Pacta sunt servanda.
Practice area · III
Lawfare, denial of justice and transnational repression
Lawfare is not an isolated abuse of process: it is an apparatus. An intentional architecture that mobilises the law, institutions, information and diplomatic networks to manufacture uncertainty, shift the burden of proof and neutralise the capacity for defence. Defending against it is not a matter of responding to a proceeding: it is a matter of regaining control of the power dynamics.
Criminal prosecutions turned to improper ends; transnational strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs); arbitrary detention; weaponised INTERPOL notices; politically motivated extradition requests; asset freezes as leverage; transnational repression, surveillance, intimidation of families: the law, deployed as a weapon, produces coercive effects irrespective of any logic of justice. Characterising the whole always precedes the response.
Lawfare and denial of justice
Weaponisation of proceedings, unfair trial, arbitrary detention
Transnational repression
INTERPOL, political extradition, SLAPPs, extraterritorial intimidation
Multi-jurisdictional defence
UN mechanisms, coordination, private legal diplomacy
In the face of lawfare, defence is not a matter of responding to a proceeding: it is a matter of regaining control of the power dynamics.
Identify your situation
Lawfare, SLAPPs, repression: identifying your situation
Six points of entry. The firm handles each in isolation, or several together under a single strategy.
A political figure or leader is targeted after a change of government
A former Head of State, former member of a government or senior official prosecuted in a context of political transition, institutional retribution or pressure from a third-country government. Objective: to characterise the selectivity and timing of the prosecution and to rebuild a defensive position.
An opponent, a journalist, a defender or a whistleblower is under attack
A strategy of legal attrition, a transnational SLAPP or a gag suit designed to neutralise an activity or to compel silence. Objective: to establish the coordinated nature of the campaign, to mobilise the protection mechanisms and to invoke the available anti-SLAPP provisions.
An economic actor is prosecuted in a high-risk environment
A business or investor confronted with the recharacterisation of a commercial dispute as a criminal matter, a disguised nationalisation or an expropriation. Objective: to articulate local criminal defence, international protection and investment arbitration.
A person is targeted by transnational repression
An individual targeted outside their State of origin through surveillance, intimidation, judicial harassment or coercion exercised through third-country governments. Objective: to neutralise the extraterritorial reach and to secure the person and their relatives.
You face an INTERPOL notice or a politically motivated extradition
A red notice, a diffusion or an extradition request deployed for purposes alien to its legitimate function. Objective: to challenge the measure before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files and to combine the defence with non-refoulement and the right of asylum.
An asset freeze or a SLAPP is used as a lever
Targeted sanctions, asset freezes or a proliferation of large-scale civil proceedings used to exhaust the target and silence it. Objective: to challenge the measure, to document the improper purpose and to reconfigure the power dynamics.
The terrain of the law
Power dynamics are reversed by forum and evidence, never by defence alone.
A weaponised proceeding is still a proceeding: it is fought on the terrain of the law.
Strategic diagnosis
Warning signs and aggravating factors
Certain indicators show that the situation no longer calls for ordinary handling, but for a crisis architecture. These signals are not sufficient to characterise the case in law; they warrant a rapid, confidential and structured mapping.
Warning signs
- Proliferation of proceedings with no reasonable prospect of judgment.
- Recharacterisation of a political, civil, commercial or electoral dispute as a criminal matter.
- Pre-trial detention prolonged or used as a means of pressure.
- Apparent coordination between prosecutors, media, administrative bodies or private adversaries.
- Activation of INTERPOL, an extradition request or mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
- Pressure exerted on relatives, accounts, property or reputation.
Aggravating factors
- Proceedings opened in several States without a common strategy.
- The public narrative left to the adversary while the defence remains purely local.
- Contradictions between the submissions filed in different jurisdictions.
- Failure to mobilise the relevant international mechanisms.
- Waiting for the arrest, the judgment or the extradition before coordinating the defence.
Mistakes to avoid
- Responding proceeding by proceeding without an overall map.
- Underestimating the reputational effect of a manifestly fragile proceeding.
- Communicating too early without a complete legal characterisation.
- Transmitting sensitive documents without a secure channel.
- Confusing local criminal defence with international strategy.
Situation 1 · Characterising the apparatus
Lawfare, denial of justice and characterisation
When a proceeding ceases to be ordinary and becomes an instrument of coercion, and how to demonstrate it.
