What is a green alert?

An INTERPOL Green Notice is a preventive notice that alerts police in all 196 member countries about individuals who may pose a threat to public safety. Unlike a red notice, which seeks arrest for extradition, a green alert is not a warrant for arrest; it is used to share police intelligence on individuals with criminal records and prevent them from re-offending[1]. It is an international cooperation measure based on assessments by national authorities or international entities and prior convictions or credible information.

Consequences for businessmen and influential figures

Although these notifications are not public, their existence can have serious consequences for businessmen in the financial sector, industrialists and members of wealthy families:

• Travel and business restrictions. Green alerts cause increased scrutiny at borders and airports; migration authorities may delay travel, making international meetings and projects more difficult. They may also affect obtaining visas or entry permits.
• Reputational damage. If the existence of the alert reaches the press or financial organizations, it can erode the reputation and trust of partners and customers. Even without being made public, the global dissemination of negative data deteriorates the image of the affected party.
• Impact on rights and privacy. The alert implies that personal information and criminal records are shared among law enforcement agencies around the world. This can influence administrative decisions (denial of visas or financial products) and lead to detentions for verification, limiting freedom of movement and business.

Legal criteria for issuing a green alert

Article 89 of the INTERPOL Data Processing Rules (DPO) states that green alerts may be issued to warn of an individual's criminal activities when he or she poses a continuing threat to public safety. According to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF), the data must meet three requirements:

1. Clear and lawful purpose. Data may only be processed for a specific law enforcement purpose; it must be relevant and not excessive.
2. Objective basis. The alert should be based on previous judgments or a reasonable threat assessment by national authorities.
3. Compliance with the legislation of the requesting country. The CCF recalls that alerts must comply with the domestic laws of the issuing country; if the national office does not confirm the legality of the alert within the deadline, the notification may be deleted.

These safeguards are intended to prevent abuse. However, the CCF has reiterated that allegations of disproportionality or age of record alone are not sufficient; in a recent decision, it upheld a green alert because the applicant had multiple convictions and was still considered a security risk, despite his last offense dating back to 2015. The commission concluded that the alert was proportionate and that the public interest outweighed restrictions on the right to travel.

Can a green alert be challenged?

Although more difficult to challenge than red alerts, green alerts can be appealed to the Commission for the Control of Files (CCF). Recent statistics reveal that appeals have a good chance of success: the CCF found that approximately 50.8 % of the notices reviewed were contrary to INTERPOL's rules. This invalidity rate shows that many notices are issued without meeting the legal requirements and that there is real scope for cancellation.

In addition, the number of requests for review has skyrocketed by more than 2000% over the past 20 years. This growth reflects the increase in abuse complaints and demonstrates that people are increasingly using the review mechanism to defend their rights.

Factors for successful challenges

Client advocates before the CCF know that the key is not elapsed time but lack of finality and lack of legality. According to the 2024-2025 case law:

• Claims based solely on seniority or impact on fundamental rights are often dismissed if the criminal history persists.
• It is critical to demonstrate that the notice no longer serves a valid law enforcement function or that it was issued without a legal basis. The CCF requires the national office to confirm the compliance of the alert with its internal regulations; if it fails to do so, the notice must be deleted.

Process for requesting the removal of a green alert

The procedure is initiated by a formal request submitted by the affected party or his/her attorney to the CCF. It must include documentation proving identity, a detailed explanation of the case, the reasons for the challenge and concrete evidence of the irregularity or disproportionality of the notification. The simplified process follows these steps:

1. Admissibility. The CCF verifies that the application contains all the necessary information and that it falls within its competence. If any information is missing, a correction is requested.
2. Data review. A check is made to see if the alert is still in effect. If it has already been withdrawn, the applicant is notified. If not, a file is opened and the recorded data is analyzed.
3. Request for reports. The CCF requests additional information from the National Central Bureau that issued the notice and from the requesting party to assess compliance with INTERPOL's Rules. The relevance and proportionality of the data is reviewed and the absence of political, military, religious or racial purposes is verified.
4. Decision. After deliberation, the CCF may order the removal of the green alert if it concludes that the data is unjustified, obsolete or illegal. Otherwise, it will maintain the notification. The decision is communicated in writing to the applicant and to the National Central Office.
5. Internal review. If there are new relevant facts or evidence, the affected party may request a review of the decision within six months.

Illustrative cases

• Background Expungement. A businessman with dual Spanish & Mexican nationality faced delays every time he traveled due to a green alert based on a misdemeanor for which he was never convicted. His attorneys demonstrated that his record had been expunged and that the notice lacked legal basis. After submitting documentation to the CCF, the alert was expunged and he regained his freedom of movement.
• Old conviction and the principle of proportionality. A Venezuelan banker was on a green alert for a conviction of more than 15 years. The defenders argued that maintaining it was disproportionate, since the person concerned had been fully reintegrated into society and no longer represented a risk. The CCF agreed and ordered the expungement of the alert.

These examples show that it is possible to achieve expungement when the notice is shown to be outdated or disproportionate, especially in cases where the record has been expunged or where the person has lived a blameless life for years.

Conclusion

Green alerts can severely damage reputations and businesses of entrepreneurs, financial sector professionals and high net worth families. However, there are legal mechanisms to defend oneself and restore the good image of the company..

If you suspect that you are subject to a notification or if you want a preventive strategy to avoid abuses, contact us today. Our team at VENFORT ABOGADOS will advise you confidentially and fight for your rights, taking advantage of our extensive experience and high success rates in removing INTERPOL alerts.

Source: INTERPOL: INTERPOL's color-coded notices allow countries to issue alerts and request information worldwide.