Revocation of Red Notice and Extradition Request Based on the Principle of Proportionality: Bolu 1st Heavy Penal Court Ruling

In a criminal case where we act as defense counsel, the Bolu 1st Heavy Penal Court ruled to revoke the arrest warrant issued against the defendant, who was detained in Argentina due to an INTERPOL record; to issue a warrant for apprehension providing for their release after their defense is taken; and to request the return of the Red Notice and extradition request without action pursuant to the principle of proportionality.

This interim decision dated September 15, 2026, is not merely related to the withdrawal of an INTERPOL record. In the decision, the national apprehension measure, the Red Notice, and the extradition request sent to the foreign state were evaluated collectively, and it was acknowledged that continuing the severe international consequences imposed by the accusation and the current status of the file on personal liberty is not proportionate.

A particularly significant aspect of the decision is that the proceedings are not rendered entirely ineffective despite the defendant being abroad. While revoking the arrest warrant, the court issued an apprehension warrant for the purpose of taking the defendant's defense. Thus, a more proportionate balance was established between the continuation of the proceedings and the interference with personal liberty.

Brief Summary of the Decision

What Happened in the Specific Case?

An arrest warrant was issued against the client due to an ongoing criminal prosecution in Turkey; based on this decision, a red notice and an extradition request addressed to the authorities of Argentina were prepared through INTERPOL channels. Official procedures were carried out for the transmission of the extradition documents to the foreign country's authorities via the Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union of the Ministry of Justice.

The client was subsequently detained in Argentina and deprived of their liberty within the scope of Turkey's extradition request. Thus, the arrest warrant issued in a prosecution not yet concluded in Turkey resulted in arrest, detention, and extradition proceedings in another country.

In summary, the evidence and statements submitted by the defense to the Bolu 1st Heavy Penal Court stated that:

• The material damage subject to the prosecution was of a low amount,
• The damage has been compensated,
• The victim party has no complaint,
• There are documents indicating that the client's state of health is not suitable for remaining detained in Argentina,
• The prolonged nature of the red notice and extradition proceedings creates severe and irreparable consequences for the individual,
• The client will be made available at court for the purpose of taking their defense after the red notice and the extradition request are withdrawn,

it has been asserted. At the core of the request was the necessity to establish a fair balance between the objective required for the continuation of the trial and the severe consequences imposed on the individual by the international arrest and extradition process.

Three Key Rulings Issued by the Court

1. Warrant of Arrest Directed at Detention Was Lifted

The court first lifted the warrant of arrest directed at detention issued against the defendant. This decision indicates that the court did not deem it necessary to maintain the national measure, which aims at the direct detention of the defendant upon apprehension, in its current form.

Detention is not a punishment, but a provisional protective measure aimed at ensuring the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. If the same objective can be achieved through a milder measure, maintaining the measure that constitutes a more severe interference with personal liberty becomes questionable in terms of proportionality. For general information on detention and other criminal procedure measures, Istanbul criminal law and heavy penal adjudication can be accessed from our page.

2. Arrest Warrant Issued for Release After Taking Defense

The court has not entirely set aside the arrest warrant without precautionary measures; pursuant to Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, it has ruled for the issuance of a new arrest warrant for the sole purpose of recording the defendant's defense and subsequently releasing them.

This distinction is of utmost importance. The decision does not imply that the defendant is exempt from proceedings or that they are not required to appear before the court. The objective is to ensure that the defendant's defense is taken, and not to maintain detention once this procedure is completed. For the differences between an arrest warrant and the milder measures of summons and bringing by force, our guide on bringing by force and arrest warrants may be examined.

3. Request for Return Without Action of Red Notice and Extradition Request Packet

The court has ruled that "the return of the red notice issued against the defendant and the extradition request addressed to Argentina be requested without action pursuant to the principle of proportionality." In line with the interim decision, an official letter has been written to the Ministry of Justice, Directorate General for Foreign Relations and European Union Affairs, via the Bolu Chief Public Prosecutor's Office Ministry Communications Bureau.

In this respect, the decision has not only modified the national arrest warrant but has also intervened in the legal basis of the international police cooperation and extradition process conducted pursuant to the national arrest warrant.

What is a Red Notice and Why is it Determinative in This Ruling?

