Extradition in Multilateral Treaties And Conventions (Studies on the Law of Treaties)

EXTRADITION IN MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Studies on the Law of Treaties VOLUME 3

Extradition in Multilateral Treaties and Conventions by Isidoro Zanotti

Foreword and Update by Edgardo Rotman

MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS LEIDEN / BOSTON

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Printed on acid-free paper. ISSN 1574-9088 ISBN-13: 978-90-04-14901-4 ISBN-10: 90-04-14901-5 © 2006 Lydia B. Zanotti Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. http://www.brill.nl All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. Printed and bound in The Netherlands.

CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Comments and Acknowledgements by Lydia B. Zanotti (Mrs. Isidoro Zanotti) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

CHAPTER ONE

Multilateral Treaties and Conventions on Extradition Among American Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER TWO

Steps Taken and Work Accomplished by Organs of the Organization of American States in the Field of Extradition – 1954 to 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

CHAPTER THREE

Multilateral Conventions whose Purposes are to Prevent or Repress Specific Categories of Offenses, Containing Provisions on Extradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

CHAPTER FOUR

Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

APPENDIX A

Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Treaties and Conventions on Extradition, Asylum and Other Instruments among American Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

vi

CONTENTS

APPENDIX B

Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the United Nations . . . . . . . . .

283

APPENDIX C

Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the Council of Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

321

Extended Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

405

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

415

FOREWORD

Dr. Zanotti’s book provides a comprehensive compilation of Inter-American multilateral extradition treaties. Through careful organization and insightful commentaries, the author provides an indispensable access to an intricate and complex network of legal rules. These multilateral treaties possess historical depth and living features that are specific to this hemisphere and that have become particularly significant today. To exemplify, we are going to examine some of the burning issues embodied in the multilateral treaties that are the object of this book. Extradition is a vital aspect of Inter-American judicial cooperation. The idea of Inter-American cooperation is connected to a broader aspiration of hemispheric integration that already began in the nineteenth century. This aspiration can be traced back to the vision of Simón Bolívar, who was one of the craftsmen of Latin America’s independence from Spain. Although the 1826 Congress of Panama failed to create an Inter-American association of states, it became the seed that slowly generated an InterAmerican system of international cooperation. In 1890, in Washington D.C., the First Inter-American Conference of American States created an International Union of American Republics. In 1910, its Secretariat, the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics, received the name Pan-American Union. Its purpose was promoting international cooperation among American republics, as well as providing technical and informational services, and furthering relations at the economic, social, cultural, and legal levels. In 1948, this Secretariat became the General Secretariat for the OAS, Organization of American States. On April 30, 1948, 21 nations of the hemisphere met in Bogotá, Colombia, to adopt the Charter of the Organization of the American States. Judicial cooperation was one of its main functions, performed by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. This organ of the Organization of American States, in which Dr. Zanotti played an important role, prepared a definitive version of a draft convention on extradition. A detailed account of the various steps accomplished by the OAS in the field of extradition is found in Chapter 2 of Dr. Zanotti’s work. The globalization of crime1 has made international judicial cooperation particularly important. This cooperation is shaped by the nature of Latin 1 Edgardo Rotman, “The Globalization of Crime”, 10 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (2000).

viii

FOREWORD

American criminality. Organized crime is one of the salient features of transnational criminal activities in the hemisphere2. Organized crime flourished in some Latin American nations as a result of the political and economic power of certain groups, which remained beyond the control of police forces.3 The regulation of extradition is essential to the transnational fight against organized crime. The recent United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) has become an important legal basis for extradition, where there is no legal extradition treaty between countries.4 The UNTOC has removed differences among national legal systems, which were a stumbling block for international judicial assistance. States parties to the Convention are obliged to adopt domestic laws and practices that would prevent or suppress organized crime-related activities. The signatories of UNTOC have committed themselves to broaden the reach of extradition provisions. The fight against organized crime is closely connected to the fight against corruption because the bribing of public officials is often an essential part of the mechanisms of organized crime. As Nagle pointed out, corruption is engrained in Latin American civil societies5 and requires both an adequate legal response and collaboration among the affected states. The Inter-American Convention against Corruption adopted in 19966 constitutes another important weapon in the fight against organized crime and provides the means to fuel international cooperation in the American hemisphere. The laundering of money from organized crime proceeds is another vital part of the mechanisms of organized crime. Paradoxically, economic integration and free trade agreements such as NAFTA have spawned international money laundering and made necessary a stronger cooperation at the judicial level. This cooperation is accomplished through good multilateral extradition treaties, as well as bilateral treaties, namely Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT). These agreements of comprehensive cooperation in criminal matters are designed to protect its parties from organized crime and corruption. If one tries to identify the factors that determine the quality of an extradition treaty, one has to point out two main areas: provisions that reinforce 2 Other salient features of Latin American criminality are related to poverty and underdevelopment. These factors are only indirectly related to transnational criminality. See Enrique Castillo- Barrantes, “Criminalidad y Justicia en América Latina,” 41 International Annals of Criminology, (Official Organ for the International Society for Criminology) p. 107 (2003), See also Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni, “La Politica Criminal Latinoamericana (De Cara A La Globalización)”, 41 International Annals of Criminology p. 93 (2003). 3 Luz Estella Nagle, Latin America: Views of Contemporary Issues in the Region, 26 Fordham International Law Journal. 1649, 1657. (2003). 4 40 I.L.M. 335 (2001), included at p. 313 of this work. (The United States has not yet ratified this treaty). 5 Nagle, p. 1677. 6 See Zanotti p. 208.

FOREWORD

ix

international judicial cooperation making extradition more expeditious, and provisions that recognize the human rights of individuals involved in the extradition procedures. As Warmund points out, outdated treaties restricted law enforcement and promoted irregular renditions.7 Good extradition treaties should facilitate international cooperation rather than act as an obstacle to cooperation. On the other hand, the protection of human rights of individuals who are the subject of extradition proceedings require the application of international standards of due process, as arising both under the European and American Conventions of Human Rights.8 One of the main obstacles to expeditious extradition treaties in the Americas has been the refusal of nations to extradite their own nationals. Arguments against the extradition of nationals include their right to be tried by the judges of their nation, the right to live in their homeland, and the duty of the state to protect the welfare of its citizens, including their protection against unfair trials or proceedings.9 The main argument, however, revolves around the idea that the extradition of a country’s own nationals would violate its sovereignty. In Colombia, this type of ideological argument was reinforced by the influence of the drug industry10 and resulted in a very violent period of Colombian history, protagonized both by drug lords and national authorities. Many members of the Colombian judiciary were assassinated in the process.11 In 1985, leftist guerrillas, possibly financially backed by the drug cartels, occupied the Palace of Justice in Bogotá, burned the files of drug dealers awaiting extradition to the United States, and killed over one hundred people including eleven of the twenty-four sitting Supreme Court justices.12 In contrast to the anti-extradition ideology, there are strong arguments that favor the extradition of nationals. Rather than undermining national sovereignty, it has been demonstrated that it tends to reinforce it.13 As Warmund stressed, “Impunity disserved and weakened Colombia by gutting the rule of

7

Warmund p. 2383, infra. M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, Fourth Edition. Oceana Publications, Inc: (2001) p. 62 9 Horacio Daniel Piombo, Extradición de Nacionales. Ediciones Depalma Buenos Aires p. 33, 34 (1974) 10 Francisco E. Thoumi, “The Impact of the Illegal Drug Industry on Colombia”, in T. Farer, ed. Transnational Crime in the Americas, Routledge New York: 1999, p 132. 11 Luz E. Nagle, “The Rule of Law or the Rule of Fear: Some Thoughts on Colombian Extradition” 13 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L.J. 851 (1991). 12 Id. at 851, See also Charles Kallenbach, “Promo o Plata: Irregular Rendition As a Means of Gaining Jurisdiction Over Colombian Drug Kingpins.”22 New York Journal of International Law and Politics 169, 188. (1990). 13 Joshua H. Warmund. “Removing Drug Lords and Street Pushers: the Extradition of Nationals in Colombia and the Dominican Republic.” 22 Fordham International Law Journal. 2373, 2381 (1999). 8

x

FOREWORD

law and dismantling the civil order.”14 Piombo explains how the non-extradition of nationals may generate an immunity of jurisdiction for nationals and in certain cases create in their favor a real asylum.15 After prohibiting and then reviving several times the extradition of its own nationals, in May 1997 a Colombian senate committee approved a bill to amend the Constitution, allowing for the extradition of Colombian drug traffickers for trial in the United States. The bill became law following a final vote of the Senate in December of 1997. However, this statute does not apply retroactively. It is important to emphasize that the issue of the extradition of nationals is included in the 1981 Inter-American Convention on Extradition. According to its provisions, the nationality of the person sought may not be invoked as grounds for denial of extradition, except when the law of the requested state establishes otherwise.16 Another country that occupied a specific role in the international drug trade is the Dominican Republic. This nation also statutorily prohibited the extradition of nationals and recently repealed this policy through the extradition of two famous drug lords, Francisco Medina and Maximo Reyes, and enacted a new law that provides for the extradition of nationals.17 The resistance to extradite nationals to the United States has led this country to the utilization of informal methods of rendition, such as luring and abduction, and the use of immigration laws to gain jurisdiction.18 This type of informal attainment of jurisdiction became prominent regarding Mexico. The best known case is the abduction in 1990 of the Mexican citizen Humberto Alvarez Machain from Mexico later validated by the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Alvarez- Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). While the Supreme Court admitted that the kidnapping was shocking and that it possibly violated principles of international law, the Court held that the forcible abduction of Alvarez-Machain did not violate the extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States. The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States through Resolution 586 (09/92) asked the Inter-American Juridical Committee to issue an opinion about the decision of the Supreme Court. The opinion condemned the kidnapping as a serious violation of international public law and considered it a violation of the territorial sovereignty of

14

Id. At 2381. Horacio Daniel Piombo, Extradición de Nacionales. Ediciones Depalma Buenos Aires p. 29 (1974). 16 See Zanotti p. 74. 17 Warmund at 2378. 18 Alonso Gomes-Robledo Verduzco, Extradición en Derecho Internacional: Aspectos y Tendencias Relevantes 57 (2000). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 15

FOREWORD

xi

Mexico.19 It is important to point out that Mexico and the United States signed a treaty in 1994 to prohibit transborder abductions.20 As noted by Gomez-Robledo Verduzco, these methods may violate the international legal process, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states, as well as violating the human rights of those individuals captured illegally.21 The hypothesis of abduction and illegal seizure by another country should be distinguished from those cases in which there is connivance from the state where the kidnapping takes place. An example of this situation is the Sobbel Case22 where the capture was carried out by Mexican authorities and the fugitive delivered to American officials before crossing the border to be eventually judged and convicted in New York for conspiracy to commit espionage. The collaboration of the Mexican police deprived Mexico of any basis for complaint.23 Regarding the use of immigration laws to obtain jurisdiction, deportation was used in lieu of extradition from Mexico.24 Its speed makes it attractive to both governments because it substitutes cumbersome extradition procedures. In addition, deportation was used as a means to prevent impunity. This happened in the case of Andrew Luster. Convicted in 2003 in California in absentia after his flight to Mexico, he received a sentence of 124 years of imprisonment for rape, sodomy, and poisoning. Captured in Mexico six months later, extradition had become impossible because of his conviction in absentia in violation of Mexico’s constitutional due process rights. Mexico’s immigration authorities decided that Luster had violated immigration laws and deported him to California, circumventing in this way the legally unattainable extradition procedure.25 In the case of the capture of General Manuel Antonio Noriega, in Panama in 1989, extradition procedures were obviously unnecessary, because his capture was rather a result of a full blown military operation conducted by the United States. Indicted for a number of drug related offenses, he was finally convicted in 1992 to forty years of imprisonment by the Miami federal district judge William M. Hoeveler. Another notorious example of exercising jurisdiction on Latin American soil by passing the extradition procedures is the 1960 abduction of

19

(Corte de Justicia Internacional) C.J.I./RES/II/15/91, p.s 6 and 7. 31 U.S.T. 5059, T.I.A.S. 9656. 21 Alonso Gomes-Robledo Verduzco, Extradición en Derecho Internacional: Aspectos y Tendencias Relevantes, 57 (2000). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 22 142 F. Supp. 515 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); aff’d., 244 F. ed 520 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 873; rehearing den., 355 U.S. 920 (1958). 23 M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice 4th Edition, Oceana Publications p. 258 (2002). 24 Rodrigo Labardini, “Deportation in Lieu of Extradition from Mexico”, International Enforcement Law Reporter, Vol. 20 Issue 6, June 2004, p. 239. 25 Id. at 245. 20

xii

FOREWORD

Adolf Eichman26 in Argentina by the Israeli police. Eichman was abducted without the knowledge of the Argentine government and brought to Israel to be tried for grave war crimes against the Jewish people of Europe during the Nazi period in Germany27. He was judged and sentenced to death. In November of 1995 another Nazi criminal, Erich Priebke, was this time effectively extradited from Argentina for crimes against humanity including the massacre of more than 300 Italian citizens following a decision of the Argentine Supreme Court28. The Military Court of Rome sentenced Priebke to fifteen years. Causing considerable public outrage, the sentence was reduced to only five years due to an amnesty law enacted years before that covered a variety of war crimes29. Terrorism is one of the areas where international judicial cooperation is indispensable. There is a longstanding tradition, shared by Latin America, excluding political criminals from extradition procedures. As Stanbrook indicates, the political offense exception is the product of a humanitarian attitude towards political dissidents.30 It has therefore become crucial to distinguish between terrorist crimes and political crimes, since terrorism has become a widely recognized exception to the political offense limitation to extradition. The erosion of the traditional political offense exception to extradition is justified in order to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Indeed, the InterAmerican Convention Against Terrorism has made it easier to extradite terrorists.31 In Article 11 the Convention prohibits the political offense exception when the underlying crime was previously classified as a terrorist crime in the U.N. terrorism treaties listed in Article 2. Also, Article 13 of the Convention prohibits Western countries from granting asylum to those suspected of having committed terrorist crimes.32 The Convention also facilitates the extradition between American nations in cases of money laundering with the purpose of supporting terrorist activity.

26

Attorney General of Israel v. Eichman, 36 I.L.R. 5 (1961-2). Alun Jones, Jones on Extradition and Mutual Assistance, London: Sweet and Maxwell p. 156 (2001). 28 Fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de La Nacion, Vol. 318, Part II, Oct-Dec. 1995, p. 2148. 29 Military Court of Appeal of Rome/Supreme Court of Cassation, 7 March 1998/ 16 November 1998. 30 Ivor Stanbrook and Clive Stanbrook, Extradition Law and Practice 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, p. 5, 15 (2000). 31 Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism (2002), see Zanotti, p. 368. (See also Enrique Lagos and Timothy D. Rudy, “Preventing, Punishing, and Eliminating Terrorism in the Western Hemisphere: A Post 9/11 Inter-American Treaty” 26 Fordham International Law Journal 1619, 1638 (2003). 32 See Lagos p. 1638. 27

FOREWORD

xiii

Another important issue of Inter-American extradition is the prohibition to extradite to countries that include the death penalty in their criminal legislation. This prohibition was initiated at the regional level by the European Community. In 1986, the Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention of Human Rights33 and the 1989 Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms proclaimed the abolition of the death penalty34. A 1992 Resolution of the European Parliament urged all Member States that had not yet done so to ratify Protocol No. 6. Member states were to refuse extradition to States where capital punishment still exists, unless sufficient guarantees that it will not be administered were obtained.35 The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty and the 2000 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contained declarations against capital punishment. In sum, the abolition of the death penalty has become indispensable for full participation in such organizations as the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Organization of American States is the second regional system of the western hemisphere with a convention abolishing the death penalty.36 Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Uruguay, and Venezuela abolished the death penalty in the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century37. Except for Cuba, Guatemala, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and the United States38, American countries have eradicated the death penalty for common criminals, and some countries maintain it only for exceptional crimes committed under military law or in wartime. The death penalty has represented a costly isolation for the United States. A well known example was the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Soering v. United Kingdom and Germany.39 The question was whether the extradition of the defendant to Virginia on charges of capital murder would violate Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights in view of the fact that the evidence showed he would spend between 6 and 8 years on death row before being executed40. The Court declared

33 E.C. Doc. A2-0187/85; Official Journal of the European Communities, Debates of the European Parliament, C 36, 17 February 1986, p. 214. 34 Official Journal of the European Communities, Debates of the European Parliament, Appendix, No. 2–377, pp. 56–58, 74–79, 151–155; E.C. Doc. A 2-3/89. 35 William A. Schabas, The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, p. 303 (2002). 36 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, OASTS 73, 29 ILM 1447. 37 Schabas at p. 311. 38 Amnesty International Web Page: 39 11 EHRR 439 (European Ct. of Human Rts, Series A, Vol. 161, July 7, 1989). 40 Clive Nicholls, Clare Montgomery, and Julian B. Knowles, The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance. International Criminal Law: Practice and Procedure. London: Cameron May p. 240 (2002).

xiv

FOREWORD

that the length and circumstances of death penalty procedures transformed it into inhuman and degrading punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.41 Soering was eventually returned to the United States after Virginia agreed not to seek the death penalty. A subsequent case ruled by the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with final jurisdiction for 16 countries of the British Commonwealth Caribbean Countries, decided that extensive confinement together with the threat of execution was enough to render a death sentence a human rights’ violation. The Privy Council commuted to life the death sentences of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan on the basis that their prolonged detention on death row constituted cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in violation of Jamaica’s constitution42. The death penalty issue also raises difficulties for American prosecutors trying to obtain extradition from Mexico. Mexican criminal legislation does not include the death penalty for murder cases, and its extradition treaty with the United States demands a waiver of the death penalty before a person in Mexico can be extradited. Mexican law also forbids the notion of life sentences or trials in absentia, and Mexico will not grant extradition in those cases. On October 2, 2001, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice ruled that life imprisonment is forbidden by article 22 of Mexico’s constitution.43 According to this decision the requesting state must provide assurances that life imprisonment will not be imposed. In spite of the ruling, bilateral extradition continued, and the Mexican courts applied the Supreme Court decision in an inconsistent manner. The main flaw of the ruling was the lack of clarity regarding the time in which the assurances had to be submitted. Some courts had been ruling that assurances had to be submitted at the beginning of the procedure, while others required assurances within the following 60 days. A third interpretation was that it should accompany the submission of the formal final request before the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs issues the extradition order.44 In 2004 Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice expressly allowed the correction of extradition requests when the assurances had originally been either omitted or defective.45

41

11 EHRR 439 (European Ct. of Human Rts, Series A, Vol. 161, July 7, 1989). Pratt et al. v. Attorney General for Jamaica et al., 4 All E.R. 769 (Privy Council, 1993). 43 Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion (SJCN), Contradicción de Tesis 11/2001-Pl, de entre las sustentadas por el Primer y Cuarto Tribunales Colegiados en Materia Penal del Primer Circuito, Mexico City, October 2, 2001. 44 Rodrigo Labardini, “Mexico’s Supreme Court Clarifies When to Submit Assurances That Life Imprisonment Will Not Be Imposed When Requesting Extradition from Mexico”, International Enforcement Law Reporter, 295, 300 V 20, I 7 July 2004. 45 Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion (SCJN), Extradición, Efecto de la sentencia que otorga el amparo contra la resolucion que la concede, por falta del compomiso a que se refiere la fracción V del articulo 10 de la Ley de extradición Internacional, Tesis Jurisprudencial 26/2004, April 13, 2004. 42

FOREWORD

xv

All these issues emphasize a constant effort to strike a balance between the will to safeguard human rights on the one hand and to develop an effective international means of cooperation in the suppression of criminality on the other. The materials compiled by Dr. Zanotti will contribute to achieve this balance and will constitute a fundamental tool for judicial cooperation in the Inter-American context. Prof. Edgardo Rotman University of Miami School of Law

COMMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In late June 1981 my husband, Dr. Isidoro Zanotti, received a grant from the Dana Fund for International and Comparative Legal Studies to write a book on Extradition in Inter-American Relations. The Inter-American Bar Foundation acted as an inter-mediary to receive the funds. Unfortunately, Isidoro died on February 22, 2000 before arranging its publication. The treatise has, since his death, been updated and edited by Professor Edgardo Rotman of the Miami School of Law. I wish to acknowledge the Dana Fund for International and Comparative Legal Studies for its financial support to my husband, as well as to Charles R. Norberg, Esq. for encouraging Dr. Zanotti to submit his application to the Dana Fund and later for his sound advice and initial editing of the transcript; to the Inter-American Bar Foundation for acting as the inter-mediary to receive the grant; to Professor Edgardo Rotman for his foreword, and updating the treatise; to Professor Robert B. Barker, who recommended us to Professor Rotman; and finally to Harry A. Inman Esq., long time Council member of the Inter-American Bar Association and currently its Secretary General who has pursued the editing and publication of this treatise. Lydia B. Zanotti (Mrs. Isidoro Zanotti)

INTRODUCTION

This book deals with extradition as provided for in multilateral treaties and conventions — a subject of continuing interest in the context of international law and relations. It has become of very special importance in view of the global campaign against the growing use of narcotics and the need to utilize all legal processes including extradition to enhance the effort. Chapter I contains a brief survey of the historical development of the multilateral approach to extradition in the Americas since 1879, the year of the adoption of the first multilateral treaty ever to specifically and exclusively establish rules on extradition for a large region of the world. On March 27, 1879 the representatives of seven South American and two Central American countries participating in the American Congress of Jurists held in Lima, Peru, signed a Treaty on Extradition. Although this treaty did not enter into force, it remained as an outstanding precedent of particular significance in international relations, since it was the “pioneer” treaty for a multilateral solution of the matter of extradition. During the period from 1889 to 1940 the American countries entered into other multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition as well as on asylum, of both regional and inter-American scope. Chapter II presents a survey of the steps taken and work accomplished from 1954 to 1981 by organs of the Organization of American States with respect to updating the multilateral rules on extradition within the interAmerican system. One of the final steps in this process was taken in 1977 by the InterAmerican Juridical Committee, the principal juridical organ of the OAS, which prepared a definitive version of a draft convention on extradition. In June of the same year, this draft convention was submited to the OAS General Assembly which through its resolution AG/RES. 310 (VII-0/77) decided to convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition. In its preamble the resolution provided that, in view of the complexity of the subject, an inter-American specialized conference would be the most appropriate forum for the representatives of the governments of the OAS member states to consider the final text of an inter-American convention on extradition. This specialized conference, at which twenty-two OAS member states were represented, was held in Caracas, Venezuela, February 16-25, 1981. As a result of its deliberations, the conference adopted a new Inter-American Convention on Extradition which, at the closing session, was signed by the

xx

INTRODUCTION

representatives of eleven OAS member states. As of the date of this publication, the convention has been ratified by the governments of two countries, Panama and Venezuela. It is worth mentioning that, in accordance with Article 128 of the Charter of the OAS, specialized conferences are intergovernmental meetings to deal with special technical matters, or to develop specific aspects of inter-American cooperation. Within this context, they are also used as one of the treaty-making procedures. The 1981 Convention, in the first paragraph of the preamble, refers to the dates of adoption of multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition among American countries. The second paragraph of the preamble indicates the dates on which the appropriate organs of the OAS approved various resolutions and draft conventions and took other steps aimed at updating the multilateral rules on extradition. These treaties and actions are all discussed in the first and second chapters of this book. Subsequently, further steps were taken to update the multilateral rules on extradition. The texts of some multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition and asylum among American countries (1879 to 1996) as well as of some United Nations (1988 to 1994) and of the Council of Europe (1957 to 1993) are reproduced in the appendices of this book. In Chapter III there is an analysis, with appropriate quotations, of provisions of some multilateral conventions of worldwide scope whose purposes are to prevent or repress specific categories of offenses. Such conventions contain rules on extradition and deal with narcotics, genocide, unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, terrorism, physical protection of nuclear material and other subjects. Chapter IV, which is divided into twenty-one sections, contains a comparative analysis of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition adopted in 1981, and other multilateral treaties and conventions on the matter.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Isidoro Zanotti was a Brazilian jurist who has worked for thirty years with special dedication, ability and competence for the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, D.C., as a member of the legal staff of the General Secretariat. He was Director of the Division of Codification of International Law and Deputy Director of the Department of Legal Affairs. For fifteen additional years, he continued working for the OAS, under contract, in the General Secretariat. As an expert on international and inter-American legal matters, Dr. Zanotti provided extensive and valuable technical services to several organs of the OAS, such as the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission and several committees of the Permanent Council and General Assembly, as well as helping in the planning, organizing and holding of the OAS Inter-American Specialized Legal Conferences and Meetings. He also collaborated in the organization and direction as well as being a Director and professor in the annual Course on International Law, high level activity of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, organized and carried out in Rio de Janeiro with the cooperation of the OAS General Secretariat and the Getulio Vargas Foundation for the study and discussion of topics of special interest in the field of contemporary international law. Participants in this course, selected by the OAS Fellowship Program, have been law professors, diplomats, judges and attorneys from American countries. In February of 1981 an OAS Conference was held in Caracas, Venezuela, for the purpose of adopting the new Inter-American Convention on Extradition. Dr. Zanotti worked closely with the technical secretariat of that conference. Dr. Zanotti has written monographs and articles on a variety of legal topics for several legal publications such as the Journal of Space Law and the “Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Direito Internacional”. For several years, he was a contributing editor of the Lawyer of the Americas, a Journal of International Law of the University of Miami, Florida, and a corresponding editor of the International Legal Materials, and the American Journal of International Law. For many years he has contributed his talent to the InterAmerican Bar Association as a member of its Council and of its Executive Committee, as well as being its General Rapporteur for over 15 years. And finally, he was a principal supporter of the Inter-American Bar Foundation and served as one of its Board members.

CHAPTER ONE

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS ON EXTRADITION AMONG AMERICAN COUNTRIES

1. First Multilateral Treaty in History Dealing Specifically and Exclusively with Extradition in a Broad Context. Treaty on Extradition Signed in Lima, Peru, 1879 This chapter begins with a brief survey of the steps taken toward the preparation and adoption of the first multilateral treaty in the world that dealt exclusively with extradition in a broad context. The Treaty on Extradition, prepared and approved in 1879 by the American Congress of Jurists, held in Lima, was the first multilateral treaty to be adopted with the idea of establishing special rules on extradition among countries of an entire region. It was signed by nine American countries. Even though it did not enter into force, it represented an outstanding contribution of the New World to the development of such rules of international law. The American Continent, therefore, is a pioneer in this important field. Before 1879 several bilateral treaties on extradition were signed by countries of different parts of the world, including the Americas. Subsequently, and up to the present time, numerous bilateral treaties have been signed. The bilateral solution was adopted extensively by European countries. The American countries, however, have been pioneers in the multilateral solution. Only in 1957 did the European countries adopt a multilateral convention dealing exclusively with extradition: the European Convention on Extradition, adopted in Paris on December 13, 1957, by the Council of Europe. This convention is one of the important multilateral instruments on the matter. Some publications mention the multilateral Treaty of Amiens, signed on March 27, 1802, by France, Spain, the Netherlands and Great Britain. This treaty, however, did not deal exclusively with extradition, but also with other problems, and only Article 20 contained a rule on this matter. This treaty, therefore, should not be considered the first multilateral instrument to deal only with extradition. 2. American Congress of Jurists, Lima, Peru, 1877–1880, Treaty on Extradition a. Proposal for the convocation of the Congress presented to the Government of Peru by the Chief Editor of “La Gaceta Judicial”, 1874–1875. b. Note of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the other American countries, 1875.

2

CHAPTER ONE

c. Sessions of the Congress. d. Adoption of the Treaty on Extradition, 1879. e. Information on the deliberations of the Congress of Jurists. a. Proposal for the Convocation of the Congress of Jurists, 1874–1875 On August 3, 1874, the Chief Editor of “La Gaceta Judicial”, Lima, Peru, presented to his co-workers a proposal for the convocation of a Congress of Jurists of the American countries.1 His proposal stated, among other things, that the time had passed when people engaged mainly in war-making and that happier and more peaceful times had arrived, in which justice and law should prevail over the use of naked force; that it had been recognized that science and industry provided people with more lasting, solid, fruitful and constructive achievements, and that in Europe several associations and professional congresses were considering major questions of international law and other matters dealing with relations among States. He also mentioned several topics of civil law, which could be the basis of a uniform law of the South American nations, and stressed that uniformity in several aspects of civil legislation would satisfy a need shared by those nations and thus strengthen their relationships. In addition, he pointed out that although his colleagues in “La Gaceta Judicial” did not constitute an agency to promote the reforms that their dedication to their country might inspire, they could contribute to this important project and could also eventually report with satisfaction that they had used every means available to them in order to serve their country. He then proposed to his colleagues that a committee be organized to prepare a plan for convoking a Congress of Plenipotentiaries to be appointed by the American countries, indicating the topics the Congress should deal with. He further suggested that this plan be transmitted to the Government of Peru, so that, if it considered it timely and appropriate, it might invite the Governments of the other American countries to appoint law professors as representatives to the Congress. At his suggestion, a committee of three members of the editorial board of “La Gaceta Judicial” was organized to draft the proposal for the convocation of the Congress. In its report, dated November 19, 1875, the committee recommended an agenda of eight topics to be considered by the Congress, one of which was

1 Archivo Diplomático del Perú – III. Congressos Americanos de Lima. Recopilación de Documentos precedida de Prólogo por Alberto Ulloa. Imprenta Torres-Aguirre, Lima, Perú, tom II, 1938, pp. 107–109.

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

3

extradition.2 The proposal was approved on November 23, 1875, by the editorial board of “La Gaceta Judicial” and it was agreed that its Chief Editor would submit the proposal to the Government of Peru. In a lengthy communication to the Minister of Justice, dated November 1875, the Chief Editor of “La Gaceta Judicial” presented this proposal, stating, among other things, that from a brief observation of the world map to find out the prevailing trends at that time, it appeared that most people were inclined to group together according to their common interests. He referred to several conferences and meetings that were taking place in Europe, as well as to the activities of the International Law Institute (Institut de Droit International) and other important international events.3 He recalled that the American countries had always associated themselves with the economic and humanitarian progress accomplished by the European nations and emphasized that the American countries would participate in this vigorous and scientific effort to promote harmonization of certain legal rules and principles adequate to the needs of that time. Each country, with its own laws, some of which might be adopted as models, might find it fitting to harmonize such laws with those of the other American countries. He explained that the purpose was not to establish complete uniformity of the codes and laws of the American countries, but to adopt uniform rules, according to which the public authorities of those countries could decide questions relating to persons, property, successions, procedures and foreign judgments. He added that it should be recognized that the development of international relations in several fields and the improvement and multiplicity of the means of transportation and communications facilitated the movement of persons and their wealth, conferring on industrial and commercial relations a truly cosmopolitan character. These factors would make it urgent to harmonize legislation of civil matters based on the common interests of the American nations. If the American countries shared this point of view, they would adopt, as a basis of this legislative harmonization, the topics mentioned in the proposal attached to his communication. He suggested that to accomplish this important work, which would be a great credit to the Governments of the American countries, nothing would be more appropriate than a Conference of the American countries represented by jurists with full powers. The minister of Justice answered the letter of the Chief Editor on November 30, 1875, expressing his full support and personal satisfaction with the proposal of the editors of “La Gaceta Judicial” and advising them that he had transmitted such proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for pertinent

2 3

Ibid., pp. 109–110. Ibid., pp. 111–115.

4

CHAPTER ONE

action. He added that, with this proposal, the editors of “La Gaceta Judicial” had shown positive evidence of their interest in the progress of the American nations and of their foresight and patriotic feelings.4 In a note dated December 10, 1875, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru advised the Minister of Justice that the President of Peru welcomed the proposal by the editors of “La Gaceta Judicial” and decided that a note be sent by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the other American countries suggesting that, if their Governments so desired, they could appoint law professors to represent them at the proposed Congress of Jurists.5 b. Note to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Countries, 1875 On December 11, 1875, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru sent a note to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the other American countries extending an invitation to hold a Congress of Jurists in Lima.6 This communication emphasized that the development of international relations, the means of communication then available to the countries, the interest of each in the progress of the other countries, and the desirability of avoiding differences among the various legislations had been matters of concern to jurists of the American countries. The note suggested ten topics for the Congress of Jurists, one of which was extradition. It also stressed that a Congress of Jurists that would try to unify or harmonize insofar as possible the legislations of the American countries would be the most solid and fundamental step for strengthening the unity of the American nations. Furthermore, it suggested that the Congress be held in Lima or in another location that could be designated by the majority of the Governments. Fourteen American countries answered the note of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru. Some indicated that they could not send representatives to the Congress. c. American Congress of Jurists, Lima, 1877–1880 The Congress of American Jurists was installed in Lima on December 9, 1877, and held several sessions on different occasions, until March, 1880.7 Representatives of the Governments of the following countries participated: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

4

Ibid., p. 116. Ibid., p. 118. 6 Ibid., pp. 119–121. 7 Ibid., pp. 159–307. 5

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

5

On November 9, 1878, the Congress approved the Treaty to Establish Uniform Rules on Matters of Private International Law.8 Chapter 5 (Articles 34–39) of this treaty provided rules on national jurisdiction over offenses committed in foreign countries. The second part of Article 34 provided that the courts of a given country were competent to judge any of their own citizens who might have committed—in a foreign country—crimes such as homicide, theft or any other offenses subject to extradition, when requested by the Government of the country where the offense had been committed. On March 27, 1879, the Congress approved the Treaty on Extradition.9 d. Treaty on Extradition, Lima, Peru, March 27, 1879 This treaty, adopted by the American Congress of Jurists, was signed on March 27, 1879, by the representatives of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. On the same date, the delegate of Peru sent a report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his country informing about the deliberation of the Congress in drafting and adopting the Treaty on Extradition.10 The treaty contained twenty-two articles. Articles 1 through 17 dealt with substantive and procedural aspects, and Articles 18 through 22 contained the final clauses. As stated earlier, the 1879 Treaty on Extradition represents an outstanding precedent in the formulation of multilateral rules on extradition, even though it did not enter into force. An unofficial translation of the treaty appears in one of the appendices of this book. Some of its provisions will be discussed in the chapter containing a comparative analysis of multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition. e. Information on the Deliberations of the Congress of Jurists Summarized below are certain sections of the report presented by the delegate of Peru to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his country.11 The delegate of Chile, who was responsible for preparing the draft treaty that served as a basis for the discussions, held consultations as to whether or not the extraditable offenses would be classified in accordance with the nature of

8

Ibid., pp. 343–351. Ibid., pp. 383–387. 10 Ibid., pp. 366–382. 11 Ibid., pp. 366–382. 9

6

CHAPTER ONE

the offenses themselves or the penalties imposed. He stated that, although this second method would contribute greatly to simplifying the classification, it faced a pitfall in the diversity of the penal systems of the American Republics. Although all codes of the American countries were not available to the Congress of Jurists, it did have the penal legislations of Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Guatemala. It was indicated that, because of the diversity of penal laws, the negotiators of bilateral treaties had abstained from making general references and had established a more or less exhaustive catalogue of all punishable acts that might serve as a basis for a request of extradition. However, the delegates to the Congress were unable to reach an agreement on a classification or a list of offenses. Some, following theoretical precepts, wished to extend the list and others wanted to restrict it. To harmonize opinions, the delegate of Venezuela proposed a solution that was incorporated in Article 1 of the treaty, which, after some discussion, was accepted, subject to the addition of the limitations contained in Articles 2 and 3 proposed by the delegates of Uruguay and Ecuador. Once this problem was solved, the Congress endeavored to deal with other issues which were essential for concluding a treaty of this kind. The following major questions, among others, were raised: Would the governments deliver or surrender their nationals, or would it be necessary to grant them an explicit exception? Would the treaty apply solely to acts committed after its ratification or, on the contrary, would it have retroactive effect? On what conditions would extradition be granted and which offenses would not give rise to extradition? In connection with the first question, reference was made to the rule established in an extradition agreement between the Republics of Argentina and Uruguay, according to which the governments would surrender their nationals, except when the offender preferred to be tried by the authorities of his own country. When this idea was put before the Congress, two representatives challenged it; some hesitated to accept it and others supported it. After lengthy discussion, the Congress adopted the solution contained in Article 10 of the treaty. The Congress had no difficulty in agreeing that the treaty would be retroactive. It was indicated that the offender would be prosecuted for the violations of pre-existing law which provided for a penalty and the sole purpose of his surrender was to see to it that he be tried where he had committed the offense, that the damage caused by the offense was repaired and that the offender would be punished for it. Therefore, there was no objection to the treaty being applied to offenses committed before its adoption. With respect to extraditable offenses, the Congress of Jurists believed it essential to exclude political offenses and those connected with such offenses. It also deemed it necessary to provide that if the offender was extradited and for his offense he was subject to the death penalty in accordance with the law

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

7

he violated, only the immediate lesser penalty should be imposed. Without discussing the issue of whether or not this punishment was necessary for the preservation of social order, it appeared unwise to grant extradition of the person sought in order to apply the death penalty to him. In the final part of the report it was pointed out that the Latin American nations, most of which had common borders and were destined to live in frequent contact with each other and under the rule of law guaranteeing individual liberty, were more obligated than other countries to unite their efforts to ensure that their territories did not become a refuge for criminals. Thus, the Treaty on Extradition met an urgent need. Henceforth, offenders could not expect easy impunity by quickly moving from one country to another. The authority responsible for pursuing and judging them would receive effective cooperation throughout the territory of the allied Republics and would succeed in having its judgment executed, thus satisfying the public conscience. 3. Treaties on Other Matters, Containing Provisions on Extradition, 1848, 1856 a. Treaty of Confederation among the Republics of Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Nueva Grenada, signed in Lima on February 8, 1848. Article 14 of this treaty contained rules on extradition.12 b. Continental Treaty, signed on September 15, 1856, by Chile, Peru and Ecuador. Its Article 6 provided a general rule on extradition, stating that a special convention would specify the offenses subject to extradition and the formalities for it.13 4. Regional Treaties and Conventions a. Treaty on International Penal Law, adopted by the First South American Congress on Private International Law, held in Montevideo, Uruguay, 1888–1889. This treaty was signed on January 23, 1889, by Representatives of the Governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.14 It was ratified by these countries. Articles 19 through 45 contain rules on extradition and Articles 15 to 18 deal with asylum. 12 Congresos Americanos de Lima (Archivo Diplomático del Perú). Recopilación de Documentos precedida de prólogo por Alberto Ulloa. Imprenta Torres-Aguirre, Lima, Perú, 1938. Tomo I, pp. 301–311. 13 Ibid., Tomo I, pp. 613–620. 14 The texts of the treaties on International Penal Law signed at the First and Second South American Congresses on Private International Law have been published by the OAS General Secretariat, Department of Legal Affairs. Treaty Series No. 34, Washington, D.C., 1957 (Spanish and English).