The apparatus, not the isolated act
Lawfare is built by accumulation: one proceeding begets another, the mechanisms reinforce one another, the effects aggregate. Characterisation is directed not at an isolated act but at the overall structure and the interactions between proceedings. This transversal reading precedes the construction of any response.
The gap between form and purpose
The boundary between lawfare and ordinary proceedings lies in the observable purpose. Lawfare is characterised by a structural gap between the legal form deployed and the real purpose pursued: to coerce, neutralise, discredit or exhaust the capacity for defence. The indicators are the disproportion of the measures, timing that coincides with political or economic stakes, the proliferation of proceedings with no reasonable prospect of judgment, and coordinated use across several jurisdictions.
Lawfare and denial of justice, two distinct notions
Lawfare is a strategic concept, denoting the deliberate weaponisation of proceedings. Denial of justice is an international legal characterisation, denoting a State's failure to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial and effective access to justice. The two notions frequently overlap without being synonymous: a lawfare apparatus may constitute a denial of justice within the meaning of international law, opening specific avenues of redress.
The appearance of legality
The appearance of legality does not constitute a presumption of regularity. Lawfare resorts to apparently regular legal forms in order to produce coercive effects. The defence rests on demonstrating, by reference to international standards, the abuse of procedural instruments and the improper purpose pursued.
The appearance of legality does not constitute a presumption of regularity: the defence turns on the real purpose, not on the form.
Situation 2 · Targeted profiles
Public figures, dissidents and exposed actors
Political figures, opponents, journalists, whistleblowers and economic actors: who is targeted, and according to what architecture.
Political figures and exposed leaders
Former Heads of State, former members of governments, ministers and senior officials targeted by proceedings brought in a context of political transition, institutional retribution or pressure from a third-country government. A change of government triggers criminal, disciplinary or arbitral proceedings against members of the previous administration, mobilising national mechanisms and instruments of international cooperation simultaneously: INTERPOL notice, extradition, asset freeze. Timing, selectivity and coincidence with political or economic stakes are the first indicators for characterisation.
Dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers and human rights defenders
Individuals exposed to strategies of legal attrition conducted by States, private entities or hybrid actors in order to neutralise their activity or silence them. The SLAPP, a sweeping civil or criminal action devoid of substantive merit, is designed to exhaust the target financially and morally and to deter public participation. Criminal law, tax law, press law and the mechanisms of international cooperation may be deployed in a coordinated fashion. These cases call for a dual architecture: procedural defence and the mobilisation of international protection mechanisms.
Economic actors in high-risk environments
Businesses and investors facing criminal proceedings weaponised in the course of commercial disputes, disguised nationalisations, conflicts with State partners or expropriation proceedings. The interplay between local criminal defence, international protection and investment arbitration lies at the heart of the engagement.
Lawfare rarely presents itself as a declared apparatus: it is characterised by profile and by accumulation.
Situation 3 · Transnational repression
Transnational repression
Surveillance, intimidation, judicial harassment and the weaponisation of INTERPOL beyond the territory of origin.
A reference definition
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights defines transnational repression as acts conducted or directed by a State, or its agents, to deter, silence or punish dissent expressed from outside its territory, as reflected in its Civic Space Brief on Transnational Repression (2025).
The forms of extraterritorial coercion
These acts include direct violence and arbitrary arrests, restrictions on mobility, refusal to renew passports or revocation of nationality, digital attacks and smear campaigns, the proxy punishment of relatives who remain in the country, and the weaponisation of the legal mechanisms of international cooperation, in particular INTERPOL notices and extradition requests.
A threat now recognised
According to the information available, Freedom House records 1,375 documented direct physical incidents between 2014 and 2025, including 126 incidents in 2025, involving 54 governments, as reported in Collaboration and Resistance: Tracking Transnational Repression in 2025 (April 2026). In 2025, the G7 adopted at the Kananaskis Summit a Leaders' Statement on Transnational Repression, accompanied by a Compendium of Tools published by Public Safety Canada (November 2025), which characterises it as an aggressive form of foreign interference.
INTERPOL at the heart of the apparatus
According to the Disclose/BBC Interpol Files investigation (January 2026), based on a leak of thousands of the organisation's internal documents, the reforms introduced after 2022 have not put an end to abuses: politically motivated requests are reportedly still approved at a high rate, certain member States not subject to enhanced monitoring are said to present challenges documented in confidential internal memoranda, and member democracies are said to facilitate or execute notices without sufficient verification. These systemic shortcomings may be relied upon as contextual elements in the defence before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files.
