is worse than no request. It can be refused at review, or published and then cancelled by the CCF, at which point all member countries are told to purge the data from national databases, and the operational opportunity is lost. Worse, the system's credibility suffers: INTERPOL's notice channels have been criticized for misuse by some states against political opponents, and every weak or improper request makes legitimate ones harder to action. A notice built on accurate identity data, a genuinely serious and dual-criminal offence, a valid warrant, a clean factual summary, and honest answers on fair-trial questions is the kind that gets a fugitive located and arrested, and that withstands challenge.

Authoritative Sources to Keep on Hand

• INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD), especially Articles 82–87 (Red Notices) and Articles 2–3 of the INTERPOL Constitution. Always work from the current consolidated version published by INTERPOL.
• INTERPOL, "About Red Notices" and "About Notices" (interpol.int) for current procedure.
• Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) published decision excerpts, which show exactly how seriousness, dual criminality, in absentia, and data-quality issues are weighed in practice.

This guide summarizes publicly available INTERPOL rules and procedure as of mid-2026. NCB officers should always verify against the current RPD text and their own internal INTERPOL procedures, which govern in case of any discrepancy.