8

CHAPTER ONE

b. Agreement on Extradition, signed on July 18, 1911, by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela at the Bolivarian Congress held in Caracas, Venezuela.15 This agreement was ratified by all five countries. c. Convention on Extradition, signed on February 7, 1923, by the five Central American countries, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, at the Conference on Central American Affairs held in Washington, D.C.16 These countries ratified this Convention, which superseded the previous Convention on Extradition, concluded in Washington in 1907 by the same countries. d. Central American Convention on Extradition, signed on April 12, 1934, by the five Central American countries17 at a Conference held in Guatemala City. According to Article 18, this Convention would supersede the Convention on Extradition of 1923. e. Treaty on International Penal Law, signed on March 19, 1940, at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law, held in Montevideo. The treaty, signed by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay,18 but it was ratified only by Uruguay and Paraguay. Titles II and III, Articles 18 through 48, contain rules on extradition. This is a revision of the 1889 treaty on the same subject. f. Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge, signed on August 4, 1939, at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law. States Parties: Paraguay and Uruguay. (OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 66). 5. Treaties and Conventions on Extradition Adopted by the Inter-American System a. Treaty for Extradition of Criminals and for Protection against Anarchism, signed on January 28, 1902, by seventeen American countries at the Second International Conference of American States, held in Mexico City.19 The treaty was ratified by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. The following countries ratified the treaty but did not deposit their instruments of ratification: Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Nicaragua. 15 Tratados Públicos y Acuerdos Internacionales de Venezuela, Vol. II, Caracas, 1925, p. 435. OAS Treaty Series No. 34 (Spanish and English), p. 19. 16 International Legislation, Vol. II, 1922–24. Edited by Manley Hudson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 954. 17 Ibid., Vol. VI, 1932–34, published in 1937, p. 833. 18 OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 71. The Spanish text also appears in Textos de los Tratados de Montevideo sobre “Derecho Internacional Privado, OEA/Ser.Q/ II.8, CJI-14” prepared by the Division of Codification and Legal Integration of the Department of Legal Affairs, OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1973, p. 156. 19 The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1931, p. 83. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 11.

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

9

This was the first treaty on extradition adopted by the Inter-American System. It was to be in effect for five years, beginning on the date of the last exchange of ratification, and was to continue in force for five more years, unless denounced twelve months before expiration of the first five-year period.20 This treaty is not in force. b. Convention on Private International Law (Bustamante Code), signed on February 20, 1928, at the Sixth International Conference of American States, held in Havana. Book IV, Title III (Articles 344 through 381), contains rules on extradition.21 Fifteen American States are Parties to this Convention: Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela. Some countries made several reservations to the Convention, but only the reservations of Venezuela referred specifically to Articles 348, 360 and 378, which deal with extradition. The convention entered into force on October 26, 1928. c. Convention on Extradition, signed on December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States, held in Montevideo, Uruguay.22 The States Parties to the convention are: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and United States. Reservations were made by Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico and United States. Entry into force: December 26, 1934. An optional clause to this Convention was signed on the same date by Argentina and Uruguay. The clause dealt with extradition of nationals. It was not ratified. d. Inter-American Convention on Extradition, adopted on February 25, 1981, by the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition held in Caracas.23 It was signed by the following member states of the OAS: Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela. Venezuela deposited its instrument of ratification on October 4, 1982.

20

OAS Treaty Series No. 9, p. 4. The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 325. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 31. 22 Ibid., First Supplement 1933–1940, published in 1940, p. 110, OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 51. 23 OAS Treaty Series 60, 1981. 21

10

CHAPTER ONE

6. Inter-American Conventions on Other Matters, Containing Provisions on Extradition a. Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance, signed in Washington, D.C., on February 2, 1971, at the third special session of the OAS General Assembly.24 (Articles 2, 3, 5, 7). The States Parties are: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela. Entry into force: October 16, 1973. b. Convention on the Protection of the Archeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, approved on June 16, 1976 by the OAS General Assembly at its sixth regular session, Santiago, Chile, 1976.25 (Article 14). The States Parties are: Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru. Entry into force: September 27, 1978.

7. Inter-American Conventions on Asylum a. Convention on Asylum, signed on February 20, 1928, at the Sixth International Conference of American States held in Havana, Cuba.26 The States Parties are: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Entry into force: May 21, 1929. b. Convention on Political Asylum, signed on December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States held in Montevideo, Uruguay.27 States Parties: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. Entry into force: March 28, 1935. c. Convention on Territorial Asylum, signed on March 28, 1954, at the Tenth Inter-American Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela.28 States Parties: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. Entry into force: December 29, 1954.

24

OAS Treaty Series No. 37, 1972. OAS Treaty Series No. 47, 1977. 26 International Conferences of American States 1889–1928. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1931. p. 434. OAS Treaty Series 34, p. 27. 27 Ibid., First Supplement 1933–1940, published in 1940, p. 116. OAS Treaty Series 34, p. 47. 28 Ibid., Second Supplement 1942–1954, published by the OAS General Secretariat, 1958, p. 345. OAS Treaty Series 34, p. 89. 25

MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

11

d. Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, signed on March 28, 1954, at the Tenth Inter-American Conference held in Caracas.29 States Parties: Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Entry into force: December 29, 1954.

8. Other Inter-American Instruments a. American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States held in Bogotá, Colombia, March 30 to May 2, 1948.30 b. American Convention on Human Rights, Pact of San José, Costa Rica, signed on November 22, 1969, at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights held in San José, Costa Rica.31 States Parties: Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.32 Entry into force: July 18, 1978.

29

Ibid., p. 339. OAS Treaty Series 34, p. 82. International Conferences of American States, Second Supplement 1942–1954, published by the OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1958, p. 263. 31 OAS Treaty Series No. 36. 32 On November 5, 1981, the representative of Barbados delivered to the OAS General Secretariat, on behalf of his Government, the instrument of ratification of the convention, with reservations. The convention, as provided for in Article 75, may be subject to reservations only in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Said Secretariat communicated the reservations to the other member states for the purpose of the procedure established by the Vienna Convention. 30

CHAPTER TWO

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY ORGANS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES IN THE FIELD OF EXTRADITION

1954 to 1981

1. Resolution CVII of the Tenth Inter-American Conference In 1954 the Organization of American States took its first step to update the, multilateral rules on extradition within the Inter-American System. The Tenth Inter-American Conference was held in Caracas, Venezuela, March 1–28, 1954, and adopted two conventions on asylum, which is a matter of special interest to Latin American countries: The Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and the Convention on Territorial Asylum. It also approved several resolutions on different topics, one of which dealt with extradition (Resolution CVII). The preamble of this resolution, after making reference to these two conventions on asylum, stated that the two instruments set forth the right of the state granting asylum to determine the political character of the refugee, which constituted the essential basis for the existence and operation of political asylum as the nations of the American continent understood it and practiced it. In addition, the preamble stated that the right to request extradition of persons sought, tried or sentenced for common crimes was an indispensable complement of the right of asylum.1 In this resolution, the Conference instructed the Inter-American Juridical Committee (an organ of the OAS) to prepare a draft convention on extradition, which was to be brought to the attention of the governments of the OAS member states and submitted to the third meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists (another organ of the OAS at that time) for its consideration. It was also provided that once the draft had been approved by the InterAmerican Council of Jurists, the Council of the Organization should consult the member states regarding the draft as well as the suitability of and opportunity for adopting an instrument and opening it for their signature. As a preparatory step, the Pan American Union ;(OAS General Secretariat) would 1 Final Act of the Tenth Inter-American Conference, Caracas, 1954. Published by the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat), Washington, D.C., 1954.

14

CHAPTER TWO

request the American governments to forward to it as soon as possible copies of their legal provisions, treaties and conventions in force on the subject of extradition for transmittal to the Inter-American Juridical Committee. This was, therefore, an important step toward updating the rules on extradition in the inter-American context. Several other steps were taken and much work had to be accomplished before a new Inter-American Convention on Extradition was finally adopted in February 1981. In view of the importance of the matter, it is of interest to trace the several steps taken toward the adoption of a new instrument on extradition. Most of the documents mentioned in this historical process, especially those published before 1973, are out of print, although, of course, some may be found in libraries. Thus, it seems worthwhile to survey the development of this topic in some detail.

2. Work of the Inter-American Juridical Committee and of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. First Four Draft Conventions on Extradition a. First Draft Convention on Extradition, 1954 The Inter-American Juridical Committee (referred to as CJI — Initials of the Spanish title — Comité Jurídico Interamericano), pursuant to resolution CVII of the Tenth Inter-American Conference, prepared the first draft convention on extradition and approved it on December 16, 1954.2 This draft contained twenty-one articles, but no final clauses. In its statement of reasons (exposición de motivos), the Committee stated that it had prepared the draft convention after carefully studying and examining the multilateral treaties among American countries, as well as bilateral treaties between such countries, and national legislation. b. Second Draft Convention, 1956 The first draft convention prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee was submitted to the third meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists (CIJ)3 held in Mexico City in 1956. It should be noted that each 2 Inter-American Juridical Committee. Draft Convention on Extradition. Published by the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat), March 1955, document CIJ-22. In the chapter of this book in which the comparative analysis appears, mention is made of some provisions of the six draft conventions on extradition prepared by organs of the OAS throughout the years. 3 CIJ (Spanish initials for Consejo Interamericano de Jurisconsultos) was a symbol used for the document series of both the Inter-American Council of Jurists and the Inter-American Juridical Committee. This symbol was used until the amendments of the OAS Charter came

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

15

OAS member state could appoint a delegation to the meetings of the Council of Jurists. Several sessions of the Council were devoted to the discussion of this draft convention, and some delegations submitted amendments to it. At the end of its deliberations, the Council of Jurists, by resolution VII, approved a new draft convention and transmitted it to the Council of the OAS.4 The Council of the OAS, at its session held on May 16, 1956, decided to transmit the draft convention to the governments of the member states, with the request that they send to the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat) by September 15, 1956, any observations they might consider pertinent.5 In response, the OAS General Secretariat received observations from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, the United States, Guatemala and Nicaragua.6 In view of the fact that several OAS member states had made observations to the draft convention, the Council of the OAS, at its session on October 3, 1956, decided to consult the governments with respect to the procedure to be followed, since Resolution CVII of the Tenth Conference had not provided for any such procedure.7 As a result, the Council of the OAS decided at its session on January 23, 1957, to transmit the observations of the governments to the Inter-American Juridical Committee.8 c. Third Draft Convention, 1957 In its report the Inter-American Juridical Committee indicated having made a careful study of the observations presented by the governments of Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and the United States, and that it had found it appropriate to prepare a new draft convention on extradition, modifying several provisions of the version approved by the Council of Jurists in 1956. The Juridical Committee approved its new draft on July 12, 1957.

into force in 1970, which abolished the Inter-American Council of Jurists. Since 1970 the additional symbol CJI has identified the documents of the Inter-American Juridical Committee (OEA/Ser.Q/I to V, according to the nature of the documents, plus CJI-). CJI Spanish initials for Comité Jurídico Interamericano. The works of the Committee are also published in a series entitled “Recomendaciones e Informes” (Recommendations and Reports). 4 Final Act of the third meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. Mexico City, January 17 to February 4, 1956. Published by the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat), Washington, D.C., 1956. Document CIJ-29. 5 Council of the OAS, Doc. C-i-303, Rev. 2, May 16, 1956. 6 Council of the OAS, Doc. C-d-452, Rev. 2, January 23, 1957. The observations of the governments appear in document CIJ-37, pages 25–84. 7 Council of the OAS, Doc. C-sa-225, October 3, 1956. 8 Council of the OAS, Doc. C-sa-235, January 23, 1957.

16

CHAPTER TWO

The OAS General Secretariat transmitted this new draft convention to the governments of the member states for their consideration.9 d. Fourth Draft Convention, 1959 At its fourth meeting held in Santiago, Chile, August 24 to September 9, 1959, the Inter-American Council of Jurists considered the new draft convention approved by the Juridical Committee in 1957, as well as the observations presented by the governments of some member states. The American States, which at that time were members of the OAS, were represented at this meeting which was one of the most successful held by the Council of Jurists. The Council of Jurists assigned to its Committee I the study of the draft convention on extradition. All of the member states represented at the meeting participated in the deliberations of Committee I. The following documents were submitted to this Committee: draft convention on extradition approved by the Juridical Committee in 1957; observations of the governments of Brazil and Nicaragua10 as well as of Paraguay, United States, Chile and Guatemala.11 Committee I held a general debate on this topic and organized a Working Group to study it and present a document to the Committee. This group was composed of the Delegations of Bolivia, Colombia, United States, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela and Chile. The Chairman of the group was the delegate of Colombia, and the Rapporteur was the delegate of Guatemala. The Working Group prepared and submitted a draft convention to Committee I, which studied it at its eighth, ninth and tenth sessions.12 Finally, Committee I presented a draft to the plenary session of the Council of Jurists, which approved the draft on September 7, 1959.13 This draft convention on extradition, approved by the Council of Jurists, became the fourth draft in the series. The Delegations of Argentina, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua made some reservations to it. The draft convention

9 Inter-American Juridical Committee, second Draft Convention on Extradition (CIJ-37), (third draft of the series). Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., September 1957. 10 Handbook of the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, CIJ-41. Pan American Union, Washington,. D.C., 1959, pp. 6–9. 11 Documents 10, 33, 83 and 89 rev. of the fourth meeting of the Council of Jurists. 12 Actas resumidas (summary minutes) of the eighth, ninth and tenth sessions of Committee I of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, documents 105, 132, 133. 13 Draft Convention on Extradition approved by resolution IV. Final Act of the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Santiago, Chile, August 24 – September 9, 1959. Document CIJ-43 published by the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat), Washington, D.C., 1960, pp. 15–22.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

17

was to be submitted to the Eleventh Inter-American Conference, which was to be held in Quito, Ecuador, but never took place. Document No. 100, rev. 2, of the fourth meeting of the Council of Jurists contained an article (No. 23) on the final clauses. By its resolution V, the Council of Jurists referred that provision to the Inter-American Juridical Committee for study. The Juridical Committee drafted several alternative texts for Article 23 of the draft convention.14 e. Drafts on Asylum Also at its fourth meeting, the Inter-American Council of Jurists dealt with some aspects of the right of asylum and its connection with extradition. The Delegations of Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, Argentina and Colombia presented draft resolutions and observations concerning diplomatic asylum.15 This topic was considered by Committee I during four sessions.16 The Delegations that had presented draft resolutions decided to submit joint drafts: one draft on diplomatic asylum, other concerning a study to avoid the abuse of asylum, and another about a study to be made on political offenses.17 Previously, Argentina had presented a draft resolution on political offenses.18 Committee I established a Working Group to study all drafts and submit its conclusions to the Committee. This group was composed of the Delegations of Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador, Cuba, Paraguay and Peru. The delegate of Colombia was elected Chairman of the Group and the delegate of Peru was elected Rapporteur. The Working Group prepared three documents which were approved by Committee I at its sixth session.19 They were submitted to the plenary session, which approved them. They became Resolutions I, II, and III of the fourth meeting of the Council of Jurists.20

14 Inter-American Juridical Committee. Report on optional texts to replace Article 23 of the draft convention on extradition. Document CIJ-53. Washington, D.C., 1959. 15 Documents 9, 51, 53, 54 and 58, respectively, of the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. 16 Summary minutes of the first, second, third and fourth sessions of Committee I, Docs. 30, 44 rev., 57 rev., 59. 17 Docs. 62, 63 and 64. 18 Doc. 55. 19 Documents 64, rev. 2, 76 rev. and 77 rev. 20 Resolution I — Diplomatic Asylum; Resolution II — New articles on Diplomatic Asylum, and Resolution III — Study on political offenses. Final Act of the fourth meeting of the InterAmerican Council of Jurists. Santiago, Chile, 1959. Doc. CIJ-43, 1960, pp. 10–14.

18

CHAPTER TWO

By resolution I, entitled Diplomatic Asylum, the Inter-American Council of Jurists submitted to the Council of the OAS , for presentation to the Eleventh Inter-American Conference, a draft Protocol to the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954. Article I of this draft protocol provided that it was not lawful to grant asylum to persons responsible for genocide, and in general for offenses against humanity, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war. Article III of the draft protocol provided that urgent cases in connection with asylum were, among others, those in which political or social instability prevailed; or when the individual was sought by persons or mobs over whom authorities had lost control; or when the individual was in danger of being deprived of his life or liberty because of political persecution and could not make use of all of the legal means that ensure a fair trial; or when constitutional guarantees had been suspended either totally or partially. According to Article IV, the state granting asylum would determine the nature of the offense or the motives for the persecution, and whether or not a case of urgency would exist. Article VI provided that a safe-conduct should be issued thirty days following the date on which the state granting asylum notified the territorial state that it had definitely made the determination referred to in Article IV. The territorial state could at the same time, upon issuing the safe-conduct and without prejudice to the departure of the asylee for foreign territory, request from the latter the subsequent extradition of the asylee. By resolution II, the Inter-American Council of Jurists instructed the InterAmerican Juridical Committee to prepare draft articles to be incorporated into the Protocol recommended by the Council of Jurists in the aforementioned resolution I. In response, the Juridical Committee presented a new draft to replace Article XVII of the 1954 Convention on Diplomatic Asylum.21 By resolution III of its fourth meeting the Inter-American Council of Jurists instructed the Inter-American Juridical Committee to prepare a study on political offenses, taking into account the following aspects specified in Resolution III: Political offenses — political offense in an objective sense; a study of violations having as their purpose the alteration or destruction of institutional order; political offense in a subjective sense, a study of common offenses having a political purpose; cases that cannot be considered political offenses; terrorism, a study of the characteristics of terrorism; attempt against the life of a Chief of State or Head of Government; offenses of brutality or vandalism or offenses against humanity; offenses committed for selfish motives.

21 New Article on Diplomatic Asylum, prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Document CIJ-49, published by the Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., 1959.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

19

In compliance with resolution III, the Juridical Committee prepared a study on political offenses and approved it on November 4, 1959.22 Territorial asylum was another topic considered by the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. By resolution XIX the Council of Jurists approved a draft protocol. In the sole article of this draft it is stated: “For the purpose of extradition, neither genocide nor, in general, crimes against humanity, committed either in time of peace or in time of war, shall be considered political offenses.”23

3. New Structure of the OAS; 1967–1970. Special Reports of the Inter-American Juridical Committee and Action by the OAS General Assembly, 1971 Between September 1959, when the Inter-American Council of Jurists approved a draft convention on extradition (the fourth in the series), and April 1971, none of the organs of the OAS dealt with extradition, mainly due to the fact that the Eleventh Inter-American Conference was not held. On February 27, 1967, a Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the OAS was adopted by the Third Special Inter-American Conference held in Buenos Aires. The Protocol of Buenos Aires made several changes in the structure of the OAS. It abolished the Inter-American Council of Jurists, and the Inter-American Juridical Committee became the principal juridical organ of the OAS, composed of eleven jurists elected by the General Assembly. The name Pan American Union was replaced by General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.24 The Protocol of Buenos Aires entered into force on February 27, 1970, and there was a need to adapt the OAS to the new structure approved by the Protocol. The General Assembly became the supreme organ of the OAS, according to Article 52 of the revised Charter, replacing the Inter-American Conference. A special session of the General Assembly was held in Washington, D.C. from June 25 to July 7, 1970. It approved the Statutes of the principal organs of the OAS, the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, a provisional Statute of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and adopted a number of other measures on administrative and budgetary questions. The definitive Statute of the Juridical Committee was approved by the General Assembly in 1972.

22 Study on political offenses, Document CIJ-54, published by the Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., 1960. 23 Final Act of the fourth meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, CIJ-43, p. 46. 24 Charter of the OAS as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires. OAS Treaty Series 1–C.

20

CHAPTER TWO

The first ordinary session of the General Assembly was held in San José, Costa Rica, in April, 1971. The Inter-American Juridical Committee submitted an annual report and a special report to the Assembly on several topics, pending a decision from the supreme organ of the OAS. Extradition was one of these topics.25

4. Action by the OAS General Assembly, 1972 At its second regular session held in April 1972, the General Assembly adopted resolution AG/RES. 91 (II-0/72) dealing with the draft convention on extradition, which had been approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959. The Assembly considered that in view of the time elapsed since the approval of this draft convention, it was desirable to ask the governments of the member states to formulate observations on this document. Accordingly, the Assembly decided to ask the member states to present, before September 30, 1972, if they so desired, observations on the above-mentioned draft convention, and transmit them to the OAS General Secretariat. In addition, the Assembly instructed the Inter-American Juridical Committee to prepare, in the light of observations by the governments, a new draft. Inter-American Convention on Extradition and to submit it to the General Assembly through the Permanent Council, so that the Council could make any observations it deemed advisable, in accordance with Article 91(f) of the OAS Charter. The governments of the following member states presented observations: Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Venezuela.26 These observations were transmitted to the Inter-American Juridical Committee.

5. Fifth Draft Convention on Extradition, 1973. Study of this Draft by the OAS Permanent-Council, 1973–1974 The Inter-American Juridical Committee, at its regular meeting held in January-February 1973, studied the 1959 draft convention on extradition and the observations of the governments. It decided to maintain the text of the draft approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959, with some modifications, additions or deletions proposed by the governments.

25 26

Comité Jurídico Interamericano. Recomendaciones e Informes 1967–1973, Vol. X, p. 313. Doc. CP/CAJP-253/72 and additions.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

21

As a result of its deliberations, the Juridical Committee prepared a new draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition, as well as a statement of reasons and approved them on February 7, 1973.27 This new draft convention (the fifth of the series) was submitted to the OAS General Assembly at its third regular session held April 4–15, 1973. At this session the Assembly adopted resolution AG/RES. 103 (III–0/73), in which it noted that the Permanent Council did not have the necessary time to study and to make observations on this draft, in accordance with the provisions of Article 91.f of the OAS Charter and of the final part of paragraph 2 of resolution AG/RES. 91 (II-0/72). Consequently, the General Assembly requested the Permanent Council to study the 1973 draft convention and submit to the Assembly any observations it deemed advisable at its fourth regular session. The Permanent Council of the OAS, at its meeting held on April 26, 1973, referred resolution AG/RES. 103 (III-0/73) to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs with the request that it formulate the observations referred to in that resolution. This Committee, at its session on December 6, 1973, established a Working Group to study this matter. This Working Group was composed of the Delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico and Peru. The delegate of Peru served as Chairman. On March 27, 1974 the Working Group approved a report on the draft convention on extradition, in which it had made several observations and presented it to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council.28 This committee, at its meeting on April 1, 1974, considered the report of the Working Group and authorized its Chairman to present a draft resolution on this topic to the Permanent Council, which was done at the meeting of the Council on April 3. However, in view of the fact that the Assembly would meet as of April 19, the Council felt that it did not have enough time to make a careful study of the draft convention. At its meeting on April 9 the Permanent Council requested the Assembly, by resolution CP/RES. Ill (122/74), to extend for one more year the task that the Assembly had assigned to the Council by resolution AG/RES. 103.29

27 Work accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its regular meeting held January 15-February 16, 1973. OEA/Ser. Q/IV.6, CJI-13, 1973, pp. 23–64. 28 Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. Report of the Working Group on the Draft Convention on Extradition approved by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Doc. OEA/Ser.G, CP/CAJP-299/74 rev. 1, April 1, 1974, appendix I of document CP/doc.326/74 rev. 2, of April 9, 1974. 29 Report by the Chairman of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, Regarding the Draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition approved by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Doc. OEA/Ser.G, CP/doc. 326/74 rev. 2, of April 9, 1974.

22

CHAPTER TWO

The General Assembly, at its fourth regular session, extended the assignment for one more year (AG/RES. 152 (IV-0/74)). The same Working Group held other meetings and on April 21, 1975, it presented a new report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. It renewed the recommendation it had made in its report of March 27, 1974, to the effect that the draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition, approved by the Inter-American Juridical Committee on February 7, 1973, be referred to that Committee with the request that it make an exhaustive and systematic study thereof, taking into account any observations that the governments might wish to transmit and, if possible, those of the Working Group.30 The Chairman of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs presented a report to the Permanent Council on April 23, 1974, with a draft resolution31 that was approved by the Permanent Council on the same date. (Resolution CP/RES. 145, (158/75)). In resolution CP/RES. 145 the Permanent Council recommended that the OAS General Assembly refer to the Inter-American Juridical Committee the draft convention on extradition approved by the Committee in 1973, with the request that the Committee “make an exhaustive and systematic study of the draft taking into account the observations that the governments of the member states had already made or may wish to make on the draft, and of the developments that have taken place . . . in regard to the institution of extradition, as well as the observations of the Working Group of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council.” In the same resolution the Permanent Council recommended to the General Assembly that it request the governments of the member states wishing to make observations on the draft convention to send them to the General Secretariat before September 15, 1975, for transmittal to the Inter-American Juridical Committee and that the Permanent Council be requested “to make observations on the new documents prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the subject or present its own draft to the General Assembly, with a recommendation on the most suitable procedures for consideration of these documents in a final stage by representatives of the governments of the member states especially accredited to decide on the matter.”

30 Report of the Working Group to study the draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition approved by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Document OEA/Ser.G, CP/CAJP-329/75, April 21, 1975. 31 Report of the Chairman of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs on Resolutions AG/RES. 103 (III-0/75) and AG/RES. 152 (IV-0/74). Consideration of the Draft Convention on Extradition. Doc. OEA/Ser.G, CP/doc.440/75 rev. 1, corr. 1, of April 23, 1975.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

23

These recommendations of the Permanent Council were approved by the General Assembly at its fifth regular session held on May 8–19, 1975 (Resolution AG/RES. 183 (V-0/75).

6. The Sixth and Final Draft Convention on Extradition, 1977 In September-October 1975, observations on the 1973 draft convention were received by the OAS General Secretariat from the Governments of Chile, Ecuador, Mexico and United States, and were transmitted to the CJI.32 In compliance with resolution AG/RES. 183 of the General Assembly, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, during its regular meetings of July-August 1976 and January-February 1977, prepared a new draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition and a statement of reasons. The new draft convention (the sixth and final of the series) was approved by the Juridical Committee on February 1, 1977 and the statement of reasons was approved on February 11 of the same year.33 Some members of the Committee presented explanations on their votes. As can be seen in the statement of reasons, in preparing the revised text of the draft convention the Committee took into account several documents, such as: Observations that the Working Group of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council prepared in March 1974, with respect to the draft convention of 1973; the observations of the Governments of Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, the United States and Uruguay, and other documents and antecedents. In the statement of reasons dated February 11, 1977, the Inter-American Juridical Committee stressed that: Since the Tenth Inter-American conference held in Caracas in 1954, attempts have been made, with some interruptions, to modernize or update the rules of the inter-American system on extradition. Five draft conventions had been prepared. Three were prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee and two by the former Inter-American Council of Jurists. Those drafts had been considered by the governments on various occasions.

32

Doc. CP/INF. 726/75 and additions. AG/doc. 547/75. Work accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its regular meeting, January 10 — February 18, 1977. OEA/Ser.Q.IV.14, CJI-31, pp. 31–78. Spanish text appears in the Spanish edition of Doc. CJI-31 and in Comité Jurídico Interamericano. Recomendaciones e Informes 1974–1977, Vol. XI. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 499–520. 33

24

CHAPTER TWO

This draft convention was the sixth. In twenty years of activity no text of an inter-American convention on extradition, which would update existing rules in the multilateral field, has been given final approval.34

In the statement of reasons also mentioned were the multi-lateral treaties and conventions in force in the Americas, as well as the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, the 1962 Benelux Treaty, and some modern multilateral instruments that contained provisions on extradition, such as the conventions of the International Civil Aviation Organization on repression of hijacking of aircraft and on security of civil aviation, adopted in 1970 and 1971, respectively; two conventions on terrorism, the OAS convention of 1971 and the UN convention of 1973, as well as other instruments. The Juridical Committee also made special reference to a background document on extradition prepared by the Division of Codification of the OAS General Secretariat and published in 1975, which had been useful to the Committee (document CJI-25). The Committee indicated its special interest in the final approval of a convention on extradition. It also stressed that a very important point to keep in mind was paragraph 6 of the aforementioned resolution AG/RES. 183 (V-0/75) in which the General Assembly requested the Permanent Council to offer its observations on the new documents prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee and to present to the Assembly its recommendations on the most appropriate procedures to be followed for consideration of said documents. Furthermore, the Committee stated that . . . it would be most advisable for the Permanent Council to make recommendations on the aforementioned procedures. Then the draft convention and other pertinent documents could be given final consideration by representatives of the member states with full powers to decide on this subject. Therefore, one should go on to the phase of final consideration of the draft convention and the approval of a text of an inter-American convention on extradition, without waiting for any new observations by the governments. In this respect, mention should be made of the experience of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP), held in Panama City in January, 1975. The draft conventions for that conference had been prepared by the CJI during its July-August 1973 meeting and transmitted to the governments of the member states with the request that they send their observations so that they might be distributed before the holding of that Conference.

34

Document CJI-31, p. 47, AG/doc. 788/77, p. 21.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

25

No government submitted observations. However, during the CIDIP the delegations of OAS member states to the Conference worked intensively and CIDIP approved six important conventions on private international law.35

7. Convocation of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, 1977 In accordance with Article 128 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, the “Specialized Conferences are intergovernmental meetings to deal with special technical matters or to develop specific aspects of inter-American cooperation.” They are convoked either by the General Assembly or the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs on their own initiative or at the request of one of the Councils of the OAS or Specialized Organizations. The Specialized Conferences, within the context of the OAS, have been used for a variety of purposes. They have served, for example, as very important instrumentalities in the treaty-making process. In this respect, worthy of mention are the two Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law (CIDIP-I and CIDIP-II) held in Panama in 1975 and in Montevideo in 1979, respectively. CIDIP-I adopted six inter-American conventions and CIDIP-II adopted seven such conventions and a protocol, all of them on important topics of private international law. These conventions have entered into force among different member states of the OAS. In the field of extradition, after many years of preparatory work by organs of the OAS, it was finally decided by the OAS General Assembly to convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, by resolution AG/RES. 310 (VII-0/77) adopted at its seventh regular session held in June 1977. In the preamble of this resolution it is stated that in view of the complexity of the subject, an inter-American specialized conference would be the most appropriate forum at which plenipotentiary representatives of the governments of the member states could consider at a final stage the draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition. In the operative part of the resolution the General Assembly, after thanking the Inter-American Juridical Committee for its work in preparing the revised draft convention on extradition and the corresponding statement of reasons, decided to convoke an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition to consider the documents of the Juridical Committee and of the Permanent Council. It requested the Permanent Council, in accordance with the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 183 (V-0/75), to formulate its observations on the documents on extradition prepared by the Juridical Committee

35

Ibid., p. 50.

26

CHAPTER TWO

and, if necessary, to prepare a revised and updated draft convention for presentation to the specialized conference. The Assembly instructed the Permanent Council to prepare the draft rules of procedure for the specialized conference, and authorized the Council to set the place and date of the conference. Furthermore, the Assembly instructed the General Secretariat to prepare such technical and reference documents as might be necessary to facilitate the work of the conference and, in addition, to provide technical and secretarial services to the conference.

8. Study by the Permanent Council of the CJI 1977 Draft Convention and Statement of Reasons Prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, 1978 To comply with the mandate conferred to it by the General Assembly, the Permanent Council instructed its Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs to study the above-mentioned documents of the Juridical Committee. For that purpose a Working Group was established by the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. The group was composed of the representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, and Venezuela. The Representative of Guatemala was the Chairman of the group. The Working Group held several meetings in February, March and April 1978 and submitted a report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs.36 In the conclusions and recommendations of its report, the Working Group stated that “the draft convention prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1977 is an excellent basis for the discussion in the specialized conference; the conference will ultimately adopt the new inter-American multilateral instrument governing extradition as a suitable modern mechanism of cooperation to fight crime” because the draft “is the result of careful studies . . . and incorporates most of the observations made by governments of the member states . . . and some of the progressive standards used in modern multilateral instruments concluded in other areas of the international legal community”. In addition, the Working Group considered that it was not necessary for the Permanent Council to prepare a revised and updated draft to present to the specialized conference, and stated that the draft was susceptible of improvement by

36 Report of the Working Group to study the resolutions of the General Assembly regarding the draft Convention on Extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. OEA/Ser.G, CP/CAJP/370/78 rev. 2, annexed to document CP/doc. 847/78 of 13 June 1978. This document also contained the text of the observations presented by the Delegation of Mexico, published in Doc. CP/CAJP-367/78 of March 1, 1978.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

27

the government representatives attending the specialized conference, who would be people of the highest technical and legal caliber, and would express the definitive political will of the states on this matter. For these reasons, the members of the Working Group did not present proposals to amend the text of the 1977 CJI draft convention, but “their governments would present amendments to certain aspects of it at the specialized conference itself, through their respective representatives.” The Working Group suggested to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs to recommend to the Permanent Council, inter alia, to decide that it was unnecessary to prepare a further revised draft inter-American Convention on Extradition for presentation to the specialized conference, and to propose the draft prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1977 with those observations already presented and any others that the delegations might wish to present, as the basis for the deliberations in that forum. The Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, at a meeting on June 13, 1978, adopted the report of the Working Group and presented it to the Permanent Council. At its meeting on June 14, 1978 the Permanent Council considered said report and approved the conclusions and recommendations contained therein.37 The 1977 draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition and the statement of reasons prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee were submitted to the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX) which had been convoked by the General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 310 (VII–0/77).

9. Decisions of the Permanent Council on the Rules of Procedure, place and date of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX) The General Assembly instructed the Permanent Council, by resolution AG/RES. 310 (VII–0/77), operative paragraph 4, to prepare the draft rules of procedure for the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX). The Permanent Council approved the draft rules of procedure of CEDEX and submitted them to the governments of the member states for their consideration (CP/RES. 300 (415/80) of February 14, 1980). These rules were approved by the Specialized Conference at its first plenary session. According to Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference was convoked to consider the draft Convention on Extradition and other documents prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, together with studies,

37

OEA/Ser.G, CP/SA.331/78 of June 14, 1978.

28

CHAPTER TWO

proposals and draft international instruments that the governments of the member states might present on the subject.38 Place and Date of the Specialized Conference The Permanent Council was authorized by resolution AG/ RES. 310, operative paragraph 5, to set the place and date of the specialized conference. An offer for the site of the conference was conveyed by Venezuela. The Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the OAS, in a note dated February 13, 1980, addressed to the Chairman of the Permanent Council, offered Caracas as the site of the Conference, and stated, among other things, the following: “In conveying this offer of Caracas as a site, this Mission wishes to recall that it was precisely in that city, in 1954, during the Tenth Inter-American Conference, that it was decided to promote the preparation of a new draft inter-American convention on extradition. After many years of work, studies, drafts, resolutions, and other activities carried out within the scope of the OAS, it was decided in the final stage to convoke the specialized conference to complete the development and codification on a topic that was of special interest. The Government of Venezuela attributed every importance to and supported this juridical enterprise, which would make it possible to update the multilateral standards on extradition and facilitate inter-American cooperation in this field of law.”

By resolution CP/RES. 306 (421/80) of April 28, 1980, the Permanent Council thanked the Government of Venezuela for its generous offer, indicated its acceptance and set the city of Caracas as the site of the InterAmerican Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX). It also set February 16, 1981, as the opening date of the Conference.

10. Technical Studies and Documents Prepared for CEDEX by the OAS General Secretariat According to the aforementioned resolution AG/RES, 310, operative paragraph 7, the Secretariat for Legal Affairs of the OAS General Secretariat prepared several technical studies and documents for the Specialized Conference. The following studies and documents, among others, were prepared and published by said Secretariat in the series OEA/Ser.K/XXVI.1, CEDEX/, OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C.:

38

OEA/Ser.K/XXVI.l, CEDEX/3.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

29

CEDEX/6 Extradición. Textos de convenciones multilaterales y bilaterales. OEA/Ser.Q/II. 14, CJI-25, first edition, November 1975, viii, 295 p., second printing, April 1978 (Texts in Spanish and some in English).39 CEDEX/7 Extradición. Textos de convenciones multilaterales y bilaterales. Texts of multilateral and bilateral conventions. Supplement to document CJI-25, October 1980, xi, 386 p. (Texts in Spanish and English). CEDEX/8 Aide mémoire on the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition. December 1980. (Texts in English and Spanish). 8 p. CEDEX/9 Textos de la legislación de países americanos sobre extradición. February 1981 (Texts in Spanish and some in English). 201 p. CEDEX/11 Status of ratifications of multilateral treaties and conventions which contain provisions on extradition. (Spanish and English). CEDEX/12 Extradición. Estudio comparative del Proyecto de Convención Interamericana sobre Extradición aprobado por el Comité Jurídico Interamericano. (Spanish only) . . . CEDEX/14 Comparative study of recent bilateral treaties on extradition and the Draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition (1977). (English and Spanish). February 1981, 67 p.