Transnational repression crosses borders through the law: the defence must cross the same borders, in the opposite direction.
Situation 4 · Neutralising extraterritoriality
Notices, extraditions and coordination
Acting upon the hijacked instruments of international cooperation and aligning the fronts without contradiction.
Acting upon the instruments of cooperation
Neutralising extraterritorial reach means acting upon the mechanisms of international cooperation deployed for purposes foreign to their legitimate aim: challenging INTERPOL notices and diffusions before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, defending against extradition proceedings, identifying and neutralising abusive requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. INTERPOL's Constitution, in Articles 2 and 3, prohibits any use for political, military, religious or racial purposes.
Aligning the fronts, without contradiction
Multi-jurisdictional coordination brings coherence to the steps taken before national courts, administrative authorities, regional mechanisms and international bodies. It entails selecting and steering co-counsel in the jurisdictions concerned, managing the risk of contradiction between arguments filed in parallel, and the strategic sequencing of actions. A lack of coordination between the fronts produces fatal strategic contradictions.
Protection in the place of residence
Where the situation so requires, the defence is combined with the protections available in the place of residence: the right of asylum, non-refoulement under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That combination is conducted in the proper order, alongside extradition law.
An isolated procedural victory is not enough: the lawfare apparatus reconfigures itself, and the defence must be conceived as an architecture.
Situation 5 · Mechanisms and diplomacy
UN mechanisms and legal diplomacy
Mobilising protection bodies, the diplomatic channel and the informational environment, beyond the courtroom alone.
Seising UN and regional mechanisms
Mobilising international protection mechanisms entails seising the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the UN treaty bodies, namely the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the equivalent regional mechanisms. These steps produce political and diplomatic effects independent of the outcome of national proceedings.
Private legal diplomacy
Reconfiguring the institutional balance may involve a structured confidential dialogue with the competent authorities, in strict compliance with the principles of legality, the mobilisation of the relevant diplomatic and institutional networks, and the management of parallel channels where resolution extends beyond the strictly contentious framework. The firm also acts in support of counsel already instructed.
The informational environment
The strategic management of the informational environment limits the disproportionate reputational and digital effects of proceedings, restores coherence between legal reality and public representation, and counters weaponised information campaigns, in coordination with crisis communication advisers where the media dimension is integral to the apparatus.
The apparatus produces its effects outside the courtroom: the defence is also built on the diplomatic and informational terrain.
Risk patterns
Recurring lawfare configurations
Identifiable situations, in which the initial characterisation and the order of the steps taken decide the outcome.
Politically motivated criminal prosecutions
Criminal proceedings are initiated or recharacterised on the basis of a dispute of political, economic or contractual origin, at a time that coincides with contests for power. The selectivity and timing of the prosecution are the first indicators.
Prolonged and arbitrary pre-trial detention
Detention is maintained in a manner disproportionate to legitimate procedural requirements, or for purposes foreign to the criminal proceedings. An urgent referral to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention may result in an opinion calling for release.
Weaponised INTERPOL notice or extradition
A red notice, a diffusion or an extradition request is deployed for purposes exceeding its legitimate aim. The challenge before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files is combined with the defence against extradition and with non-refoulement.
SLAPPs and transnational gagging suits
Sweeping civil or criminal actions, without substantive merit, are brought simultaneously in several jurisdictions in order to exhaust the target and circumvent the anti-SLAPP protections of the place where it is established.
Economic lawfare and criminal recharacterisation
A commercial dispute with a State entity is recharacterised as a criminal offence, accompanied by targeted sanctions and an asset freeze obtained from diplomatic partners. The defence combines criminal law, sanctions and investment arbitration.
Transnational repression against relatives
Coercion exercised beyond the territory also targets families who remain in the country: proxy punishment, restrictions on mobility, surveillance and intimidation, deployed to bring pressure to bear on the person targeted.
What the firm puts into practice
The method
A sequence, from the audit to the diplomatic dimension, conducted case by case.
01
Strategic audit and mapping
Before any formal action, map the full extent of the exposure: proceedings in the requesting State, active notices or diffusions, sanctions or asset freezes, immigration vulnerabilities, reputational exposure, parallel proceedings. This mapping determines the order of the actions and the fronts to be opened.
02
Building the evidentiary record
Document the political developments coinciding with the charges, the differential treatment of comparable figures, the failure of the judicial system as established by institutional sources, and the disproportion between the accusations and the evidence. The documentation rests on official and verifiable sources.
