How Russia Weaponizes INTERPOL Against People Who Fought for Ukraine (and Why It Works)

An Investigative Analysis of International Law Enforcement Tools as Instruments of Political Persecution

DEAR READER: Please consider a basic support membership at $5 per month. As a journalist in Ukraine, I work every day (even during blackouts and drone attacks) to examine our world situation from where the fulcrum of the world’s hell pivots, and your help is vital. Today is my 1394th day in this war, and Independent Journalism is not cheap to do, and I will keep making the posts available for all readers (even during nearly 24 hr daily blackouts), but good patrons are needed and I thank you for your time. - Chris Sampson, Kyiv, February 2, 2026

When Shaun Pinner cancelled his recent trip to the United States, the explanations came quickly. Some said he’d overreacted. Others whispered about politics or paranoia. A few suggested fear had gotten the better of a man who’d already survived Russian captivity, torture, and a death sentence.

They were all wrong.

I know Shaun. I’ve watched him speak about his experience as a prisoner of war in Russian-occupied Donbas, sentenced to death by a court that had no legal standing but plenty of Russian backing. I’ve seen the scars—physical and otherwise—left by months in captivity. And I’ve watched him refuse to be silenced by the very people who tried to kill him.

So when Shaun tells me he can’t risk traveling to the United States because international law enforcement systems have been weaponized against him, I don’t hear paranoia. I hear a sober assessment from someone who understands exactly how the rules have changed, and how little protection those rules now provide.

This isn’t a story about one man’s cancelled trip. It’s about how an international institution built to facilitate legitimate law enforcement has become a tool of transnational repression. It’s about how Russia exploits INTERPOL to hunt its critics across borders, using fabricated criminal charges to turn political persecution into seemingly routine police cooperation.

And it’s about why we should all be worried when the systems meant to protect us become weapons in the hands of authoritarian states.

The Prisoner They Couldn’t Break

Shaun Pinner went to Ukraine because he believed in something. A former British soldier, he’d made his life in Mariupol, serving in Ukraine’s Armed Forces and building a home with his Ukrainian wife. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Shaun was already there—not as a mercenary, not as a foreign adventurer, but as a lawful member of Ukraine’s military.

Russian forces besieged Mariupol for nearly three months. The city became a symbol of Ukrainian resistance and Russian brutality—hospitals bombed, civilians starved, an entire urban center reduced to rubble while the world watched. When Ukrainian forces at the Azovstal steel plant finally surrendered in May 2022, Shaun was among them.

He was captured. Tortured. Paraded on Russian television. Subjected to a show trial in the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic—a Russian puppet entity with no international recognition—and sentenced to death. His “crime” was being a foreign volunteer, rebranded by Russian propaganda as a mercenary despite his legal status under international humanitarian law.

For months, Shaun lived with the knowledge that Russia might execute him at any moment. The psychological weight of that—waking each day uncertain whether it would be your last, knowing your captors had broadcast your impending death to the world—is something most of us cannot fathom.

A prisoner exchange in September 2022 brought Shaun home. He’d survived what Russia designed to destroy him. And he did what people who survive atrocities often do: he started telling the truth about what happened.

Shaun has spoken at conferences, given media interviews, testified about his captivity and the conditions Ukrainian prisoners of war face in Russian detention. He’s become an advocate for those still held, for accountability for war crimes, for continued support to Ukraine. His voice carries weight precisely because he lived through what many only read about.

And Russia has not forgotten.

The System Russia Exploits

INTERPOL—the International Criminal Police Organization—was never designed for this. Founded in 1923 and reconstituted after World War II, the organization exists to facilitate cooperation between national police forces on ordinary crimes: murder, trafficking, fraud, robbery. Its constitution explicitly prohibits involvement in “political, military, religious or racial” matters.

That prohibition reflects a foundational principle: law enforcement cooperation should be about justice, not ideology. INTERPOL was meant to be neutral ground where countries could work together against common threats regardless of their political differences.