11. The Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, Caracas, February 16–25, 1981, and the Results of Its Deliberations As previously indicated, the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX) was convoked by the OAS General Assembly by resolution AG/RES. 310 (VII-0/77). Pursuant to resolution CP/RES. 306 (421/80), approved by the Permanent Council on April 28, 1980, the Conference was held in Caracas, Venezuela, from February 16 to 25, 1981. The governments of the following twenty-two OAS member estates were represented at the Conference: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

39 Document CJI-25 was prepared in 1975 by the Codification Division of the Department of Legal Affairs of the OAS General Secretariat in order to cooperate with the Inter-American Juridical Committee in the study of the topic on extradition.

30

CHAPTER TWO

Also represented at the Conference were the Inter-American Juridical Committee and other organs of the OAS. Several States that have the status of Permanent Observers accredited to the OAS, and some inter-American organizations and other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations were represented by observers. In accordance with an agreement between the OAS General Secretariat and the Government of Venezuela, technical and secretariat services were provided to the Conference by the OAS General Secretariat through its Secretariat for Legal Affairs and other offices. The Government of Venezuela cooperated in different ways, by providing services of government officials and assigning other personnel to the secretariat of the Conference. As provided by its Rules of Procedure, the Conference decided to set up a General Committee, a Committee on Credentials and a Style Committee. The General Committee organized working groups when needed. The main discussions of a substantive nature pertaining to an inter-American convention on extradition took place in the General Committee, in which all the delegations accredited to the Conference participated. In some instances, in-depth analysis of certain topics also took place in the plenary sessions. The Specialized Conference was convoked, in accordance with the abovementioned resolution AG/RES. 310 and the Rules of Procedure, to consider the draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition prepared in 1977 by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, together with studies, proposals and draft international instruments that the governments of the member states wished to present on the subject. The 1977 CJI draft convention and the corresponding statement of reasons were published in document OEA/Ser.K/XXVI.1, CEDEX/4, and the studies and documents prepared by the OAS General Secretariat through its Secretariat for Legal Affairs were also published as Conference documents; they were circulated among the governments of the member states prior to and during the Conference. The delegations of the following member states presented written proposals for amendments or additions to the 1977 CJI draft convention, which were also published in the Series OEA/Ser.K/XXVI.l, with the additional symbol of CEDEX/: Argentina: CEDEX/43 and CEDEX/71 corr.; Brazil: CEDEX/36; Ecuador: CEDEX/28; El Salvador: CEDEX/33 and 41; Haiti: CEDEX/40 and add. 1 and 2; Honduras: CEDEX/22 and 23; Panama: CEDEX/25; Uruguay: CEDEX/20 (preliminary draft convention) and CEDEX/75; United States: CEDEX 15; Venezuela: CEDEX/37, add. 1 and 2, CEDEX/42. Document CEDEX/13 contained the report of a Working Group of the Seventh Course on International Law held in Rio de Janeiro in August 1980, which made a study of the 1977 CJI draft convention, and suggested amendments to some of its provisions.

STEPS TAKEN AND WORK ACCOMPLISHED

31

During the deliberations of the General Committee and of the plenary sessions of said Conference several delegations presented proposals which were inserted in the minutes of the respective sessions (actas resumidas). The General Rapporteur of the General Committee presented a lengthy report which was published in document OEA/Ser.K/XXVI. l.CEDEX/62. As a result of its deliberations, the Conference adopted the Inter-American Convention on Extradition. At the closing session of the Conference, held on February 25, 1981, this Convention was signed by the representatives of the following member states of the OAS: Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and Venezuela. Subsequently, the OAS General Secretariat, through its Secretariat for Legal Affairs, published in the four official languages of the OAS the authentic texts of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition approved by the Conference. That Secretariat also prepared and published the proceedings of the Conference under the title: Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Extradición (CEDEX), Caracas, Venezuela, 16 a 25 de febrero de 1981. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C. , 1981. Vol. I, vi, 471 pages; Vol. II, viii, 622 pages.40 In chapter IV of this book, which contains a comparative analysis in twenty-two sections, reference is made to several provisions of the draft convention of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, to the proposals of the governments and to other documents, as well as to specific deliberations of the Conference.

40 The text of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition, in the four OAS official languages, is published in the OAS Treaty Series No. 60, 1981. The Final Act of the InterAmerican Specialized Conference on Extradition, in the four OAS official languages, appears in Vol. II of the Actas y Documentos de La CEDEX, pp. 561–622.

CHAPTER THREE

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS WHOSE PURPOSES ARE TO PREVENT OR REPRESS SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF OFFENSES, CONTAINING PROVISIONS ON EXTRADITION

1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948 In Article I the Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish. Article II defines genocide, for the purpose of the Convention, as follows: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. According to Article III the following acts are punishable: (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; (e) complicity in genocide. Article VII provides that genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition and that the Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

2. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, approved by the United Nations on March 30, 1961. Protocol of 1972 Article 36, paragraphs 1 and 2, as amended by the Protocol approved by the United Nations at Geneva on March 25, 1972, enumerates several offenses. These offenses, according to paragraph 2(b)(i), shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offenses in any extradition treaty existing between the Parties, and the Parties undertake to include such offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. Under paragraph 2(b)(ii), if a Party making extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Party with which it has no

34

CHAPTER THREE

extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offenses enumerated in the article. It is worthwhile noting that a South American Conference on Narcotic Drugs, which was held in Buenos Aires, April 25–27, 1973, approved a South American Agreement on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In accordance with this agreement, the Governments of the States Parties should adopt the necessary measures for a close collaboration in the fight against illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. These measures should deal with the following matters, among others: Control and repression of illicit traffic; cooperation among the national security agencies; harmonization of the penal legislation; treatment, rehabilitation and readaptation of drug addicts. The Conference also approved two additional protocols, the first of which deals with penal legislation.

3. Convention on Offenses and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft; Signed at Tokyo on September 14, 1963, under the Auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Article 16 stipulates that offenses committed on aircraft registered in a Contracting State shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they have occurred but also in the territory of the state of registration of the aircraft. This principle, however, is nullified by paragraph 2 of the same article which provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to create an obligation to grant extradition.

4. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Signed at The Hague, December 16, 1970, under the Auspices of ICAO Article 1 of this Convention provides that any person who on board an aircraft in flight performs the following acts commits an offense: (a) unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or any other form of intimidation, seizes, or exercises control of that aircraft, or attempts to perform any such act, or (b) is an accomplice of a person who performs or attempts to perform any such act. Article 7 contains a very precise and clear rule for the Contracting States in connection with extradition. It stipulates that the Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offense was committed in its territory, to submit the case, to its competent authorities for

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS

35

the purpose of prosecution, and these authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offense of a serious nature under the law of that State. This provision represents quite an improvement compared to the 1963 Convention, referred to above. Article 8 of the 1970 Convention contains several highly important rules, which have been embodied in other multilateral treaties, including the 1971 ICAO Convention.

5. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971, under the Auspices of the ICAO In accordance with Article 1(1) of this Convention, any person commits an offense if he unlawfully and intentionally: (a) performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft, or (b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger its safety in flight, or (c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to it which renders it incapable of flight, or to cause damage to it which is likely to endanger its safety in flight, or (d) destroys or damages air navigation facilities or interferes with their operation, if any such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight, or (e) communicates information which he knows to be false, thereby endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. Under paragraph 2 of the same article, any person also commits an offense if he: (a) attempts to commit any of the offenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, or (b) is an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any such offense. Articles 7 and 8 establish important and precise rules concerning extradition. These rules are included also in the 1970 ICAO Convention, and have been embodied with minor changes in several multilateral treaties adopted subsequently. In view of the importance and significance of these articles, their texts are reproduced below:

Article 7 The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offense was committed in its territory, to submit the

36

CHAPTER THREE

case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offense of a serious nature under the law of that State. Article 8 1. The offenses shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offenses in any extradition treaty existing between Contracting States. Contracting States undertake to include the offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 2. If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Contracting State with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 3. Contracting States which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offenses as extraditable offenses between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 4. Each of the offenses shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between Contracting States, as if it had been committed not only in the place in which it occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1 (b), (c) and (d). Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention, referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8, reads as follows: 1. Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses in the following cases: (a) when the offense is committed in the territory of that State; (b) when the offense is committed against or on board an aircraft registered in that State; (c) when the aircraft on board which the offense is committed lands in its territory with the alleged offender still on board; (d) when the offense is committed against or on board an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee who has his principal place of business or, if the lessee has no such place of business, his permanent residence, in that State. Paragraph 3 of Article 5, provides that the Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS

37

6. Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that Are of International Significance, Signed in Washington, D.C., February 2, 1971, at the Third Special Session of the OAS General Assembly As provided in Article 1, the Contracting States undertake to cooperate with one another by taking all of the measures they may consider effective, under their own laws, and especially those established in the Convention, to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, especially kidnapping, murder and other assaults against the life or physical integrity of those persons to whom the state has the duty, according to international law, to give special protection as well as extortion in connection with those crimes. Article 2, which supplements or completes the rule of Article 1, states that these crimes shall be considered common crimes of international-significance, regardless of motive. Articles 3, 5 and 7 deal with extradition. According to Article 3, persons who have been charged with or convicted of any of the above-mentioned crimes shall be subject to extradition under the provisions of the extradition treaties in force between the Parties or, in the case of states that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty, in accordance with their own laws. Article 5 provides that when extradition requested for any of the crimes specified in Article 2 is not granted because the person sought is a national of the requested State or because of other legal or constitutional impediment, that state is obliged to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution, as if the act had been committed in its territory, and the decision should be communicated to the requesting State. Article 7 contains a rule similar to that included in the 1970 and 1971 ICAO conventions on the protection of safety of civil aviation. Article 7 stipulates that the Contracting States undertake to include the crimes referred to in the Convention among the punishable acts giving rise to extradition in any treaty on the subject to which they agree among themselves in the future, and that the Contracting States that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty with the requesting State shall consider the crimes referred to in Article 2 of the Convention as crimes giving rise to extradition according to the conditions established by the laws of the requested State. 7. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, December 4, 1973 According to Article 1, “internationally protected person” means: (a) a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the Constitution of the state concerned, a Head of

38

CHAPTER THREE

Government or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a foreign state, as well as members of his family who accompany him; (b) any representative or official of a state or any official or other agent of an international organization of an intergovernmental character who, at the time when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private accommodation or his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection from any attack on his person, freedom or dignity, as well as members of his family forming part of his household. Article 2 of this Convention enumerates the crimes that each State should make punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature. Such crimes are: intentional commission of a murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person; violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations or the means of transport of such person likely to endanger his person or liberty, a threat or an attempt to commit any such attack; an act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack. The text of Article 7 of the UN Convention is a simplified version of Article 7 of the 1971 ICAO Convention. Article 8 of the UN Convention is very similar to Article 8 of the 1971 ICAO Convention.

8. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 30, 1973 The States Parties, as provided in Article I, declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Article XI(1) stipulates that the acts enumerated in Article II as crimes of apartheid will not be considered political crimes for the purpose of extradition, and the States Parties are to undertake in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their legislation and with the treaties in force.

9. Convention on the Protection of the Archeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, Approved on June 16, 1976 by resolution AG/RES. 210 (VI-0/76 of the OAS General Assembly The purpose of the Convention as set forth in Article 1 is to identify, register, protect and safeguard the property making up the cultural heritage of the American nations in order to prevent illegal exportation or importation of cultural property and to promote cooperation among the American states for

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS

39

mutual awareness and appreciation of their cultural property. Article 2 lists five categories of cultural property. Article 14 contains a rule on extradition, as follows: Those responsible for crimes against the integrity of cultural property or for crimes resulting from the illegal exportation or importation thereof are subject to extradition treaties, when appropriate. 10. European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Adopted by the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, January 27, 1977 Several provisions of this Convention relate to extradition. According to Article 1, for the purpose of extradition between Contracting Parties, none of the following offenses shall be regarded as political offense or as offense connected with a political offense or as offense inspired by political motives: a) an offense within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970; b) an offense within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971; c) a serious offense involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents; d) an offense involving kidnapping, the taking of hostages or serious unlawful detention; e) an offense involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm or letter or parcel bomb if this use endangers persons; f ) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offenses or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offense. For the purpose of extradition between Contracting States, Article 2 stipulates that a Contracting State may decide not to regard as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense or inspired by political motives, a serious offense involving an act of violence, other than one covered by Article 1, against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person. The same rule applies to a serious offense involving an act against property, other than one covered in Article 1, if the act created a collective danger for persons. Article 3 contains a general rule relating to other conventions on extradition. This article states that the provisions of all extradition treaties and arrangements applicable between Contracting States including the European Convention on Extradition, are modified as between Contracting States to the extent that they are incompatible with the convention. Prosecution on account of race, religion or nationality is dealt with in Article 5, which provides that nothing in the convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for an offense mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a

40

CHAPTER THREE

person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. As for jurisdiction over offenses mentioned in the Convention, Article 6 declares that each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over an offense mentioned in Article 1 of the Convention in the case where the suspected offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him after receiving a request for extradition from a Contracting State whose jurisdiction is based on a rule of jurisdiction existing equally in the law of the requested State. The Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Article 7 of this Convention contains a rule similar to that of Article 7 of the 1971 ICAO Convention. Important functions are conferred by Article 9 on the European Committee on Crime Problems of the Council of Europe, according to which the Committee should be kept informed regarding the application of the convention. The Committee is to do whatever is needed to facilitate a friendly settlement of any difficulty which may arise from the application of the convention. This function is broader or more comprehensive than the function attributed to the Council of ICAO by Article 13 of the 1971 Convention. According to that last article, each Contracting State shall report to the Council of ICAO as promptly as possible any relevant information in its possession concerning: the circumstances of the offense; measures taken in relation to the offender or the alleged offender and, in particular, the results of any extradition proceedings or other legal proceedings and action taken pursuant to certain provisions of the convention. The difference is that while the European Convention confers on the European Committee on Crime Problems of the Council of Europe not only the function of receiving information about the application of the Convention, but also that of promoting the friendly settlement of any difficulty that may arise from the application of the convention, the function that the 1971 ICAO Convention confers on the Council of ICAO is solely that of receiving information from the Contracting States. The 1970 ICAO Convention has a similar provision. Another difference is related to the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the convention. The 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism provides in Article 10 that any dispute between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the convention which has not been resolved by friendly settlement shall, at the request of any Party to the dispute, be referred to arbitration. The same article specifies how the arbitration tribunal is to be organized and provides that the arbitration tribunal shall adopt its own procedure, that its decisions shall be taken by majority vote, and that its awards shall be final.

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS

41

The 1971 ICAO Convention also provides rules for arbitration. Paragraph 1 of Article 14 stipulates that any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration, and if within six months the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Paragraph 2 nullifies paragraph 1, stating that each State may at the time of signature or ratification of the convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph, with respect to any Contracting State having made such a reservation. This provision greatly weakens the arbitration procedure. It should be noted that the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is the most complete and comprehensive of all multilateral conventions dealing with terrorism.

11. International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 1979 Article 1 sets forth the offenses relating to hostage taking, as follows: Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (referred to as hostage) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offense of taking hostages (hostage taking) within the meaning of the convention. Any person who attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking or participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking also commits an offense. Each State Party, as provided in Article 2, shall make the offenses set forth in Article 1 punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account the grave nature of those offenses. Article 5, which deals with jurisdiction, stipulates that each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over any of the offenses set forth in Article I that are committed: a) in its territory or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; b) by any of its nationals or, if that State considers it appropriate, by those stateless persons who have their habitual residence in its territory; c) in order to compel that state to do or abstain from doing any act, or d) with respect to a hostage who is a national of that state, if that state considers it appropriate. Each State Party should also establish its jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in Article 1, in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him.

42

CHAPTER THREE

As established in Article 6, paragraph 1, any State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is present shall, in accordance with its laws, take him into custody or take other measures, in accordance with its laws, to ensure his presence for such time as it is necessary to enable criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted. The State Party where the alleged offender is prosecuted shall, in accordance with its laws and as provided in Article 7 of the Convention, communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to the other states concerned and the international intergovernmental organizations. Articles 8 and 10 contain provisions similar to those of Articles 7 and 8 of the 1971 ICAO Convention. However, paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the hostage Convention contains a rule which does not appear in the ICAO Convention, to the effect that any person regarding whom proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the offenses set forth in Article 1 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings, including enjoyment of all the rights and guarantees provided by the law of the state in the territory of which he is present. The rule contained in Article 9, paragraph 1, (a) and (b), is similar to the rule of Article 5 of the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Also, paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the hostage Convention contains the same rule as Article 8, paragraph 3, of the 1977 European Convention. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the hostage Convention provides that, with respect to the offenses as defined in the convention, the provisions of all extradition treaties and arrangements applicable between States Parties are modified as between States Parties to the extent that they are incompatible with the convention. This provision seems to be too simple to abrogate or modify provisions of other conventions. It is not a technically sound method of amending other conventions. The text of Article 10 concerning extradition is identical with Article 8 of the 1971 ICAO Convention. According to Article 11 of the hostage Convention, States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offenses set forth in Article 1, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. It is also provided that this requirement shall not affect obligations concerning mutual judicial assistance embodied in any other treaty. Article 15 contains a rule on asylum. It specifies that the provisions of the Convention shall not affect the application of the treaties on asylum in force on the date of the adoption of the Convention, as between the States that are parties to those treaties; but a State Party to the Convention may not invoke those treaties with respect to another State Party to the Convention which is not a party to those treaties.

MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS

43

12. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 1980 This Convention was adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and on March 3, 1980 it was opened for signature by all States at the headquarters of the IAEA in Vienna and at the United Nations in New York. Article 1 defines some terms. Article 2 provides that the Convention shall apply to nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in international nuclear transport, but with the exceptions mentioned in Articles 3 and 4 and paragraph 3 of Article 5, the Convention shall also apply to nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage and transport. According to the last part of paragraph 3 of Article 2, nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as affecting the right of a State regarding the domestic use, storage and transport of such nuclear material. Several rules on export, import or transit of nuclear material and levels of protection of such material are provided in Article 4. Under paragraph 1 of Article 5 the States Parties are to identify and make known to each other, directly or through the International Atomic Energy Agency, their central authority and point of contact having responsibility for physical protection of nuclear material and for coordinating recovery and response operations in the event of any unauthorized removal, use or alteration of nuclear material or in the event of credible threat thereof. The acts that should be made punishable offenses by each State Party under its national law are mentioned in Article 7 as follows: 1. The intentional commission of: (a) An act without lawful authority which constitutes the receipt, possession, use, transfer, alteration, disposal or dispersal of nuclear material and which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to property; (b) A theft or robbery of nuclear material; (c) An embezzlement or fraudulent obtaining of nuclear material; (d) An act constituting a demand for nuclear material by threat or use of force or by any other form of intimidation; (e) A threat: (i) to use nuclear material to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial property damage, or (ii) to commit an offense described in sub-paragraph (b) in order to compel a natural or legal person, international organization or State to do or to refrain from doing any act; (f ) An attempt to commit any offense described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), and

44

CHAPTER THREE

(g) An act which constitutes participation in any offense described in paragraphs (a) to (f ). 2. Each State Party shall make the offense described in this article punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. In accordance with Article 8 each State Party is to take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses set forth in Article 7 in the following cases: (a) when the offense is committed in the territory of that state or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that state; (b) when the alleged offender is a national of that state. Each State Party is also to take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over these offenses in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him. The Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. In connection with prosecution or extradition, Article 9 provides that, upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, the State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall take appropriate measures, including detention, under its national law to ensure his presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition. Measures taken according to this article shall be notified without delay to the state required to establish jurisdiction and, where appropriate, to all other states concerned. Articles 10 and 11 contain detailed rules on extradition similar to those in Articles 7 and 8 of the 1971 ICAO Convention.

CHAPTER FOUR

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Introduction This chapter contains a comparative analysis of significant provisions of multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition. One of the objectives has been to provide the texts as accurately as possible with minor changes in style for purposes of greater clarity. For this reason some of the provisions are quoted textually and others are closely paraphrased. a. Multilateral Treaties and Conventions Listed below are a series of multilateral treaties and conventions on extradition which are mentioned or quoted in one or more sections of the comparative analysis. Some of the multilateral conventions deal with specific categories of offenses, and contain provisions on extradition. The complete titles of the instruments are given in the following list, as well as abbreviated titles. Only abbreviated titles are used in the comparative analysis in order to facilitate reference. 1. Treaty on Extradition, signed at Lima, Peru, on March, 27, 1879 at the American Congress of Jurists.1 (the 1879 Treaty) 2. Treaty on International Penal Law, signed at Montevideo on January 23, 1889 at the First South American Congress on Private International Law. 3. Treaty for the Extradition of Criminals, and for the Protection against Anarchism, signed at Mexico City, January 28, 1902, at the Second International Conference of American States (the 1902 Treaty).2 4. Agreement on Extradition signed at Caracas, Venezuela, on July 18, 1911, at the Bolivarian Congress (the 1911 Agreement). 5. Convention on Extradition, signed at Washington, D.C., on February 7, 1923, at the Conference on Central American Affairs (the 1923 Convention). It superseded the 1907 Central American Convention on Extradition. 6. Convention on Private International Law, signed at Havana on February 20, 1928, at the Sixth International Conference of American States (Book IV, Title III — Extradition, Articles 344-381 (the Bustamante Code). 1 Although the 1879 Treaty on Extradition did not enter into force, it is listed because of its special historical significance. 2 The 1902 Treaty is not in force, but it is of historical importance.

46

CHAPTER FOUR

7. Convention on Extradition, signed at Montevideo, on December 26, 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States (the 1933 Convention). 8. The Central American Convention on Extradition signed at Guatemala City on April 12, 1934 (The 1934 Central American Convention). It superseded the 1907 and 1923 Central American Conventions. 9. Treaty on International Penal Law, signed at Montevideo on March 19, 1940, at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law (the 1940 Treaty). 10. Inter-American Convention on Extradition, signed at Caracas, on February 25, 1981, at the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (the 1981 OAS Convention). 11. European Convention on Extradition, adopted at Paris on December 13, 1957, by the Council of Europe (the 1957 European Convention). First and Second Additional Protocols to this convention, 1975, 1978. 12. Treaty among Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands concerning Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Brussels on June 25, 1962 (the 1962 Benelux Treaty). 13. Agreement among the Arab League States concerning Extradition of Fugitive Offenders, adopted at Cairo, November 3, 1952 (the 1952 Arab League Convention). 14. Draft multilateral Convention on Extradition, prepared by the Harvard Research In International Law, 1934. 15. Draft multilateral conventions on extradition prepared by organs of the Organization of American States (OAS): a) Draft conventions on extradition prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1956 and 1959; b) Draft conventions on extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1954, 1957, 1973 and 1977 (the 1977 draft convention was presented to the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition held in Caracas, February 16-25, 1981, which approved the new Inter-American Convention on Extradition).3

3 The Inter-American Council of Jurists was one of the organs of the OAS in charge of progressive development and codification of international law, and the Inter-American Juridical Committee was the permanent commission of the Council of Jurists. According to the Protocol of Buenos Aires of 1967, which amended the Charter of the OAS, the Council of Jurists was abolished, and the Inter-American Juridical Committee became one of the principal organs of the OAS. Under Article 105 of the amended Charter its purpose is to serve the OAS as an advisory body on juridical matters; to promote the progressive development and codification of international law; and to study juridical problems related to the integration of the developing countries of the Hemisphere and, insofar as may appear desirable, the possibility of attaining uniformity in their legislation.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

47

Some of the Multilateral Conventions on Specific Categories of Offenses 1. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, December 9, 1948 (the 1948 Genocide Convention). 2. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, adopted by the United Nations, March 30, 1961 (the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs). Protocol of 1972. 3. Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed at Tokyo on September 14, 1963, under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (the 1963 ICAO Convention). 4. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague, December 16, 1970, under the auspices of the ICAO (the 1970 ICAO Convention). 5. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal, September 23, 1971, under the auspices of ICAO (the 1971 ICAO Convention). 6. Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that Are of International Significance, signed at the third special session of the OAS General Assembly, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1971 (the 1971 OAS Convention on Terrorism). 7. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, December 14, 1973 (the 1973 UN Convention on Terrorism). 8. European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, January 27, 1977 (the 1977 European Convention on Terrorism). 9. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted by the UN General Assembly, Dec. 17, 1979 (the 1979 UN Hostages Convention). 10. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and opened for signature on March 3, 1980, at the IAEA in Vienna and at the UN in New York (the 1980 Convention on Nuclear Material). Other Multilateral Instruments 1. American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, approved by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, 1948. 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, 1948. 3. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted by the United Nations at Geneva on July 28 1951, and the Protocol of January 31, 1967.

48

CHAPTER FOUR

4. Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, adopted by the UN General Assembly, November 26, 1968 (the UN Convention on War Crimes). 5. Principles of International Cooperation in the Detection, Arrest, Extradition and Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, approved by the UN General Assembly on December 3, 1973. 6. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 30, 1973 (the UN Convention on Apartheid). 7. American Convention on Human Rights ‘Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica”. Signed at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights. November 7–22, 1969.

1. Obligation to Extradite Article 1 of the 1981 Inter-American Convention on Extradition (the 1981 OAS Convention)4 provides as follows: The States Parties bind themselves, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to surrender to other States Parties that request their extradition, persons who are judicially required for prosecution, are being tried, have been convicted or have been sentenced to a penalty involving deprivation of liberty.

The 1981 OAS Convention, therefore, establishes four cases or instances in which States Parties have the obligation to surrender persons to other States Parties when they (1) are judicially required for prosecution; (2) are being tried; (3) have been convicted, or (4) have been sentenced to a penalty involving deprivation of liberty. No other multilateral treaty or convention on extradition contains such a comprehensive rule concerning the obligation to extradite. Thus, Article 1 of the 1981 OAS Convention is a highly constructive innovation. At the 1981 Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition held in Caracas, the aforesaid Article 1 was discussed at length. The draft convention on extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee (CJI — initials from the Spanish title — Comité Jurídico Interame-ricano) was the

4 The text of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition was published in the four official languages of the OAS by its General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1981 (Treaty Series No. 60).

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

49

basic document for the Conference.5 Several delegations presented amendments or additions to this draft. Some Delegations insisted that the word “convicted” should be inserted in Article 1. After long deliberations by the General Committee, its working group and the plenary session of the Conference, the word “convicted” was inserted. Article 1, after revision by the Style Committee, was adopted as quoted above. The Style Committee deserves special recognition for its valuable and extraordinary work in revising and drafting a clear and precise text of the convention in the four official languages of the OAS: English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. In connection with the obligation to extradite, the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides as follows in Article 1: The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offense or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.

Cited below are some examples of provisions concerning the obligation to extradite found in some of the multilateral treaties among American countries: The 1889 Treaty stipulates in Article 19 that a State Party shall be bound to deliver up to another Party such offenders as have taken refuge within its territory. Article 1 of the 1879 Treaty also provided the obligation to extradite. The 1911 Agreement, in Article 1, provides that the Contracting States agree mutually to deliver up persons who have been charged or convicted by the judicial authorities of any of the Contracting States. The Bustamante Code, in Article 344, refers to delivery of persons convicted or accused of crime. The 1933 Convention establishes, in Article 1, the obligation of the States Parties to surrender to any of the other states so requesting, the persons who may be in their territory and who are accused or under sentence. According to the 1934 Convention, Article 1, the Contracting States agree to deliver up reciprocally those individuals who may have been condemned or who have been indicted for a crime. The 1940 Treaty, in Article 18, stipulates that the Contracting States bind themselves to surrender, if they are requested to do so, those persons who have been prosecuted or condemned by the authorities of one of those States, and who are found in the territory of another. 5 Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition. Caracas, Venezuela, 16–25 February 1981. Draft Inter-American Convention on Extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. Document OEA/Ser.K/XXVI.1, CEDEX/4. After the Conference, the OAS General Secretariat published “Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Extradición (CEDEX). Caracas, Venezuela, 16 a 25 de febrero de 1981”. Washington, D.C. 1981. Vol. I, vi, 471 p.; Vol. II, viii, 622 p.

50

CHAPTER FOUR

Article 1 of both the 1973 and 1977 draft conventions prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee provided in identical stipulations that the Contracting States “bind themselves, in accordance with the provisions of this convention, to surrender persons who are under indictment for or judicially charged with, are being tried for, or have been convicted of an offense by another Contracting State that requests their extradition.” The draft convention approved previously by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959 established, in Article 1, that “The Contracting States bind themselves, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to surrender persons who are charged with or have been convicted of an offense by another Contracting State that requests their extradition.” These draft conventions used the word “convicted” and omitted the words “sentenced” or “condemned.” However, the 1981 OAS Convention did use in addition to “convicted” the term “sentenced.”

2. Jurisdiction Article 2 of the 1981 OAS Convention contains the following stipulations: 1. For extradition to be granted, the offense that gave rise to the request for extradition must have been committed in the territory of the requesting State. 2. When the offense for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, extradition shall be granted provided the requesting State has jurisdiction to try the offense that gave rise to the request for extradition and to pronounce judgment thereon. 3. The requested State may deny extradition when it is competent, according to its own legislation, to prosecute the person whose extradition is sought for the offense on which the request is based. If it denies extradition for this reason, the requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities and inform the requesting State of the result. Following are references to provisions on jurisdiction contained in other multilateral treaties and conventions: According to the 1889 Treaty, Article 1, crimes and offenses shall be subject to trial by the courts and punished according to the laws of the country where the offense was committed. Under Article 2, violations of criminal law perpetrated in a state, but affecting exclusively, rights and interests guaranteed by the laws of another state, shall fall under the jurisdiction of the state affected by them, and shall be punished according to the laws of the latter. Article 3 provides that when an offense affects different states, the jurisdiction of the state in whose territory the offender is caught shall prevail. If the offender should seek shelter in a state different from the ones affected by his

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

51

action, the jurisdiction of the state which first requests the extradition shall prevail. In accordance with Article 19 a State Party shall be bound to deliver up to another State Party such offenders as have taken refuge within its territory, whenever the following circumstance occur, among others: That the nation claiming the offender must have competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of and punish the offense with which the person is charged. The 1911 Agreement provides in Article 1 that the Contracting States agree to deliver up persons who have been charged or convicted by judicial authorities of any one of the Contracting States as authors of, accomplices in, or accessories to one or more of the crimes or offenses specified in Article 2, within the jurisdiction of one of the Contracting Parties, and who seek asylum or are found within the territory of one of them. According to Article 3, when the crime or offense that is the reason for extradition has been committed, attempted, or frustrated outside the requesting State, extradition may be granted only when the legislation of the requested State authorizes the prosecution of such infractions when they are committed outside its jurisdiction. The Bustamante Code provides in Article 351 that in order to grant extradition the offense must have been committed in the territory of the State requesting it, or that its penal laws be applicable to it in accordance with the provisions of Book III of this Code. The 1933 Convention, Article l(a), provides that the requesting State has jurisdiction to try and punish the offense charged to the individual whom it desires to extradite. The 1940 Treaty, which is a revision of the 1889 Treaty, also contains provisions on jurisdiction. According to Article 1, any crime, whatever the nationality of the agent, of the victim, or of the injured party, shall be tried by the tribunals, and punished according to the laws of the state in whose territory they are committed. Article 2 establishes that crimes affecting two or more states and committed by one or more offenders shall come under the jurisdiction of the judges or tribunals of the place where such crimes were perpetrated, and that local laws must be applied in the corresponding proceedings. If the crime was perpetrated in more than one country, it shall come under the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the first state to take judicial cognizance thereof, and the laws of that state must apply. Article 5 provides that acts that are committed in the territory of a given state and are not punishable under its own laws but are punishable by the state wherein they produce their effects, may not be tried by the judges or tribunals of the latter unless the offender is found within its jurisdiction. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 7 (1) that the requested Party may refuse to extradite a person claimed for an offense which is regarded by its law as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as its territory. (2) When the offense for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting Party,

52

CHAPTER FOUR

extradition may only be refused if the law of the requested Party does not allow prosecution for the same category of offense when committed outside the latter Party’s territory or does not allow extradition for the offense concerned. Article 6 of the 1962 Benelux Treaty contains a rule identical to that of Article 7 of the 1957 European Convention. The 1952 Agreement on Extradition of the Arab League States provides in Article 2 that surrender is obligatory when the person wanted is pursued, accused or convicted in respect of any of the offenses set out in Article 3, provided that the offense was committed in the territory of the State demanding surrender. Where the offense is committed outside the territory of both states (the state demanding surrender and that required to surrender), surrender shall not be obligatory unless such offense, committed outside their territory, is punishable by the laws of both states. The 1956 draft Convention of the Inter-American Council of Jurists stated in Article 3 that for extradition to be granted, the acts constituting the crime for which the person sought was being prosecuted or had been convicted should have been committed within the jurisdiction of the requesting State, according to its legislation in force at the time of the offense. If the crime had been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the obligation to grant extradition would exist only in cases where the requested State exercised jurisdiction, according to its own law, for trying an identical crime committed under the same circumstances in another country. The 1977 draft Convention of the Inter-American Juridical Committee provided in Article 2 (1): For extradition to be granted, the offense for which the person sought is under indictment or with which he is judicially charged, for which he is being tried, or of which he has been convicted must have been committed within the jurisdiction of the requesting State according to its legislation in force at the time of the offense. (2) When the offense for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, extradition may be granted provided the requesting State has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense that gave rise to the request for extradition and to pronounce judgment thereon.

3. Extraditable Offenses Article 3 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides as follows: 1. For extradition to be granted, the offense for which the person is sought shall be punishable at the time of its commission, by reason of the acts that constitute it, disregarding extenuating circumstances and the denomination of the offense, by a penalty of not less than two years of deprivation of

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

53

liberty under the laws of both the requesting State and the requested State. Where the principle of retroactivity of penal law exists, it shall be applied only when it is favor able to the offender. 2. If the extradition is to be carried out between States whose laws establish minimum and maximum penalties, the offense for which extradition is requested shall be punishable, under the laws of the requesting and requested States, by an average penalty of at least two years of deprivation of liberty. Average penalty is understood to be one half of the sum of the minimum and maximum terms of each penalty of deprivation of liberty. 3. Where the extradition of an offender is requested for the execution of a sentence involving deprivation of liberty, the duration of the sentence still to be served must be at least six months. 4. In determining whether extradition should be granted to a State having a federal form of government and separate federal and state criminal legislation, the requested State shall take into consideration only the essential elements of the offense and shall disregard elements such as interstate transportation or use of the mails or other facilities of interstate commerce, since the sole purpose of such elements is to establish the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the requesting State. The 1981 OAS Convention, therefore, adopted the system of the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a certain period instead of listing specific offenses. The other multilateral conventions among the American countries, with the exception of two, also establish the system of duration of the penalty as a basis for extradition. The 1879 Treaty, in Article 1, enumerated nearly ten extraditable crimes, and added a general rule: crimes should be punishable by a penalty of at least two years of prison. The 1889 Treaty, in Article 21, stipulates the offenses for which extradition is warranted; 1. as regards alleged offenders, those offenses which under the laws of the country requesting extradition are punishable by imprisonment for not less than two years, or the equivalent thereof; 2. as regards convicted offenders, those offenses the minimum penalty for which is imprisonment for one year. The treaty, therefore, establishes a minimum penalty of two years for alleged offenders and one year for convicted offenders. The Bustamante Code, in Article 353, provides that it is necessary that the act which gives rise to extradition be a criminal offense in the legislation of the requesting and requested States. It shall likewise be necessary, according to Article 354, that the penalty for the alleged acts is not less than one year of deprivation of liberty, and that the arrest or detention of the accused has been ordered or decided upon, in case final sentence has not been delivered.

54

CHAPTER FOUR

A similar rule is contained in Article 1, b) of the 1933 Convention. The 1934 Convention establishes in Article 1 the penalty of not less than two years of deprivation of liberty. Under the 1940 Treaty, Article 18, a), the person to be surrendered must have been condemned by final judgment to at least one year in prison; or, if the case concerns an indicted person, the crime that constitutes the subject for prosecution must be punishable, according to the laws of the requesting State, by a minimum intermediate penalty of two years’ imprisonment. Half the sum of the extremes within which the particular penalty involving deprivation of liberty is fixed shall be considered as the intermediate penalty.