03
Activating international mechanisms
Seise a special rapporteur, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention or the Human Rights Committee. A UN or institutional position may substantially strengthen a subsequent case, particularly where it documents the political context and the breaches of procedural guarantees. Early engagement is decisive.
04
Coordinated multi-jurisdictional defence
Challenge the proceedings in the requesting State, mobilise the protections of the place of residence, seise the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files where a notice is involved. Each action must reinforce the others; a lack of coordination between the fronts produces fatal contradictions.
05
Neutralising extraterritoriality
Act upon the instruments of cooperation deployed for improper purposes: INTERPOL notices, extradition, mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, in conjunction with refugee protection and the right of asylum where the situation so requires.
06
Diplomatic and institutional dimension
Where the State of residence is in a position of dependence on the requesting State, a structured diplomatic intervention alters the decision-making balance. This dimension does not replace the litigation strategy: it complements it.
Expert work and strategy
Expert reports, opinions and overall strategy
Beyond the litigation engagement, the offering of an expert architect of international human rights law.
An offering distinct from the litigation engagement
The firm may act without necessarily being lead counsel in litigation, in support of counsel already instructed, a foreign law firm, an in-house legal department or an institution.
Deliverables
Studies in international human rights law, characterisation of lawfare apparatus, submissions to UN mechanisms, analyses of the case law of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, mappings of multi-jurisdictional remedies, expert opinions for arbitral or judicial proceedings, and private legal diplomacy.
Recipients
This work may be intended for a targeted person, a domestic or foreign law firm, a litigation team, a human rights organisation or a strategic adviser.
The firm's value lies not in promising an outcome: it lies in building the legal architecture of a position, upstream of the case and behind the scenes.
Effects obtained or sought
Anonymised results and effects sought
The firm does not publish named case studies. The confidentiality of engagements is a non-negotiable condition. The results below are presented by category of effect obtained or sought in cases of lawfare, denial of justice and transnational repression.
Characterisation of the apparatus established
Demonstration, grounded in international standards, of the abusive use of procedural instruments, the absence of effective guarantees and the pursuit of an improper purpose.
UN opinion or finding obtained
Position of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a special rapporteur or the Human Rights Committee documenting the political weaponisation of the prosecution.
INTERPOL notice or diffusion neutralised
Challenge before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files grounded in improper purpose and the documented systemic shortcomings of oversight.
Politically motivated extradition challenged
Defence against extradition combined with non-refoulement and the right of asylum, securing the targeted person outside the requesting State.
Transnational SLAPP contained
Identification of the coordinated nature of the proceedings and invocation of the anti-SLAPP provisions available in the jurisdictions concerned.
Economic power dynamics reconfigured
Coordination of the criminal defence, the challenge to sanctions and investment arbitration in an economic lawfare case.
Expert reports and expert opinions
Confidential studies and opinions in international human rights law produced for arbitral or judicial proceedings, on fair trial, transnational repression or lawfare.
Multi-jurisdictional coordination steered
Procedural mappings, sequencing of the fronts and steering of co-counsel, without necessarily assuming lead representation.
A selection of configurations handled
By category and without any identifying element. They illustrate the nature of the cases, not their outcome, and constitute neither a promise nor a guarantee of results.
The legal framework relied upon
Texts, case law and scholarship
The primary sources and leading scholarship on which the firm's practice rests.
01
Texts and standards
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (fair trial) and General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee; Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; Article 9 of the Covenant (liberty and security); Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the principle of denial of justice in customary international law; INTERPOL's Constitution, Articles 2 and 3.
02
Case law
Soering v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 1989; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, 2012; Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, 2014; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, 2014; Selahattin Demirtas v. Turkey, Grand Chamber, 2020; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Grand Chamber, 2005; Lula da Silva v. Brazil, Human Rights Committee, communication No. 2841/2016, 2022; Jordi Sanchez and Jordi Cuixart, Human Rights Committee, communications No. 3003/2017 and 3004/2017, 2023; Lopez Lone and Others v. Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2015; Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 4 February 2019.
03
UN mechanisms
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, opinions and urgent measures, categories I to V; Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Human Rights Committee, individual communications and interim measures (Rule 92 of the rules of procedure); Committee against Torture, individual communications (Article 22 of the Convention against Torture).