But neutrality requires good faith. It requires member states to use the system for its intended purpose—pursuing criminals, not critics. And when a permanent member of the UN Security Council systematically abuses that system, neutrality becomes a vulnerability Russia can exploit.

The mechanism is straightforward. INTERPOL issues Red Notices—international wanted person alerts that notify member countries someone is sought for prosecution or to serve a sentence. Think of them as global “wanted posters” that appear in law enforcement databases in 196 countries. When someone with a Red Notice against them crosses an international border, they can be detained pending extradition proceedings.

There’s also a less scrutinized tool: diffusions. These are wanted-person alerts circulated directly between countries’ National Central Bureaus, bypassing INTERPOL’s centralized review process. While diffusions theoretically must comply with the same constitutional standards as Red Notices, the lack of pre-circulation vetting makes them more vulnerable to abuse.

Both mechanisms can trigger arrests at borders. Both can destroy someone’s ability to travel internationally, advocate abroad, or participate in the very forums where their testimony matters most.

And Russia has learned to exploit both.

From Battlefield to Bureaucracy: The Art of Rebranding

Russia’s strategy is elegant in its cynicism: strip political persecution of its context and repackage it as ordinary criminal law enforcement.

A Ukrainian veteran who fought Russian-backed separatists in Donbas becomes a “terrorist” accused of crimes in Chechnya years earlier. A foreign volunteer serving lawfully in Ukraine’s Armed Forces becomes a “mercenary” engaged in illegal armed activity. A journalist reporting from occupied Crimea becomes an “extremist” spreading false information. A businessman who refuses to supply materials for Russia’s war effort suddenly faces fraud allegations.

The pattern is consistent. Take a political act—fighting in defense of Ukraine, opposing Russian occupation, refusing economic complicity in aggression—and reframe it as a criminal violation unrelated to politics or military conflict. Submit the request through INTERPOL or bilateral channels with carefully crafted language emphasizing the criminal elements while omitting the political context.

INTERPOL’s reviewers must evaluate these requests based on the information provided. They conduct compliance checks to ensure notices don’t violate Article 3’s prohibition on political persecution. But if the requesting country describes the case purely in criminal terms—”terrorism,” “mercenary activity,” “financial crimes”—and the review finds insufficient evidence of predominant political character, the notice may be published.

The target then faces a choice: accept restricted international mobility, or challenge the notice through INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files—a process requiring legal expertise, documentary evidence, and months or years of waiting while the notice remains active.

Even when challenges succeed, the damage persists. Travel opportunities missed. Advocacy curtailed. Testimony never delivered. Time and resources spent fighting bureaucratic persecution rather than contributing to accountability efforts.

This is repression through paperwork. Quiet, procedural, devastatingly effective.

The Asymmetry Problem: Why Ukraine’s Hands Are Tied

Here’s where the system’s perversity becomes clear: while Russia exploits INTERPOL to pursue its critics, Ukraine faces structural barriers when trying to use the same mechanisms against Russian war crimes suspects.

INTERPOL’s Article 3 prohibition on “military character” activities creates a fundamental asymmetry. When Ukraine seeks Red Notices for Russian commanders who bombed hospitals, tortured prisoners, or forcibly deported civilians, INTERPOL’s framework often blocks them. Why? Because those acts occurred within an active armed conflict, giving them “military character” that Article 3 prohibits.

The Media Initiative for Human Rights, a Ukrainian NGO that has investigated this issue extensively, concluded bluntly: “Interpol’s tools are unavailable to Ukraine when it comes to Russia’s war crimes.” Even when the acts constitute potential war crimes under international humanitarian law—crimes that should transcend military/political exclusions—the predominance test often tips toward “military character” because the context is ongoing hostilities.