4. Grounds for Denying Extradition Article 4 of the 1981 OAS Convention stipulates that: Extradition shall not be granted: 1. When the person sought has completed his punishment or has been granted amnesty, pardon or grace for the offense for which extradition is sought, or when he has been acquitted or the case against him for the same offense has been dismissed with prejudice. 2. When the prosecution or punishment is barred by the statute of limitations according to the laws of the requesting State or the requested State prior to the presentation of the request for extradition. 3. When the person sought has been tried or sentenced or is to be tried before an extraordinary or ad hoc tribunal of the requesting State. 4. When, as determined by the requested State, the offense for which the person is sought is a political offense, an offense related thereto, or an ordinary criminal offense prosecuted for political reasons. The requested State may decide that the fact that the victim of the punishable act in question performed political functions does not in itself justify the designation of the offense as political. 5. When, from the circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality is involved, or that the position of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. 6. With respect to offenses that in the requested State cannot be prosecuted unless a complaint or charge has been made by a party having a legitimate interest. This article, therefore, provides for six cases in which extradition should not be granted. The other multilateral conventions; as well as bilateral treaties, also contain rules dealing with cases that should be excluded from extradition.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

55

a. Political offenses According to paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the 1981 OAS Convention, extradition should not be granted when, as determined by the requested State, the offense for which the person is sought is a political offense, an offense related thereto, or an ordinary criminal offense prosecuted for political reasons. This is a significant and very important exclusion. This principle has been adopted by multilateral conventions and bilateral treaties on extradition. These instruments, however, do not contain a definition of a political offense. It should be kept in mind that any definition is limitative, and few governments if any, would be willing to sign a convention on extradition containing a definition of a political offense in view of the universally accepted principle that the requested State determines whether or not an offense is of a political character. Several extradition treaties specify certain offenses that should not be considered as political offenses. Following are examples of provisions on exclusion of political offenses contained in inter-American conventions on extradition. Article 7 of the 1879 Treaty on Extradition signed at Lima excluded political offenses. The Bustamante Code provides in Article 355 that political offenses and acts related thereto, as defined by the requested State, are excluded from extradition. According to Article 356, extradition may not be granted if it is shown that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing the accused for an offense of a political character as defined by the requested State. However, Article 357 stipulates that homicide or murder of the Head of a Contracting State or of any other person who exercises authority in said State, is not to be deemed a political offense nor an act related thereto. According to the 1933 Convention, Article 3(e), extradition may not be granted when the offense is of a political nature or of a character related thereto. An attempt against the life or person of the Chief of State or member of his family shall not be deemed to be a political offense. The 1940 Treaty provides in Article 20(d), (e) and (f ) that extradition shall not be granted: (d) for political crimes; (e) for common crimes committed with a political purpose, except when, in the opinion of the judge or tribunal receiving the request, the common character manifestly predominates; (f ) for common crimes in cases where, in the opinion of the judge or tribunal of the requested State, it can be inferred from the attendant circumstances that the purpose in making that request is preponderantly political. Provisions of some European multilateral conventions follow. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition excludes political offenses in Article 3 (l): Extradition shall not be granted if the offense in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offense or as an offense

56

CHAPTER FOUR

connected with a political offense. (3) The taking or attempted taking of the life of a Head of State or member of his family shall not be deemed to be a political offense for the purposes of the Convention. (4) This article shall not affect any obligations which the Contracting Parties may have undertaken or may undertake under any other international convention of a multilateral character. The First Additional Protocol of 1975 to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 1 that for the application of Article 3 of the Convention, political offenses shall not be considered to include the following: a. The crimes against humanity specified in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted on 9 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations; b. The violations specified in Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; c. Any comparable violations of the laws of war having effect at the time when this Protocol enters into force and of customs of war existing at that time, which are not already provided for in the above-mentioned provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The 1962 Treaty of Benelux provides in Article 3(1) that extradition shall not be granted if the offense in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offense or as an offense connected with a political offense. (2) The following shall not be deemed to be political offenses for the purposes of this Treaty: (a) The taking or attempted taking of the life or liberty of a Head of State or a member of the reigning House; (b) Desertion. b. Other grounds for denying extradition Paragraph 5 of Article 4 of the 1981 OAS Convention refers to persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality. This matter will be analyzed in the chapter dealing with asylum and other humanitarian aspects. In connection with other grounds for denying extradition, multilateral conventions and bilateral treaties refer to general cases or grounds. Following are some examples of provisions of multilateral conventions. The Bustamante Code provides in Article 358 that extradition shall not be granted if the person demanded has already been tried and acquitted, or served his sentence, or is awaiting trial, in the territory of the requested State

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

57

for the offense upon which the request is based. Article 359: Nor should extradition be granted if the offense or the penalty is already barred by limitation by the laws of the requesting or requested State. The 1933 Convention, Article 3, provides that extradition shall not be granted: (a) When, previous to the arrest of the accused person, the penal action or sentence has expired according to the laws of the requesting or surrendering State; (b) When the accused has served his sentence in the country where the crime was committed or when he may have been pardoned or granted an amnesty; (c) When the accused has been or is being tried by the State to which the request was directed for the act with which he is charged and on which the petition of extradition is based; (d) When the accused must appear before any extraordinary tribunal or court of the requesting State. Military courts will not be considered as such tribunals; . . . (f ) When the offense is purely military or directed against religion. 5. Belgian Clause The 1981 OAS Convention does not contain the so-called Belgian clause. In this connection it seems worthwhile to recall that on October 1, 1833, Belgium promulgated a law concerning extradition, which in Article 6 provided that “no foreigner may be prosecuted for any political crime antecedent to the extradition, or for any act connected with such a crime.” This law was amended by a law dated March 22, 1856, which added the following paragraph to Article 6: “There shall not be considered as a political crime or as an act connected with such a crime an attack upon the person of the Head of a foreign government or of the members of his family, when this attack takes the form of either murder, assassination or poisoning.” This rule established by the 1856 Belgian Law became universally known as the “Belgian clause” and has been inserted in multilateral and bilateral treaties and conventions on extradition. The 1973 and 1977 draft conventions prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee did not contain such a clause. The draft Convention approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists at its third meeting held in 1956 contained such a clause in Article 8. The last paragraph of this article stipulated that an attempt against the life of a Chief of state should be considered a common crime for the purposes of the Convention. The 1971 OAS Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that Are of International significance provides, in Article 2, that for the purposes of the Convention, kidnapping, murder, and other assaults against the life or personal

58

CHAPTER FOUR

integrity of those persons to whom the State has the duty to give special protection according to international law, as well as extortion in connection with those crimes, shall be considered common crimes of international significance, regardless of motives. This provision is intended to protect the lives of Chiefs of State and other persons to whom the State has the obligation to provide special protection under international law. The 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, provides in Article 1 that for the purposes of the Convention: (1) “Internationally protected persons” means: (a) a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the Constitution of the state concerned, a Head of Government or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a foreign state, as well as members of his family who accompany him. Paragraph (b) of this article refers to any representative or official of a State or any official or other agent of an international organization of an intergovernmental character. The extradition of offenders is provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention. To the 1981 Inter-American Conference on Extradition were submitted, among other documents, the Report of the Working Group on Extradition of the Seventh Course on International Law held in Rio de Janeiro in August 1980. This Working Group made a careful study of the 1977 draft Convention prepared by the Juridical Committee, and suggested an amendment to Article 12 of the CJI draft Convention, so that no provision of the Convention would impede the extradition for the offense of homicide, or murder, or attempt against the life, physical integrity or the liberty of the Chief of State, and of members of his family up to the second degree.6 The Delegations of Argentina and Venezuela, in their proposals to the 1981 OAS Conference, suggested that the homicide or attempts against the life, or physical integrity or liberty of a Chief of State or a member of his family should not be considered as political offenses. Following are provisions of inter-American conventions: 1911 Agreement, Article 4, second paragraph: An attempt in any form or by any means upon the life of a Chief of State shall not be considered a political offense or related act. Bustamante Code, Article 357: Homicide or murder of the Head of a Contracting State, or of any other person who exercises authority in said state, shall not be deemed a political offense nor an act related thereto.

6

Document CEDEX/13.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

59

1933 Convention, Article 3(e): An attempt against the life or person of the Chief of State or members of his family, shall not be deemed to be a political offense. 1940 Montevideo Treaty, Article 23: The murder of the Chief of a Contracting State, or an attempt upon his life, shall not be regarded as a political crime or act connected therewith. 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Article 3(3): The taking or attempted taking of the life of a Head of State or a member of his family shall not be deemed to be a political offense for the purposes of the Convention. 1962 Benelux Treaty, Article 3(2): Provision similar to Article 3(3) of the 1957 European Convention. 6. Military offenses The 1981 OAS Convention does not provide for the exclusion from extradition of purely military offenses. The 1973 and 1977 draft Conventions of the InterAmerican Juridical Committee (CJI) did not contain any rule on this matter. The 1889 Treaty, the 1911 Agreement and the Bustamante Code do not refer to military offenses. The 1933 Convention, Article 3 (f), provides that extradition shall not be granted . . . when the offense is purely military or directed against religion. The 1940 Treaty, Article 20 (g) establishes that extradition shall not be granted for essentially military crimes, exclusive of those governed by the common law. If the person sought is charged with a military crime which is punishable by the common law, he shall be surrendered with the reservation that he is to be tried only in accordance with the said law and by the ordinary tribunals. The 1957 European Convention, Article 4, excludes military offenses, as follows: Extradition for offenses under military law which are not offenses under ordinary criminal law is excluded from the application of the convention. The first draft Convention on extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and approved on December 16, 1954, provided in Article 8 (c) that extradition should not be granted for essentially military crimes. If the person sought was accused of a military offense which was also punishable by the ordinary law, he should be surrendered with the reservation that he would be tried only in accordance with the latter law. The 1956 draft Convention of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Article 8(3) and the 1957 draft Convention prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, Article 9(3), provided that extradition should not be granted for essentially military crimes. The 1959 draft Convention approved by the Council of Jurists provided in Article 10(3) that extradition should not be granted for purely military crimes.

60

CHAPTER FOUR

As already indicated, the Protocol of Buenos Aires, which amended the Charter of the OAS, abolished the Inter-American Council of Jurists and the Inter-American Juridical Committee became the principal juridical organ of the OAS. In a special report presented in 1971 to the OAS General Assembly, the Juridical Committee drew the attention of the Assembly to the topic of extradition and it referred specifically to the 1959 draft convention. The OAS General Assembly, at its second regular session (1972), requested the member states of the OAS to formulate, if they so desired, observations on the draft Convention on Extradition approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959 (AG/RES. 91 (II-0/72). It also instructed the Juridical Committee to prepare a new draft convention on extradition, taking into consideration the observations of the governments, and to submit it to the General Assembly. During its meeting held in January-February, 1973, the Inter-American Juridical Committee studied the 1959 draft convention, along with the observations made by some governments of member states, and approved a new draft convention on extradition (the fifth draft of the series).7 The Permanent Mission of Chile to the OAS, in its observations presented on September 10, 1975 on the 1973 draft Convention of the Juridical Committee, recommended the inclusion of a paragraph on Article 10 of the draft, so that extradition should not be granted “when the offense motivating the request for extradition is exclusively military.”8 The 1977 draft Convention of the Inter-American Juridical Committee (the sixth and last of the series) did not contain a provision concerning military offenses.9 Two proposals were submitted on this matter to the 1981 OAS Conference; one by Uruguay and the other by the United States. The Uruguayan proposal stated that extradition should not be granted “for exclusively military crimes, with exclusion of those governed by ordinary law. A person who has committed crimes under ordinary laws is surrendered only with the commitment from the requesting State that he shall be tried solely for the common crime.”10 The United States proposed the following addition to Article 11 of the 1977 draft Convention prepared by the Juridical Committee: “Extradition shall not be granted . . . 6) when the offense for which extradition is requested is of a purely military nature.” In its comments, the US Delegation said that this

7 Work accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its regular meeting held from January 15 to February 16, 1973. OEA/Ser.Q/IV.6, CJI-13, p. 54. 8 Document CP/INF 726 75, add. 3. 9 Document CEDEX/4. 10 Document CEDEX/20, p. 4.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

61

type of provision is standard in numerous extradition treaties among many nations.11 The General Committee of the Conference approved a provision on military offenses,12 similar to the text proposed by the United States. A plenary session of the Conference, however, did not approve such a provision.

7. Fiscal Offenses (Taxes, Duties, Customs, Exchange) The 1981 OAS Convention does not deal with fiscal offenses. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 5 that extradition shall be granted, in accordance with the provisions of this convention, for offenses in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange only if the Contracting Parties have so decided in respect of any such offense or category of offenses. The Second Additional Protocol to the 1957 European Convention, adopted by the Council of Europe on March 17, 1978, replaced Article 5 of the Convention by the following provisions: (1) For offenses in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange, extradition shall take place between the Contracting Parties in accordance with the provisions of the Convention if the offense, under the law of the requested Party, corresponds to an offense of the same nature. (2) Extradition may not be refused on the ground that the law of the requested Party does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs or exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the requesting Party. The Explanatory Report of the Second Additional Protocol states that Article 5 of the Convention provided that extradition for fiscal offenses, that is, offenses in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange, shall be granted only if the Contracting Parties have so decided in respect of any such offense or category of offenses.13 Therefore, previous arrangement between the Parties was necessary. According to this Report, the new rule established by the protocol reflects the tendency towards fiscal offenses no longer to fall outside the scope of extradition arrangements, and that it was for a long time thought that fiscal offenses should not be treated as ordinary offenses as they were akin to military or political offenses which traditionally did not give rise to extradition.

11

Document CEDEX/15, p. 11. Document CEDEX/53. 13 Council of Europe. Explanatory Report on the Second Additional Protocol of the European Convention on Extradition. Strasbourg, 1978. 12

62

CHAPTER FOUR

The Report calls attention to the fact that “recently the approach to criminal policy has undergone considerable changes. It is now recognized that greater attention has to be given to economic offenses in view of the damage they cause to society. It is also felt that there is now a need for closer international cooperation in this field, and that it is no longer justifiable to distinguish, in the field of extradition, between “ordinary and fiscal offenses.” The Report also calls attention, as regards fiscal offenses, to the diversity of constituent elements of the various offenses connected with taxes, duties, customs and exchange. In order to avoid difficulties of interpretation in respect of “fiscal” offenses, the text of Article 5, as amended, reproduces the words appearing in that article: “taxes, duties, customs and exchange.” For this reason, it is provided in Article 5, paragraph 1, that extradition shall take place if the offense, under the law of the requested Party, corresponds to an offense of the same nature; “extradition is to be granted not only where an act is punishable as the same fiscal offense in the requesting and the requested Party, but also where an act of the same nature as that underlying the request for extradition would be punishable in the requested Party”. The following example is given in the Report: A person who intentionally evades a tax or duty in the requesting State by giving untrue information in a document which serves as a basis for a decision concerning the amount of that tax or duty, may be extradited if the same kind of deliberate misleading of tax authorities is punishable under the law of the requested State, even if the law of that State does not correspond entirely to the law of the requesting State. The Report states that the fact that the law of the requested Party does not impose the same kind of tax or duty as the law of the requesting Party is irrelevant by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 2. Extradition may not be refused on that ground; and the basic idea is that the essential constituent elements of the offense shall be decisive. Finally, the Report states that Extradition in respect of fiscal offenses is granted “in accordance with the provisions of the Convention”. It is, therefore, subject to the conditions laid down in the Convention. The 1962 Benelux Treaty, in Article 4, contains provisions identical with Article 5 of the 1957 European Convention, but it adds the words “import, export, and transit.”

8. Specific Categories of Offenses Article 5 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides as follows: No provision of this Convention shall preclude extradition regulated by a treaty or convention in force between the requesting State and the requested State whose purpose is to prevent or repress a specific category of offenses and

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

63

which imposes on such States an obligation to either prosecute or extradite the person sought. This matter was discussed extensively by the General Committee of the 1981 Conference which approved the 1981 OAS Convention. Some delegations to the Conference indicated their preference for the convention to make reference to all multilateral treaties and conventions dealing with specific categories of offenses, such as genocide, safety of civil aviation, terrorism, narcotic drugs, etc. Other delegations indicated that the Convention should contain a general principle or rule, because the obligation to prosecute and extradite certain categories of offenses is already established in special conventions and the States ratifying such conventions would assume the obligations imposed by them.

9. Asylum and Other Humanitarian Aspects a. Introduction b. Refusal of extradition for reasons of health, race, religion, or nationality c. Deferral of surrender for reasons of health, age or other humanitarian considerations d. Asylum, extradition and human rights e. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition and reservations concerning humanitarian aspects f. Declarations on territorial asylum (Council of Europe and United Nations) a. Introduction Article 6 of the 1981 OAS Convention on Extradition provides that: No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as a limitation on the right of asylum when its exercise is appropriate. This provision was adopted by acclamation by the 1981 OAS Conference on Extradition. The text of this article is identical to the text of Article 13 of the draft Convention on Extradition that the Inter-American Juridical Committee (CJI) prepared in 1977 and to that of Article 12 of the Committee’s 1973 draft. The other CJI draft conventions of 1954 and 1957 and the draft conventions approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1956 and 1959 did not contain provisions concerning asylum. However, the two draft conventions on asylum, one on diplomatic asylum and the other on political asylees, exiles and refugees — territorial asylum — prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1952, contain specific references to humanitarian aspects. More information on these two drafts is given in Section d. of this chapter.

64

CHAPTER FOUR

b. Refusal of Extradition for Reasons of Health, Race, Religion or Nationality Article 4, paragraph 5, of the 1981 OAS Convention provides that extradition shall not be granted: 5. When, from the circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality is involved, or that the position of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. This provision constitutes a very important innovation. It was proposed by the delegation of Argentina to the 1981 OAS Conference (doc. CEDEX/43). None of the previous inter-American conventions on extradition contain a similar rule, with the exception, in just one aspect, of the 1933 Convention, which provides in Article 3(f ) that extradition shall not be granted when the offense is directed against religion. It should be stressed that the American Convention on Human Rights, in Article 22, paragraph 8, provides as follows: In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.

Article 4, paragraph 5 of the 1981 OAS Convention is similar to Article 3, paragraph 2, of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. The European Convention stipulates that extradition shall not be granted if the requested Party has substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offense has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, or if that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. c. Deferral of Surrender for Reasons of Health, Age or other Humanitarian Considerations Article 20, paragraph 2, of the 1981 OAS Convention stipulates: 2. When the surrender of the person sought would, for reasons of health, endanger his life, his surrender may be deferred until it would no longer pose such a danger. This provision represents a remarkable innovation in relation to the previous multilateral conventions on extradition in the Western Hemisphere. Background information on this provision: i. Special Study made in August 1980 of the Draft Convention on Extradition Prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1977 This draft Convention was carefully studied by a Working Group of the Seventh Course on International Law organized by the Inter-American Juridical Committee and held in Rio de Janeiro in August 1980. The group

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

65

prepared a report and formulated several suggestions for amendments of some of the provisions of the draft Convention. One of these suggestions dealt with the deferral of the surrender of the person sought. Article 17 of the CJI 1977 draft Convention did not provide for the deferral of surrender for reasons of health. The Working Group suggested the addition to Article 17 of a provision stating that the surrender of the person sought should be deferred in case of illness, which could cause serious danger to his life. The report of this Working Group was presented to the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition held in Caracas, February 1981, and was distributed among the Delegations to the Conference.14 With respect to the Course on International Law, it should be mentioned that the OAS General Secretariat collaborates in the preparation of the program for the Course and in holding it, as well as in editing for publication the texts of the lectures delivered and reports prepared during the Course. The author of this book had the privilege and honor of coordinating and directing this Course (first to twentieth, 1974 to 1993) and providing guidance to the working groups which are organized in each Course. Each group is assigned the study of a specific topic of the program and the preparation of a report with conclusions and recommendations. The Course on International Law is a high level activity of the InterAmerican Juridical Committee and it is held once a year in Rio de Janeiro in conjunction with the meeting of the Committee. The OAS General Assembly has reaffirmed its support to the Course on International Law for having constituted, ever since its creation, an especially useful activity for the OAS member states and for having contributed to the examination, in-depth study, and up-dating of matters of great importance and interest to contemporary international law, and especially to inter-American relations. ii. The 1981 OAS Conference on Extradition It should be stressed that four Delegations to that Conference presented proposals dealing specifically with Article 17 of the 1977 draft Convention on Extradition prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee. The Delegation of Argentina proposed that the following provision be added to Article 17 (deferral of surrender): b) If because of illness, transfer would endanger the life of the person sought, until such time as this risk no longer exists.15

14 Document CEDEX/13, in Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Extradición, Caracas, Venezuela, 16 a 25 de febrero de 1981. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1981. Vol. I, pp. 417–437. 15 Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, Caracas, Venezuela 16–25 February 1981. Document CEDEX/43, p. 3.

66

CHAPTER FOUR

The proposal of the Delegation of Uruguay, Article 23, paragraph 2 of the draft presented by this Delegation is as follows: 2. Delivery of a person sought may be postponed, without prejudice to effective surrender, when, in the judgment of an official physician, transfer may, for reasons of illness, place his life in jeopardy.16 The proposal of the Delegation of Ecuador was to add the following sentence to Article 17 of the draft: Likewise, the surrender of the person sought might be deferred in case of duly proven serious illness when transfer would place his life in imminent jeopardy.17 The Delegation of Venezuela proposed that the surrender might be deferred in case of serious illness endangering the life of the person sought (CEDEX/37, add. 1). It should also be recalled that national legislations of some American countries contain provisions for the postponement of surrender of the person sought because of health conditions. As a result of its deliberations, the Conference decided to insert a paragraph to Article 20 of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition, signed on February 25, 1981 by the Delegations of eleven member states of the OAS on behalf of their governments. Paragraph 2 of Article 20, of this convention, as previously mentioned, provides that when the surrender of the person sought would, for reasons of health, endanger his life, his surrender may be deferred until it would no longer pose such a danger. This provision represents an outstanding contribution by the four aforementioned member states of the OAS and by a Working Group of the Seventh Course on International Law, on a vital aspect of humanitarian treatment of human beings. d. Asylum, Extradition and Human Rights. Summary As has been indicated, the 1981 OAS Convention on Extradition provides in Article 6 that “No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as a limitation on the right of asylum when its exercise is appropriate.” The preamble of this Convention provides: Believing that the close ties and the cooperation that exist in the Americas call for the extension of extradition to ensure that crime does not go unpunished, and to simplify procedures and promote mutual assistance in the field of criminal law on a wider scale than provided for by the treaties in force, with due respect to

16 17

Ibid. Doc. CEDEX/20, p. 11. Ibid. Doc. CEDEX/28, p. 2.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

67

the human rights embodied in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . .

The right of asylum and human rights are topics of special concern and great interest in inter-American relations. Several resolutions, recommendations and conventions on asylum and human rights have been adopted by the Inter-American System throughout the years. Following is a summary of some of the most important steps taken by the Inter-American System on these subjects: 1928. The Sixth International Conference of American States held in Havana in 1928 adopted the Convention on Asylum. It provided in Article 1 that it was not permissible for States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft to persons accused or condemned for common crimes, or to deserters from the Army or Navy. Persons accused or condemned for common crimes taking refuge in any of such places should be surrendered upon request of the local government. If said persons should take refuge in foreign territory, surrender should be brought about through extradition. Article 2 referred to political offenders, stating that asylum granted to such offenders in the said places should be respected “as a right or through humanitarian toleration, by the usages, the conventions or the laws of the country in which granted” and in accordance with certain conditions, such as: Asylum should be granted only in urgent cases and for the period strictly indispensable for the person to ensure his safety; immediately upon granting asylum the diplomatic agent or the other authorities granting, asylum should report the fact to the Minister of Foreign Relations of the State of the person who has secured asylum; while enjoying asylum, the person should not be allowed to perform acts contrary to the public peace. 1933. Article 1 of the 1928 Convention on Asylum was replaced by Article 1 of the Convention on Political Asylum approved by the Seventh International Conference of American States held in Montevideo in 1933. According to the new text of Article 1, it shall not be lawful for the States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps or airships to those accused of common offenses who might have been duly prosecuted or who have been sentenced by ordinary courts of justice, nor to deserters of land or sea forces. These persons finding refuge in some of those places should be surrendered as soon as requested by local government. According to Article 2 of the 1933 Convention, the state which offers asylum would pass judgment on “political delinquency.” Under Article 3, political asylum, as an institution of humanitarian character, is not subject to reciprocity. 1939. The Second South American Congress on Private International Law, held in Montevideo, approved the Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge.

68

CHAPTER FOUR

According to Article 1 of this Treaty signed on August 4, 1939, asylum may be granted without distinction of nationality, and without prejudice to the rights and obligations of protection appertaining to the State to which the refugees belong. Under Article 2, asylum may be granted only in embassies, legations, men-of-war, military camps or military airplanes, and exclusively to persons pursued for political reasons or offenses, or under circumstances involving concurrent political offenses, which do not legally permit extradition. In Article 3 it is established that asylum shall not be granted to persons accused of political offenses who shall have been indicted or condemned previously for common offenses by the ordinary tribunals. 1948. The Ninth International Conference of American States held in Bogotá, Colombia, in 1948, approved, among other instruments, the Charter of the OAS and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. This Declaration provides in Article XXVII that every man has the right, in case of pursuit not resulting from ordinary crimes, to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory, in accordance with the laws of each country and with international agreements.18 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly — about 8 months after the adoption of the American Declaration — stipulates in Article 14(1) that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. 1950, 1951. In view of certain developments in the Caribbean region which threatened international peace and security, the Council of the Organization of American States, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation according to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Treaty), decided on January 6, 1950 to appoint a Committee for on-site investigation of certain facts which were called to the attention of the Council.19 The investigating Committee presented its report to the Council of the OAS on March 13, 1950.20 At its meeting held on April 8, 1950, the Council of the OAS, acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation according to the Rio Treaty, approved nine resolutions concerning the Caribbean situation.21 In its preamble, Resolution V stated that the factors that have contributed to create a situation susceptible of disturbing peace and security in the 18 Article 3( l) of the Charter of the OAS provides: “The American states proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without distinction as to race, nationality, creed or sex.” 19 Council of the Organization of American States, Document C-sa-54. 20 Ibid., pp. 100–135. 21 Ibid., pp. 136–147.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

69

Caribbean area were so complex and far-reaching that they required a careful study designed to enable the competent organs of the OAS to take measures to bring about their definitive elimination, and that among the problems pointed out by the Investigating Committee were “the problems created by the presence, in various countries, of political refugees and exiles proceeding from other American countries.” In the operative part of the resolution V the Council of the OAS recommended that the study of the topic “Regime of political asylees, exiles and refugees” be entrusted to the Inter-American Council of Jurists or the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and when the study had been completed, either of these organs should send to the Council of the OAS a detailed report, with the conclusions it had reached and the suggestions it considered advisable. Subsequently, on February 14, 1951, the Council of the OAS approved a resolution on the Right of Asylum, declaring that the Right of Asylum is a juridical principle of the Americas set forth in international conventions and included as one of the fundamental rights in the American Declaration of the Rights and duties of Man. Furthermore, the Council of the OAS, in paragraph 3 of this resolution, recommended that the Inter-American Juridical Committee give preferential attention to the study of the topic of the regime of political asylees, exiles and refugees, with which it had been charged by the Council of the OAS acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation.22 1952. The Inter-American Juridical Committee completed its study on asylum and prepared two draft conventions: the Draft Convention on Regime of Political Asylees, Exiles and Refugees (Territorial Asylum) and the Draft Convention on Diplomatic Asylum. These two drafts were dated September 2 and 9, 1952, respectively.23 These two draft conventions contained specific references to humanitarian problems, and were submitted to the second meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists held in Buenos Aires in 1953. On its part, the Council of

22 Council of the OAS. Document C-sa-75, February 14, 1951. In connection with the right of asylum, mention should also be made of a resolution approved by the Inter-American Bar Association during its VII Conference held in Montevideo in November 1951, in which it is stated that the right of asylum for political offenses, as part of the conventional international law in America, should be considered as customary law for those countries which had not ratified the conventions on asylum. An appendix to this resolution contained a draft convention on the right of asylum, which was intended to regulate certain aspects of asylum not provided for in the existing treaties. (Colegio de Abogados del Uruguay. Anales de la VII Conferencia Interamericana de Abogados. Tomo I. Montevideo 1952, pp. 415–417). This resolution, the draft convention and several other documents were transmitted to the Inter-American Juridical Committee as background documents for its work on asylum. 23 Inter-American Juridical Committee. Regime of the Political Asylees, Exiles and Refugees. Doc. CIJ-10 published by the Pan American Union (OAS General Secretariat), Washington, D.C. 1952.

70

CHAPTER FOUR

Jurists, on the basis of those two drafts, approved a new draft Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and another draft Convention on Territorial Asylum.24 The 1953 draft convention on Diplomatic Asylum provided in Article 2, first paragraph, that asylum granted in legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft to persons persecuted for political motives or crimes should be respected by the territorial State as “a right or as an act of humanitarian tolerance.”25 The words “as an act of humanitarian tolerance” were not included in the 1953 draft Convention on Territorial Asylum. These two draft conventions approved by the Council of Jurists were submitted by the Council of the OAS to the Tenth Inter-American Conference held in Caracas, in 1954. At that time, the Inter-American Conference was the supreme organ of the OAS. 1954. The Tenth Inter-American Conference gave detailed consideration to these two draft conventions.26 Several delegations of OAS member states to the Conference presented proposals for amending the draft Convention on Diplomatic Asylum which had been approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists. Some proposals referred specifically to the expression “as a right or as an act of humanitarian tolerance” which appeared in Article 2 of said draft convention. It was proposed that this expression be replaced, and that asylum should be respected by the territorial state as a right of the state to which the granting authority belongs. These ideas were accepted and the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum approved by the Tenth Inter-American Conference provides in Article 2 that “Every State has the right to grant asylum; but it is not obligated to do so or to state the reasons for refusing it.” The Conference also adopted the Convention on Territorial Asylum. The Convention on Diplomatic Asylum contains 20 articles of a substantive nature, plus the final clauses. According to Article 1, asylum granted in legations, war vessels, and military camps or aircraft, to persons being sought for political reasons or for political offenses should be respected by the territorial state in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. It is not lawful, under Article 3, to grant asylum to persons, who at the time of requesting it, are under indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the respective sentence. According to Article 4, the state granting asylum determines the

24 Inter-American Council of Jurists. Final Act of the second meeting held in Buenos Aires, April 20 to May 9, 1953. Doc. CIJ-17. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1953. 25 ibid., p. 49. 26 The proceedings of the Conference were published in 1958 by the OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., under the title: Décima Conferencia Interamericana. Actas y Documentos. 6 Volumes.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

71

nature of the offense or the motives for the persecution. Asylum may not be granted, according to Article 5, except in urgent cases and for the period strictly necessary for the asylee to depart from the country with the guarantees granted by the Government of the territorial state. Article 20 provides that diplomatic asylum shall not be subject to reciprocity, and that every person is under its protection, whatever his nationality. Article 17 contains a rule on extradition: Once the departure of the asylee has been carried out, the state granting asylum is not bound to settle him in its territory, but it may not return him to his country of origin, unless this is the express wish of the asylee. If the territorial state informs the official granting asylum of its intention to request the subsequent extradition of the asylee, this shall not prejudice the application of any provision of the convention. In that event, the asylee shall remain in the territory of the state granting asylum until such time as the formal request for extradition is received, in accordance with the juridical principles governing that institution in the State granting asylum. The 1954 Convention on Territorial Asylum deals with substantive matters in eleven articles, the final clauses being contained in other articles. Article 1 establishes the right of every state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to admit into its territory such persons as it deems advisable, without giving rise to complaint by any other state. Article 3 declares that no state is under the obligation to surrender to another state, or to expel from its own territory, persons persecuted for political reasons or offenses. The right of extradition, according to Article 4, is not applicable in connection with persons who, in the light of the qualification of the requested State, are sought for political offenses, or for common offenses committed for political reasons, or when extradition is solicited for predominantly political motives. 1959. The Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs held in Santiago, Chile, in 1959, established, by Resolution VIII, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and entrusted the Inter-American Council of Jurists with the preparation of a draft convention on human rights.27 Also in 1959, the Inter-American Council of Jurists, which held its fourth meeting a few days after the closing of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation, prepared a draft convention on human rights according to the mandate it had received.28

27 Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Santiago, Chile, August 12–18, 1959. Final Act. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C. 1960. 28 Inter-American Council of Jurists. Final Act of the fourth meeting held in Santiago, Chile, August 24 to September 9, 1959. Doc. CIJ-43, p. 44 OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., second printing, 1962.

72

CHAPTER FOUR

At the same fourth meeting the Council of Jurists approved a draft Protocol to the 1954 Convention on Diplomatic Asylum. According to Article I of this draft, it would not be lawful to grant asylum to persons responsible for genocide, and in general, for offenses against humanity, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war.29 The Council of Jurists also requested the Inter-American Juridical Committee to prepare a draft article in order “to avoid the requesting or granting of asylum in a manner incompatible with the law in force in the Americas, without restricting the power of the state granting diplomatic asylum to determine the reasons for such asylum.”30 Another document approved by the Council of Jurists at its fourth meeting was a draft Protocol to the 1954 Convention on Territorial Asylum, according to which for the purpose of extradition, neither genocide nor, in general, crimes against humanity, committed in time of peace or in time of war, should be considered political offenses.31 As requested by the Council of Jurists, the Inter-American Juridical Committee prepared a draft of an article on Diplomatic Asylum and approved it on October 19, 1959.32 This draft article was to replace Article 17 of the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum. It provided, among other things, that the request for extradition might be made even when there was no treaty on the subject between two contracting States, and that it should be handled in accordance with the legal standards applying to that institution in the State granting asylum. No final decisions have been taken on the above-mentioned draft conventions prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists and the Inter-American Juridical Committee. 1960. The Council of the OAS approved the first Statute of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. The Second Inter-American Special Conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 1965 expanded the functions and powers of the Commission. 1967. The Third Inter-American Special Conference held in Buenos Aires approved a Protocol amending the OAS Charter (Protocol of Buenos Aires). According to the OAS Charter, as amended, which came into force on February 27, 1970, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is one of the principal organs of the OAS (Article 51(e)). Article 106 of the OAS Charter, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, provides that: There shall be an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whose principal function shall be to promote the observance and protection of human rights 29

Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 11. 31 Ibid., p. 42. 32 Inter-American Juridical Committee. New Article on Diplomatic Asylum. Doc. CIJ-49. OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1960. 30

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

73

and to serve as consultative organ of the Organization in these matters. An interAmerican Convention on human rights shall determine the structure, competence and procedure of this Commission, as well as those of other organs responsible for these matters.33

1969. In November 1969 an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights held in San José, Costa Rica, adopted the American Convention on Human Rights. In its 82 articles the Convention contains rules on state obligations and rights protected; civil and political rights; progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights; suspension of guarantees, interpretation and application; means of protection; competent organs: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights; general and transitory provisions. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 22 of this Convention provide: 7. Every person has the right to seek and be granted asylum in foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the State and international conventions, in the event he is being pursued for political offenses or related common crimes. 8. In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.34 e. Declarations on Territorial Asylum i) Declaration on Territorial Asylum by the Council of Europe On November 18, 1977 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Declaration on Territorial Asylum. It stated that, in the context of their humanitarian duties, the member states of the Council of Europe reaffirmed their intention to maintain their liberal attitude with regard to persons seeking asylum in their territories. It also expressed that the member states of the Council of Europe, which are parties to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees reaffirmed their right to grant asylum to any person who, having well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinions, also fulfills the other conditions of eligibility for the benefits of said convention, and also any other person they consider worthy of receiving asylum for humanitarian reasons.

33 Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires. OAS Treaty Series No. 1-C. 34 OAS Treaty Series No. 36.

74

CHAPTER FOUR

ii) Declaration on Territorial Asylum by the United Nations The United Nations General Assembly, by its resolution 2312 (XXII), of December 14, 1967 adopted a Declaration on Territorial Asylum. In Article 1 it is provided that asylum granted by a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including persons struggling against colonization, shall be respected by all other states. The right to seek and enjoy asylum, according to the same article, may not be invoked by any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes. It shall rest with the state granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for granting it. iii) The right of Asylum in the United Nations Convention against the Taking of Hostages The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 1979 establishes in Article 15 that the provisions of the Convention shall not affect the application of the treaties on asylum, in force at the date of the adoption of the Convention, as between States which are parties to those treaties; but a State Party to the Convention may not invoke those treaties with respect to another State Party to the Convention which is not a party to those treaties.

10. Extradition or Nonextradition of Nationals Article 7 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides as follows: 1. The nationality of the person sought may not be invoked as a ground for denying extradition, except when the law of the requested State otherwise provides. 2. In the case of convicted persons, the States Parties may negotiate the mutual surrender of nationals so that they may serve their sentences in the State of which they are nationals. This article contains two important provisions on two different subjects: the question of nationality and the mutual surrender of convicted persons to serve their sentences in the countries of which they are nationals. Nationality, per se, does not constitute a ground for denying extradition, according to paragraph 1 of Article 7, unless the law of the requested State otherwise provides. This provision is identical, with a slight change in the wording, to Article 9 of the 1973 and 1977 drafts of a convention prepared by the Inter-American

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

75

Juridical Committee and to Article 9 of the 1959 draft Convention of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. Article 10 of the 1956 draft convention of the Council of Jurists stipulated that the nationality of the person sought should not be invoked as a ground for denying extradition, except when the legislation of the requested State prohibited such extradition, or when reciprocity did not exist. In the event that such extradition was denied, the requested State was to try its national as if the crime imputed to him had been committed in its own territory. Following are provisions of other multilateral conventions among American countries on this subject. Under the 1923 Central American Convention, Article 4, the Contracting Parties were not obliged to deliver their nationals, but they were to try them for crimes committed in any of the other Central American Republics. The government of the country where trial was to take place was to inform the other of the final result. The Bustamante Code, in Article 345, provides that the Contracting States are not obliged to surrender their own nationals and that the nation which refuses to give up one of its citizens should try him. According to Article 2 of the 1933 Convention, when the person whose extradition is sought is a citizen of the country to which the request is addressed, his delivery may or may not be made, as the legislation or circumstances of the case may determine in the judgment of the surrendering State. If the accused is not surrendered, the latter State is obliged to bring action against him for the crime of which he is accused, if such crime meets the conditions established in the Convention, and the sentence pronounced should be communicated to the requesting State. The 1940 Treaty, in Article 19, contains a rule similar to that of the new 1981 OAS Convention; that is, the nationality of the person sought may not be invoked as grounds for denying extradition, except when the law of the requested State establishes otherwise. It should be noted that the 1981 Convention refers to the “law of the requested States,” while the 1940 Treaty refers to “constitutional provision.” The 1957 European Convention on Extradition incorporates a rule which gives more protection to nationals, stating in Article 6(1)(a) that a Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals. Paragraph 2 provides that if the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. For this purpose, the files, information and exhibits relating to the offense shall be transmitted without charge. The requesting Party shall be informed of the results of its request. A more positive and direct rule is contained in Article 5(1) of the Benelux Treaty of 1962, as follows: The Contracting Parties shall not extradite their nationals.