According to INTERPOL's official statement a Red Notice is a request sent to law enforcement agencies worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. A Red Notice is based on an arrest warrant or court order issued in the requesting country.

A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. INTERPOL cannot make direct arrests or detentions. Each member state determines what legal effect a Red Notice has under its domestic law. Nevertheless, in practice, a Red Notice may trigger severe consequences such as border arrest, provisional detention, travel restrictions, and the initiation of extradition proceedings.

For the differences between a Red Notice and a diffusion record, applications to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF), and removal conditions, How to Remove a Red Notice? CCF Application Process reference can be made to our comprehensive guide entitled. The general framework of the subject under Turkish criminal procedure is Red Notices and the removal of INTERPOL notices in Turkish criminal law is examined in our article.

Are a Red Notice and an Extradition Request the Same Thing?

No. Although a Red Notice and an extradition request are interconnected, they are not the same legal procedure.

General Directorate of Foreign Relations and European Union of the Ministry of Justice, defines extradition as the surrender of a suspect, defendant, or convict located in another state to the requesting state for the purpose of prosecution or execution of a sentence. The transmission of extradition documents through diplomatic channels and their preliminary review are conducted through central authorities.

Therefore, the mere withdrawal of a Red Notice does not automatically terminate a national arrest warrant or extradition proceedings initiated in a foreign country under all circumstances. Similarly, the revocation of a national arrest warrant does not mean that INTERPOL and foreign country records are updated instantly without any further action. Each legal layer must be monitored separately.

What Does the “Return Without Action” of the Extradition Request Mean?

Previously, an extradition request letter addressed to the competent judicial authority of Argentina was prepared in the case file and sent along with its annexes via international judicial cooperation channels. Documents such as the indictment, arrest warrant, statutory provisions, file review report, and identification documents were attached to the request letter.

In the official correspondence issued pursuant to the court's decision dated September 15, 2026, it was reported that it was decided to return this extradition request without action pursuant to the principle of proportionality. "Return without action" here means that there is no longer any insistence on finalizing the extradition request before the foreign country and that it is requested that the documents not be processed as a pending surrender request.

However, in order for the practical outcome of the decision to materialize, the written document must reach the relevant central authority and foreign country authorities, be entered into the extradition file, and any provisional detention order must be re-evaluated. Therefore, the duty of the defense does not end with the issuance of the interim decision; the implementation of the decision through national and international channels must also be monitored.

Why Did the Principle of Proportionality Take Center Stage in the Ruling?

The principle of proportionality requires that an interference with fundamental rights be balanced with the legitimate aim pursued. A measure must;

• Be suitable for achieving the purpose,
• Be applied if it is not possible to achieve the same purpose by a milder means,
• Establish a reasonable balance between the burden it imposes on the individual and the public interest.

In the specific case, the objective is to take the defendant's defense and conduct the trial. Conversely, the measure employed resulted in the individual being apprehended on another continent, detained in a foreign country, and subjected to lengthy extradition proceedings.

When the restitution of damages, the absence of a complaint by the victim, documents regarding health status, and the notification that the defendant will be made available for defense are evaluated together, the purpose of the trial has become achievable through a milder measure. The court's issuance of an arrest warrant aimed at taking a defense and release, instead of an arrest warrant for detention, is the concrete result of the proportionality assessment.

In the general system of Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, it is also significant that there is a manifest disproportion between the severity of the offense and the effort, time, and expense to be expended for international cooperation. The current text of the law can be accessed Legislation Information System via. The conditions for Turkey to request extradition from another state and the required documents are In the Ministry of Justice's guideline on Turkey being the requesting state .

How Does This Ruling Differ from the Previous Istanbul 21st Heavy Penal Court Ruling?

Regarding the same individual whose defense counsel is undertaken by our firm, it has been previously decided in another criminal case file to revoke the Red Notice. In the decision of the Istanbul 21st Heavy Penal Court dated 25.02.2025; the restitution of damages, withdrawal of the complaint, the prolonged nature of extradition proceedings, the notification of the defendant's address, and the undertaking to produce the defendant for defense were evaluated.

