Published CCF Decisions and What They Show
The Commission publishes a selection of its decisions in redacted form. They are not precedent — the Commission is not bound by them — but they are the only public record of how it reads its own rules. Of the 65 decisions published between 2017 and 2025, 49 % ended in deletion or blocking of the data, and in 31 the data was found not to comply with INTERPOL’s rules.
It is not a success rate. The Commission publishes only a small and non-random selection of what it decides. Read the figure as an indication of which arguments have been accepted and rejected, not as odds on your own application.
What the Commission actually decides
It does not retry the criminal case. It does not weigh evidence the way a trial court would, and it does not rule on whether an extradition should proceed. Its question is narrower and entirely procedural: may the Organization lawfully continue to process this data?
- Published record
- 65 decisions, covering the years 2017 to 2025.
- Outcome
- 49 % ended in deletion or blocking of the challenged data.
- Non-compliance
- 31 decisions found the data not compliant with the Organization’s rules.
- What it cannot do
- Decide guilt, cancel a national warrant, or stop proceedings in the requesting state.
The two constitutional grounds
Most published decisions turn on one of two provisions, and confusing them is the most common drafting error in applications written without sight of the record.
| Article 3 | Article 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| What it forbids or requires | Any intervention in matters of a political, military, religious or racial character | That the Organization act in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Argued where | The prosecution is said to be politically motivated | There is a risk of torture or ill-treatment, a risk to life, or serious health grounds |
| Test | Predominance — whether the political element outweighs the ordinary-law one | Real risk, established on the particular person’s circumstances |
What the pattern rewards
Read together, the published material rewards applications that are evidential rather than argumentative. The grounds that succeed are documented in the file — country conditions, procedural history, judicial material — not asserted most forcefully. Which grounds are available, and what each one needs, is set out on grounds for deleting a red notice.
The body itself, its composition and the limits of what it can order: how the CCF decides.
An application is built against this record
We read the published material for the ground that fits your file, then assemble the evidence that ground requires. How our lawyers challenge a red notice.
Request a free case assessmentFrequently asked
Does the CCF publish all of its decisions?
No. A small selection is published in redacted form; the rest are communicated only to the applicant and the country concerned.
Are CCF decisions binding precedent?
No. The Commission is not bound by its earlier decisions, and no decision creates a rule. They show how it has read its own instruments, which is a different and weaker thing.
Why do the published decisions not name any country?
They are redacted before publication. The requesting state is described in general terms, which is why country-conditions evidence has to be supplied by the applicant rather than assumed.
What can the Commission actually order?
Deletion, blocking or correction of the data it holds. It cannot touch a national warrant or the underlying proceedings.