76

CHAPTER FOUR

11. Prosecution by the Requested State Article 8 of the 1981 OAS Convention stipulates: If, when extradition is applicable, a State does not deliver the person sought, the requested State shall, when its laws or other treaties so permit, be obligated to prosecute him for the offense with which he is charged, just as if it had been committed within its territory, and shall inform the requesting State of the judgment handed down. This provision is similar to Article 10 of the 1977 CJI draft. The Bustamante Code provides in Article 345, second part, that the nation which refuses to give up one of its citizens shall try him. Under the 1933 Convention, Article 2, second part, if the accused is not surrendered, the requested State is obliged to bring action against him for the crime with which he is accused, if such crime is punishable under the laws of the requesting and surrendering States with a minimum penalty of imprisonment for one year. The sentence pronounced should be communicated to the requesting State. The 1957 European Convention establishes in Article 6(2) that if the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. For this purpose, the files, information and exhibits relating to the offense shall be transmitted without charge by the means provided for in Article 12, paragraph 1. The requesting Party shall be informed of the result of its request. The 1971 OAS Convention on Terrorism, Article 5, provides that when extradition requested for one of the crimes specified in Article 2 is not granted because the person sought is a national of the requested State, or because of some other legal or constitutional impediment, that state is obliged to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution, as if the act had been committed in its territory. The decision of these authorities shall be communicated to the state that requested extradition. The 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism stipulates in Article 7 that a Contracting State in whose territory a person suspected of having committed an offense mentioned in Article 1 is found and which has received a request for extradition under the conditions mentioned in Article 6, paragraph 1, shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit the case, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any offense of a serious nature under the law of that State. The 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, contains

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

77

a rule very similar to Article 7 of the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of terrorism. Article 7 of the UN 1973 Convention provides that the State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite him, submit the case without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that state. The 1971 ICAO Convention, in Article 7, provides that the Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found, shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offense was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offense of a serious nature under the law of that state. The 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, in Article 10, contains a rule identical to that of Article 7 of the 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.

12. Transmission of Request for Extradition, Supporting Documents and Legal Assistance a. Transmission of Request for Extradition The 1981 OAS Convention stipulates in Article 10: The request for extradition shall be made by the diplomatic agent of the requesting State, or, if none is present, by its consular officer, or, when appropriate, by the diplomatic agent of a third State to which is entrusted, with the consent of the government of the requested State, the representation and protection of the interests of the requesting State. The request may also be made directly from government to government, in accordance with such procedure as the governments concerned may agree upon.

All the multilateral treaties and conventions among American countries dealing with extradition contain rules on the transmission of request for extradition, and they all provide that such transmission should be made through diplomatic channels or from government to government. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 12(l) that the request for extradition shall be in writing and shall be communicated through the diplomatic channel. However, Article 5 of the Second Protocol to the Convention adopted on March 17, 1978, replaced paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Convention with the following provisions: The request shall be in writing and shall be addressed by the Ministry of Justice of the requesting Party to the Ministry of Justice of the requested Party;

78

CHAPTER FOUR

however, use of the diplomatic channel is not excluded. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties. Article 12(1) of the 1957 European Convention, as amended by the Second Protocol, represents a significant simplification of the transmission of the request for extradition. b. Supporting Documents, Supplementary Information and Legal Assistance The 1981 OAS Convention contains the following provisions concerning these matters: Article 11. Supporting documents 1. The request for extradition shall be accompanied by the documents listed below, duly certified in the manner prescribed by the laws of the requesting State: a. A certified copy of the warrant for arrest, or other document of like nature, issued by a competent judicial authority, or the Ministerio Público, as well as a certified copy of evidence that, according to the laws of the requested State, is sufficient for the arrest and commitment for trial of the person sought. This last mentioned requirement shall not apply if the laws of the requesting State and of the requested State do not so provide. If the person has been tried and convicted of the offense by the courts of the requesting State, a certified verbatim copy of the final judgment shall suffice. b. The text of the legal provisions that define and penalize the alleged crime, as well as those of the statute of limitations governing prosecution and punishment. 2. The request for extradition shall also be accompanied by the translation into the language of the requested State, if appropriate, of the documents enumerated in the previous paragraph, as well as by any personal data that will permit identification of the person sought, indication of his nationality and, whenever possible, his location within the territory of the requested State, photographs, fingerprints, or any other satisfactory means of identification. Article 12. Supplementary information and legal assistance 1. The requested State, when it considers that the documents presented are insufficient, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of this Convention, shall so inform the requesting State as soon as possible. The requesting State shall correct any omissions or defects observed within a period of thirty days in the event the person sought is already detained or subject to precautionary measures. If, because of special circumstances, the requesting State is unable to correct the omissions or defects within that term, it may ask the requested State to extend the term by thirty days.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

79

2. The requested State shall provide, at no cost to the requesting State, legal assistance to protect the interests of the requesting State before the competent authorities of the requested State. During the 1981 Conference there was considerable discussion on the question relating to supporting documents, especially to the problem of legalization. In paragraph 1 a) of Article 11 the words Ministerio Público (Office of the Government Attorneys) were added because certain delegations believed that not only the “competent judicial authorities” could issue the pertinent documents but also the Ministerio Público could do it according to the laws of the State involved. Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the 1981 Convention is a new provision which was adopted by the Conference after lengthy discussion about the cost of the legal assistance that would be provided by the requested State to protect the interest of the requesting State before the competent authorities. The Bustamante Code provides in Article 365 that together with the final request for extradition the following documents should be submitted: (1) A sentence of conviction or a warrant or order of arrest or a document of equal force, or one which obliges the interested Party to appear periodically before the criminal court, together with such parts of the record in the case as furnished proof or at least some reasonable evidence of the guilt of the person in question. (2) The filiation of the person whose extradition is requested, or such marks or circumstances as may serve to identify him. (3) An authenticated copy of the provisions establishing the legal definition of the act which gives rise to the request for extradition, describing the participation imputed to the defendant and prescribing the penalty applicable. According to the 1933 Convention, Article 5, the following documents, in the language of the country to which the request for extradition is directed, shall accompany every such request: (a) An authentic copy of the sentence, when the accused has been tried and condemned by the courts of the requesting State; (b) When the person is only under accusation, an authentic copy of the order of detention issued by the competent judge, with a precise description of the imputed offense, a copy of the penal laws applicable thereto, and a copy of the laws referring to the prescription of the action or the penalty; (c) In the case of an individual under accusation and of an individual already condemned, all possible information of a personal character should be furnished which may help to identify the individual whose extradition is sought. The 1957 European Convention stipulates in Article 12(2) that the request for extradition shall be supported by: (a) the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or of the warrant of arrest or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting Party;

80

CHAPTER FOUR

(b) a statement of the offense for which extradition is requested. The time and place of their commission, their legal descriptions and a reference to the relevant legal provisions shall be set out as accurately as possible; (c) a copy of the relevant enactments or, where this is not possible, a statement of the relevant law and as accurate a description as possible of the person claimed, together with any other information which will help to establish his identity and nationality. In Article 13, the European Convention provides for supplementary information, as follows: If the information communicated by the requesting Party is found to be insufficient to allow the requested Party to make a decision in pursuance of the Convention, the latter Party shall request the necessary supplementary information and may fix a time-limit for the receipt thereof.

13. Rule of Speciality The OAS 1981 Convention provides in Article 13 as follows: 1. A person extradited under this Convention shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an offense committed prior to the date of the request for extradition, other than that for which extradition has been granted unless: a. That person leaves the territory of the requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to it; or b. That person does not leave the territory of the requesting State within thirty days after being free to do so; or c. The competent authority of the requested State consents to that person’s detention, trial or punishment for another offense. In such case, the requested State may require the requesting State to submit the documents mentioned in Article 11 of this Convention. 2. When extradition has been granted, the requesting State shall inform the requested State of the final resolution of the case against the person extradited. This text was adopted after lengthy deliberations in the General Committee and in plenary session of the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition. On the question of rule of the speciality, the provisions of some multilateral conventions are mentioned below as illustrations. The 1940 Treaty provides in Article 24 that persons whose extradition has been granted may not be tried for crimes committed prior to those on which the extradition is based, and that crimes constituting grounds for extradition may be tried and punished, provided that the requested State gives its consent previously and in conformity with the terms of the treaty.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

81

The 1957 European Convention on Extradition contains the following rule on this matter: Article 14. Rule of speciality 1. A person who has been extradited shall not be proceeded against, sentenced or detained with a view to the carrying out of a sentence or detention order for any offense committed prior to his surrender other than that for which he was extradited, nor shall he be for any other reason restricted in his personal freedom, except in the following cases: a. When the Party which surrendered him consents. A request for consent shall be submitted, accompanied by the documents mentioned in Article 12 and a legal record of any statement made by the extradited person in respect of the offense concerned. Consent shall be given when the offense for which it is requested is itself subject to extradition in accordance with the provisions of this Convention; b. When that person, having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Party to which he has been surrendered, has not done so within 45 days of his final discharge, or has returned to that territory after leaving it. 2. The requesting Party may, however, take any measures necessary to remove the person from its territory, or any measures necessary under its law, including proceedings by default, to prevent any legal effects of lapse of time. 3. When the description of the offense charged is altered in the course of proceedings, the extradited person shall only be proceeded against or sentenced in so far as the offense under its new description is shown by its constituent elements to be an offense which would allow extradition.

14. Request by more than one State Article 15 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides as follows with respect to this matter: When the extradition is requested by more than one State for the same offense, the requested State shall give preference to the request of the State in which the offense was committed. If the requests are for different offenses, preference shall be given to the State seeking the individual for the offense punishable by the most severe penalty, in accordance with the laws of the requested State. If the requests involve different offenses that the requested State considers to be of equal gravity, preference shall be determined by the order in which the requests are received.

The following are provisions of some multilateral treaties on this subject: The 1911 Agreement, Article 13, stipulates that when a person is claimed by several States at the same time, preference shall be determined by the prior assertion of claim, unless the nation of asylum is obliged by a previous treaty

82

CHAPTER FOUR

to give preference in some other manner. Article 7 of the 1933 Convention provides that when extradition of a person is sought by several States for the same offense, preference shall be given to the State in whose territory the offense was committed. If he is sought for several offenses, preference shall be given to the State within whose boundary shall have been committed the offense which has the greatest penalty according to the law of the surrendering State. If the case is one of different acts which the State from which the extradition is sought esteems of equal gravity, the preference will be determined by the priority of the request. The 1940 Treaty, in Article 25, stipulates that when the extradition of a given individual is demanded by different States, and the demands are based on the same crime, preference shall be accorded to that of the State in whose territory the crime was committed; or, if it was committed in different countries, preference shall be given to the first demand. If different acts are involved, preference in granting the extradition shall be given to the State in whose territory the more serious crime was committed, according to the judgment of the requested State. In cases involving different acts which the requested State regards as equally serious, the preference shall be determined by the order in which the requests are received. According to the 1957 European Convention, Article 17, if extradition is requested concurrently by more than one State, either for the same offense or for different offenses, the requested Party shall make its decision having regard to all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness and place of commission of the offenses, the respective dates of the requests, the nationality of the person claimed and the possibility of subsequent extradition to another State.

15. Provisional Detention and Precautionary Measures Article 14 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides that: 1. In urgent cases, a State Party may request by the means of communication provided for in Article 10 of this Convention, or any other such means, the detention of the person who is judicially required for prosecution, is being tried, has been convicted, or has been sentenced to a penalty involving deprivation of liberty, and may also request the seizure of the objects related to the offense. The request for provisional detention shall contain a statement of intention to present the formal request for the extradition of the person sought, a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or of a judgment of conviction against that person issued by a judicial authority, and a description of the offense. The request for provisional detention shall be the sole responsibility of the requesting State.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

83

2. The requested State shall order provisional detention and, when appropriate, the seizure of objects and shall immediately inform the requesting State of the date on which provisional detention commenced. 3. If the request for extradition, accompanied by the documents referred to in Article 11 of this Convention, is not presented within sixty days of the date on which the provisional detention referred to in paragraph 1 of this article commenced, the person sought shall be set free. 4. After the period of time referred to in the preceding paragraph has expired, the detention of the person sought may not be again requested except upon presentation of the documents required under Article 11 of this Convention. The other multilateral conventions and bilateral treaties on extradition generally contain rules concerning provisional arrest. The 1981 OAS Convention, however, does not have any specific provision on the use of the facilities of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). The 1957 European Convention on Extradition stipulates in Article 16(3) that a request for provisional arrest will be sent to the competent authorities of the requested Party either through diplomatic channel or directly by post or telegraph or through the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) or by any other means affording evidence in writing or accepted by the requested Party. The requesting authority shall be informed without delay of the result of its request. The 1962 Benelux Treaty provides in Article 15(3) that the request for provisional arrest will be sent to the competent authorities of the requested State either directly or through the central office of INTERPOL. The competent authorities of the requesting Party are to be informed without delay of the result of the request. The 1981 OAS Conference on Extradition considered the question as to whether or not a provision concerning INTERPOL should be included in the new inter-American Convention. Several points of view were expressed. The Delegation of Argentina proposed during the fifth plenary session that a provision be included in the Convention to the effect that the States Parties could utilize the cooperation of INTERPOL in the requests for provisional arrests. Some delegations expressed their opinions in favor of this proposal and others indicated their opposition. Finally, the proposal was not approved.35

35 Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Extradición. Caracas, Venezuela, 16 a 25 de febrero de 1981. Publication of the OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1981. Volume II, pp. 471–475.

84

CHAPTER FOUR

16. Non Bis in Idem The 1981 Inter-American Convention provides in Article 18: Once the request for extradition of a person has been denied, a request may not be made again for the same offense.

It should be noted that non bis in idem is a widely adopted principle in multilateral and bilateral treaties on extradition. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 9 that extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offense or offenses for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offense or offenses. This rule is identical to that contained in the 1962 Benelux Treaty, Article 8. The Bustamante Code, in Article 358, provides that extradition shall not be granted if the person demanded has already been tried and acquitted, or served his sentence, or is awaiting trial, in the territory of the requested State for the offense upon which the request is based. According to Article 3(b) and (c) of the 1933 Convention, extradition will not be granted: (b) When the accused has served his sentence in the country where the crime was committed or when he may have been pardoned or granted an amnesty; (c) When the accused has been or is being tried by the State to which the request was directed for the act with which he is charged and on which the petition for extradition is based.

17. Expenses Article 25 of the OAS 1981 Convention provides as follows: Expenses incurred in the detention, custody, maintenance, and transportation of both the person extradited and of the objects referred to in Article 19 of this Convention shall be borne by the requested State up to the moment of surrender and delivery, and thereafter such expenses shall be borne by the requesting State.

Provisions concerning expenses contained in other multilateral Conventions are indicated below. The Bustamante Code in Article 372 establishes that the expenses of detention and delivery shall be borne by the requesting State, but this State shall not have to defray any expenses for the services rendered by the public paid employees of the Government from which extradition is requested. Under Article 373, the charge for the services of such public employees or officers

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

85

should not exceed their customary fees for their acts or services under the laws of the country in which they reside. The matter of liability is foreseen in Article 374, which stipulates that all liability arising from a provisional detention shall rest upon the requesting State. According to Article 16 of the 1933 Convention, the costs of arrest, custody, maintenance, and transportation of the person, as well as of the objects referred to in Article 15 will be borne by the State granting extradition up to the moment of surrender and from thereon they will be borne by the requesting State. The 1940 Treaty provides in Article 41 that the expenses incurred in the extradition of the offender shall be borne by the requested State until the moment when the surrender takes place; and thenceforth, they shall be borne by the requesting Government. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition provides in Article 24 as follows: (1) Expenses incurred in the territory of the requested Party by reason of extradition shall be borne by that Party. (2) Expenses incurred by reason of transit through the territory of a Party requested to grant transit shall be borne by the requesting Party. (3) In the event of extradition from a non-metropolitan territory of the requested Party the expenses occasioned by travel between that territory and the metropolitan territory of the requesting Party shall be borne by the latter. The same rule shall apply to expenses occasioned by travel between the non-metropolitan territory of the requested Party and its metropolitan territory.

18. Simplified Extradition Article 21 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides as follows: The requested State may grant extradition without a formal extradition proceeding if: a. Its laws do not expressly prohibit it; b. The person sought irrevocably consents in writing to the extradition after being advised by a judge or other competent authority of his right to a formal extradition proceeding and the protection afforded by such a proceeding. The 1962 Benelux Treaty provides in Article 19 that the competent authorities of the requesting State may request the immediate surrender of the person to be extradited, but such surrender shall require the express consent of the person arrested, to be given in the presence of an officer of the State Council Division of the requested State and the approval of that officer. It is also provided that the person arrested shall have the right to be assisted by counsel and that surrender shall take place without other formalities and shall be effected within eighteen days of the provisional arrest.

86

CHAPTER FOUR

19. Re-extradition Neither the 1981 OAS Convention nor other inter-American conventions on extradition contain any provision on re-extradition. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition contains a rule on reextradition in Article 15, in which it is stated that, except as provided for in Article 14, paragraph 1 (b), the requesting Party shall not, without the consent of the requested Party, surrender to another Party or to a third State a person surrendered to the requesting Party and sought by said other Party or third State in respect of offenses committed before his surrender. The 1962 Benelux Treaty has a provision in Article 14, paragraph 1, similar to that of the 1957 European Convention. In Article 14, paragraph 2, the Treaty provides that consent is not required in the case of another Contracting Party.

20. Other Procedural Rules The 1981 OAS Convention on Extradition contains rules also on the following procedural matters: legal rights and assistance; communication of the extradition decision; surrender of the person sought and delivery of property; deferral of surrender of the person sought when he is being tried or is serving a sentence in the requested State; period of taking custody of the person sought; custody; transit through the territories of the States Parties of a person whose extradition has been granted; waiver of legalization. Legal rights and assistance. Article 16 of the 1981 OAS Convention provides that the person sought shall enjoy in the requested State all the legal rights and guarantees granted by the laws of that State, and that the person sought shall be assisted by legal counsel, and if the official language of the country is other than his own, he shall also be assisted by an interpreter. Communication of the extradition decision. The requested State shall, according to Article 17 of the Convention, inform promptly the requesting State of its decision on the request for extradition and the reasons for its approval or denial. Surrender of the person sought and delivery of property. The Convention establishes in Article 19(1) that the surrender of the person sought to the agents of the requesting State shall be carried out at a place determined by the requested State, and this place shall, if possible, be an airport from which direct international flights depart for the requesting State. In paragraph 2 of the same article it is provided that if the request for provisional detention or for extradition is accompanied by a request for the seizure of documents, money or other objects that result from the alleged offense or may serve as evidence, such

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

87

objects shall be collected and deposited under inventory by the requested State for subsequent delivery to the requesting State when the extradition is granted and even though the extradition is impeded by force majeure, unless the law of the requested State forbids such delivery. In any event, the rights of third parties are not to be affected. Deferral of surrender. In accordance with Article 20(1), when the person sought is being tried or serving a sentence in the requested State for an offense other than that for which the extradition is requested, his surrender may be deferred until he is entitled to be set free by virtue of acquittal, completed service or commutation of sentence, dismissal, pardon, amnesty or grace. No civil suit that the person sought may have pending against him in the requested State may prevent or defer his surrender. Under paragraph 2 of Article 20, when the surrender of the person sought would, for reasons of health, endanger his life, his surrender may be deferred until it would no longer pose such a danger. Period for taking custody of the person sought. Article 22 of the OAS Convention establishes that, if the extradition has been granted, the requesting State shall take custody of the person sought within a period of thirty days from the date on which he was placed at its disposal. If it does not take custody within that period, the person sought shall be set free and may not be subjected to a new extradition procedure for the same offense or offenses. This period, however, may be extended for thirty days if the requesting State is unable, owing to circumstances beyond its control, to take custody of the person sought and escort him out of the territory of the requested State. According to Article 23, the agents of the requesting State who are in the territory of another State Party to take custody of a person whose extradition has been granted shall be authorized to have custody of him and escort him to the territory of the requesting State, provided, however, that such agents shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which they are. Transit. In connection with transit, Article 24 of the Convention provides that if prior notification has been given from government to government through diplomatic or consular channels, the States Parties shall permit and cooperate in the transit through their territories of a person whose extradition has been granted under the custody of agents of the requesting State and/or the requested State, as the case may be, upon presentation of a copy of the order granting the extradition. Such prior notification shall not be necessary when air transport is used and no landing is scheduled in the territory of the State Party that will be flown over. Waiver of legalization. In accordance with Article 26, when the documents provided for in this Convention are communicated through the diplomatic or consular channel, or direct from government to government, their legalization will not be required.

88

CHAPTER FOUR

21. Final provisions of the 1981 OAS Convention on Extradition The 1981 Inter-American Convention on Extradition in accordance with Articles 27, 28 and 29, is open for signature by the member states of the Organization of American States and it is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the OAS in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, the Convention is open to accession by any American State. It is also open to accession by States having the status of Permanent Observer to the OAS, following approval of the pertinent request by the General Assembly of the OAS. It is provided in Article 30 that each State may, at the time of signature, approval, ratification, or accession, make reservations to the Convention, provided that each reservation concerns one or more specific provisions and is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Convention will enter into force, according to Article 31, on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the second instrument of ratification. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, the Convention will enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession. Article 32 contains provisions concerning the special cases of territorial application. This article establishes that if a State Party has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to the matters dealt with in the Convention, it shall, at the time of signature, ratification, or accession declare that the Convention shall extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them. Such declaration may be modified by subsequent declarations, which expressly indicate the territorial unit or units to which the Convention applies. These subsequent declarations shall be transmitted to the General Secretariat of the OAS, and shall become effective thirty days after the date of their receipt. These provisions of Article 32 are identical to those included in the interAmerican conventions adopted by the First and Second Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law in 1975 and 1979 (CIDIP-I and CIDIP-II). Article 33 deals with the relation of the 1981 OAS Convention on Extradition to other conventions on this matter. In accordance with this article, the Convention shall apply to the States that ratify it or accede to it and shall not supersede multilateral or bilateral treaties that are in force or were concluded earlier unless the States Parties concerned otherwise expressly declare or agree, respectively. The States Parties may decide to maintain in force as supplementary instruments treaties entered into earlier.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

89

According to Article 34, this Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any of the States Parties may denounce it. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. The original instrument of the Convention, the English, French, Portuguese and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, is deposited with the OAS General Secretariat in Washington, D.C. Done at Caracas, Republic of Venezuela, on February 25, 1981.

Appendix A Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Treaties and Conventions on Extradition, Asylum and Other Instruments among American Countries

TREATY ON EXTRADITION*

Signed at Lima, Peru, on March 27, 1879 at the American Congress of Jurists1

The Republics of Peru, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Uruguay, for the purpose of facilitating the administration of justice in repressing crimes and offenses committed in their respective territorial jurisdiction, by advisably restricting cases of refuge, have agreed to enter into a Treaty on Extradition through their respective plenipotentiaries meeting on the initiative of the Government of Peru in the American Congress of Jurists, namely: (Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries). Who, after presenting their full powers, which were found in due form, and after pertinent consultations and discussions, have agreed upon the following stipulations: Article 1. The signatory Republics undertake to surrender to one another the offenders prosecuted for the crimes of homicide, arson, robbery, piracy, theft, counterfeiting or falsification of public instruments, embezzlement of public funds, fraudulent bankruptcy, perjury, and, in general, for all those offenses that are liable to the penalties of death, imprisonment, forced labor or detention for not less than two years in the country in which the offense was committed, even though the penalty may be less or different in the country of refuge. Article 2. The penalty of two years of imprisonment mentioned in the foregoing article is for designating the nature of the offenses that give rise to extradition when it is requested during the trial, but it does not limit the effects of the judgment if for extenuating circumstances or other circumstances favorable to the offender he was sentenced to a lesser penalty.

* The Treaty on Extradition was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the nine Republics participating in the American Congress of Jurists held in Lima. The signing was done in the following order: Peru, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Uruguay. 1 The Spanish text is published in Archivo Diplomático del Perú – III. Congresos Americanos de Lima. Recopilación de Documentos precedida de prólogo por Alberto Ulloa. Tomo II. Imprenta Torres Aguirre, Lima, Perú, 1938, pp. 383–387. The English text is an unofficial translation.

94

APPENDIX A

Article 3. When extradition is requested on the basis of res judicata the offender will be surrendered provided the penalty imposed is not less than one year of imprisonment, regardless of the legal offense that gave rise to the trial and the sentence. Article 4. For the purpose of extradition, national jurisdiction includes the territorial waters, merchant vessels on the high seas, and men-of-war wherever they may be located. Article 5. When the penalty for the crime or offense that gives rise to extradition is not the same in the requesting nation and in that of refuge, the offender shall be liable to the lesser penalty and in no case shall the penalty of death be imposed on him. Article 6. This Treaty may be applied to crimes and offenses committed before it enters into force; but in such case the person surrendered shall not be prosecuted in the requesting Republic for any offense other than that which gave rise to extradition. Article 7. Political offenses are not covered by the provision of this Treaty. It shall be for the Government of the Republic granting asylum to characterize the nature of any offense of this kind and it shall not grant extradition even though it is committed in connection with any crime or offense that may give rise to it. The persons that have been surrendered for common crimes may not be tried or punished for political crimes committed before extradition. Article 8. The request for extradition shall be made directly from government to government, through diplomatic channels, or through any duly authorized official. The request shall specify the evidence that, in accordance with the laws of the state in which the offense was committed, is sufficient to justify the arrest and trial of the accused. In the event of escape of the offender after he has been condemned or before he has fully served the penalty, the request shall state this fact and it shall be accompanied solely by the sentence. Article 9. In urgent cases provisional arrest of the accused may be requested by means of a telegraphic or postal communication addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, either directly or through diplomatic agents. Provisional arrest shall take place in the manner and in accordance with the rules established by the legislation of the country granting asylum; but it shall cease if within a period of three months from the time it took place the request is not formalized in the manner indicated in the preceding article. Article 10. If the offender is a citizen of a country in which he has taken refuge and his extradition is requested so that he may undergo the penalty imposed by unappealable judgment, he shall be surrendered subject to the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 7; but if extradition is requested for the purpose of trial, the government shall not be required to grant it if the offender prefers to

TREATY ON EXTRADITION

95

be judged by the courts of his country; and in this case, in the light of the information gathered at the place where the crime was committed, the courts of the two countries shall reach an understanding and the letters rogatory that are necessary in the course of the suit shall be issued. Article 11. When extradition is in order, all articles seized that relate to the offense shall be delivered, without prejudice to the rights of a third party, to the requesting Republic. This delivery shall also take place even though, because of death or flight of the accused, extradition cannot take effect. Article 12. Extradition shall not be granted if the offender requested has already been tried and sentenced for the same offense in the Republic in which he resides or in another signatory Republic, or if the necessary time for the prescription of the action or of the penalty has expired in accordance with the laws of the country in which he resides. Article 13. If the offender whose extradition is requested is accused or has been condemned for a crime or offense committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic in which he is, he shall not be surrendered until after he has been acquitted or pardoned and, in the event of condemnation, until after he has served the penalty. Should the offender whose surrender is requested have contracted obligations which he cannot fulfil because of extradition, extradition shall nevertheless take place and the interested party shall be free to claim his rights before the competent authority. Article 14. Whenever an offender is requested by two different states, the state of refuge shall decide in accordance with the circumstances to which one of the requesting states it will surrender the person claimed. Article 15. Expenses arising out of the arrest, detention, or transportation of the individual claimed shall be borne by the Republic that requested the surrender. Article 16. Whenever, in order to carry out the extradition requested by any of the Contracting Republics, the offender has to pass through the territory of another one of them, its authorities shall provide the necessary means for preventing the escape of the offender and the interruption of his journey. Article 17. In each case of extradition, the Government that has obtained it shall inform the Government that granted it of the definitive judgment handed down by its courts. Article 18. When this Treaty has been approved by the Congresses and ratified by the Governments of the signatory Republics, the ratifications shall be exchanged in Lima as quickly as possible. Article 19. Approval by all the signatory states is not essential for the application of this Treaty; the state that approves it shall inform the Government of Peru of its ratification so that it may so inform all the other Contracting States. This procedure shall constitute exchange of ratifications.

96

APPENDIX A

Article 20. Once the exchange has been made in the manner indicated in the foregoing article, the Treaty shall be enforced from that time and for an indefinite time among the states that have done so. Article 21. If any of the contracting states believes it necessary to introduce modifications into this Treaty before or after its entry into force, it shall so inform the other states; but in the second case it shall not be released from it until one year after this act, during which time an effort shall be made to reach a new agreement through the channels and in the form deemed most advisable. Article 22. Article 18 applies to the Republics that have not attended this Congress that may wish to adhere to this Treaty. In witness whereof we, the plenipotentiaries of the above-mentioned Republics, have signed this Treaty and sealed it in nine copies on this twentyseventh day of the month of March in the year one thousand eight hundred seventy-nine.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

Signed at Montevideo on January 23, 1889 at the First South American Congress on Private International Law1

Their Excellencies the Presidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay have agreed to a Treaty on International Penal Law, through their respective Plenipotentiaries, assembled in Congress, in the City of Montevideo, on the initiative of the governments of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and of the Argentine Republic, represented by: [Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries] Who, after the presentation of their full powers, which were found in good form, and after conferences and discussions of the matter, have agreed to the following stipulations:

TITLE I. ON JURISDICTION Article 1. Crimes and offenses shall be subject to trial by the courts and punished according to the laws of the country where the offense was committed, regardless of the nationality of the agent, or of the victim or wronged party. Article 2. Such violations of criminal law as are perpetrated in a State, but exclusively affect rights and interests guaranteed by the laws of another State, shall fall under the jurisdiction of the State affected by them, and shall be punished according to its laws. Article 3. When an offense affects different States, the jurisdiction of the State in whose territory the offender is caught shall prevail.

1 Inter-American Treaties and Conventions on Asylum and Extradition. Treaty Series No. 34, OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 1. This Treaty was revised by the Treaty on International Penal Law signed at Montevideo, March 19, 1940, at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law.

98

APPENDIX A

If the offender should seek shelter in a State different from the ones affected by his action, the jurisdiction of the State which first requests the extradition shall prevail. Article 4. In the cases referred to in the preceding article, if there is only one offender there shall be only one trial, and the penalty to be imposed shall be the severest one imposed by the penal laws of the different States concerned. If the penalty ascertained to be the severest one should be one not permitted in the State in which the trial takes place, the severest penalty which is permitted shall be imposed. The court shall, in all cases, apply to the executive power in order that due notice of the initiation of the proceedings may be given through it to the interested States. Article 5. Each one of the contracting States shall have the power to expel from its territory, under its own laws, offenders who have taken shelter therein, if after notice to the State against which the refugee committed an extraditable offense no action shall have been taken by such State. Article 6. Acts done in territory of a State, which are not punishable according to its laws, but are punishable in another country, in which they produce injurious results, shall not be made the subject of judicial action in the latter, unless the offender is found within its territory. The same rule shall also apply to those offenses which do not admit of extradition. Article 7. In the trial and punishment of offenses committed by a member of a legation, the rules of public International law shall be observed. Article 8. Crimes committed on the high seas, or on neutral waters, on board either a man-of-war or a merchant vessel, shall be tried and punished according to the laws of the State to which the flag of the vessel belongs. Article 9. Crimes and offenses committed on board a man-of-war when in the waters of a foreign nation shall be tried and punished according to the laws of the State to which the vessel belongs. The same rule shall be applicable to offenses committed outside the vessels by members of the crew thereof, or by persons employed on board the same, if the said crimes or offenses infringe principally the law or rules of discipline in force upon the vessel. But when the crimes or offenses herein referred to, committed outside the vessel, were so committed by persons not belonging to the ship’s company, then the jurisdiction to try the offenders shall belong to the State in whose territorial waters the vessel may happen to find itself. Article 10. Crimes and offenses committed on board a man-of-war or on board a merchant vessel, under the circumstances mentioned in Article 2, shall be tried and punished as provided by that article.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

99

Article 11. Crimes and offenses committed on board a merchant vessel shall be tried and punished according to the laws of the State in whose territorial waters the offense was committed. Article 12. For purposes of jurisdiction, territorial waters are declared to be those comprised in a belt five miles wide running along the coast, either of the mainland or of the islands which form part of the territory of each State. Article 13. Acts of piracy, as defined by public international law, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the State under whose power the offenders may happen to fall. Article 14. Criminal prosecution shall be governed by the laws of the State having jurisdiction to punish the offense.

TITLE II. ON ASYLUM Article 15. No offender who has taken refuge in the territory of a State shall be surrendered to the authorities of any other State except in compliance with the rules governing extradition. Article 16. Political refugees shall be afforded an inviolable asylum; but it is the duty of the nation of refuge to prevent asylees of this kind from committing within its territory any acts which may endanger the public peace of the nation against which the offense was committed. Article 17. Such persons as may be charged with non-political offenses and seek refuge in a legation, shall be surrendered to the local authorities by the head of the said legation, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, or of his own motion. Said asylum shall be respected with regard to political offenders, but the head of the legation shall be bound to give immediate notice to the government of the State to which he is accredited; and the said government shall have the power to demand that the offender be sent away from the national territory in the shortest possible time. The head of the legation shall, in his turn, have the right to require proper guarantees for the exit of the refugee without any injury to the inviolability of his person. The same rule shall be applicable to the refugees on board a man-of-war anchored in the territorial waters of the State. Article 18. The provisions of Article 15 shall not be applicable to deserters from vessels of war while in the territorial waters of a State. Said deserters, whatever their nationality may be, shall be surrendered by the local authorities, upon proper identification, whenever the legation, or if there is no legation, the consular officer of the country concerned may request it.

100

APPENDIX A

TITLE III.

EXTRADITION

Article 19. The signatory States shall be bound to deliver up to another such offenders as have taken refuge within its territory, whenever the following circumstances shall concur, namely: 1. That the nation which claims the offender has competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of and punish the offense with which the refugee is charged. 2. That the kind and gravity of the offense are such as to justify extradition. 3. That the nation which demands the extradition has presented such documents as, under its own laws, authorize the imprisonment and trial of the offender. 4. That the action against the offender has not been barred by the statute of limitations, under the laws of the country which makes the demand. 5. That the offender has not been sentenced for the same offense and served out his sentence. Article 20. the offender. Article 21. following:

Extradition shall in no case be barred by the nationality of The offenses for which extradition is warranted are the

1. As to alleged offenders, those offenses which under the laws of the country which demands the extradition are punishable by imprisonment for not less than two years, or the equivalent thereof. 2. As to the convicted offenders, those offenses the minimum penalty for which is imprisonment for one year. Article 22. No person shall be delivered up on extradition proceedings when the offense charged is one of the following: Dueling; Adultery; Slander and libel; Crimes against worship. But common (nonpolitical) offenses connected with any of the above named shall warrant the extradition of the offenders. Article 23. Political offenses, offenses subversive of the internal or external safety of a State, or common offenses connected with these, shall not warrant extradition. The determination of the character of the offense is incumbent upon the nation upon which the demand for extradition is made; and its decision shall be made under and according to the provisions of the law which shall prove to be most favorable to the accused.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

101

Article 24. No civil or commercial action affecting the offender shall prevent the extradition from being accomplished. Article 25. The surrender of the offender may be delayed as long as he shall continue subject to the penal action of the State from which he is demanded; but the extradition proceedings shall not be interrupted for that reason. Article 26. Such offenders as shall have been delivered up on extradition proceedings, shall never be either tried or punished for political offenses, or for any acts connected with political offenses, previously committed. But said offenders may be subject to trial and punishment upon consent of the State which surrendered them, in accordance with the terms of the present treaty, for offenses which are extraditable but which did not form part of the charge upon which extradition was granted. Article 27. When several nations demand the surrender of an offender for different offenses, he shall be surrendered to the nation against which the gravest offense was committed in the judgment of the State upon which the requisition has been made. If the offenses are equally grave, preference shall be given to the nation which had priority in the demand for extradition; if all the demands bear the same date, the country upon which the demand is made shall determine the order of surrender. Article 28. If, after an offender is delivered up to one State, a new demand for his extradition is made by another State, it shall be optional with the State which first granted the extradition whether or not to accede to the new demand, provided that the prisoner has not been set at liberty. Article 29. When the penalty for the offense with which the offender is charged is the penalty of death, the nation which grants the extradition may demand the imposition of the penalty next lower in degree.

TITLE IV. PROCEEDINGS FOR EXTRADITION Article 30. Demands for extradition shall be presented through the respective legations or consular offices, and, in the absence of these, directly from Government to Government, and they shall be accompanied by the following documents: 1. In case of alleged delinquents, a legalized copy of the penal law applicable to the offense on which the demand is based, and of the warrant of arrest and other antecedents referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 19. 2. In cases of those already sentenced, by a legalized copy of the final sentence of condemnation passed against the offender and the proper evidence that the condemned man was summoned and was either represented at the trial, or legally adjudged in contumaciam.