On the other hand, the decision of the Bolu 1st Heavy Penal Court dated 15.09.2026 is additionally significant in three respects:

1. It was not limited to the Red Notice: It was decided to request the return without action of the extradition request package prepared concerning Argentina.
2. The national arrest measure was re-established: The arrest warrant intended for detention was lifted, and a warrant for arrest aimed at taking the defense statement and subsequent release was issued.
3. The principle of proportionality was explicitly made the rationale of the decision: The outcomes of the international extradition mechanism in the specific case file were re-evaluated against the objective that could be achieved through a milder measure.

The fact that two separate heavy penal courts have re-evaluated and decided to revoke the Red Notice measure in different criminal case files concerning the same individual demonstrates the practical importance of this application remedy. However, these decisions do not constitute binding precedent and do not imply that the same outcome will be obtained in every Red Notice file.

Why is This Ruling Rare and Valuable in Legal Practice?

Since a significant portion of decisions regarding red notices and international extradition processes are not published publicly, practical examples where the trial court re-evaluates its own arrest warrant in terms of proportionality are accessible only to a limited extent.

The practical value of this decision lies in the following: Filing an application with the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files (CCF) is not the sole mandatory recourse against a red notice. If the root of the problem is the ongoing arrest warrant issued by the Turkish court and Turkey's extradition request, a request for the re-evaluation of the measure may also be submitted directly to the trial court, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

The trial court;

• whether the arrest warrant remains necessary under current circumstances,
• whether the objective of detention can be achieved through a less restrictive measure,
• the severity of the charges and the consequences of detention abroad,
• restitution for damages and the current intentions of the victim,
• whether the defendant is prepared to present a defense,
• personal circumstances concerning health and family life,
• the duration of the extradition proceedings and the resulting grievances

may evaluate collectively. This approach demonstrates that a red notice is not merely a technical international police record, but is directly linked to the necessity of the measure within the domestic criminal file.

Difference Between Application to the Merits Court and CCF Application

With the application made to the trial court, INTERPOL Dosyalarını Kontrol Komisyonuna (CCF) The applications made are not mutually exclusive remedies.

Subject Matter of the Application to the Merits Court

The merits court evaluates whether it is necessary to maintain the arrest warrant and the international extradition request in its own file. The status of evidence, indemnification of damages, the defendant's willingness to present a defense, and whether lighter measures would be sufficient may be significant in this review.

Subject Matter of the CCF Application

The CCF examines whether personal data processed in the INTERPOL Information System comply with INTERPOL's Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data. The CCF does not debate evidence in the domestic criminal case, render acquittal decisions, or conclude extradition proceedings in a foreign state.

Pursuant to INTERPOL's current procedure entering into force in 2026, applications for data access, correction, and deletion shall be submitted as of March 26, 2026, through the CCF's secure online application portal . Applications via email or postal mail are no longer utilized, except for exceptional circumstances accepted by the Commission.

Can Both Avenues Be Used Together?

Yes. Depending on the nature of the specific case, simultaneous or sequential applications can be made to the merits court and the CCF. The revocation of the domestic arrest warrant may constitute new and significant evidence in the CCF file. Conversely, the deletion of data by the CCF does not automatically terminate the criminal proceedings or the domestic arrest warrant before the merits court.

How Should the Process Be Followed After the Court Decision Is Rendered?

Obtaining a court decision for the withdrawal of the Red Notice and extradition request is one of the most critical stages of the process; however, in practice, it may not be sufficient on its own. Following the decision, the following matters must be pursued:

1. The complete drafting of the interim decision by the court clerk's office,
2. The transmission of the decision to the Ministry Bureau of the relevant Chief Public Prosecutor's Office,
3. The delivery of the document regarding the withdrawal of the extradition request to the central authority of the Ministry of Justice,
4. The updating of the Red Notice or diffusion record in INTERPOL channels,
5. The notification of the decision to withdraw to the judicial and law enforcement authorities of the foreign state,
6. The re-examination of the provisional arrest or extradition file in the foreign country,
7. The verification of whether previous search records continue to exist in national databases.

According to INTERPOL's compliance and deletion provisions, when a Red Notice is deleted by the General Secretariat, it is removed from the INTERPOL database and member countries are notified. However, updating national databases and resolving potential issues that outdated records may cause during travel may require additional follow-up.