Russia, meanwhile, frames its requests as ordinary crimes disconnected from military context. Shaun Pinner isn’t pursued for being a prisoner of war in a lawful military force—he’s potentially targeted as a “mercenary” or “terrorist,” charges that sound criminal rather than military. A Ukrainian soldier isn’t listed for combat service in Donbas—he’s wanted for “terrorism” allegedly committed in Chechnya.

The result: Russia can chase its enemies globally using INTERPOL mechanisms. Ukraine cannot pursue Russian war crimes suspects through the same channels because the conflict context triggers Article 3 restrictions.

This asymmetry isn’t accidental—it’s structural. And Russia exploits it ruthlessly.

Why Shaun Cancelled: A Calculation, Not Fear

Let me be clear about something: Shaun Pinner is not afraid of Russia. You don’t survive months of torture and a death sentence by being easily frightened. You don’t return from that experience and immediately start speaking publicly about war crimes if you’re risk-averse.

But intelligence isn’t cowardice. Understanding threats isn’t paranoia. And when the BBC published an investigation in 2024 exposing Russia’s systematic abuse of INTERPOL mechanisms—including leaked data showing Russians using the system to track dissidents, journalists, and Ukraine-connected individuals—Shaun did what any rational person would do.

He calculated risk.

The question wasn’t “Would the United States extradite me to Russia?” The answer to that is almost certainly no. The US has no extradition treaty with Russia, strong judicial protections against politically motivated extradition requests, and foreign policy interests aligned against facilitating Russian persecution of Ukraine defenders.

But here’s what Shaun knows that comfortable people often don’t: systems fail. Bureaucracies make mistakes. Political winds shift. And once you’re detained at a border—even temporarily, even with strong legal grounds for release—you’ve lost control of your situation.

Would US border authorities detain Shaun based on a Russian INTERPOL notice or diffusion? Possibly. Would that detention be brief, with quick recognition that the charges are politically motivated? Probably. Would lawyers and diplomatic intervention secure his release without extradition? Almost certainly.

But “almost certainly” isn’t good enough when you’ve already been Russia’s prisoner once.

There’s also the current political reality. The United States is navigating complex relationships with Russia around Ukraine negotiations. Presidential administrations change. Priorities shift. What seems unthinkable—cooperating with Russian legal requests against Ukraine defenders—becomes incrementally more possible as political calculations evolve.

Shaun isn’t gambling on those odds. And frankly, neither would I.

“When you’re hit with a red notice, your life changes completely,” one individual told the BBC investigators. Even when notices are later cancelled, even when extradition is refused, the disruption is real. Weeks or months in legal limbo. Resources spent on lawyers. Speaking engagements missed. Advocacy work curtailed. Family separated.

For someone who’s already lost months of his life to Russian captivity, who’s already been tortured and sentenced to death, who’s already had to rebuild his existence from the wreckage of that experience—why risk it?

The trip can wait. The testimony can be delivered remotely. The advocacy can continue from safer ground. These are rational calculations by someone who understands exactly how high the stakes are and how little protection international systems now provide.

What the BBC Investigation Revealed

The BBC’s 2024 investigation into Russia’s INTERPOL abuse pulled back the curtain on something that victims and advocacy organizations had been documenting for years: Russia’s systematic weaponization of international law enforcement cooperation against its critics.

The investigation analyzed leaked INTERPOL data and documented cases where Russia used Red Notices, diffusions, and informal messaging systems to track and pressure dissidents, journalists, activists, and people connected to Ukraine. The patterns were clear:

Political enemies rebranded as criminals. Opposition figures pursued on fraud or embezzlement charges. Journalists facing extremism allegations. Activists targeted for “financial crimes” that coincided suspiciously with their public criticism of Russian policies.

Ukraine-connected individuals systematically pursued. Veterans of the Donbas conflict accused of terrorism in Chechnya. Foreign volunteers in Ukraine’s Armed Forces branded as mercenaries. Pro-Ukraine activists facing charges unrelated to their activism but aligned temporally with their advocacy.