102

APPENDIX A

Article 31. If the State upon which the demand for extradition is made should deem the said demand to be unwarranted, owing to some defects of form, it shall return the papers to the Government which made it, with the proper explanation of the defects. Article 32. If the demand for extradition is made in due form, the Government upon which it is made shall transmit all the antecedents to a judge or tribunal of competent jurisdiction on the subject, and the said judge or tribunal shall order the arrest of the offender and the sequestration of any property related to the crime, if it is deemed proper, under the provisions of this Treaty. Article 33. In all cases involving the arrest of the refugee, due notice shall be given to him within the twenty-four hours following his arrest, of the cause for his arrest and of the right which is vested in him under the following article. Article 34. The prisoner shall be allowed, within three days and no more, to be counted from the day following that on which notification was first received, to object to his extradition on the following grounds: 1. That he is not the person to whom the demand for extradition refers. 2. That the documents upon which the demand is based are not in due form. 3. That the extradition is not warranted. Article 35. Evidence shall be admitted in the cases in which it may be necessary, governed by the same rules, as far as relevancy and time are concerned, as are in force in the country upon which the demand is made. Article 36. After the whole evidence is on file, the judge or tribunal shall decide within ten days, and without any further steps, whether the extradition must or must not be granted. An appeal can be taken against this decision to the competent court within three days, and that court shall decide within five days. Article 37. If the decision is to the effect that the extradition be granted, the tribunal which rendered it shall give notice thereof immediately to the executive power, in order that the proper provision may be made by it for the delivery of the prisoner. If the decision be adverse to the extradition, the judge or tribunal shall at once order the release of the prisoner, and shall give due information to the executive power by sending to it a copy of its decision. If extradition was refused due to insufficient documents, the case shall be reopened provided that the Government demanding the extradition presents new documents, or supplements those which had been presented before. Article 38. Whenever the prisoner acquiesces in his surrender, the court, upon entering the said acquiescence in due form, shall render a decision, without further transaction, granting his extradition.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

103

Article 39. Every article or object related to the crime on which the extradition is based and found in the possession of the offender, shall be yielded to the State which obtained the surrender. Those found in the possession of third parties shall not be surrendered unless the possessors thereof have first been given the proper hearing, and unless their objections have been resolved. Article 40. When the extradition is to take place by land, the Government which delivers up the prisoner shall be bound to take the latter to the most convenient point of its frontier. When the extradition is to take place over sea or by a river route, the prisoner shall be delivered up to the agents of the other nation at the most appropriate port of embarkation. The nation requesting the extradition shall always have the right to send one or more security agents for the proper custody of the prisoner; but the functions and power of said officers shall be subordinate to the agents or authorities of the country which makes the delivery or of the country over which the prisoner is conveyed. Article 41. Whenever the extradition of a prisoner has been granted but the delivery cannot be actually accomplished without passing through the territory of another State, the latter shall grant permission to do so, upon no other requisite than the exhibition, diplomatically, of the decree of extradition issued by the Government which granted it. If the transit is granted, the provisions of the third paragraph of the preceding article shall be complied with. Article 42. The expenses which may be incurred owing to the demand of extradition up to the moment of delivery, shall be paid by the State upon which the demand is made; but all those incurred after such delivery shall be paid by the Government making the demand. Article 43. Whenever the extradition is granted, and the offender involved is a convicted criminal, the Government which obtained the extradition shall be bound to communicate to the Government which granted it, the decision rendered in the case or trial for which it was granted.

TITLE V. OF THE PRECAUTIONARY ARREST Article 44. When the signatory Governments deem the case to be urgent, they shall request by mail or by telegraph that administrative procedures leading to the provisional arrest of the offender, as well as to the security of the objects related to the crime, be taken, provided that a sentence or a warrant of arrest is positively asserted to have been issued and the nature of the offense with which he is charged is clearly defined.

104

APPENDIX A

Article 45. The person so arrested shall be set at liberty if within ten days subsequent to the arrival of the first mail sent after the date of the petition for the provisional arrest no formal demand of extradition shall have been made by the requesting State. Article 46. In all cases of precautionary arrest the responsibilities thereof belong to the Government which requested it.

GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 47. No simultaneous ratification of this Treaty by all the signatory States shall be necessary for its validity. Any State which approves of the treaty shall communicate its approval thereof to the Governments of the Argentine Republic and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, which shall give notice thereof to the other Contracting States. This process shall take the place of an exchange. Article 48. The exchange having been made in the manner provided for in the preceding article, the treaty shall remain in force for an indefinite period of time. Article 49. If any one of the contracting nations should deem it advisable to discontinue its adhesion to the treaty, or should desire to introduce modifications into its provisions, it shall be in its power to do so provided that it give notice of its intention to do so to the other parties; but it shall not be released from its obligation until after two years have elapsed after the notice aforesaid was given by it; and in these two years it shall endeavor to reach a new agreement on the subject. Article 50. The stipulations of this treaty shall be applicable only to offenses committed during the time in which it has been in force. Article 51. The provisions of Article 47 are applicable to nations which have not attended this Congress, but wish to adhere to this treaty. In testimony whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the cited Nations sign it and set thereto the seal on five copies, in Montevideo, on the twenty-third day of January in the year of one thousand eight hundred and eighty nine. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

AGREEMENT ON EXTRADITION

Signed at Caracas on July 18, 1911 at the Bolivarian Congress1

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela, having exchanged their respective full powers, agree upon the following Agreement on Extradition: Article 1. The contracting States agree mutually to deliver up, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, persons who have been charged or convicted by the judicial authorities of any one of the contracting States as authors of, accomplices in, or accessories to any one or more of the crimes or offenses specified in Article 2, within the jurisdiction of one of the contracting parties, and seek asylum or are found within the territory of one of them. In order for extradition to be effected, it is necessary that the evidence of the infraction be such that the laws of the place where the fugitive or defendant is found would justify his arrest or trial, if the act or attempted crime or offense had been there committed. Article 2. Extradition shall be granted for the following crimes and offenses: 1. Murder, including parricide, infanticide, assassination, poisoning, and abortion. 2. Voluntarily caused wounds or lesions that produce death unintentionally, or produce a definite mental or physical disease or one that appears incurable, or permanent incapacity to work, or the absolute loss or deprivation of the use of sight or of a member necessary for self-defense or protection, or a serious mutilation. 3. Arson. 4. Abduction, rape, or other attacks against modesty. 5. Abandonment of children. 6. Kidnapping, hiding, suppressing or substituting of children or falsely pretending parenthood.

1 Treaty Series No. 34. Inter-American Treaties and Conventions on Asylum and Extradition, published by the OAS General Secretariat, Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 19. Translated from Spanish text in Tratados Públicos y Acuerdos Internacionales de Venezuela, 1900–1920, Vol. II. Caracas, 1925.

106

APPENDIX A

7. Association of malefactors for a proven criminal purpose with respect to the offenses that give rise to extradition. 8. Bigamy or polygamy. 9. Robbery or theft of money or personal property. 10. Fraud that constitutes swindle or deceit. 11. Plundering or extortion for which sentence has duly been passed by the courts of justice, in accordance with the corresponding legislation. 12. Embezzlement. 13. Forgery of papers or utterance of forged papers; forgery of official documents of the government, the public authorities, or the courts of justice, or utterance of the thing forged. 14. Counterfeiting or falsifying money, whether coin or paper, or a title of debt created by the national, state, provincial, or municipal government, or coupons of these titles, or bank notes, or the utterance or circulation thereof. 15. Counterfeiting or falsification of seals, stamps, dies, postage stamps, and marks of the respective governments or of the public authorities or administration; or the fraudulent use, circulation, or utterance of the said objects. 16. Malversation committed by public officials; malversation committed by employed or salaried persons, to the detriment of those who employ them. 17. Bribery or extortion. 18. Giving of false testimony or making of false statements by witnesses or experts, or subornation of witnesses, experts, or interpreters. 19. Fraudulent bankruptcy or frauds committed in bankruptcy. 20. Voluntary and unlawful destruction or obstruction of railroads that endangers the lives of persons. 21. Flooding or other ravages. 22. Crimes committed at sea: a) Piracy, as defined by municipal law or the law of nations; b) Mutiny, or conspiracy to mutiny, by two or more persons aboard a ship on the high seas, against the authority of the captain or the person acting in his place; c) Criminal sinking or destruction of a ship at sea; d) Assaults committed on board a ship on the high seas for the purpose of causing serious bodily harm; e) Desertion from the navy or army. Criminal destruction of munitions or stores on land or at sea. 23. Crimes or offenses against the laws of the contracting parties directed at the suppression of slavery and the slave trade. 24. Attacks against individual freedom and the inviolability of the home, committed by private individuals.

AGREEMENT OF EXTRADITION

107

Article 3. When the crime or offense that is the reason for extradition has been committed, attempted, or frustrated outside the requesting State, extradition may be granted only when the legislation of the requested State authorizes the prosecution of such infractions when they are committed outside its jurisdiction. Article 4. Extradition shall not be granted in the case of any fugitive from justice if the act on which it is based is considered in the requested State as a political offense or a related act, and no person surrendered by any of the contracting States to another shall be tried or punished for any political crime or offense or any act connected therewith, committed prior to his extradition. Nor shall extradition be granted if the requested person proves that it has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for a political offense or a related act. An attempt in any form or by any means upon the life of a Chief of State shall not be considered a political offense or related act. Should any question arise as to whether a case is covered by the provisions of this article, the decision of the authorities of the requested or granting State shall be final. Article 5. Nor shall extradition be granted in the following cases: a) When, according to the laws of either State, the maximum penalty for the participation that is imputed to the person claimed, does not exceed imprisonment for six months; b) When, according to the laws of the State to which the request is directed, the action or the penalty to which the person tried or convicted was subjected is barred by limitation; c) When the individual whose extradition is requested has already been tried and set free or has paid his penalty, or when the deeds imputed have been the object of an amnesty or a pardon. Article 6. The request for extradition shall be made through diplomatic channels. Article 7. When the person claimed has been charged or convicted by the requested State, the surrender, when otherwise proper, shall not be effected until the person claimed has been acquitted or pardoned or has served the sentence, or until the trial has been concluded in some way. Article 8. The request for extradition shall be accompanied by the sentence, if the fugitive has been tried and convicted; or by the warrant of arrest issued by the competent court, with the exact designation of the offense or crime that motivates the request and of the date of its perpetration, as well as of the statements or other evidence by virtue of which the said warrant has been issued, in the event that the fugitive has only been charged.

108

APPENDIX A

These documents shall be presented in originals or in duly certified copies, and there shall be attached to them a copy of the text of the law applicable to the case and, insofar as possible, the description of the person claimed. Extradition of fugitives by virtue of the provisions of the present treaty shall be effected in accordance with the extradition laws of the requested State. In no case shall extradition be effected if a similar act is not punishable by the law of the requested nation. Article 9. Provisional arrest of the fugitive shall be effected if an order of arrest issued by the competent court is produced through diplomatic channels. Provisional arrest shall also be effected if notice is given, even by telegraph, through diplomatic channels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the requested State, that there is a warrant of arrest. In case of urgency, principally when it is feared that the defendant will flee, provisional arrest requested directly by a judicial official may be granted by a police authority or by a trial judge of the place where the fugitive is found. The provisional arrest shall end if, within the term applicable by reason of distance, the request for extradition is not made in accordance with the stipulations contained in Article 8. Article 10. The death penalty shall not be applied to a convict unless it is permitted in the country that surrenders him. Article 11. The person extradited may not be tried or punished in the State that claims him, except for the acts mentioned in the request for extradition, nor may he be surrendered to another nation unless he has had freedom to leave that State for one month after being sentenced, after paying the penalty, or after being pardoned, as the case may be. In all these cases, the person extradited shall be advised of the consequences to which his remaining in the territory of the nation would expose him. Article 12. All the objects that constitute the corpus delicti, those that stem from the crime, or those that have served to commit it, as well as any other evidence of guilt that may have been found in the possession of the fugitive, shall, upon the decision of the competent authority, be surrendered to the demanding State, insofar as this can be done and is in accordance with the laws of the respective nations. Nevertheless, the rights of third persons with respect to those objects shall be duly respected. Article 13. When a person is claimed by several States at the same time, preference shall be determined by the prior assertion of claim, unless the nation of asylum is obliged by a previous treaty to give preference in some other manner. Article 14. If the demanding State has not taken possession of the person claimed within three months from the day on which he was placed at its

AGREEMENT OF EXTRADITION

109

disposal, the prisoner shall be set free, and he may not be arrested again for the same cause. Article 15. The expenses occasioned by the arrest, detention, examination, and surrender of fugitives, by virtue of this Agreement, shall be paid by the State that requests extradition; and the person who is to be surrendered shall be taken to the port of the requested State that is indicated by the requesting government or its diplomatic agent, at whose expense he shall be embarked. Article 16. If the accused so requests, the Supreme Court of Justice of the requested nation shall decide whether or not the offense alleged is to be considered of a political character or connected with a political offense. Article 17. This Agreement shall have a duration of five years counted from one month following the exchange of ratifications thereof, and shall not have retroactive effect. After the completion of that term it shall be understood to be extended until one of the contracting States communicates to the others its will to make it cease one year following notification. Article 18. Except as provided in the present Agreement, the signatory States recognize the institution of asylum, in accordance with the principles of international law. Article 19. When it is necessary, for the surrender of a defendant whose extradition has been granted by one nation in favor of another to cross the territory of an intermediate State, transit shall be authorized by that State without any requirement other than the exhibition through diplomatic channels of evidence in the form of the decree of extradition issued by the government that granted it. In witness whereof they sign this Agreement in five copies of the same text at Caracas, July 18, 1911. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

AGREEMENT INTERPRETING THE AGREEMENT ON EXTRADITION OF JULY 18, 19111

Signed at Quito, August 10, 19352

The undersigned plenipotentiaries of the Republics of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela, having exchanged their respective full powers, agree upon the following: For the purpose of limiting provisional arrest of a fugitive whose extradition is of interest to a Bolivarian country: Article 1. The term referred to in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Agreement on Extradition shall be 90 days for bordering countries and 120 days for nonbordering countries. In witness whereof they sign six copies of the same text, at Quito, on August 10, 1935.

1 This interpretative Agreement was signed by the Plenipotentiaries of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. 2 Translated from the Spanish text in Memoria del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Lima, Peru. Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1936, p. 72. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 26.

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Signed at Washington, D.C., on February 7, 1923 at the Conference on Central American Affairs1

The Governments of the Republics of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, desiring to confirm their friendly relations and to promote the cause of justice, have resolved to celebrate a Convention for the extradition of fugitives from justice, and to that end have named as Delegates: . . . . . . . . . By virtue of the invitation sent to the Government of the United States of America by the governments of the five Central American Republics, there were present at the deliberations of the Conference, as Delegates of the Government of the United States of America, [Here follow the names of the Delegates] After having communicated to one another their respective full powers, which were found to be in due form, the Delegates of the five Central American Powers assembled in the Conference on Central American Affairs at Washington, have agreed to carry out the said purpose in the following manner: Article 1. The Contracting Republics agree to deliver up reciprocally the individuals who may take refuge in the territory of one of them and who in the other may have been condemned, as authors, accomplices, or abettors of a crime, to not less than two years of deprivation of their liberty, or who may have been indicted for a crime which, in accordance with the laws of the country seeking the extradition, carries a penalty equal to or greater than that above stated.

1 International Legislation, edited by Manley O. Hudson. Volume II 1922–1924. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 954. This Convention was ratified by Nicaragua, March 16, 1923; Costa Rica, November 24, 1924; Honduras, March 16, 1925; El Salvador, May 26, 1925; Guatemala, May 20, 1925. In accordance with Article 19, this Convention superseded the Convention on Extradition concluded by the same Parties at the city of Washington in 1907.

112 Article 2.

APPENDIX A

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following cases:

1. When the evidence of criminality presented by the country seeking extradition would not have been sufficient to justify, according to the laws of the place where the accused fugitive from justice is found, his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the offense had been committed there. 2. When the offense is of a political character, or, being a common crime, is connected therewith. 3. When under the laws of the country seeking extradition or of that of asylum, the action or the penalty has been barred. 4. If the accused demanded should have already been tried and sentenced for the same offense in the Republic wherein he resides. 5. If the accused should have served the sentence which may have been imposed upon him for the same crime in any other country. 6. If in that country, the act for which extradition is asked, is not considered a crime. 7. When the penalty corresponding to the crime for which extradition is requested shall be that of death, unless the Government seeking extradition binds itself to apply the next lower penalty. Article 3. The person whose extradition is granted, because of one of the crimes mentioned in Article 1, shall in no case be tried and punished in the country to which he is surrendered for a political crime committed before his extradition nor for an act which may have connection with a political crime. Attempts against the life of the head of a government or public functionaries and anarchistic attacks shall not be considered political crimes, provided that the law of the country seeking extradition and of the country of which extradition is requested shall have fixed a penalty for said acts. In that case extradition shall be granted, even when the crime in question shall carry a penalty of less than two years of deprivation of liberty. Article 4. The Contracting Parties shall not be obliged to deliver their nationals; but they must try them for the infractions of the Penal Code committed in any of the other Republics. The respective Governments must communicate the corresponding proceedings, information and documents, and deliver the articles which constitute the corpus delicti, furnishing everything that may contribute to the elucidation needed for the expedition of the trial. This having been done, the case shall be prosecuted until its determination, and the Government of the country of the trial shall inform the other of the final result. Article 5. If the individual whose extradition is sought should have been indicted or should have been found guilty in the country of his asylum for a crime committed therein he shall not be delivered except after having been acquitted by a final judgment, and in case of his conviction after he has served the sentence or has been pardoned.

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

113

Article 6. If the fugitive whose extradition is requested by one of the Contracting Parties should also be sought by one or more Governments he shall be delivered in preference to the one first making the requisition. Article 7. Request for the delivery of fugitives shall be made by the respective diplomatic agents of the Contracting Parties, and, in default of the latter, by consular officers. In urgent cases the provisional detention of the accused may be requested by means of telegraphic or postal communication, addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or through the respective diplomatic agent, or in his absence, through the consul. The provisional arrest shall be made according to the rules established by the laws of the country of which extradition is requested; but shall cease if the request for extradition has not been formally presented within the term of one month following the arrest. Article 8. The request for extradition shall specify the proof or presumptive evidence which, by the laws of the country wherein the crime has been committed, shall be sufficient to justify the apprehension and commitment of the accused. The judgment, indictment, warrant of arrest, or any other equivalent document shall also accompany the same; and the nature and gravity of the acts charged and the provisions of the penal codes which are applicable thereto must be indicated. In case of flight after having been found guilty and before serving the entire sentence, the request for extradition shall express the circumstance and shall be accompanied only by the judgment. Article 9. The proper authority shall apprehend the fugitive, in order that he may be brought before the competent Judicial authority for examination. Should it be decided, according to the laws and the evidence presented, that the surrender can be carried out in conformity with this Convention, the fugitive shall be delivered in the manner prescribed by law in such cases. The country seeking extradition shall take the necessary measures to receive the accused within one month from the date when the latter shall have been placed at its disposal, and if said Government should fail to do so, the aforesaid accused may be released. Article 10. The person delivered cannot be tried nor punished in the country to which his extradition has been granted, nor delivered to a third country, for a crime not included in this Convention, and committed before his surrender, unless the Government which makes the surrender consents to the trial, or to the delivery to said third nation. Nevertheless this consent shall not be necessary: 1. When the accused may voluntarily have requested that he be tried or delivered to the third nation; 2. When he may have been at liberty to leave the country for thirty days after his release, on the ground of the lack of foundation in the charge for which

114

APPENDIX A

he was surrendered, or, in case of conviction, a term of thirty days after serving his sentence or obtaining a pardon. Article 11. The expenses of arrest, maintenance, and travel of the extradited person, as well as of the delivery and transportation of the articles which, because of their connection with the crime, have to be returned or forwarded, shall be borne by the Government seeking extradition. Article 12. All the objects found in the possession of the accused and obtained through the commission of the act of which he is accused, or that may serve as evidence of the crime on account of which extradition is requested, shall be confiscated and delivered with his person upon order of competent authority of the country from which extradition is sought. Nevertheless the rights of third parties concerning these articles shall be respected, and delivery thereof shall not be made until the question of ownership has been determined. Article 13. In all cases of detention the fugitive shall be acquainted within the term of twenty-four hours with the cause thereof, and notified that he may, within a period not to exceed three days counted from the one following that of the notification, oppose extradition, by alleging: 1. That he is not the person claimed; 2. Substantial defects in the documents presented; and 3. The inadmissibility of the request of extradition. Article 14. In cases where it is necessary to prove the facts alleged, evidence shall be taken, in full observance of the provisions of the law of procedure of the Republic of which extradition is requested. The evidence having been produced, the matter shall be decided without further steps, within the period of ten days, and it shall be declared whether or not the extradition shall be granted. Against such a decision, and within three days following notification thereof, the legal remedies of the country of asylum may be invoked. Article 15. The present Convention shall take effect with respect to the Parties that have ratified it, from the date of its ratification by at least three of the Signatory States. Article 16. The present Convention shall remain in force until the first of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, regardless of any prior denunciation, or any other cause. From the first of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, it shall continue in force until one year after the date on which one of the Parties bound thereby notifies the others of its intention to denounce it. The denunciation of this Convention by one or two of said Contracting Parties shall leave it in force for those Parties which have ratified it and have not denounced it, provided that these be no less than three in number. Should two or three states bound by this Convention form a single political entity, the

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

115

same Convention shall be in force as between the new entity and the Republics bound thereby which have remained separate, provided these be no less than two in number. Any of the Republics of Central America which should fail to ratify this Convention, shall have the right to adhere to it while it is in force. Article 17. The exchange of ratifications of the present Convention shall be made through communications addressed by the Governments to the Government of Costa Rica in order that the latter may inform the other Contracting States. If the Government of Costa Rica should ratify the Convention, notice of said ratification shall also be communicated to the others. Article 18. The original of the present Convention, signed by all the Delegates Plenipotentiary, shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union at Washington. A copy duly certified shall be sent by the Secretary-General of the Conference to each one of the Governments of the Contracting Parties. Article 19. The Convention on Extradition concluded by the same Parties at the City of Washington the twentieth of December, Nineteen hundred and seven, is hereby abrogated. Signed at the City of Washington, on the seventh day of February, Nineteen hundred and twenty-three. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

CONVENTION ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (BUSTAMANTE CODE)

Signed at Havana on February 20, 1928 at the Sixth International Conference of American States1

Excerpts BOOK IV – TITLE III CHAPTER III General rules of competence in penal matters Article 340. The judges and courts of the Contracting State in which crimes or misdemeanors have been committed are competent to take cognizance of and pass judgment upon them. Article 341. Competence extends to all other crimes and misdemeanors to which the penal law of the State is to be applied in conformity with the provisions of this Code. Article 342. It also extends to crimes or misdemeanors committed in a foreign country by national officials enjoying the benefit of immunity.

CHAPTER IV Exceptions to the general rules of competence in penal matters Article 343. Persons and crimes and misdemeanors to which the penal law of the respective State does not extend are not subject, in penal matters, to the competence of the judges and courts of the Contracting States.

1

International Conferences of American States, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1889–1928. Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 359. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 31.

CONVENTION ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

117

TITLE III EXTRADITION Article 344. In order to render effective the international judicial competence in penal matters each of the Contracting States shall accede to the request of any of the others for the delivery of persons convicted or accused of crime, if in conformity with the provisions of this title, subject to the stipulations of the international treaties and conventions containing a list of penal infractions which authorize the extradition. Article 345. The Contracting States are not obliged to hand over their own nationals. The nation which refuses to give up one of its citizens shall try him. Article 346. Whenever before the receipt of the request, a person accused or convicted has committed an offense in the country from which his delivery is requested, the said delivery may be postponed until he is tried and has served sentence. Article 347. If various Contracting States should request the extradition of a delinquent for the same offense, he should be delivered to that one in whose territory the offense has been committed. Article 348. In case the extradition is requested for different acts, the preference shall belong to the Contracting State in whose territory the most grievous offense has been committed, according to the legislation of the state upon which the request was made. Article 349. If all the acts imputed should be equally grave, the preference shall be given to the Contracting State which first presents the request for extradition. If all have applied simultaneously, the state upon which the request was made shall decide, but the preference should be given to the state of origin, or in the absence thereof to that of the domicile of the accused, if such state is among those requesting extradition. Article 350. The foregoing rules in respect to preference shall not be applicable if the Contracting State is obligated toward a third one, by reason of treaties in force prior to the adoption of this Code, to establish a different method. Article 351. In order to grant extradition it is necessary that the offense has been committed in the territory of the State requesting it, or that its penal laws are applicable to it in accordance with the provisions of Book III of this Code. Article 352. Extradition extends to persons accused or convicted as principals, accomplices, or abettors of a consummated offense. Article 353. It is necessary that the act which gives rise to the extradition be a criminal offense in the legislation of the State making the request and in that upon which it is made. Article 354. It shall be likewise necessary that the penalty attached to the alleged acts, according to their provisional or final description by the competent

118

APPENDIX A

judge or court of the State requesting the extradition, is not less than one year of deprivation of liberty, and that the arrest or detention of the accused has been ordered or decided upon, in case final sentence has not been delivered. The sentence should be deprivation of liberty. Article 355. Political offenses and acts related thereto, as defined by the requested State, are excluded from extradition. Article 356. Nor shall it be granted, if it is shown that the request for extradition has been in fact made for the purpose of trying or punishing the accused for an offense of a political character in accordance with the same definition. Article 357. Homicide or murder of the Head of a Contracting State or of any other person who exercises authority in said state, shall not be deemed a political offense nor an act related thereto. Article 358. Extradition shall not be granted if the person demanded has already been tried and acquitted, or served his sentence, or is awaiting trial, in the territory of the requested State for the offense upon which the request is based. Article 359. Nor should extradition be granted if the offense or the penalty is already barred by limitation by the laws of the requesting or requested State. Article 360. In all cases in which the legislation of the requested State prevents extradition it is an indispensable requirement that such legislation be enacted before the commission of the crime. Article 361. Consuls general, consuls, vice consuls, or consular agents may request the arrest and delivery on board of a vessel or aircraft of their country of the officers, sailors, or members of the crew of its war or merchant ships or aircraft who may have deserted therefrom. Article 362. For the purposes of the preceding article, they shall exhibit to the proper local authority, delivering also to it an authenticated copy thereof, the register of the ship or aircraft, the crew list, or any other official document upon which the request is founded. Article 363. In adjoining countries special rules may be agreed upon for extradition in the regions or localities of the boundary. Article 364. The request for extradition should be made through agents duly authorized for this purpose by the laws of the petitioning State. Article 365. Together with the final request for extradition the following should be submitted: 1. A sentence of conviction or a warrant or order of arrest or a document of equal force, or one which obliges the interested party to appear periodically before the criminal court, together with such parts of the record in the case as furnish proof or at least some reasonable evidence of the guilt of the person in question.

CONVENTION ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

119

2. The filiation of the person whose extradition is requested, or such marks or circumstances as may serve to identify him. 3. An authenticated copy of the provisions establishing the legal definition of the act which gives rise to the request for extradition, describing the participation imputed therein to the defendant, and prescribing the penalty applicable. Article 366. The extradition may be requested by telegraph and, in that case, the documents mentioned in the preceding article shall be presented to the requesting country or to its legation or consulate general in the requesting country, within two months following the detention of the accused. Otherwise he shall be set at liberty. Article 367. Moreover, if the requesting State does not dispose of the person demanded within three months following his being placed at its disposal, he shall be set at liberty. Article 368. The person detained may use, in the State to which the request for extradition is made, all legal means provided for its nationals for the purpose of regaining their freedom, basing the exercise thereof on the provisions of this Code. Article 369. The person detained may also thereafter use the legal remedies which are considered proper in the State which requests the extradition, against the qualifications and resolutions upon which the latter is founded. Article 370. The delivery should be made together with all the effects found in the possession of the person demanded, whether as proceeds of the alleged crime, or whether to be used as evidence, in so far as practicable in accordance with the laws of the state effecting the delivery and duly respecting the rights of third persons. Article 371. The delivery of the effects referred to in the preceding article can be made, if requested by the State requesting the extradition, even though the detained person dies or escapes before it is effected. Article 372. The expenses of detention and delivery shall be borne by the requesting State, but the latter shall not, in the meanwhile, have to defray any expenses for the services rendered by the public paid employees of the government from which extradition is requested. Article 373. The charge for the services of such public employees or officers as receive only fees or perquisites shall not exceed their customary fees for their acts or services under the laws of the country in which they reside. Article 374. All liability arising from the fact of a provisional detention shall rest upon the requesting State. Article 375. The passage of the extradited person and his custodians through the territory of a third Contracting State shall be permitted upon

120

APPENDIX A

presentation of the original document which allows the extradition, or of an authenticated copy thereof. Article 376. A state which obtains extradition of an accused who is afterwards acquitted shall be obliged to communicate to the state which granted it an authenticated copy of the judgment. Article 377. The person delivered can not be detained in prison nor tried by the Contracting State to which he is delivered for an offense different from the one giving rise to the extradition and committed prior thereto, unless it is done with the consent of the requested State, or unless the extradited person remains free in the territory of the former for three months after his trial and acquittal for the offense which gave rise to the extradition, or after having served the sentence of deprivation of liberty imposed upon him. Article 378. In no case shall the death penalty be imposed or executed for the offense upon which the extradition is founded. Article 379. Whenever allowance for temporary detention is proper, it shall be computed from the time of the detention of the extradited person in the state to which the request was made. Article 380. The detained person shall be set free if the requesting State does not present the request for extradition in a reasonable period, within the least time possible after temporary arrest, taking into account the distance and facilities of postal communication between the two countries. Article 381. If the extradition of a person has been refused, a second request on account of the same crime cannot be made.

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 at the Seventh International Conference of American States1

The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States: Wishing to conclude a Convention on Extradition, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries: [Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries] Who, after having exhibited their full powers, which were found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following: Article 1. Each one of the signatory States in harmony with the stipulations of the present Convention assumes the obligation of surrendering to any one of the States which may make the requisition, the persons who may be in their territory and who are accused or under sentence. This right shall be claimed only under the following circumstances: a) That the demanding State has the jurisdiction to try and to punish the delinquency which is attributed to the individual whom it desires to extradite. b) That the act for which extradition is sought constitutes a crime and is punishable under the laws of the demanding and surrendering States with a minimum penalty of imprisonment for one year. Article 2. When the person whose extradition is sought is a citizen of the country to which the requisition is addressed, his delivery may or may not be made, as the legislation or circumstances of the case may, in the judgment of the surrendering State, determine. If the accused is not surrendered, the latter State is obliged to bring action against him for the crime with which he is accused, if such crime meets the conditions established in sub-article (b) of the previous article. The sentence pronounced shall be communicated to the demanding State. Article 3. Extradition will not be granted: a) When, previous to the arrest of the accused person, the penal action or sentence has expired according to the laws of the demanding or the surrendering State. 1 International Conferences of American States. First Supplement 1933–1940. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 1940, p. 110. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, 1967, p. 51.

122

APPENDIX A

b) When the accused has served his sentence in the country where the crime was committed or when he may have been pardoned or granted an amnesty. c) When the accused has been or is being tried by the State to which the requisition was directed for the act with which he is charged and on which the petition of extradition is based. d) When the accused must appear before any extraordinary tribunal or court of the demanding State (tribunal o Juzgado de excepción del Estado requirente). Military courts will not be considered as such tribunals. e) When the offense is of a political nature or of a character related thereto. An attempt against the life or person of the Chief of State or members of his family, shall not be deemed to be a political offense. f ) When the offense is purely military or directed against religion. Article 4. The determination of whether or not the exceptions referred to in the previous article are applicable shall belong exclusively to the State to which the request for extradition is addressed. Article 5. A request for extradition should be formulated by the respective diplomatic representative. When no such representative is available, consular agents may serve, or the governments may communicate directly with one another. The following documents in the language of the country to which the request for extradition is directed, shall accompany every such request: a) An authentic copy of the sentence, when the accused has been tried and condemned by the courts of the demanding State. b) When the person is only under accusation, an authentic copy of the order of detention issued by the competent judge, with a precise description of the imputed offense, a copy of the penal laws applicable thereto, and a copy of the laws referring to the prescription of the action or the penalty. c) In the case of an individual under accusation as also of an individual already condemned, there shall be furnished all possible information of a personal character which may help to identify the individual whose extradition is sought. Article 6. When a person whose extradition is sought shall be under trial or shall be already condemned in the State from which it is sought to extradite him, for an offense committed prior to the request for extradition, said extradition shall be granted at once, but the surrender of the accused to the demanding State shall be deferred until his trial ends or his sentence is served. Article 7. When the extradition of a person is sought by several states for the same offense, preference will be given to the State in whose territory said offense was committed. If he is sought for several offenses, preference will be given to the state within whose bounds shall have been committed the offense which has the greatest penalty according to the law of the surrendering State.

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

123

If the case is one of different acts which the state from which extradition is sought esteems of equal gravity, the preference will be determined by the priority of the request. Article 8. The request for extradition shall be determined in accordance with the domestic legislation of the surrendering State and the individual whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use all the remedies and resources authorized by such legislation, either before the judiciary or the administrative authorities as may be provided for by the aforesaid legislation. Article 9. Once a request for extradition in the form indicated in Article 5 has been received, the State from which the extradition is sought will exhaust all necessary measures for the capture of the person whose extradition is requested. Article 10. The requesting State may ask, by any means of communication, the provisional or preventive detention of a person, if there is, at least, an order by some court for his detention and if the state at the same time offers to request extradition in due course. The state from which the extradition is sought will order the immediate arrest of the accused. If within a maximum period of two months after the requesting State has been notified of the arrest of the person, said state has not formally applied for extradition, the detained person will be set at liberty and his extradition may not again be requested except in the way established by Article 5. The demanding State is exclusively liable for any damages which might arise from the provisional or preventive detention of a person. Article 11. Extradition having been granted and the person requested put at the disposition of the diplomatic agent of the demanding State, then, if within two months from the time when said agent is notified of same, the person has not been sent to his destination, he will be set at liberty, and he cannot again be detained for the same cause. The period of two months will be reduced to forty days when the countries concerned are conterminous. Article 12. Once extradition of a person has been refused, application may not again be made for the same alleged act. Article 13. The State requesting the extradition may designate one or more guards for the purpose of taking charge of the person extradited, but said guards will be subject to the orders of the police or of other authorities of the State granting the extradition or of the states in transit. Article 14. The surrender of the person extradited to the requesting State will be done at the most appropriate point on the frontier or in the most accessible port, if the transfer is to be made by water. Article 15. The objects found in the possession of the person extradited, obtained by the perpetration of the illegal act for which extradition is requested, or which might be useful as evidence of same, will be confiscated

124

APPENDIX A

and handed over to the demanding country, notwithstanding it might not be possible to surrender the accused because of some unusual situation such as his escape or death. Article 16. The costs of arrest, custody, maintenance, and transportation of the person, as well as of the objects referred to in the preceding article, will be borne by the State granting the extradition up to the moment of surrender and from thereon they will be borne by the demanding State. Article 17. Once the extradition is granted, the demanding State undertakes: a) Not to try nor to punish the person for a common offense which was committed previous to the request for extradition and which has not been included in said request, except only if the interested party expressly consents. b) Not to try nor to punish the person for a political offense, or for an offense connected with a political offense, committed previous to the request for extradition. c) To apply to the accused the punishment of next lesser degree than death if according to the legislation of the country of refuge the death penalty would not be applicable. d) To furnish to the State granting the extradition an authentic copy of the sentence pronounced. Article 18. The signatory States undertake to permit the transit through their respective territories of any person whose extradition has been granted by another state in favor of a third, requiring only the original or an authentic copy of the agreement by which the country of refuge granted the extradition. Article 19. No request for extradition may be based upon the stipulation of this Convention if the offense in question has been committed before the ratification of the Convention is deposited. Article 20. The present Convention will be ratified by means of the legal forms in common use in each of the signatory States, and will come into force, for each of them, thirty days after the deposit of the respective ratification. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications. Article 21. The present Convention does not abrogate or modify the bilateral or collective treaties, which at the present date are in force between the signatory States. Nevertheless, if any of said treaties lapse, the present Convention will take effect and become applicable immediately among the respective States, if each of them has fulfilled the stipulations of the preceding article.

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

125

Article 22. The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year’s notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties. Article 23. The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union, which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French and hereunto affix their respective seals in the city of Montevideo, Republic of Uruguay, this 26th day of December, 1933. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

RESERVATIONS MADE AT SIGNATURE United States of America The Delegation of the United States of America, in signing the present Extradition Convention, reserves the following articles: Article 2 (second sentence, English text); Article 3, paragraph d; Articles 12, 15, 16 and 18. El Salvador Reservation to the effect that El Salvador, although it accepts in general principle Article XVIII of the Inter-American Treaty on Extradition, concretely stipulates the exception that it cannot cooperate in the surrender of its own nationals, prohibited by its Political Constitution, by permitting the transit through its territory of said nationals when one foreign State surrenders them to another. Mexico Mexico signs the Convention on Extradition with the declaration with respect to Article 3, paragraph f, that the internal legislation of Mexico does not recognize offenses against religion. It will not sign the optional clause of this Convention.

126

APPENDIX A

Ecuador The Delegation from Ecuador, in dealing with the nations with which Ecuador has signed conventions on extradition, accepts the stipulations herein established in all respects which are not contrary to said conventions.

RESERVATIONS MADE AT RATIFICATION Chile [This Government ratified the Convention,] with the reservation that the Republic of Chile can apply previous extradition conventions still in force, the stipulations of which shall be found to be in disagreement with the said Convention; and with the [further] reservation that Article 15 of the same Convention cannot apply against the rights of third parties. Ecuador With the reservation made at the time of signing. El Salvador [This Government ratified the Convention,] adding to Article 18, after a comma, the following paragraph: “Except in the case of a national, whatever the crime for which he is extradited, or in that of a foreigner if his extradition is the result of an act having the character of a political offense, or a civil offense of a related nature.” Honduras [This Government ratified the Convention with the following reservations:] In regard to Article 18, the Government of Honduras does not consider itself obliged to allow the transit through its territory of an individual whose extradition has been agreed to, by another State, in favor of a third State, when such person is of Honduran nationality; and in respect of the optional clause, the Government of Honduras refrains from giving its approval. Mexico [The instrument of ratification deposited by the Government of Mexico includes the text of the Convention, and also that of the declaration made by the Mexican delegation at the time of signing the Convention.]

CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

127

United States of America [This Government ratified the Convention,] with the understanding that Article 2, Paragraph d of Article 3, and Articles 12, 15, 16 and 18 are reserved from the Convention as declared by the United States delegation, and that such articles and paragraphs shall not be binding upon the United States of America, unless and until subsequently ratified in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. NOTE on the Convention on Extradition, page 228 of Treaties in Force. A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 1982. Department of State Publication 9285: Article 21 provides that the convention “does not abrogate or modify the bilateral or collective treaties, which at the present date are in force between the signatory States. Nevertheless, if any of said treaties lapse, the present convention will take effect and become applicable immediately among the respective States. . . .” Since the United States has preexisting bilateral extradition treaties with each of the other parties, the multilateral convention is presently inoperative for the United States.