Regarding the potential impacts of international search information on the immigration system upon entry into Turkey and records such as N-99, our guide on the removal of restriction codes can be reviewed. A Red Notice, deportation, and restriction code are distinct legal procedures; the removal of one does not automatically terminate the others in every case.

In Which Cases Can This Decision Serve as a Precedent?

The decision may be evaluated from a defense perspective, particularly in cases involving one or more of the following elements:

• Cases where the defendant is sought solely for the purpose of taking their statement,
• Cases where the legal qualification of the offense or the state of the evidence changes during the proceedings,
• Disputes where the material damage has been fully indemnified,
• Circumstances where the victim withdraws their complaint or no complaint exists,
• Situations where detention in a foreign country entails severe consequences compared to the alleged offense,
• Cases where the individual's health or family life is severely affected due to the length of the extradition process,
• Circumstances where the defendant provides a declared address and documents their readiness for defense,
• Cases where the objective of the proceedings can be achieved through a milder measure instead of detention.

Nevertheless, the nature of the offense, the statutory penalty, the flight risk, the defendant's past conduct, the number of victims, the evidence, and extradition law in the foreign country vary in every case. The interim decision of the Bolu 1st Assize Court should not be treated as a binding precedent producing automatic results, but rather as an important practical example demonstrating how the proportionality assessment can be concretized.

Which Documents Are Important in the Request for the Removal of a Red Notice?

Relying solely on general legal principles is often insufficient for the application. The request must be supported by case-specific and verifiable documents. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the following documents may be significant:

• National arrest warrant and relevant interim decisions,
• Documents regarding the red notice or diffusion record,
• Arrest and detention warrants issued in a foreign country,
• Extradition request and its annexes,
• Bank receipts and vouchers demonstrating the remediation of damages,
• Statements showing the withdrawal of the complaint or the absence of a complaint,
• Medical reports and treatment records,
• Documents regarding domicile and full address,
• Statements and assurances indicating that the defendant is ready to present a defense in court,
• Documents demonstrating the impact of extradition proceedings on the individual and their family.

of the Ministry of Justice in the extradition documentation and red notice request checklists, documents such as the extradition request, indictment, case file review report, arrest warrant, statutory texts, civil registry record, photograph, and fingerprints are enumerated with respect to defendants. When preparing a withdrawal request, it is also necessary to fully determine which document and decision the initial request was based upon.

Legal Consequences of the Decision

Criminal Proceedings are Ongoing

The court's decision to withdraw the red notice and extradition request has not dismissed the criminal case against the defendant nor rendered a final judgment regarding the criminal charge. It is envisioned that the defendant's defense will be taken and the proceedings will continue.

The Decision Does Not Mean Acquittal

The interim decision pertains solely to the necessity and proportionality of interim measures. Whether the defendant is guilty or innocent will be determined by the court at the end of the trial based on the evidence collected. Regarding the defense process in criminal proceedings, Beylikdüzü criminal lawyer and defense processes can be found on our page.

Detention in a Foreign Country May Not End Automatically

Argentine authorities must evaluate the official notification from Turkey in accordance with their domestic law in order to release the individual or close the extradition file. The translation of the court decision, its transmission through diplomatic or central authority channels, and its submission to the file in the foreign country may be required.

The Deletion of the INTERPOL Record Must Also Be Verified

The national court's decision of withdrawal is intended to eliminate the national legal basis of the red notice. However, it must also be confirmed that the deletion and notification procedures to member countries within the INTERPOL system have been completed. INTERPOL states that red notices must comply with its Constitution and Rules on the Processing of Data must be complied with.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Red Notice be lifted by a court decision?

If the basis of the red notice is an arrest warrant issued by a Turkish court, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, a re-evaluation of the arrest measure and the red notice request may be requested from the court of first instance. The court's decision of withdrawal must be transmitted to the competent national and INTERPOL authorities, and the technical deletion process must be monitored.

Is a Red Notice an international arrest warrant?

No. According to INTERPOL, a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant; it is an international alert requesting law enforcement agencies to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition. Each country determines the legal effect it gives to this notice in accordance with its own domestic laws.

Does the extradition case end when the Red Notice is lifted?

Not always. The Red Notice, the extradition request, and the extradition proceedings in the foreign country are separate legal processes. The extradition request may also need to be formally withdrawn, and this notification must reach the foreign country's case file.