Businesspeople refusing cooperation with Russia’s war effort suddenly facing financial allegations. One businessman with a Ukrainian wife who declined to supply metals for military use post-invasion found himself targeted through INTERPOL on fabricated fraud charges.

The investigation also revealed Russia’s use of less formal INTERPOL channels—messaging systems between National Central Bureaus that allow information sharing without the stricter review processes Red Notices undergo. These informal channels let Russia track individuals’ movements across borders even when formal notices might be rejected.

“When you’re hit with a red notice, your life changes completely,” one target told BBC investigators. Igor Pestrikov, the businessman who refused to supply Russian military materials, spent years fighting the notice before INTERPOL’s oversight body finally cancelled it. Years of restricted movement. Years of legal costs. Years of uncertainty—all because he made an ethical business decision protected under international law.

And here’s the critical point: even when oversight mechanisms work, even when notices are eventually cancelled, the damage persists. The chilling effect—the self-censorship, the curtailed activity, the advocacy never pursued—extends far beyond the individuals directly targeted.

The Chilling Effect: Repression Without Borders

Every Ukrainian veteran who declines an invitation to speak at a European conference because they fear detention at the border—that’s a victory for Russia. Every foreign volunteer who cannot return home to advocate for continued support to Ukraine because of INTERPOL risk—that’s mission accomplished from Russia’s perspective. Every activist who reduces their visibility or limits international travel to avoid becoming a target—that’s another voice silenced.

This is the genius of weaponizing bureaucratic systems: the repression doesn’t require violence. No FSB agents need to cross borders. No assassinations necessary. Just paperwork, processed through legitimate channels, creating real consequences for people whose only “crime” was defending Ukraine or opposing Russian aggression.

And it works at scale. For every Shaun Pinner who publicly explains why he’s cancelling travel, how many others quietly make the same calculation without announcement? For every Igor Pestrikov whose case becomes public through investigative reporting, how many targets never surface in media coverage because they lack resources to challenge notices or fear drawing additional attention?

INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files deleted 2,462 Red Notices and diffusions in 2024 for non-compliance with organizational rules—the highest number on record. That represents progress in catching abusive notices. But it also reveals the scale of the problem: 2,462 notices that shouldn’t have existed, that caused disruption and restriction before being cancelled, that represented thousands of hours of human life spent fighting bureaucratic persecution.

And those are only the ones challenged successfully. How many abusive notices circulate unchallenged because targets don’t know they’re listed, lack resources to fight back, or fear that challenging the notice will draw more attention and escalate risk?

The chilling effect is designed to be invisible. Self-censorship leaves no documentary trail. Trips not taken don’t appear in statistics. Testimony never delivered cannot be measured. But the aggregate impact—the collective silencing of voices that could contribute to accountability, advocacy, and understanding—constitutes a strategic victory for authoritarian states that recognize INTERPOL’s vulnerabilities.

Why This Should Worry Everyone

You don’t need to be a Ukrainian veteran, a foreign volunteer, a war crimes witness, or a vocal critic of authoritarian regimes to care about this issue. The weaponization of international law enforcement cooperation against political targets affects the integrity of systems that protect us all.

When INTERPOL mechanisms can be exploited for political persecution, confidence in legitimate law enforcement cooperation erodes. Democratic countries become hesitant to act on notices from authoritarian states, undermining cooperation even on genuine criminal matters. The institution’s neutrality—its foundational premise—collapses under the weight of systematic abuse.

This matters for more than just INTERPOL. Russia’s exploitation reveals a broader pattern: authoritarian states learning to manipulate international institutions built on assumptions of good faith participation. The UN Human Rights Council, whose membership has included some of the world’s worst human rights violators. The International Criminal Court, which Russia withdrew from after the ICC opened investigations into Crimea. INTERPOL itself, where Russia held senior positions despite documented abuse of the system.

