How sealed ICC arrest warrants work, what role INTERPOL can play in their execution, and why a preventive defense strategy can be decisive before an international arrest.
By Dr. Alan Aldana · Managing Partner of VENFORT Abogados · Attorney admitted to the International Criminal Court
The order can exist before the person knows about it
The International Criminal Court does not have its own police force. When it issues an arrest warrant, it relies on the cooperation of States to execute it. In this network of international cooperation, INTERPOL can play a relevant role.
Since 2004, the Court's Office of the Prosecutor and INTERPOL have cooperated through a formal agreement that facilitates the exchange of information and the use of international police channels. What is rarely explained is that a Court arrest warrant can be public or kept under seal for a specified period. For the defense, that difference can mean the separation between a prepared strategy and an emergency reaction.
The mechanism: how the Court cooperates with INTERPOL
Article 54, paragraph 3 (d), of the Rome Statute empowers the Prosecutor of the Court to enter into such arrangements or agreements, as may be necessary, to facilitate the cooperation of a State, intergovernmental organization or person. On that basis, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor and INTERPOL signed a cooperation agreement in Lyon on December 22, 2004, which provided the Court with access to the organization's communications network and certain police tools.
The INTERPOL General Assembly ratified this cooperation framework through Resolution AG-2004-RES-16. On June 1, 2006, INTERPOL announced its first Red Notices issued at the request of the Court, relating to the situation in Uganda.
In practice, a Court arrest warrant can lead to international police cooperation mechanisms. A INTERPOL Red Notice it does not create the judicial order: it facilitates its dissemination and location within the international police cooperation system, in accordance with applicable rules.
When the order is kept confidential until the time of the arrest
Article 58 of the Rome Statute allows an arrest warrant to remain under seal when its publicity could compromise the investigation or facilitate flight. In that scenario, the wanted person may be unaware of the existence of the warrant until it is executed or until the Chamber decides to make it public.
That is what happened with the former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. Pre-Trial Chamber I issued the warrant on March 7, 2025, under a confidential classification. It remained secret until March 11, when Duterte was arrested in Manila; that same day, the warrant was reclassified as public. The following day he was transferred to The Hague and made his first appearance before the Court on March 14.
Four days separated the signing of the order from its execution. During that period, the recipient could not articulate a challenge against an instrument whose existence they were unaware of. When a classified order is made public at the time of its execution, the defense necessarily begins to operate after the arrest.
When the order is public for years and the arrest comes later
The opposite scenario also exists. In 2007, the Prosecution requested and the Chamber granted public arrest warrants in the situation in Darfur, including the one corresponding to Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, known as «Ali Kushayb.» Unlike the previous case, that warrant was publicly known for years.
Kushayb remained publicly designated as a fugitive from the Court for thirteen years. In 2020, he surrendered to the authorities of the Central African Republic and, on June 9 of that year, he was taken into ICC custody in The Hague following international coordination involving various States and organizations.
The contrast is evident. When the warrant is public, there is time to build a defense strategy, organize international representation, and evaluate the legal consequences of extradition or arrest. When the warrant remains confidential, that margin may disappear. What the investigated person can control is whether, when the risk materializes, they already have an international defense strategy in place or begin building it after the arrest.
When the alleged responsibility is not linked to fighting, but to financing
INTERPOL's cooperation with international criminal justice predates the ICC itself. A historical example is the case of Félicien Kabuga, a Rwandan businessman indicted before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and, subsequently, before the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.
Kabuga was identified as one of the main financiers of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi population and was subject to an international manhunt for decades. INTERPOL issued a red notice against him in 2001 and, on May 16, 2020, he was arrested near Paris in an operation carried out with the support of French authorities, the Residual Mechanism, and INTERPOL.
His trial opened in The Hague in September 2022 and was suspended in 2023 after he was declared unfit to stand trial. Kabuga died in The Hague on May 16, 2026, without a final judgment. The case demonstrates a relevant legal point: international criminal law does not deal solely with those who physically commit crimes; under certain circumstances, individual criminal responsibility can also extend to those who allegedly facilitate, finance, or contribute to them. Liability always depends on individual conduct, evidence, and its specific legal qualification, not merely on nationality, profession, or business activity.
Why this may concern a manager, investor, or family with international exposure
An executive, business owner, or financial intermediary is not exposed to international criminal jurisdiction solely for operating in a country subject to the Court's scrutiny. However, when facts exist that can be legally connected to an international investigation, a delayed reaction can multiply the risks of mobility, extradition, financial compliance, and reputation.
VENFORT Abogados intervenes precisely in that preventive phase: before an arrest, before a potential public notification, and, when there are objective signs of exposure, before the problem turns into an international crisis. Simultaneous coordination before the International Criminal Court, INTERPOL, and national extradition courts makes it possible to assess the risk from multiple jurisdictions and build a coherent strategy from the outset.
The right to a defense does not begin on the day of the arrest. It begins on the day the risk appears.
If there is objective evidence of exposure to the ICC, INTERPOL, or extradition proceedings, a preventive and confidential assessment makes it possible to identify the risk before it materializes.
Request confidential evaluation · Defense against INTERPOL notices
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between an International Criminal Court arrest warrant and an INTERPOL Red Notice?
The arrest warrant is a judicial act of the Court. A red notice is an international police cooperation mechanism that can be used to locate a person and request their provisional arrest in accordance with the laws of each State. The notice does not replace the judicial warrant nor does it equate, in itself, to a sentence.
Can I know if there is an ICC arrest warrant against me before it is executed?
Not always. If the order remains under seal, it may not be accessible to its recipient until it is executed or until the Chamber decides to make it public.
What should an executive or investor who identifies a real risk of international exposure do?
Get preventive advice based on concrete facts. The evaluation must distinguish between actual criminal risk, police cooperation, extradition, sanctions, and private compliance decisions, avoiding confusing reputational exposure with criminal liability.
About the author
Dr. Alan Aldana is Managing Partner of VENFORT Abogados and counsel admitted to the International Criminal Court. His practice focuses on international criminal law, extraditions, INTERPOL, and the defense of private clients with multijurisdictional exposure.
Founding partner and Director of the International Criminal Law Department at VENFORT Lawyers. Lawyer accredited before the International Criminal Court, with over twenty years of practice in extraditions, INTERPOL proceedings, economic criminal law, and international sanctions, assists entrepreneurs, executives, institutions, and families with interests in Europe and the Americas.