What does the return of the extradition request without action mean?

The return without action of an extradition request means that the extradition documents sent to the foreign country are requested to be returned without proceeding with the execution of the delivery request. The requested country is required to process this notification into its own file.

Does this decision mean that the client has been acquitted?

No. The decision pertains to the proportionality of the Red Notice, the extradition request, and the detention measure. The underlying criminal case is ongoing, and no final decision has been rendered regarding the criminal accusation.

Can a Red Notice be lifted without applying to the CCF?

Yes. The record can be removed through a withdrawal procedure by the national authority that requested the Red Notice. In addition, it is possible to apply to the CCF for access, correction, or deletion. Which path to follow depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

How are CCF applications made in 2026?

According to INTERPOL's current announcement, as of March 26, 2026, CCF applications are submitted via the secure online portal. Email or postal mail are not accepted application channels, except for exceptional circumstances recognized by the Commission.

Can one travel after the Red Notice has been lifted?

The issuance of a deletion decision does not guarantee that all national databases are updated simultaneously. Prior to traveling, it must be verified that the INTERPOL record, national arrest warrants, and records in relevant countries have been updated.

Is the N-99 restriction record also deleted when the Red Notice is lifted?

It should not be assumed that it is deleted automatically. INTERPOL records and immigration or restriction records in Turkey may be kept in different systems. Once the legal basis ceases to exist, the updating of the relevant administrative record must also be pursued separately.

Does every remedy of damages ensure the lifting of the Red Notice?

No. Remedying the damage is only one of the evaluation factors. The nature of the crime, the state of the evidence, the threat of punishment, the risk of flight, the defendant's willingness to participate in the proceedings, and the consequences of the international measure are examined together.

Conclusion and Legal Assessment

The interim ruling of the Bolu 1st Heavy Penal Court dated September 15, 2026, demonstrates that the international consequences generated by an arrest measure in criminal procedure must be re-evaluated in light of the current status of the case.

The court did not completely abolish the measure ensuring the continuation of the proceedings; it converted the arrest warrant for the purpose of detention into an arrest warrant for taking the defense statement and subsequent release. At the same time, it decided to request the return without action of the extradition request sent to Argentina via a Red Notice, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

The practical significance of this decision is that it demonstrates that international arrest and extradition measures are not immutable. Subsequent facts such as the remedy of damages, the victim's current will, the defendant's state of health, readiness to provide a defense, the length of the extradition process, and the sufficiency of milder measures can be asserted before the court of primary jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, each Red Notice and extradition file differs in terms of the requesting country, the nature of the offense, the national arrest warrant, the conditions of detention in the foreign country, and the type of INTERPOL records. The application strategy should not be considered limited solely to the CCF procedure; the principal criminal case, central authority correspondence, and extradition proceedings in the foreign country must be evaluated together.

For other content regarding criminal law, international search, and heavy penal proceedings Criminal Law articles with our section criminal investigation and prosecution practice area our page can be reviewed.

Official Legal Sources

• INTERPOL – Red Notices
• INTERPOL – About Notices
• INTERPOL – Compliance and Review
• INTERPOL – Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files
• INTERPOL – How to Submit a CCF Request
• INTERPOL – Legal Documents
• INTERPOL Constitution
• INTERPOL Rules on the Processing of Data
• Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters
• Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271
• Constitution of the Republic of Turkey
• Ministry of Justice – General Information on Extradition of Criminals
• Ministry of Justice – Legal Grounds for Extradition Proceedings
• Ministry of Justice – Turkey Being the Requesting State
• Ministry of Justice – Guide on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

Author and Legal Information

Atty. Batın YILMAZ – Istanbul Bar Association Registration No: 77008

This content has been prepared for the legal analysis of an anonymized interim decision rendered in a criminal case defended by our firm and for the purpose of informing the public. The client's identity, health information, and other personal data have been redacted. Each Red Notice and extradition file must be evaluated separately within the scope of its own documents and conditions.

This content does not constitute legal advice or a commitment regarding a specific outcome. The decision analyzed herein does not guarantee the same outcome in other cases.

Quotations and references made from this content must indicate the author's name and batinyilmaz.av.tr link as the source.