The structural problem is this: institutions built for cooperation between sovereign states lack enforcement mechanisms when powerful members act in bad faith. INTERPOL cannot compel member countries to stop submitting abusive requests. It cannot sanction Russia for systematic exploitation of notices and diffusions. It can only process complaints after damage occurs, delete notices after challenges, and hope that incremental reforms close gaps faster than states learn to exploit them.

That’s a losing proposition against an adversary that views international institutions as arenas for competition rather than cooperation, that sees rules as constraints on adversaries but not on itself, and that dedicates resources to identifying and exploiting every procedural vulnerability.

The Precedent That Terrifies: Ukraine Today, Others Tomorrow

If Russia can successfully weaponize INTERPOL against Ukraine defenders without meaningful consequences, what message does that send to other authoritarian states?

China watches how Russia targets dissidents through international law enforcement cooperation. Belarus observes how easily political persecution can be rebranded as criminal prosecution. Iran notes the limited pushback when notices are used to pursue activists and journalists in exile.

The Ukraine conflict provides cover—it’s a high-intensity war with complicated narratives that let sympathetic observers rationalize Russian actions. But the methods Russia perfects against Ukraine-connected targets will be applied elsewhere. The bureaucratic pathways Russia develops to exploit INTERPOL’s vulnerabilities will be shared with other authoritarian states or independently discovered through observation.

This is precedent-setting in the worst possible way. Every successful exploitation of the system, every target who curtails activity due to INTERPOL risk, every border detention that disrupts someone’s life without extradition—these establish norms about what international institutions will tolerate and what degree of abuse goes unpunished.

The question isn’t just “Can Russia get away with pursuing Shaun Pinner through INTERPOL?” It’s “What happens when Belarus uses the same tactics against opposition figures? When China expands its use of notices against Uyghur activists and Hong Kong protesters? When Iran intensifies targeting of journalists in exile?”

The answer depends partly on whether democratic states and INTERPOL itself respond to documented abuse with reforms that close exploited gaps—or whether we collectively accept that international law enforcement cooperation now includes a significant component of political persecution that we’ll tolerate because fixing it requires more political will than we’re prepared to invest.

What Reforms Could Help (And Why They’re Not Coming Fast)

Solutions exist. They’re not mysteries. Civil society organizations like Fair Trials, Human Rights Watch, and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group have documented abuse patterns for years and proposed specific reforms:

Enhanced transparency. Publish anonymized data on which countries submit the most notices, what percentage are rejected for Article 3 violations, and aggregated statistics that would allow pattern identification without compromising individual cases. Current confidentiality rules prevent accountability.

Proactive compliance review. Move from complaint-driven oversight to systematic review of high-risk requests before publication. This requires resources—more staff, better technology, analytical capacity to flag suspicious patterns—but would catch more abusive notices before they cause harm.

Binding oversight decisions. Give the Commission for the Control of Files authority to sanction member countries that repeatedly submit abusive requests. Current mechanisms can delete individual notices but cannot address systematic abuse by state actors.

Faster challenge processes. Reduce the time between filing a complaint and receiving a decision. Months or years of restricted mobility while waiting for review defeats the purpose of oversight if the damage occurs before the notice is cancelled.

Automatic public disclosure. Make all Red Notices publicly searchable after a set period (say, 60 days) unless specific privacy or operational security concerns warrant confidentiality. This would help targets become aware they’re listed and enable them to challenge notices proactively.

But here’s why these reforms aren’t happening quickly: they require member states to cede sovereignty. Enhanced transparency means accepting scrutiny of national practices. Binding oversight means powerful countries could face consequences for abuse. Faster challenges mean investing more resources in INTERPOL’s compliance functions.

Democratic states might accept such constraints, trusting in mutual oversight and viewing them as necessary to protect the system’s integrity. Authoritarian states resist because those very constraints would limit their ability to exploit INTERPOL for political purposes.

And INTERPOL operates by consensus. Fundamental reforms require General Assembly approval from the same member states whose practices the reforms would constrain. Russia gets a vote. So does China. So do dozens of countries with questionable human rights records and authoritarian governance structures.

