A newly dated document is not always a newly discovered fact
Suppose a lawyer writes a new opinion on documents that were already in the original application. The opinion may be useful, but its date does not make the underlying facts new. A newly obtained official record, by contrast, might reveal a previously unknown development that matters to the earlier decision.
Sources worth assessing
| Possible source | The question that matters |
|---|---|
| National judgment | What specific findings were made, and were they previously known? |
| Extradition court decision | What facts were established, beyond the outcome itself? |
| Prosecution record | Does it reveal a material development or an earlier unknown fact? |
| Official case-status letter | Has the status changed, and when was this learned? |
| Expert analysis | Does it establish a new fact, or only offer a new interpretation? |
| Human-rights finding | Is there a new determination of fact that bears on the CCF's conclusion? |
Materiality is a separate test
Newness is not enough. The fact needs a credible connection to the issue the CCF decided. A fact about a national procedure may have little bearing on whether specific INTERPOL data comply with the processing rules. The CCF's actual reasoning is the reference point.
Why provenance matters
Track where the source came from, who obtained it, whether it is complete, any certification or translation, whether another party disputes it, and when the applicant first learned its content. These details help assess both reliability and timeliness.
Avoid these errors
- Calling an allegation an established fact.
- Treating an NGO statement as a binding judgment.
- Hiding an inconvenient earlier document.
- Misstating the discovery date.
- Assuming the CCF must treat every national ruling as decisive.
- Trying to manufacture a "new" statement instead of investigating authentic facts.
Evidence-assessment worksheet
| Fact | First known on | Primary source | Before the CCF? | Possible Art. 42 impact | To verify |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example: prosecution closed | Date of service of the order | Court or prosecutor | No | Answers the NCB statement that proceedings were active | Certified copy, translation |
The example row is illustrative. The worksheet is a research aid, not an eligibility certificate.
- Statute of the CCF
- INTERPOL, CCF: How to submit a request
- CCF Portal Guidance for Applicants, March 2026, s. 10.3
Independent summary. These institutions do not endorse this service. Check the live official guidance before filing.