The report examines the risk of detention during international travel and transit where an individual is connected to wanted-person information, an extradition request or an earlier protection decision. Its central point is that lawful residence, a valid travel document, refugee status, a previous refusal of extradition or deletion of INTERPOL data does not necessarily prevent a new restriction of liberty in another jurisdiction. International wanted-person information, a domestic detention measure and the final decision on transfer belong to different procedures and must be analysed separately.

Particular attention is given to the legal character of INTERPOL Red Notices and diffusions. They are treated as mechanisms of international police cooperation rather than independent international arrest warrants, and their practical effect depends on domestic law. The report also stresses the limits of public INTERPOL searches: failure to find a person in the public database does not establish the absence of non-public information or an independent national measure.

The analysis draws on Amuur, Shiksaitov, WS, Petruhhin, I.N. and Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm to examine major issues arising in transit detention. These include State jurisdiction in an airport international zone, the duration of extradition detention, the cross-border effect of refugee status, ne bis in idem, nationality and information exchange, and the significance of an earlier refusal of extradition. A recurring theme is that a favourable decision in one State should not be treated as universal immunity from arrest or extradition proceedings elsewhere.

The practical sections focus on the first response to detention. The individual’s location, responsible authority, time of restriction, case reference and legal basis should be identified immediately. Local representation, access to procedural documents and rapid availability of protection decisions are then essential. The report separately examines CCF proceedings, domestic challenges, interim measures, immigration procedures and the risk of onward transfer. These remedies address different legal questions and should not be treated as substitutes for one another.

ARGA’s approach treats an itinerary as a sequence of jurisdictions and procedures. At every material stage, the relevant international mechanism, domestic decision-maker and documents capable of changing the legal position should be identified. The principal conclusion is that effective protection does not rest on an assumption that a particular connection is safe, but on a verified legal status, accessible reasoned decisions, accurate identification and timely use of the appropriate procedural remedies.