The result is incrementalism: resolutions urging better Article 3 compliance, increases in CCF deletions, quiet restrictions on Russia’s database access post-2022, and individual countries adopting national policies to scrutinize certain requests more carefully. These measures represent progress but fall well short of the systematic reforms transparency advocates argue are necessary.

Where This Leaves Shaun (And All of Us)

Shaun Pinner cannot safely travel to the United States to testify about his experience as a Russian prisoner of war, about the conditions Ukrainian POWs face in Russian captivity, about the war crimes he witnessed, or about Ukraine’s need for continued international support.

That sentence should shock us.

A British citizen, lawfully serving in a recognized military force, captured and subjected to torture and illegal detention, released through a prisoner exchange, now cannot visit America—not because the US would extradite him, but because the risk of detention, legal limbo, and bureaucratic nightmare is too high given Russia’s documented exploitation of international law enforcement systems.

This is what transnational repression looks like in 2026. Not assassinations in Salisbury or poisonings in Berlin, though those happen too. But quiet, procedural, bureaucratized persecution that uses the infrastructure of international cooperation to impose costs on regime critics and Ukraine defenders.

Shaun made the calculation. The trip isn’t worth the risk. The testimony can be delivered remotely. The advocacy continues from safer ground. These are the adaptations people make when international systems fail to protect them from politically motivated persecution dressed up as law enforcement.

But we shouldn’t accept that adaptation as normal. We shouldn’t shrug and say “Well, international institutions are complicated, and Russia’s going to Russia.” We shouldn’t let the steady erosion of protective norms become background noise that we tune out because there’s always another crisis, always something more urgent demanding attention.

Because here’s what’s really at stake: the question of whether people who defend democracy, who fight against aggression, who tell uncomfortable truths about authoritarian violence, can do so without becoming permanent targets of the regimes they oppose. The question of whether international institutions built to facilitate cooperation will remain spaces where rules matter, or become tools that authoritarian states wield against their critics with impunity.

The question of whether Shaun Pinner—who survived Russian captivity and a death sentence, who carries those scars visibly and invisibly, who refuses to be silenced even as Russia seeks ways to silence him—should have to calculate whether visiting America is worth the risk that bureaucratic machinery will turn him from advocate to detainee again.

That calculation shouldn’t have to exist.

The fact that it does tells you everything about how far the system has bent, and how much further it might break if we don’t pay attention.

Coda: The Trip That Didn’t Happen

Somewhere in America, there’s a conference that would have benefited from Shaun’s testimony. A congressional hearing that would have heard firsthand accounts of Russian war crimes. A university audience that would have gained understanding from someone who lived through what many only read about. Media interviews that would have reached people who need to hear why supporting Ukraine matters, why accountability matters, why the rules-based international order matters.

Those conversations won’t happen—not in person, at least. Some might occur via video link, remote testimony, written statements that lack the impact of physical presence and direct human connection.

Russia doesn’t need to stop those conversations entirely. It just needs to make them harder, more costly, more risky. The cumulative effect—multiplied across hundreds or thousands of targets—achieves strategic objectives without firing a shot or crossing a border.

This is what victory looks like in modern transnational repression: not the complete silencing of critics, but the steady elevation of costs until advocacy becomes too dangerous, too complicated, too exhausting for most people to sustain.

Shaun Pinner is not most people. He’ll continue speaking, continue advocating, continue telling truths that authoritarian regimes wish would stay buried. But he’ll do it from places where he’s calculated the risk as acceptable, where the machinery of international law enforcement hasn’t been weaponized quite as effectively against him.

And that’s the real tragedy: a man who survived Russia’s worst has to keep calculating, keep adjusting, keep looking over his shoulder not just at Russian security services but at the international institutions that were supposed to protect people like him from exactly this kind of persecution.

The systems we built to stop criminals shouldn’t be helping authoritarian states hunt the people who fight them.