04
Scholarship and sources
OHCHR, Civic Space Brief: Transnational Repression (2025); Freedom House, Collaboration and Resistance: Tracking Transnational Repression in 2025 (April 2026), 1,375 documented direct physical incidents between 2014 and 2025 and 54 governments involved; Disclose/BBC, Interpol Files (January 2026); European Parliament resolution on transnational repression (November 2025); G7, Kananaskis Statement and Compendium of Tools, Public Safety Canada (November 2025); Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of 11 April 2024 on the protection of persons engaging in public participation (anti-SLAPP Directive).
Working Group on Arbitrary DetentionCommission for the Control of INTERPOL's FilesEuropean Court of Human Rights
When a lawfare apparatus is at work, the first strategic error can freeze the case. A purely procedural defence without an overall characterisation, isolated remedies without a coherent architecture, or uncoordinated public communication can cause lasting damage to the situation. The analysis phase determines the outcome.
Frequently asked questions
Lawfare, detention, INTERPOL: the essentials
Preparing the first contact
Useful documents for an initial analysis
There is no need to send a complete file at the first contact. Certain elements make it possible to characterise the situation quickly.
- Concise description of the pending proceedings
- Brief chronology of the facts and decisions
- State or States involved
- Known INTERPOL notices or diffusions
- Extradition requests or arrest warrants
- Sanctions measures or asset freezes
- Counsel already instructed in the jurisdictions concerned
- Court decisions already handed down
- Immigration vulnerabilities or residence status
- Known critical deadlines
- Reputational or media exposure
- Institutional sources documenting the context
The purpose of the first exchange is to assess the urgency and the relevance of an intervention. It does not, in itself, constitute a full opinion on the prospects of success.
Modes of intervention
Six ways of engaging the firm
For the person targeted, for counsel already instructed, for arbitral or judicial proceedings, for prevention, or for the firm outsourcing specialist expertise.
01
Strategic counsel, overall direction
Lead counsel, responsible for the overall strategic architecture: characterisation of the scheme at work, construction of the evidential case, sequencing of actions, coordination of local co-counsel and steering of international mechanisms. Suited to highly complex transnational cases that require a unified vision.
02
Co-counsel with a local firm
Alongside a firm already instructed, where the domestic proceedings must be set within an international strategy: UN and regional mechanisms, application to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, extradition, coordination of parallel proceedings. The local firm retains the conduct of the domestic defence.
03
Confidential expert support
Defined assignments on behalf of a referring firm: memorandum on protection mechanisms, submission to a Special Rapporteur, analysis of the case law of the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, mapping of the options before the Human Rights Committee, within a contractually defined scope.
04
Expert witness and professional opinion
Expert opinion on questions of international human rights law, fair trial standards, transnational repression or lawfare, for arbitral (ICSID, PCA, ICC) or judicial proceedings. Report to the standard of major international proceedings; oral testimony available.
05
Targeted engagement on a strategic front
Handling of a specific front within a strategy already coordinated by other counsel: proceedings before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL's Files, referral to a UN mechanism, defence against an extradition request, challenge to sanctions, with reporting to the coordinating counsel.
06
Monitoring, anticipation and prevention
Preventive arrangements for an individual or organisation exposed to transnational repression: mapping of exposure, monitoring of warning signs (prosecutions, notices, asset freezes, smear campaigns) and a protective legal architecture put in place before escalation.
Contact by profile
Find the right point of entry
Depending on your profile, an initial confidential orientation discussion, without mutual commitment.
Political figures and leaders
Prosecution following a change of government, selective charges, INTERPOL notice, extradition, asset freeze.
Opponents, journalists and defenders
Legal attrition, SLAPPs, extraterritorial persecution, arbitrary detention.
Exposed companies and executives
Recasting of a dispute as a criminal matter, disguised nationalisation, economic lawfare.
Families and relatives of targeted persons
Punishment by proxy, restrictions on movement, intimidation in the country of origin.
Lawyers, correspondents and foreign firms
International dimension of a case, co-counsel and confidential expert support.
NGOs and institutions
Documenting the systematic pattern, engaging the mechanisms, building institutional coalitions.
Related practice areas
Continue within the firm's ecosystem
Lawfare intersects with INTERPOL, sanctions, immunities, investment arbitration and human rights. Related Praxis resources and Corpus entries.
The appearance of legality creates no presumption of regularity: faced with lawfare, one does not answer proceedings; one retakes control of a balance of power.
A situation to characterise, a balance of power to retake?
Targeted public figure, opponent, journalist, exposed business, relative or correspondent firm: the window of opportunity is narrow, and the initial characterisation determines everything. Initial confidential orientation discussion, without mutual commitment. In French, English and Spanish.