The fact that they are tells you how deep the problem runs, and how far we’ve drifted from the principles those systems were meant to uphold.

Shaun cancelled his trip.

The question is: what are we going to do about the reasons why?

Chris Sampson is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Kyiv. He is Editor-in-Chief of NatSecMedia

Primary / Institutional

1. INTERPOL, INTERPOL Constitution, 2024, art. 3, https://www.interpol.int/content/download/590/file/01%20E%20Constitution_2024.pdf.

2. INTERPOL, “Rules on the Processing of Data (RPD),” adopted 2011, https://www.interpol.int/content/download/5694/file/26%20E%20RulesProcessingData_RPD.pdf.

3. INTERPOL, “Statute of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF),” https://www.interpol.int/content/download/5695/file/Statute%20of%20the%20CCF%20(E).pdf.

4. INTERPOL, “Compliance and Review,” last modified June 5, 2023, https://www.interpol.int/How-we-work/Notices/Compliance-and-review.

5. INTERPOL, Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.interpol.int/content/download/12626/file/Repository%20of%20practice%20Articles%202%20and%203.pdf.

6. INTERPOL General Assembly, “Red Notices and Wanted Person Diffusions and Their Use for Provisional Arrest Pending Extradition,” Resolution GA-2023-91-RES-10, December 1, 2023, https://www.interpol.int/content/download/20579/file/GA-2023-91-RES-10%20-%20Red%20Notices%20and%20Wanted%20Person%20Diffusions%20and%20their%20use%20for%20provisional%20arrest%20pending%20extradition.pdf.

7. Cate Brown, “Russia Using Interpol’s Wanted List to Target Critics Abroad, Leak Reveals,” BBC News, January 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20gg729y1yo.

8. Media Initiative for Human Rights, “Why Interpol Refuses to Issue Warrants for Russian Suspects of War Crimes: Investigation,” January 14, 2025, https://mipl.org.ua/en/why-interpol-refuses-to-issue-warrants-for-russian-suspects-of-war-crimes-investigation.

9. Human Rights Watch, “We Will Find You”: A Global Look at How Governments Repress Nationals Abroad (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024), https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/02/22/we-will-find-you/global-look-how-governments-repress-nationals-abroad.

10. Fair Trials, Dismantling the Tools of Oppression: Ending the Misuse of Interpol (London: Fair Trials, 2018), https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/dismantling-the-tools-of-oppression.

11. Henry Jackson Society, Russia’s Abuse of Interpol: A Threat to Human Rights and Global Security (London: Henry Jackson Society, July 2015), https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Russias-Abuse-of-Interpol.pdf.

12. European Parliament Directorate-General for External Policies, The Abuse of the Interpol System: Need for Reform (Brussels: European Parliament, October 15, 2015), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/603472/EXPO_STU(2019)603472_EN.pdf.

13. Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), Bright Red: The Geopolitical Implications of Red Notices (Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, September 2020), https://traccc.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Final-Red-Notices-Conference-Report-Bright-Red.pdf.

14. StopFake, “Ihor Mazur Won’t Be Deported to Russia,” September 29, 2020, https://www.stopfake.org/en/ihor-mazur-won-t-be-deported-to-russia.

15. UNIAN, “Russia-Wanted Donbas War Veteran Mazur Released from Detention in Poland, Returns to Ukraine,” November 14, 2019, https://www.unian.info/society/10754352-russia-wanted-donbas-war-veteran-mazur-released-from-detention-in-poland-returns-to-ukraine.html.

16. Arsen Avakov, “Russia Systematically Uses Interpol Mechanisms for the Political Persecution of Ukrainian Citizens,” November 10, 2019, https://avakov.com/arsen-avakov-russia-systematically-uses-interpol-mechanisms-for-the-political-persecution-of-ukrainian-citizens.html.

17. Heritage Foundation, “Interpol: Doing Russia’s Dirty Work,” January 25, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/interpol-doing-russias-dirty-work.