CONVENTION ON POLITICAL ASYLUM

Signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26, 1933 at the Seventh International Conference of American States1

The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States: Wishing to conclude a Convention on Political Asylum, to define the terms of the one signed at Havana, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries: [Here follow the names of the Plenipotentiaries] Who, after having exhibited their full powers, which were found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following: Article 1. In place of Article 1 of the Convention of Havana on Right of Asylum, of February 20, 1928, the following is substituted: “It shall not be lawful for the States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps, or airships to those accused of common offenses who may have been duly prosecuted or who may have been sentenced by ordinary courts of justice, nor to deserters of land or sea forces. “The persons referred to in the preceding paragraph who find refuge in some of the above-mentioned places shall be surrendered as soon as requested by the local government.”

Article 2. The judgment of political delinquency concerns the State which offers asylum. Article 3. Political asylum, as an institution of humanitarian character, is not subject to reciprocity. Any man may resort to its protection, whatever his nationality, without prejudice to the obligations accepted by the state to which he belongs; however, the States that do not recognize political asylum, except with limitations and peculiarities, can exercise it in foreign countries only in the manner and within the limits recognized by said countries. Article 4. When the withdrawal of a diplomatic agent is requested because of the discussions that may have arisen in some case of political asylum, the diplomatic agent shall be replaced by his government, and his withdrawal shall not determine a breach of diplomatic relations between the two States. 1

International Conferences of American States. First Supplement 1933–1940. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C. 1940, p. 116. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 47.

CONVENTION ON POLITICAL ASYLUM

129

Article 5. The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements. Article 6. The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications. Article 7. The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications. Article 8. The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year’s notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties. Article 9. The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French and hereunto affix their respective seals in the city of Montevideo, Republic of Uruguay, this 26th day of December, 1933. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

CENTRAL AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION Signed at Guatemala City, April 12, 19341 The Governments of the Republics of Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, desiring to confirm their friendly relations and to promote the cause of justice, have resolved to celebrate a Convention for the Extradition of Fugitives from Justice, and, to that end, have named as delegates: [Here follow the names of the delegates] Who, after having communicated to one another their respective full powers which were found to be in good and due form, have agreed to carry out the said purpose in the following manner: Article 1. The Contracting Republics agree to deliver up reciprocally the individuals who may take refuge in the territory of one of them and who in the other may have been condemned, as authors, accomplices or abettors of a crime, to not less than two years of deprivation of their liberty, or who may have been indicted for a crime which, in accordance with the laws of the country seeking the extradition, carries a penalty equal to or greater than that above stated. Article 2. Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following cases: 1. When the evidence of criminality presented by the country seeking extradition would not have been sufficient to justify, according to the laws of the place where the accused fugitive from justice is found, his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the offense had been committed there. 2. When the offense is of a political character, or, being a common crime, is connected therewith. 3. When under the laws of the country seeking extradition or of that of asylum, the action or the penalty has been barred. 4. If the accused demanded should have already been tried and sentenced for the same offense in the Republic wherein he resides. 1 International Legislation, edited by Manley O. Hudson. Volume VI 1932–1934. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Washington, D.C., 1937, p. 833. This Convention, intended to replace the 1923 Convention on Extradition, was signed at the First Central American Conference held in the City of Guatemala, March 15–April 12, 1934. The 1923 Convention was ratified by the five Central American countries on the following dates: Nicaragua, March 16, 1923; Costa Rica, November 24, 1924; Honduras, March 16, 1925; El Salvador, May 26, 1925; Guatemala, May 20, 1925. In accordance with Article 19, the 1923 Convention superseded the Convention on Extradition concluded by same Parties at the city of Washington in 1907. The text of the 1934 Central American Convention on Extradition is also published in OAS Treaty Series No. 34, p. 61. The 1934 Convention did not come into force.

CENTRAL AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

131

5. If the accused should have served the sentence which may have been imposed upon him for the same crime in any other country. 6. If, in that country, the act for which extradition is asked is not considered a crime. 7. When the penalty corresponding to the crime for which extradition is requested shall be that of death, unless the Government seeking extradition binds itself to apply the next lower penalty. Article 3. The person whose extradition is granted, because of one of the crimes mentioned in Article 1, shall in no case be tried and punished in the country to which he is surrendered for a political crime committed before his extradition nor for an act which may have connection with a political crime. Attempts against the life of the head of a government or public functionaries and anarchistic attacks shall not be considered political crimes, provided that the law of the country seeking extradition and of the country of which extradition is requested shall have fixed a penalty for said acts. In that case extradition shall be granted, even when the crime in question shall carry a penalty of less than two years of deprivation of liberty. Article 4. The Contracting Parties shall not be obliged to deliver their nationals; but they must try them for the violations of the Penal Code committed in any of the other Republics. The respective Governments must communicate the corresponding proceedings, information and documents, and deliver the articles which constitute the corpus delicti, furnishing everything that may contribute to the elucidation needed for the expedition of the trial. This having been done, the case shall be prosecuted until its determination, and the Government of the country of the trial shall inform the other of the final result. Article 5. If the individual whose extradition is sought should have been indicted or should have been found guilty in the country of his asylum for a crime committed therein, he shall not be delivered except after having been acquitted by a final judgment, and in case of his conviction after he has served the sentence or has been pardoned. Article 6. If the fugitive whose extradition is requested by one of the Contracting Parties should also be sought by one or more Governments he shall be delivered in preference to the one first making the requisition. Article 7. Request for the delivery of fugitives shall be made by the respective diplomatic agents of the Contracting Parties and, in default of the latter, by consular officers. In urgent cases the provisional detention of the accused may be requested by means of telegraphic or postal communication, addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or through the respective diplomatic agent, or in his absence, through the consul. The provisional arrest shall be made according to the rules established by the laws of the country of which extradition is requested; but shall cease if the request for extradition has not been formally presented within the term of one month following the arrest.

132

APPENDIX A

Article 8. The request for extradition shall specify the proof or presumptive evidence which, by the laws of the country wherein the crime has been committed, shall be sufficient to justify the apprehension and commitment of the accused. The judgment, indictment, warrant or arrest, or any other equivalent document shall also accompany the same; and the nature and gravity of the acts charged and the provisions of the penal codes which are applicable thereto must be indicated. In case of flight after having been found guilty and before serving the entire sentence, the request for extradition shall express the circumstance and shall be accompanied only by the judgment. Article 9. The proper authority shall apprehend the fugitive, in order that he may be brought before the competent judicial authority for examination. Should it be decided, according to the laws and the evidence presented, that the surrender can be carried out in conformity with this Convention, the fugitive shall be delivered in the manner prescribed by law in such cases. The country seeking extradition shall take the necessary measures to receive the accused within one month from the date when the latter shall have been placed at its disposal, and if said Government should fail to do so, the aforesaid accused may be released. Article 10. The person delivered cannot be tried nor punished in the country to which his extradition has been granted, nor delivered to a third country, for a crime not included in this Convention, and committed before his surrender, unless the Government which makes the surrender consents to the trial, or to the delivery to said third nation. Nevertheless this consent shall not be necessary: 1. When the accused may voluntarily have requested that he be tried or delivered to the third nation; 2. When he may have been at liberty to leave the country for thirty days after his release, on the ground of the lack of foundation in the charge for which he was surrendered, or, in case of conviction, a term of thirty days after serving his sentence or obtaining a pardon. Article 11. The expenses of arrest, maintenance, and travel of the extradited person, as well as of the delivery and transportation of the articles which, because of their connection with the crime, have to be returned or forwarded, shall be borne by the Government seeking extradition. Article 12. All the objects found in the possession of the accused and obtained through the commission of the act of which he is accused, or that may serve as evidence of the crime on account of which extradition is requested, shall be confiscated and delivered with his person upon order of competent authority of the country from which extradition is sought. Nevertheless the rights of third parties concerning these articles shall be respected, and delivery thereof shall not be made until the question of ownership has been determined.

CENTRAL AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

133

Article 13. In all cases of detention the fugitive shall be acquainted within the term of twenty-four hours with the cause thereof, and notified that he may, within a period not to exceed three days counted from the one following that of the notification, oppose extradition, by alleging: 1. That he is not the person claimed; 2. Substantial defects in the documents presented; and 3. The inadmissibility of the request of extradition. Article 14. In cases where it is necessary to prove the facts alleged, evidence shall be taken, in full observance of the provisions of the law of procedure of the Republic of which extradition is requested. The evidence having been produced, the matter shall be decided without further steps, within the period of ten days, and it shall be declared whether or not the extradition shall be granted. Against such a decision and within three days following notification thereof, the legal remedies of the country of asylum may be invoked. Article 15. The present Convention shall take effect with respect to the Parties that have ratified it, from the date of its ratification by at least three of the signatory States. Article 16. The present Convention shall remain in force until the first of January, nineteen hundred and forty-five, regardless of any prior denunciation, or any other cause. From the first of January, nineteen hundred and forty five, it shall continue in force until one year after the date on which one of the Parties bound thereby notifies the others of its intention to denounce it. The denunciation of this Convention by one or two of said Contracting Parties shall leave it in force for those Parties which have ratified it and have not denounced it, provided that these be no less than three in number. Should two or three states bound by this Convention form a single political entity, the same Convention shall be in force as between the new entity and the Republics bound thereby which have remained separate, provided these be no less than two in number. Any of the Republics of Central America which should fail to ratify this Convention shall have the right to adhere to it while it is in force. Article 17. The exchange of ratifications of the present Convention shall be made through communications addressed by the Governments to the Government of Guatemala in order that the latter may inform the other Contracting States. If the Government of Guatemala should ratify the Convention, notice of said ratification shall also be communicated to the others. Article 18. When the present Convention becomes effective the one celebrated in the city of Washington on February 7, 1923, on the same subject will cease to be in effect. Signed in the city of Guatemala on the 12th day of April 1934. [Here follow the signatures of the Delegates]

TREATY ON POLITICAL ASYLUM AND REFUGE

Signed at Montevideo on August 4, 1939 at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law1

His Excellency the President of the Republic of Peru; His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic; His Excellency the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Paraguay, and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile. In view of the fact that the principles governing asylum which were established by the Treaty on International Penal Law signed at Montevideo on January 23, 1889, require amplification in order that they may cover the new situations which have arisen and may serve to confirm the doctrines already sanctioned in America, have agreed to conclude the present Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge through the medium of their respective plenipotentiaries, assembled in congress in the City of Montevideo as a result of the initiative taken by the Governments of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Argentine Republic. [Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries] The aforesaid representatives, having presented their full powers, which were found to be in due form, and after holding the appropriate conferences and discussions, have agreed upon the following provisions:

Chapter I. On Political Asylum Article 1. Asylum may be granted without distinction of nationality, and without prejudice to the rights and obligations of protection appertaining to the State to which the refugees belong. The State which grants asylum does not thereby incur an obligation to admit the refugees into its territory, except in cases where they are not given admission by other States. Article 2. Asylum may be granted only in embassies, legations, men-ofwar, military camps or military airplanes, and exclusively to persons pursued 1

OAS Treaty Series No. 34, Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 66.

TREATY ON POLITICAL ASYLUM AND REFUGE

135

for political reasons or offenses, or under circumstances involving concurrent political offenses, which do not legally permit extradition. The chiefs of mission may also receive refugees in their residences, in cases where the former do not live on the premises of the embassies or legations. Article 3. Asylum shall not be granted to persons accused of political offenses, who shall have been indicted or condemned previously for common offenses, by the ordinary tribunals. The determination of the causes which induce the asylum appertains to the State which grants it. Asylum may not be granted to deserters from the sea-, land-, or air forces, except when the act is clearly of a political character. Article 4. The diplomatic agent or military commander who grants asylum shall immediately communicate the names of the refugees to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State where the act in question occurred, or to the administrative authorities of the locality, if the said act has taken place outside the seat of government, except when grave circumstances materially impede such communication or make it dangerous to the safety of the refugees. Article 5. While the asylum continues, the refugees shall not be permitted to commit acts which may disturb the public tranquillity or may tend toward participation in, or influence upon, political activities. The diplomatic agents or military commanders shall require of the refugees information as to their personal history, and a promise not to enter into external communications without the express intervention of the former. This promise shall be in writing and signed; and if the refugees should refuse to accept, or should violate, any of these conditions, the diplomatic agent or commander shall immediately terminate the asylum. The refugees may be forbidden to carry with them articles other than those destined for personal use, the papers which belong to them, and the money necessary for their living expenses, the deposit of any other securities or articles in the place of asylum being prohibited. Article 6. The Government of the State may demand that a given refugee be removed from the national territory within the shortest possible time; and the diplomatic agent or military commander who has granted the asylum may, for his part, demand the necessary guaranties before the refugee is permitted to leave the country, with due regard for the inviolability of the latter’s person, and of the papers belonging to him and carried with him at the time when he received asylum, as well as for the funds necessary to support him for a reasonable time. In the absence of such guaranties, the departure may be postponed until the local authorities shall make them available. Article 7. Once they have left the State, the refugees shall not be landed in any other part of it. In case an ex-refugee should return to the country in question, he shall not be accorded new asylum if the disturbance which led to the original grant subsists.

136

APPENDIX A

Article 8. When the number of refugees exceeds the normal capacity of the places of refuge specified in Article 2, the diplomatic agents or military commanders may provide other places, under the protection of their flag, for the safety and lodging of the said refugees. In such cases, the agents or commanders must communicate that fact to the authorities. Article 9. Men-of-war or military airplanes temporarily located in drydocks or workshops for repairs, shall not accord protection to persons who take refuge in them. Article 10. If, in a case of severance of relations, the diplomatic representative who has granted asylum should have to leave the territory of the country where he is located, he shall depart from it accompanied by the refugees; or, if this should be impossible for some reason not dependent upon the choice of the refugees or of the diplomatic agent, he may deliver them to the agent of a third State, with the guaranties specified in this treaty. Such delivery shall be effected by the transfer of the said refugees to the premises of the diplomatic mission which shall have accepted the charge in question, or by leaving the refugees on the premises where the archives of the departing diplomatic mission are kept; and these premises shall remain under the direct protection of the diplomatic agent to whom that function has been entrusted. In either case, the local Ministry for Foreign Affairs shall be duly advised, in conformity with the provisions of Article 4. Chapter II. On Asylum in Foreign Territory Article 11. Asylum granted within the territory of the High Contracting Parties, in conformity with the present treaty, is an inviolable asylum for persons pursued under the conditions described in Article 2; but it is the duty of the State to prevent the refugees from committing within its territory, acts which may endanger the public peace of the State from which they come. The determination of the causes that induce the asylum appertains to the State which grants it. The grant of asylum does not entail for the State which makes that grant, any obligation to admit the refugees indefinitely into its territory. Article 12. Political emigrants shall not be permitted to establish juntas or committees for the purpose of instigating or promoting disturbances of order in any of the Contracting States. Such juntas or committees shall be disbanded, upon proof of their subversive character, by the authorities of the State where they are found to exist. Discontinuance of the benefits of asylum does not imply authorization to place a refugee in the territory of the pursuing State. Article 13. Upon the request of the interested State, the one which has granted asylum shall undertake to keep watch over or to intern political

TREATY ON POLITICAL ASYLUM AND REFUGE

137

emigrants, within a reasonable distance from its frontiers. The State receiving the request shall determine the propriety of the petition and shall fix the distance in question. Article 14. The State making the request shall be liable for all expenses incurred in the internment of political refugees and emigrants. Prior to the internment of the refugees, the States involved shall come to an agreement concerning their maintenance. Article 15. Political internees shall advise the Government of the State where they are located, when they decide to leave its territory. Their departure shall be permitted on condition that they do not go to the country of their origin, and notice of this permission shall be given to the interested State.

Chapter III. General Provisions Article 16. Any difference which may arise concerning the application of this treaty shall be decided through diplomatic channels, or, in default thereof, shall be submitted to arbitration or judicial decision, provided that there is a tribunal whose jurisdiction both parties recognize. Article 17. Any State which has not signed the present treaty may adhere to it by sending its instrument of adhesion to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, which shall notify the other High Contracting Parties, through diplomatic channels, of that adhesion. Article 18. This treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their constitutional rules. The original treaty and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, which shall communicate the ratifications, through diplomatic channels, to the other Contracting States. The treaty shall go into effect among the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they have deposited their ratifications. The corresponding notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications. Article 19. This treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced through notice given two years in advance, after the lapse of which period it shall cease to bind the denouncing State, but shall continue to be binding upon the other signatory States. Denunciations must be addressed to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, which shall transmit them to the other contracting States. In Witness Whereof, the above-mentioned plenipotentiaries sign the present treaty in the City of Montevideo, on the 4th day of August, 1939. [Here follow the signatures of the plenipotentiaries]

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

Signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on March 19, 1940 at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law1

His Excellency the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; His Excellency the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Colombia; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Bolivia; His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Peru, and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Paraguay, Have agreed to conclude the present treaty through the medium of their respective plenipotentiaries, assembled in congress in the City of Montevideo as a result of the initiative taken by the Governments of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Argentine Republic. [Here follow the names of the plenipotentiaries] The said representatives, having presented their full powers, which were found to be in due form, having taken into consideration the fact that the Treaty on International Penal Law signed at Montevideo on January 23, 1889, might well be subjected to a process of revision for the purpose of modifying and harmonizing the rules therein laid down, and bearing in mind the conferences and discussions held in this connection, have agreed upon the following provisions: Title I. Of Jurisdiction and the Law Applicable Thereto Article 1. Crimes, whatever may be the nationality of the agent, of the victim, or of the injured party, shall be tried by the tribunals, and punished according to the laws, of the State in whose territory they are committed. Article 2. Crimes affecting two or more States and committed by one or more offenders, shall come under the jurisdiction of the judges or tribunals of the place where the said crimes were perpetrated; and the local laws must be applied in the corresponding proceedings. 1 Revision of the Treaty on International Penal Law signed at the First South American Congress on Private International Law, Montevideo, 1888–1889. OAS Treaty Series No. 34, Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 71. The English text of the 1940 Treaty was also published in The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 37, No. 3, July 1943, p. 122.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

139

If the crime was perpetrated in more than one country, it shall come under the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the first State to take judicial cognizance thereof, and the laws of that State must apply. Article 3. In cases involving connected crimes committed by one or more offenders, whether as principals, as accomplices, or as harborers, in the territory of two or more signatory States, preference shall be given in regard to trial of the crime, to the authorities and penal law of the country in which the more serious offence was perpetrated, a matter which shall be left to the discretion of the requested State. Article 4. In the cases to which Articles 2 and 3 refer, the judge of the proceedings shall communicate with the Executive Power, in order that the latter may notify the States interested in the trial, of the institution of proceedings. Article 5. Acts committed in the territory of a given State, which are not susceptible of punishment according to its own laws but which are punishable by the State wherein they produce their effects, may not be tried by the judges or tribunals of the latter unless the offender shall be found within its jurisdiction. A similar rule applies with respect to those crimes for which the extradition of the offenders is not authorized. In cases involving acts committed by public functionaries who are serving in a foreign country, if such acts constitute a criminal violation of the specific duties attached to the office with which they have been entrusted, the foregoing rule shall not apply, and the said functionaries shall be tried and punished by the judges or tribunals of the offenders’ own State, in conformity with its laws. Article 6. Any of the signatory States may expel, in accordance with its laws, alien offenders who have taken refuge in its territory, provided that after the appropriate request has been presented to the authorities of the country where any of the extraditable crimes were committed, the surrender of the said offenders is not requested, through the channel of extradition, within ninety days. Article 7. The principles of public international law shall be observed for the trial of crimes committed by any of the functionaries of a diplomatic mission or by any member of their respective suites. A similar procedure shall be followed with respect to Chiefs of State and their suites; and also with respect to members of armed forces, when the crime has been committed within the bounds of the place where they are stationed, and bears a legal relationship to the said forces. Article 8. Crimes committed on the high seas, whether on board airplanes, or on men-of-war, or on merchant ships, must be tried and punished according to the law of the State whose flag the vessel flies. Article 9. Crimes perpetrated on board men-of-war or military planes of one State, while these are in the territorial waters of another State, shall be

140

APPENDIX A

tried by the tribunals, and punished according to the laws, of the State to which the said men-of-war or airplanes belong. If only persons who do not belong to the crew of the warship or airplane, participate in the commission, on board, of such acts, prosecution and punishment shall be conducted in accordance with the laws of the State within whose territorial waters the warship or airplane is located. The laws of the country to which the ship or airplane belongs, shall also govern the trial and punishment of such punishable acts as are committed elsewhere than on board by members of the crew or by individuals charged with the exercise of some function on board, when the said acts affect only the disciplinary order of those ships or planes. Article 10. Crimes committed on board vessels other than vessels of war shall be tried and punished by the judges or tribunals, and according to the laws, of the State in whose territorial waters a given vessel was located at the time when such a crime was committed. If the crimes are committed on board private airplanes which are not in flight, the corresponding trial and imposition of punishment shall be conducted according to the laws, and by the judges, of the territory where the crimes occurred. Article 11. Trial and punishment for crimes committed on board airplanes or on men-of-war or on merchant ships, under the conditions specified in Articles 2 and 3, shall be conducted according to the provisions laid down in those articles. Article 12. For the purposes of criminal jurisdiction, territorial waters are declared to be those included in a belt five miles wide running along the coast of the mainland or of the islands which constitute part of the territory of the various States. Article 13. A riparian State has the right to continue on the high seas a pursuit begun within its territorial waters, as well as the right to arrest and try the vessel that has committed an offence within the said waters. In all cases where a capture is effected on the high seas, that fact shall be communicated without delay to the State whose flag the vessel flies. The pursuit must be broken off instantly when the vessel enters [other] territorial waters, or a port belonging to its own country or to a third State. Article 14. International piracy, traffic in narcotics, white slavery, and the destruction or damage of submarine cables, are subject to the jurisdiction and law of the State into whose power the offenders may come, regardless of the place where such crimes were committed; but without prejudice to the preferential right of the State in which the criminal acts were perpetrated, to request the extradition of the offenders. Article 15. Crimes committed on board airplanes in flight over a foreign State shall come under the jurisdiction of the latter if the airplane should

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

141

make its first landing there. Otherwise, such jurisdiction shall appertain to the State in whose territory that first landing is made, and the laws of the subjacent State shall apply. When it is not possible to determine the territory over which the crime was committed, the case shall be governed by the law of the State whose flag the plane flies. The pilot of an airplane in flight, who has been notified of the commission of a crime, is bound to land at the first known airport and inform the authorities of that port. Article 16. Prescription of actions and of penalties shall be determined by the judges or tribunals, and in accordance with the laws, of the State to which cognizance of the crimes in question appertains. Article 17. A judgment rendered in any of the signatory States shall be recognized in those States for the purpose of establishing the repetition or habitual commission of the offence, or a tendency thereto, on the part of the accused; and also in order to make it obligatory that he accede, while he is in their territory, to indemnification of the damage, to measures of security against his person, and to the interdiction resulting from the proceedings. The signatory States shall furnish reports in regard to the judicial or police antecedents on file in their archives, if they are requested to do so by another interested State.

Title II. Of Extradition Chapter I. Of the System of Extradition Article 18. The contracting States bind themselves to surrender, if they are requested to do so, persons who have been prosecuted or condemned by the authorities of one of those States, and who are found in the territory of another. The request for surrender shall be granted in accordance with the procedural formalities in force within the requested State, provided that the following conditions are both met: (a) The person to be surrendered must have been condemned by final judgment to one year in prison, at least; or, if the case concerns an indicted person, the crime that constitutes the subject-matter of the prosecution must be punishable, according to the laws of the requesting State, by a minimum intermediate penalty of two years’ imprisonment. Half the sum of the extremes within which the particular penalty involving deprivation of liberty is fixed, shall be considered as the intermediate penalty. (b) The requesting State must have jurisdiction to try and to pass sentence concerning the crime which motivates the demand, even when the acts involved have been committed outside the territory of the contracting States.

142

APPENDIX A

Article 19. The nationality of the accused may not be invoked as a reason for refusing extradition, except when a constitutional provision establishes otherwise. Article 20. Extradition shall not be granted: (a) For the crime of duelling; (b) For the crime of adultery; (c) For the crimes of libel and slander, even when perpetrated through the medium of the press; (d) For political crimes; (e) For common crimes committed with a political purpose, except when, in the opinion of the judge or tribunal receiving the request, the common character manifestly predominates; (f ) For common crimes in cases where, in the opinion of the judge or tribunal of the requested State, it can be inferred from the attendant circumstances that the purpose in making that request is preponderantly political; (g) For essentially military crimes, exclusive of those governed by the common law. If the person sought is charged with a military crime which is also punishable by the common law, he shall be surrendered with the reservation that he is to be tried only in accordance with the said law and by the ordinary tribunals; (h) When the person sought has been or is being tried, for the same act and in accordance with the provisions of this treaty, in the requested State; or when the action or penalty has been invalidated by prescription, according to the laws of the requesting State, before the seizure of the accused; (i) When the person sought would have to appear before a tribunal or court taking cognizance of exceptions. The determination of the character of the offences involved appertains exclusively to the authorities of the requested State, on the basis of the law more favorable to the accused. Article 21. No civil or commercial action involving the accused shall hinder his extradition. Article 22. When the individual sought is deprived of his freedom by virtue of a prosecution or a service of sentence in the requested State, his surrender may be postponed until the restriction on his freedom has been removed, or the sentence has been removed; but in the meantime, prescription of the action or penalty in question shall be suspended. Article 23. The murder of the Chief of a contracting State, or an attempt upon his life, shall not be regarded as a political crime or act connected therewith. Article 24. Persons whose extradition has been granted may not be tried for crimes previous to those on which the extradition is based.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

143

Crimes constituting grounds for extradition may be tried and punished, provided that the requested State gives its consent previously and in conformity with the terms of this treaty. Article 25. When the extradition of a given individual is demanded by different States, and the demands are based upon the same crime, preference shall be accorded to that of the State in whose territory the crime was perpetrated; or, if it was committed in different countries, preference shall be given to the first demand. If different acts are involved, preference in granting the extradition shall be given to the State in whose territory the more serious crime was committed, according to the judgment of the requested State. In cases involving different acts which the requested State regards as equally serious, the preference shall be determined by the order in which the requests are received. Article 26. In the cases contemplated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the foregoing article, the requested State may, as a condition of granting the extradition, stipulate that the person demanded must also be subject to ulterior extradition. Article 27. In no case shall the death penalty be imposed for the crime for which extradition has been granted. Article 28. The foregoing rules will apply in the case of persons condemned to measures of security, provided that the latter consist of deprivation or restriction of freedom, and that for their extinction more than a year has yet to elapse. Chapter II. Of Extradition Procedure Article 29. The demand for extradition must be made by the appropriate diplomatic agent or, in default thereof, either by the consular agents or directly from Government to Government; and it must be accompanied, according to whether the persons involved are accused or condemned persons, either by a copy of the order of imprisonment or judicial order providing for deprivation of freedom, issued by the competent authorities, or by an authenticated copy of the judgment of condemnation. The records supplied must include a precise statement as to the act on which the charge is based, and the date and place of its occurrence. The said records shall be accompanied by copies of the laws applicable to the case, as well as by copies of those relative to prescription as it affects the action or penalty in question. Data and information regarding antecedents, to facilitate identification of the person sought, shall also be included. Article 30. The demand for extradition of a condemned person cannot be based on a sentence rendered by default, that is to say, a sentence rendered

144

APPENDIX A

when the accused has not been personally summoned to defend, or when he has been summoned but has not appeared. However, the requested extradition may be granted if the requesting State promises to reopen the case in such a way as to allow for the defence of the accused. Article 31. If the demand for extradition has been made in due form, the requested Government shall send the documents on the case to the competent judge or tribunal, who must pass upon the propriety of the said demand, on the basis of the provisions contained in Articles 29 and 30; and, whenever the case warrants such action, the said judge or tribunal shall take the necessary steps for the apprehension of the person sought, ordering his arrest and the seizure of the articles involved in the crime, if they believe this to be the proper procedure. Article 32. If the judge of the requested State considers that the demand is legally inadmissible because of some defect of form, he shall advise the judge of the requesting State as to what documents are lacking, and shall fix a reasonable time-limit for their remission. Article 33. In cases where the arrest is made, the party concerned shall be informed of the cause of arrest within twenty-four hours. Within a period of three days and no more, reckoned from the day following the notification, the interested party may oppose exceptions based on the following grounds: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Incompetence of the judge of the requested State who ordered the arrest; The fact that the said party is not the person sought; Defects of form in the documents presented; Impropriety of the demand for extradition.

Article 34. In cases where it is necessary to verify the allegations, the question shall be laid open for proof; and the provisions of the procedural law of the requested State shall govern with respect to such proof and to the time allowed for it. Article 35. When the proof has been produced, a decision on the question shall be reached without further proceedings, by a declaration as to whether or not grounds for extradition exist. In cases where cognizance of the demand appertains originally to the judge of first instance, the decision shall be appealable to the competent tribunal. Article 36. If the sentence is favorable to the demand for extradition, the tribunal which renders the decision shall communicate it immediately to the Executive Power, in order that he may take the steps necessary for the surrender of the culprit. If the sentence is unfavorable, the judge or tribunal, once it has become final, shall order the immediate release of the prisoner and shall so advise the Executive Power, enclosing a copy of the said sentence in order that the Executive may bring it to the knowledge of the requesting Government.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

145

Article 37. If the prisoner acquiesces in the demand, the judge or tribunal shall draw up a statement regarding the terms of that acquiescence, and shall, without further proceedings, declare that extradition is proper. Article 38. Articles found in the possession of the person sought, if they were acquired in consequence of the act in question, if they were used in its execution, if the act was perpetrated upon them, or if they constitute evidence in some other way, shall be seized and delivered to the demanding State, even though the extradition may fail to take place owing to the death or disappearance of the accused. Article 39. In cases where the delivery of the accused is to be effected over a land route, the requested State shall transfer him to the most suitable point on the frontier. When his transfer must be effected over a maritime, fluvial or air route, he shall be delivered to those agents whom the requesting State may appoint, at the most suitable port or airdrome of embarkation. The requesting State may, in any case, appoint one or more police agents; but they shall act as subordinates of the agents or authorities representing the territory of the requested State, or that of the State of transit. Article 40. If it should be necessary to traverse the territory of an intermediate State in order to surrender a prisoner whose extradition has been agreed to by one State in favor of another, such transit shall be permitted by the said intermediate State without any requirement other than the exhibition through diplomatic channels of the proper attestation, in the form of a decree of extradition which authorized the surrender. Article 41. The expenses incurred in the extradition of the offender shall be borne by the requested State until the moment when the surrender takes place; and thenceforth, they shall be borne by the requesting Government. Article 42. When extradition of a person under indictment has been accorded, the Government whose request was granted shall communicate to the Government that granted it, the final judgment pronounced in the case which constituted the grounds for extradition. Article 43. When extradition has been accorded, and the person sought has been placed at the disposal of the diplomatic, consular or police agent of the demanding State, he shall be released if, within a period of forty days from the date of the pertinent communication, he has not been sent to his destination; always provided that no request for a reasonable delay has been presented. In such circumstances, no new demand based upon the same grounds will be admissible. Article 44. When the request for extradition has been granted, the requesting State agrees to try the accused, in accordance with Article 24, exclusively for the act for which he was surrendered and not for any previous act, unless he should remain voluntarily for more than thirty days, after being released, in the territory of the requested State.

146

APPENDIX A

Article 45. During the extradition proceedings the person detained may not be released on bail.

Title III. Of Provisional Arrest Article 46. In urgent cases, the contracting States may request by post or by telegraph that steps be taken for the arrest of the accused and for the seizure of articles connected with the crime, once the nature of that crime has been determined and the existence of an order of imprisonment issued by a competent judge, has been invoked. In such cases, the prisoner shall be released if, within sixty days from the date of his arrest, the formal demand for extradition, duly drawn up, has not been presented to the requested State. When that interval has elapsed and the prisoner has been released, his arrest cannot be requested again until after the documents required by Article 29 have been presented. Article 47. In cases of provisional arrest, the release of the accused shall be effected without prejudice to the retention of the articles mentioned in Article 38, for a reasonable time, to be fixed by the judges of the State which proceeded to the arrest and in accordance with the attendant circumstances. Article 48. In all cases of provisional arrest, the responsibilities which may arise therefrom appertain to the State that requested it.

Title IV. General Provisions Article 49. The simultaneous ratification of this treaty by all of the signatory States is not necessary in order to bring it into operation. The States which approve it shall communicate their approval to the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, so that the latter may notify the other contracting States to that effect. This procedure shall take the place of an exchange. Article 50. When the exchange has been made, in the form indicated by the preceding article, this Treaty shall be effective from that time forth indefinitely. Article 51. If any of the contracting States should deem it advisable to withdraw its adherence to the treaty or introduce changes into the said instrument, it shall so advise the other signatories; but the withdrawal shall not take effect until two years after the date of denunciation, during which time an effort to reach a new accord shall be made: Article 52. No demand for extradition in connection with a crime committed before the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty may be based upon the provisions therein contained.

TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL PENAL LAW

147

Article 53. Article 49 applies also to States which have not attended this Congress, but which wish to adhere to the present treaty. In Witness Whereof, the plenipotentiaries of the aforesaid nations sign the present treaty in Montevideo on the 19th day of March, 1940.

Reservation The Delegation of the Argentine Republic reserves the right to differentiate between “political offender” and “international terrorist.” [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries]

CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

Signed at Caracas, Venezuela, on March 28, 1954 at the Tenth Inter-American Conference1 The Governments of the Member States of the Organization of American States, desirous of concluding a Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, have agreed to the following articles: Article 1. Asylum granted in legations, war vessels, and military camps or aircraft, to persons being sought for political reasons or for political offenses shall be respected by the territorial State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. For the purposes of this Convention, a legation is any seat of a regular diplomatic mission, the residence of chiefs of mission, and the premises provided by them for the dwelling places of asylees when the number of the latter exceeds the normal capacity of the buildings. War vessels or military aircraft that may be temporarily in shipyards, arsenals, or shops for repair may not constitute a place of asylum. Article 2. Every State has the right to grant asylum; but it is not obligated to do so or to state its reasons for refusing it. Article 3. It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air forces, save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature. Persons included in the foregoing paragraph who de facto enter a place that is suitable as an asylum shall be invited to leave or, as the case may be, shall be surrendered to the local authorities, who may not try them for political offenses committed prior to the time of the surrender. Article 4. It shall rest with the State granting asylum to determine the nature of the offense or the motives for the persecution. Article 5. Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for the period of time strictly necessary for the asylee to depart from the country with the guarantees granted by the Government of the territorial State, to the end that his life, liberty, or personal integrity may not be endangered, or that the asylee’ s safety is ensured in some other way. 1 International Conferences of American States, Second Supplement 1942–1954. OAS General Secretariat, 1958, p. 339. OAS Treaty Series 34, 1967, pp. 82 to 88.

CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

149

Article 6. Urgent cases are understood to be those, among others, in which the individual is being sought by persons or mobs over whom the authorities have lost control, or by the authorities themselves, and is in danger of being deprived of his life or liberty because of political persecution and cannot, without risk, ensure his safety in any other way. Article 7. If a case of urgency is involved, it shall rest with the State granting asylum to determine the degree of urgency of the case. Article 8. The diplomatic representative, commander of a warship, military camp, or military airship, shall, as soon as possible after asylum has been granted, report the fact to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the territorial State, or to the local administrative authority if the case arose outside the Capital. Article 9. The official furnishing asylum shall take into account the information furnished to him by the territorial government in forming his judgment as to the nature of the offense or the existence of related common crimes; but this decision to continue the asylum or to demand a safe-conduct for the asylee shall be respected. Article 10. The fact that the Government of the territorial State is not recognized by the State granting asylum shall not prejudice the application of the present Convention, and no act carried out by virtue of this Convention shall imply recognition. Article 11. The government of the territorial State may, at any time, demand that the asylee be withdrawn from the country, for which purpose the said State shall grant a safe-conduct and the guarantees stipulated in Article 5. Article 12. Once asylum has been granted, the State granting asylum may request that the asylee be allowed to depart for foreign territory, and the territorial State is under obligation to grant immediately, except in case of force majeure, the necessary guarantees, referred to in Article 5, as well as the corresponding safe-conduct. Article 13. In the cases referred to in the preceding articles the State granting asylum may require that the guarantees be given in writing, and may take into account, in determining the rapidity of the journey, the actual conditions of danger involved in the departure of the asylee. The State granting asylum has the right to transfer the asylee out of the country. The territorial State may point out the preferable route for the departure of the asylee, but this does not imply determining the country of destination. If the asylum is granted on board a warship or military airship, departure may be made therein, but complying with the previous requisite of obtaining the appropriate safe-conduct. Article 14. The State granting asylum cannot be held responsible for the prolongation of asylum caused by the need for obtaining the information required to determine whether or not the said asylum is proper, or whether

150

APPENDIX A

there are circumstances that might endanger the safety of the asylee during the journey to a foreign country. Article 15. When, in order to transfer an asylee to another country it may be necessary to traverse the territory of a State that is a party to this Convention, transit shall be authorized by the latter, the only requisite being the presentation, through diplomatic channels, of a safe-conduct, duly countersigned and bearing a notation of his status as asylee by the diplomatic mission that granted asylum. En route, the asylee shall be considered under the protection of the State granting asylum. Article 16. Asylees may not be landed at any point in the territorial State or at any place near thereto, except for exigencies of transportation. Article 17. Once the departure of the asylee has been carried out, the State granting asylum is not bound to settle him in its territory; but it may not return him to his country of origin, unless this is the express wish of the asylee. If the territorial State informs the official granting asylum of its intention to request the subsequent extradition of the asylee, this shall not prejudice the application of any provision of the present Convention. In that event, the asylee shall remain in the territory of the State granting asylum until such time as the formal request for extradition is received, in accordance with the juridical principles governing that institution in the State granting asylum. Preventive surveillance over the asylee may not exceed thirty days. Payment of the expenses incurred by such transfer and of preventive control shall devolve upon the requesting State. Article 18. The official furnishing asylum may not allow the asylee to perform acts contrary to the public peace or to interfere in the internal politics of the territorial State. Article 19. If as a consequence of a rupture of diplomatic relations the diplomatic representative who granted asylum must leave the territorial State, he shall abandon it with the asylees. If this is not possible for reasons independent of the wish of the asylee or the diplomatic representative, he must surrender them to the diplomatic mission of a third State, which is a party to this Convention, under the guarantees established in the Convention. If this is also not possible, he shall surrender them to a State that is not a party to this Convention and that agrees to maintain the asylum. The territorial State is to respect the said asylum. Article 20. Diplomatic asylum shall not be subject to reciprocity. Every person is under its protection, whatever his nationality. Article 21. The present Convention shall be open for signature by the member states of the Organization of American States and shall be ratified by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.

CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

151

Article 22. The original instrument, whose texts in the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese languages are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, which shall send certified copies to the governments for the purpose of ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, and the said organization shall notify the signatory governments of the said deposit. Article 23. The present Convention shall enter into force among the States that ratify it in the order in which their respective ratifications are deposited. Article 24. The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced by any of the signatory States giving advance notice of one year, at the end of which period it shall cease to have effect for the denouncing State, remaining in force, however, among the remaining signatory States. The denunciation shall be transmitted to the Pan American Union, which shall inform the other signatory States thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having presented their plenary powers, which have been found in good and due form, sign this Convention, in the name of their respective Governments, in the city of Caracas, this twenty-eight day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four. [Here follow the signatures of the Plenipotentiaries ]

RESERVATIONS Guatemala: We make an express reservation to Article 2 wherein it declares that the States are not obligated to grant asylum; because we uphold a broad, firm concept of the right to asylum. Likewise, we make an express reservation to the final paragraph of Article 20 (Twenty), because we maintain that any person, without any discrimination whatsoever, has the right to the protection of asylum. Uruguay: The government of Uruguay makes a reservation to Article 2, in the part that stipulates that the authority granting asylum, is, in no case, obligated to grant asylum nor to state its reasons for refusing it. It likewise makes a reservation to that part of Article 15 that stipulates: “ . . . the only requisite being the presentation, through diplomatic channels, of a safe-conduct, duly countersigned and bearing a notation of his status as asylee by the diplomatic mission that granted asylum. En route, the asylee shall be considered under the protection

152

APPENDIX A

of the State granting asylum.” Finally, it makes a reservation to the second paragraph of Article 20, since the government of Uruguay understands that all persons have the right to asylum, whatever their sex, nationality, belief, or religion. Dominican Republic: The Dominican Republic subscribes to the above Convention with the following reservations: First: The Dominican Republic does not agree to the provisions contained in Article 7 and those following with respect to the unilateral determination of the urgency by the State granting asylum; and Second: The provisions of this Convention shall not be applicable, consequently, insofar as the Dominican Republic is concerned, to any controversies that may arise between the territorial State and the State granting asylum, that refer specifically to the absence of a serious situation or the nonexistence of a true act of persecution against the asylee by the local authorities. Honduras: The delegation of Honduras subscribes to the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum with reservations with respect to those articles that are in violation of the Constitution and laws in force in the Republic of Honduras.

CONVENTION ON TERRITORIAL ASYLUM

Signed at Caracas, Venezuela, on March 28, 1954, at the Tenth InterAmerican Conference1 The governments of the Member States of the Organization of American States, desirous of concluding a convention regarding Territorial Asylum, have agreed to the following articles: Article I Every State has the right, in the exercise of its sovereignty, to admit into its territory such persons as it deems advisable, without, through the exercise of this right, giving rise to complaint by any other State. Article II The respect which, according to international law, is due the jurisdictional right of each State over the inhabitants in its territory, is equally due, without any restriction whatsoever, to that which it has over persons who enter it proceeding from a State in which they are persecuted for their beliefs, opinions, or political affiliations, or for acts which may be considered as political offenses. Any violation of sovereignty that consists of acts committed by a government or its agents in another State against the life or security of an individual, carried out on the territory of another State, may not be considered attenuated because the persecution began outside its boundaries or is due to political considerations or reasons of state. Article III No State is under the obligation to surrender to another State, or to expel from its own territory, persons persecuted for political reasons or offenses. Article IV The right of extradition is not applicable in connection with persons who, in accordance with the qualifications of the solicited State, are sought for political offenses, or for common offenses committed for political ends, or when extradition is solicited for predominantly political motives. 1 International Conferences of American States. Second Supplement 1942–1954. General Secretariat of the OAS, Washington, D.C., 1958, p. 345. OAS Treaty Series 34, 1967, pp. 89 to 92.

154

APPENDIX A

Article V The fact that a person has entered into the territorial jurisdiction of a State surreptitiously or irregularly does not affect the provisions of this Convention. Article VI Without prejudice to the provisions of the following articles, no State is under the obligation to establish any distinction in its legislation, or in its regulations or administrative acts applicable to aliens, solely because of the fact that they are political asylees or refugees. Article VII Freedom of expression of thought, recognized by domestic law for all inhabitants of a State, may not be ground of complaint by a third State on the basis of opinions expressed publicly against it or its government by asylees or refugees, except when these concepts constitute systematic propaganda through which they incite to the use of force or violence against the government of the complaining State. Article VIII No State has the right to request that another State restrict for the political asylees or refugees the freedom of assembly or association which the latter State’s internal legislation grants to all aliens within its territory, unless such assembly or association has as its purpose fomenting the use of force or violence against the government of the soliciting State. Article IX At the request of the interested State, the State that has granted refuge or asylum shall take steps to keep watch over, or to intern at a reasonable distance from its border, those political refugees or asylees who are notorious leaders of a subversive movement, as well as those against whom there is evidence that they are disposed to join it. Determination of the reasonable distance from the border, for the purpose of internment, shall depend upon the judgment of the authorities of the State of refuge. All expenses incurred as a result of the internment of political asylees and refugees shall be chargeable to the State that makes the request. Article X The political internees referred to in the preceding article shall advise the government of the host State whenever they wish to leave its territory. Departure therefrom will be granted, under the condition that they are not to go to the country from which they came; and the interested government is to be notified.

CONVENTION ON TERRITORIAL ASYLUM

155

Article XI In all cases in which a complaint or request is permissible in accordance with this Convention, the admissibility of evidence presented by the demanding State shall depend on the judgment of the solicited State. Article XII This Convention remains open to the signature of the Member States of the Organization of American States, and shall be ratified by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. Article XIII The original instrument, whose texts in the English, French, Portuguese and Spanish languages are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, which shall send certified copies to the governments for the purpose of ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the Pan American Union; this organization shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Article XIV This Convention shall take effect among the States that ratify it in the order in which their respective ratifications are deposited. Article XV This Convention shall remain effective indefinitely, but may be denounced by any of the signatory States by giving advance notice of one year, at the end of which period it shall cease to have effect for the denouncing State, remaining, however, in force among the remaining signatory States. The denunciation shall be forwarded to the Pan American Union which shall notify the other signatory States thereof. In Witness Whereof, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having presented their plenary powers which have been found in good and satisfactory form, sign this Convention, in the name of their respective Governments, in the city of Caracas, this twenty-eighth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four. RESERVATIONS MADE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING Guatemala We make express reservation to Article III (three) wherein it refers to the surrender of persons persecuted for political reasons or offenses; because according to the provisions of our Political Constitution, we maintain that such surrender of persons persecuted for political reasons may never be carried out.

156

APPENDIX A

We affirm, likewise, that the term “internment” in Article IX means merely location of a distance from the border. Dominican Republic The delegation of the Dominican Republic subscribes to the Convention on Territorial Asylum, with the following reservations: Article I. The Dominican Republic accepts the general principle embodied in that article in the sense that, “Every State has the right to admit into its territory such persons as it deems advisable,” but it does not renounce the right to make diplomatic representation to any other state, if for considerations of national security it deems this advisable. Article II. It accepts the second paragraph of this article with the understanding that the latter does not affect the regulations of the frontier police. Article X. The Dominican Republic does not renounce the right to resort to the procedures for pacific settlement of international disputes that may arise from the exercise of territorial asylum. Mexico The delegation of Mexico makes express reservation to Articles IX and X of the Convention regarding Territorial Asylum because they are contrary to the individual guarantees enjoyed by all the inhabitants of the Republic in accordance with the Political Constitution of Mexico. Peru The delegation of Peru makes reservation to the text of Article VII of the Convention regarding Territorial Asylum, insofar as it differs from Article VI of the draft proposal of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, with which the delegation concurs. Honduras The delegation of Honduras gives its aproval to the Convention regarding Territorial Asylum with reservations with respect to those articles opposed to the Constitution and to the laws in force in the Republic of Honduras. Argentina The delegation of Argentina has voted in favor of the Convention regarding Territorial Asylum, but makes express reservations in regard to Article VII, as

CONVENTION ON TERRITORIAL ASYLUM

157

it believes that the latter does not duly consider nor satisfactorily resolve the problem arising from the exercise, on the part of political asylees, of the right of freedom of expression of thought.

RESERVATION MADE AT THE TIME OF RATIFYING Mexico The Government of Mexico makes express reservation to Article X because it is contrary to the individual guarantees enjoyed by all the inhabitants of the Republic in accordance with the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH THE ACTS OF TERRORISM TAKING THE FORM OF CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS AND RELATED EXTORTION THAT ARE OF INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Signed at Washington, D.C., February 2, 1971 at the Third Special Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States

Whereas: The defense of freedom and justice and respect for the fundamental rights of the individual that are recognized by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are primary duties of states; The General Assembly of the Organization, in Resolution 4, of June 30, 1970, strongly condemned acts of terrorism, especially the kidnapping of persons and extortion in connection with that crime, which it declared to be serious common crimes; Criminal acts against persons entitled to special protection under international law are occurring frequently, and those acts are of international significance because of the consequences that may f low from them for relations among states; It is advisable to adopt general standards that will progressively develop international law as regards cooperation in the prevention and punishment of such acts; and In the application of those standards the institution of asylum should be maintained and, likewise the principle of nonintervention should not be impaired, The member states of the Organization of American States have agreed upon the following articles: Article 1 The contracting states undertake to cooperate among themselves by taking all the measures that they may consider effective, under their own laws, and especially those established in this convention, to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, especially kidnapping, murder, and other assaults against the life or physical integrity of those persons to whom the state has the duty according to international law to give special protection, as well as extortion in connection with those crimes.

CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH ACTS OF TERRORISM

159

Article 2 For the purpose of this convention, kidnapping, murder, and other assaults against the life or personal integrity of those persons to whom the state has the duty to give special protection according to international law, as well as extortion in connection with those crimes, shall be considered common crimes of international significance, regardless of motive. Article 3 Persons who have been charged or convicted for any of the crimes referred to in Article 2 of this convention shall be subject to extradition under the provisions of the extradition treaties in force between the parties or, in the case of states that do not make extradition dependent on the existence of a treaty, in accordance with their own laws. In any case, it is the exclusive responsibility of the state under whose jurisdiction or protection such persons are located to determine the nature of the acts and decide whether the standards of this convention are applicable. Article 4 Any person deprived of his freedom through the application of this convention shall enjoy the legal guarantees of due process. Article 5 When extradition requested for one of the crimes specified in Article 2 is not in order because the person sought is a national of the requested state, or because of some other legal or constitutional impediment, that state is obliged to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution, as if the act had been committed in its territory. The decision of these authorities shall be communicated to the state that requested extradition. In such proceedings, the obligation established in Article 4 shall be respected. Article 6 None of the provisions of this convention shall be interpreted so as to impair the right of asylum. Article 7 The contracting states undertake to include the crimes referred to in Article 2 of this convention among the punishable acts giving rise to extradition in any treaty on the subject to which they agree among themselves in the future. The contracting states that do not subject extradition to the existence of a treaty

160

APPENDIX A

with the requesting state shall consider the crimes referred to in Article 2 of this convention as crimes giving rise to extradition, according to the conditions established by the laws of the requested state. Article 8 To cooperate in preventing and punishing the crimes contemplated in Article 2 of this convention, the contracting states accept the following obligations: a. To take all measures within their power, and in conformity with their own laws, to prevent and impede the preparation in their respective territories of the crimes mentioned in Article 2 that are to be carried out in the territory of another contracting state. b. To exchange information and consider effective administrative measures for the purpose of protecting the persons to whom Article 2 of this convention refers. c. To guarantee to every person deprived of his freedom through the application of this convention every right to defend himself. d. To endeavor to have the criminal acts contemplated in this convention included in their penal laws, if not already so included. e. To comply most expeditiously with the requests for extradition concerning the criminal acts contemplated in this convention. Article 9 This convention shall remain open for signature by the member states of the Organization of American States, as well as by any other state that is a member of the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or any state that is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, or any other state that may be invited by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States to sign it. Article 10 This convention shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. Article 11 The original instrument of this convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall send certified copies to the signatory governments for purposes of ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited in the General Secretariat of the

CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH ACTS OF TERRORISM

161

Organization of American States, which shall notify the signatory governments of such deposit. Article 12 This convention shall enter into force among the states that ratify it when they deposit their respective instruments of ratification. Article 13 This convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any of the contracting states may denounce it. The denunciation shall be transmitted to the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall notify the other contracting states thereof. One year following the denunciation, the convention shall cease to be in force for the denouncing state, but shall continue to be in force for the other contracting states. Statement of Panama: The Delegation of Panama states for the record that nothing in this convention shall be interpreted to the effect that the right of asylum implies the right to request asylum from the United States authorities in the Panama Canal Zone, or that there is recognition of the right of the United States to grant asylum or political refuge in that part of the territory of the Republic of Panama that constitutes the Canal Zone.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Signed at Caracas, Venezuela, on February 25, 1981 at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition1

Reaffirming their goal of strengthening international cooperation in legal and criminal law matters, which was the inspiration for the agreements reached in Lima on March 27, 1879, in Montevideo on January 23, 1889, in Mexico City on January 28, 1902, in Washington on February 7, 1923, in Havana on February 20, 1928, in Montevideo on December 26, 1933, in Guatemala City on April 12, 1934, and in Montevideo on March 19, 1940; Taking into consideration resolutions CVII of the Tenth Inter-American Conference (Caracas, 1954), VII of the Third Meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists (Mexico, 1956), IV of the Fourth Meeting of that Council (Santiago, Chile, 1959), and AG/RES. 91 (II-0/72), 183 (V-0/75) and 310 (VII-0/77) of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, as well as the draft Conventions proposed by the Inter American Juridical Committee in 1954, 1957, 1973, and 1977; Believing that the close ties and the cooperation that exist in the Americas call for the extension of extradition to ensure that crime does not go unpunished, and to simplify procedures and promote mutual assistance in the field of criminal law on a wider scale than provided for by the treaties in force, with due respect to the human rights embodied in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and Conscious that the fight against crime at the international level will enhance the fundamental value of justice in criminal law matters, The member states of the Organization of American States ADOPT THE FOLLOWING INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION Article 1 Obligation to Extradite The States Parties bind themselves, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to surrender to other States Parties that request their extradition 1 OAS Treaty Series No. 60. General Secretariat, Organization of American States, Washington, D.C., 1981.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

163

persons who are judicially required for prosecution, are being tried, have been convicted or have been sentenced to a penalty involving deprivation of liberty. Article 2 Jurisdiction 1. For extradition to be granted, the offense that gave rise to the request for extradition must have been committed in the territory of the requesting State. 2. When the offense for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, extradition shall be granted provided the requesting State has jurisdiction to try the offense that gave rise to the request for extradition and to pronounce judgment thereon. 3. The requested State may deny extradition when it is competent, according to its own legislation, to prosecute the person whose extradition is sought for the offense on which the request is based. If it denies extradition for this reason, the requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities and inform the requesting State of the result. Article 3 Extraditable Offenses 1. For extradition to be granted, the offense for which the person is sought shall be punishable at the time of its commission, by reason of the acts that constitute it, disregarding extenuating circumstances and the denomination of the offense, by a penalty of not less than two years of deprivation of liberty under the laws of both the requesting State and the requested State. Where the principle of retroactivity of penal law exists, it shall be applied only when it is favorable to the offender. 2. If the extradition is to be carried out between States whose laws establish minimum and maximum penalties, the offense for which extradition is requested shall be punishable, under the laws of the requesting and the requested States, by an average penalty of at least two years of deprivation of liberty. Average penalty is understood to be one-half of the sum of the minimum and maximum terms of each penalty of deprivation of liberty. 3. Where the extradition of an offender is requested for the execution of a sentence involving deprivation of liberty, the duration of the sentence still to be served must be at least six months. 4. In determining whether extradition should be granted to a State having a federal form of government and separate federal and state criminal legislation, the requested State shall take into consideration only the essential

164

APPENDIX A

elements of the offense and shall disregard elements such as interstate transportation or use of the mails or other facilities of interstate commerce, since the sole purpose of such elements is to establish the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the requesting State. Article 4 Grounds for Denying Extradition Extradition shall not be granted: 1. When the person sought has completed his punishment or has been granted amnesty, pardon or grace for the offense for which extradition is sought, or when he has been acquitted or the case against him for the same offense has been dismissed with prejudice. 2. When the prosecution or punishment is barred by the statute of limitations according to the laws of the requesting State or the requested State prior to the presentation of the request for extradition. 3. When the person sought has been tried or sentenced or is to be tried before an extraordinary or ad hoc tribunal of the requesting State. 4. When, as determined by the requested State, the offense for which the person is sought is a political offense, an offense related thereto, or an ordinary criminal offense prosecuted for political reasons. The requested State may decide that the fact that the victim of the punishable act in question performed political functions does not in itself justify the designation of the offense as political. 5. When, from the circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that persecution for reasons of race, religion or nationality is involved, or that the position of the person sought may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. 6. With respect to offenses that in the requested State cannot be prosecuted unless a complaint or charge has been made by a party having a legitimate interest. Article 5 Specific Offenses No provision of this Convention shall preclude extradition regulated by a treaty or Convention in force between the requesting State and the requested State whose purpose is to prevent or repress a specific category of offenses and which imposes on such States an obligation to either prosecute or extradite the person sought.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

165

Article 6 Right of Asylum No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as a limitation on the right of asylum when its exercise is appropriate. Article 7 Nationality 1. The nationality of the person sought may not be invoked as a ground for denying extradition, except when the law of the requested State otherwise provides. 2. In the case of convicted persons, the States Parties may negotiate the mutual surrender of nationals so that they may serve their sentences in the States of which they are nationals. Article 8 Prosecution by the Requested State If, when extradition is applicable, a State does not deliver the person sought, the requested State shall, when its laws or other treaties so permit, be obligated to prosecute him for the offense with which he is charged, just as if it had been committed within its territory, and shall inform the requesting State of the judgment handed down. Article 9 Penalties Excluded The States Parties shall not grant extradition when the offense in question is punishable in the requesting State by the death penalty, by life imprisonment, or by degrading punishment, unless the requested State has previously obtained from the requesting State, through the diplomatic channel, sufficient assurances that none of the above-mentioned penalties will be imposed on the person sought or that, if such penalties are imposed, they will not be enforced. Article 10 Transmission of Request The request for extradition shall be made by the diplomatic agent of the requesting State, or, if none is present, by its consular officer, or, when appropriate, by the diplomatic agent of a third State to which is entrusted, with the consent of the government of the requested State, the representation and protection of the

166

APPENDIX A

interests of the requesting State. The request may also be made directly from government to government, in accordance with such procedure as the governments concerned may agree upon. Article 11 Supporting Documents 1. The request for extradition shall be accompanied by the documents listed below, duly certified in the manner prescribed by the laws of the requesting State: a. A certified copy of the warrant for arrest, or other document of like nature, issued by a competent judicial authority, or the Ministerio Público as well as a certified copy of evidence that, according to the laws of the requested State, is sufficient for the arrest and commitment for trial of the person sought. This last mentioned requirement shall not apply if the laws of the requesting State and of the requested State do not so provide. If the person has been tried and convicted of the offense by the courts of the requesting State, a certified verbatim copy of the final judgment shall suffice. b. The text of the legal provisions that define and penalize the alleged crime, as well as those of the statute of limitations governing prosecution and punishment. 2. The request for extradition shall also be accompanied by the translation into the language of the requested State, if appropriate, of the documents enumerated in the previous paragraph, as well as by any personal data that will permit identification of the person sought, indication of his nationality, and, whenever possible, his location within the territory of the requested State, photographs, fingerprints, or any other satisfactory means of identification. Article 12 Supplementary Information and Legal Assistance 1. The requested State, when it considers that the documents presented are insufficient, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of this Convention, shall so inform the requesting State as soon as possible. The requesting State shall correct any omissions or defects observed within a period of thirty days in the event the person sought is already detained or subject to precautionary measures. If, because of special circumstances, the requesting State is unable to correct the omissions or defects within that term, it may ask the requested State to extend the term by thirty days. 2. The requested State shall provide, at no cost to the requesting State, legal assistance to protect the interests of the requesting State before the competent authorities of the requested State.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

167

Article 13 Rule of Speciality 1. A person extradited under this Convention shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an offense, committed prior to the date of the request for extradition, other than that for which extradition has been granted unless: a. That person leaves the territory of the requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to it; or b. That person does not leave the territory of the requesting State within thirty days after being free to do so; or c. The competent authority of the requested State consents to that person’s detention, trial or punishment for another offense. In such case, the requested State may require the requesting State to submit the documents mentioned in Article 11 of this Convention. 2. When extradition has been granted, the requesting State shall inform the requested State of the final resolution of the case against the person extradited. Article 14 Provisional Detention and Precautionary Measures 1. In urgent cases, a State Party may request by the means of communication provided for in Article 10 of this Convention, or any other such means, the detention of the person who is judicially required for prosecution, is being tried, has been convicted, or has been sentenced to a penalty involving deprivation of liberty, and may also request the seizure of the objects related to the offense. The request for provisional detention shall contain a statement of intention to present the formal request for the extradition of the person sought, a statement of the existence of a warrant of arrest or of a judgment of conviction against that person issued by a judicial authority, and a description of the offense. The request for provisional detention shall be the sole responsibility of the requesting State. 2. The requested State shall order provisional detention and, when appropriate, the seizure of objects and shall immediately inform the requesting State of the date on which provisional detention commenced. 3. If the request for extradition, accompanied by the documents referred to in Article 11 of this Convention, is not presented within sixty days of the date on which the provisional detention referred to in paragraph 1 of this article commenced, the person sought shall be set free. 4. After the period of time referred to in the preceding paragraph has expired, the detention of the person sought may not be again requested except upon presentation of the documents required under Article 11 of this Convention.

168

APPENDIX A

Article 15 Requests by more than One State When the extradition is requested by more than one State for the same offense, the requested State shall give preference to the request of the State in which the offense was committed. If the requests are for different offenses, preference shall be given to the State seeking the individual for the offense punishable by the most severe penalty, in accordance with the laws of the requested State. If the requests involve different offenses that the requested State considers to be of equal gravity, preference shall be determined by the order in which the requests are received. Article 16 Legal Rights and Assistance 1. The person sought shall enjoy in the requested State all the legal rights and guarantees granted by the laws of that State. 2. The person sought shall be assisted by legal counsel, and if the official language of the country is other than his own, he shall also be assisted by an interpreter. Article 17 Communication of the Extradition Decision The requested State shall promptly inform the requesting State of its decision on the request for extradition and the reasons for its approval or denial. Article 18. Non bis in idem Once the request for extradition of a person has been denied, a request may not be made again for the same offense. Article 19 Surrender of the Person Sought and Delivery of Property 1. The surrender of the person sought to the agents of the requesting State shall be carried out at a place determined by the requested State. This place shall, if possible, be an airport from which direct international flights depart for the requesting State. 2. If the request for provisional detention or for extradition is accompanied by a request for the seizure of documents, money or other objects that

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

169

result from the alleged offense or may serve as evidence, such objects shall be collected and deposited under inventory by the requested State for subsequent delivery to the requesting State when the extradition is granted and even though the extradition is impeded by force majeure, unless the law of the requested State forbids such delivery. In any event, the rights of third parties shall not be affected. Article 20 Deferral of Surrender 1. When the person sought is being tried or is serving a sentence in the requested State for an offense other than that for which the extradition is requested, his surrender may be deferred until he is entitled to be set free by virtue of acquittal, completed service or commutation of sentence, dismissal, pardon, amnesty or grace. No civil suit that the person sought may have pending against him in the requested State may prevent or defer his surrender. 2. When the surrender of the person sought would, for reasons of health, endanger his life, his surrender may be deferred until it would no longer pose such a danger. Article 21 Simplified Extradition The requested State may grant extradition without a formal extradition proceeding if: a. Its laws do not expressly prohibit it; b. The person sought irrevocably consents in writing to the extradition after being advised by a judge or other competent authority of his right to a formal extradition proceeding and the protection afforded by such a proceeding. Article 22 Period for Taking Custody of the Person Sought If the extradition has been granted, the requesting State shall take custody of the person sought within a period of thirty days from the date on which he was placed at its disposal. If it does not take custody within that period, the person sought shall be set free and may not be subjected to a new extradition procedure for the same offense or offenses. This period, however, may be extended for thirty days if the requesting State is unable, owing to circumstances beyond its control, to take custody of the person sought and escort him out of the territory of the requested State.

170

APPENDIX A

Article 23 Custody The agents of the requesting State who are in the territory of another State Party to take custody of a person whose extradition has been granted shall be authorized to have custody of him and escort him to the territory of the requesting State, provided, however, that such agents shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the State in which they are. Article 24 Transit 1. If prior notification has been given from government to government through diplomatic or consular channels, the States Parties shall permit and cooperate in the transit through their territories of a person whose extradition has been granted under the custody of agents of the requesting State and/or the requested State, as the case may be, upon presentation of a copy of the order granting the extradition. 2. Such prior notification shall not be necessary when air transport is used and no landing is scheduled in the territory of the State Party that will be flown over. Article 25 Expenses Expenses incurred in the detention, custody, maintenance, and transportation of both the person extradited and of the objects referred to in Article 19 of this Convention shall be borne by the requested State up to the moment of surrender and delivery, and thereafter such expenses shall be borne by the requesting State. Article 26 Waiver of Legalization When the documents provided for in this Convention are communicated through the diplomatic or consular channel, or direct from government to government, their legalization shall not be required. Article 27 Signature This Convention shall be open for signature by the member states of the Organization of American States.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

171

Article. 28 Ratification This Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article 29 Accession 1. This Convention shall be open to accession by any American State. 2. This Convention shall be open to accession by States having the status of permanent observer to the Organization of American States, following approval of the pertinent request by the General Assembly of the Organization. Article 30 Reservations Each State may, at the time of signature, approval, ratification, or accession, make reservations to this Convention, provided that each reservation concerns one or more specific provisions and is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Article 31 Entry into Force 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the second instrument of ratification. 2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession. Article 32 Special Cases of Territorial Application 1. If a State Party has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention, it shall, at the time of signature, ratification, or accession, declare that this Convention shall extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them.

172

APPENDIX A

2. Such declaration may be modified by subsequent declarations, which shall expressly indicate the territorial unit or units to which this Convention applies. Such subsequent declarations shall be transmitted to the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, and shall become effective thirty days after the date of their receipt. Article 33 Relations with other Conventions on Extradition 1. This Convention shall apply to the States Parties that ratify it or accede to it and shall not supersede multilateral or bilateral treaties that are in force or were concluded earlier unless the States Parties concerned otherwise expressly declare or agree, respectively. 2. The States Parties may decide to maintain in force as supplementary instruments treaties entered into earlier. Article 34 Duration and Denunciation This Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any of the States Parties may denounce it. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. After one year from the date of deposit of the instrument of denunciation, the Convention shall no longer be in effect for the denouncing State, but shall remain in effect for the other States Parties. Article 35 Deposit, Registration, Publication and Notification The original instrument of this Convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall send an authenticated copy of its text to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration And publication in accordance with Article 102 of its Charter. The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States shall notify the member states of that Organization and the states that have acceded to the Convention of the signatures; deposits of instruments of ratification, accession, or denunciation; and reservations, if any. It shall also transmit to them the declarations referred to in Article 32 of this Convention. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto. by their respective governments, have signed this Convention.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

173

DONE AT CARACAS, Republic of Venezuela, on this twenty-fifth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one.

DECLARATION MADE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE CONVENTION Guatemala: As there is no homogeneous system for defining offenses in Comparative law nor in our legislation, and as an essentially subjective and integral procedure. for classifying them has been adopted in this Convention, our Delegation has signed it with the understanding that the interpretation of articles 7 and 8 when applicable will be subject to the provisions of article 61 of our Constitution, particularly in that “no Guatemalan shall be handed over to a foreign government for trial or punishment except for crimes covered by international treaties in force in Guatemala”.

RESERVATIONS MADE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE CONVENTION Haiti: Under reservations.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE

Signed at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, on December 9, 1985, at the Fifteenth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States1

The American States signatory to the present Convention, Aware of the provision of the American Convention on Human Rights that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment; Reaffirming that all acts of torture or any other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment constitute an offense against human dignity and a denial of the principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and in the Charter of the United Nations and are violations of the fundamental human rights and freedoms proclaimed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Noting that, in order for the pertinent rules contained in the aforementioned global and regional instruments to take effect, it is necessary to draft an Inter-American Convention that prevents and punishes torture; Reaffirming their purpose of consolidating in this hemisphere the conditions that make for recognition of and respect for the inherent dignity of man, and ensure the full exercise of his fundamental rights and freedoms, Have agreed upon the following: Article 1 The States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of 1

OAS Treaty Series 67, 1986, pp. 13 to 18.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE

175

intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article. Article 3 The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture: a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so. b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto. Article 4 The fact of having acted under orders of a superior shall not provide exemption from the corresponding criminal liability. Article 5 The existence of circumstances such as a state of war, threat of war, state of siege or of emergency, domestic disturbance or strife, suspension of constitutional guarantees, domestic political instability, or other public emergencies or disasters shall not be invoked or admitted as justification for the crime of torture. Neither the dangerous character of the detainee or prisoner, nor the lack of security of the prison establishment or penitentiary shall justify torture. Article 6 In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature.

176

APPENDIX A

The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. Article 7 The States Parties shall take measures so that, in the training of police officers and other public officials responsible for the custody of persons temporarily or definitively deprived of their freedom, special emphasis shall be put on the prohibition of the use of torture in interrogation, detention, or arrest. The States Parties likewise shall take similar measures to prevent other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 8 The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State. Article 9 The States Parties undertake to incorporate into their national laws regulations guaranteeing suitable compensation for victims of torture. None of the provisions of this article shall affect the right to receive compensation that the victim or other persons may have by virtue of existing national legislation. Article 10 No statement that is verified as having been obtained through torture shall be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, except in a legal action taken against a person or persons accused of having elicited it through acts of torture, and only as evidence that the accused obtained such statement by such means.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE

177

Article 11 The State Parties shall take the necessary steps to extradite anyone accused of having committed the crime of torture or sentenced for commission of that crime, in accordance with their respective national laws on extradition and their international commitments on this matter. Article 12 Every State Party shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the crime described in this Convention in the following cases: a. When torture has been committed within its jurisdiction; b. When the alleged criminal is a national of that State; or c. When the victim is a national of that State and it so deems appropriate. Every State Party shall also take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the crime described in this Convention when the alleged criminal is within the area under its jurisdiction and it is not appropriate to extradite him in accordance with Article 11. This Convention does not exclude criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with domestic law. Article 13 The crime referred to in Article 2 shall be deemed to be included among the extraditable crimes in every extradition treaty entered into between States Parties. The States Parties undertake to include the crime of torture as an extraditable offence in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. Every State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty may, if it receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the crime of torture. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions that may be required by the law of the requested State. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such crimes as extraditable offenses between themselves, subject to the conditions required by the law of the requested State. Extradition shall not be granted nor shall the person sought be returned when there are grounds to believe that his life is in danger, that he will be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or that he will be tried by special or ad hoc courts in the requesting State.

178

APPENDIX A

Article 14 When a State Party does not grant the extradition, the case shall be submitted to its competent authorities as if the crime had been committed within its jurisdiction, for the purposes of investigation, and when appropriate, for criminal action, in accordance with its national law. Any decision adopted by these authorities shall be communicated to the State that has requested the extradition. Article 15 No provision of this Convention may be interpreted as limiting the right of asylum, when appropriate, nor as altering the obligations of the States Parties in the matter of extradition. Article 16 This Convention shall not limit the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, other conventions on the subject, or the Statutes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with respect to the crime of torture. Article 17 The States Parties undertake to inform the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other measures they adopt in application of this Convention. In keeping with its duties and responsibilities, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will endeavor in its annual report to analyze the existing situation in the member states of the Organization of American States in regard to the prevention and elimination of torture. Article 18 This Convention is open to signature by the member states of the Organization of American States. Article 19 This Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE

179

Article 20 This Convention is open to accession by any other American state. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article 21 The States Parties may, at the time of approval, signature, ratification, or accession, make reservations to this Convention, provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and concern one or more specific provisions. Article 22 This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date on which the second instrument of ratification is deposited. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the second instrument of ratification has been deposited, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date on which that State deposits its instrument of ratification or accession. Article 23 This Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced by any State Party. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. After one year from the date of deposit of the instrument of denunciation, this Convention shall cease to be in effect for the denouncing State but shall remain in force for the remaining States Parties. Article 24 The original instrument of this Convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall send a certified copy to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication, in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States shall notify the member states of the Organization and the states that have acceded to the Convention of signatures and of deposits of instruments of ratification, accession, and denunciation, as well as reservations, if any.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Adopted at Nassau, Bahamas, on May 23, 1992, at the Twenty Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States1

Whereas: The Charter of the Organization of American States, in Article 2.e establishes that an essential objective of the American states is “to seek the solution of political, juridical, and economic problems that may arise among them”; and The adoption of common rules in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters will contribute to the attainment of this goal, The member states of the Organization of American States Do hereby adopt the following Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: CHAPTER I General Provisions Article 1. Purpose of the Convention The states parties undertake to render to one another mutual assistance in criminal matters, in accordance with the provisions of this convention. Article 2. Scope and Application of the Convention The states parties shall render to one another mutual assistance in investigations, prosecutions, and proceedings that pertain to crimes over which the requesting state has jurisdiction at the time the assistance is requested. This convention does not authorize any state party to undertake, in the territory of another state party, the exercise of jurisdiction or the performance of functions that are placed within the exclusive purview of the authorities of that other party by its domestic law. This convention applies solely to the provision of mutual assistance among states parties. Its provisions, shall not create any right on the part of any 1

OAS Treaties Series 75, 1993, pp. 19 to 32.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

181

private person to obtain or exclude any evidence or to impede execution of any request for assistance. Article 3. Central Authority Each state shall designate a central authority at the time of signature or ratification of this convention or accession hereto. The central authorities shall be responsible for issuing and receiving requests for assistance. The central authorities shall communicate directly with one another for all purposes of this convention. Article 4. In view of the diversity of the legal systems of the states parties, the assistance to which this convention refers shall be based upon requests for cooperation from the authorities responsible for criminal investigation or prosecution in the requesting state. Article 5. Double Criminality The assistance shall be rendered even if the act that gives rise to it is not punishable under the legislation of the requested state. When the request for assistance pertains to the following measures: (a) immobilization and sequestration of property and (b) searches and seizures, including house searches, the requested state may decline to render the assistance if the act that gives rise to the request is not punishable under its legislation. Article 6. For the purposes of this convention, the act that gives rise to the request must be punishable by one year or more of imprisonment in the requesting state. Article 7. Scope of Application The assistance envisaged under this convention shall include the following procedures, among others: a. b. c. d.

notification of rulings and judgments; taking of testimony or statements from persons; summoning of witnesses and expert witnesses to provide testimony immobilization and sequestration of property, freezing of assets, and assistance in procedures related to seizures; e. searches or seizures f. examination of objects and places; g. service of judicial documents;

182

APPENDIX A

h. transmittal of documents, reports, information, and evidence; i. transfer of detained persons for the purpose of this convention; and j. any other procedure provided there is agreement between the requesting state and the requested state. Article 8. Military Crimes This convention shall not apply to crimes that are subject exclusively to military legislation. Article 9. Refusal of Assistance The requested state may refuse assistance when it determines that: a. The request for assistance is being used in order to prosecute a person on a charge with respect to which that person has already been sentenced or acquitted in a trial in the requesting or requested state; b. The investigation has been initiated for the purpose of prosecuting, punishing, or discriminating in any way against an individual or group of persons for reason of sex, race, social status, nationality, religion or ideology; c. The request refers to a crime that is political or related to a political crime, or to a common crime prosecuted for political reasons; d. The request has been issued at the request of a special or ad hoc tribunal; e. Public policy (ordre public), sovereignty, security, or basic public interests are prejudiced; and f. The request pertains to a tax crime. Nevertheless, the assistance shall be granted if the offense is committed by way of an intentionally incorrect statement, whether oral or written, or by way of an intentional failure to declare income derived from any other offense covered by this convention for the purpose of concealing such income. CHAPTER II Requests for Assistance, processing and execution Article 10. Requests for Assistance Requests for assistance issued by the requesting state shall be made in writing and shall be executed in accordance with the domestic law of the requested state. The procedures specified in the request for assistance shall be fulfilled in the manner indicated by the requesting state insofar as the law of the requested state is not violated. Article 11 The requested state may postpone the execution of any request that has been made to it, with an explanation of its grounds for doing so, if it is necessary to continue an investigation or proceeding in progress in the requested state.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

183

Article 12 Documents and objects delivered in compliance with a request for assistance shall be returned to the requested state as soon as possible, unless the latter decides otherwise. Article 13. Search, Seizure, Attachment and Surrender of Property The requested state shall execute requests for search, seizure, attachment, and surrender of any items, documents, records, or effects, if the competent authority determines that the request contains information that justifies the proposed action. That action shall be subject to the procedural and substantive law of the requested state. In accordance with the provisions of this convention, the requested state shall determine, according to its law, what requirements must be met to protect the interests held by third parties in the items that are to be transferred. Article 14. Measures for Securing Assets The central authority of any party may convey to the central authority of any other party information it has on the existence of proceeds, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime in the territory of that other party. Article 15. The parties shall assist each other, to the extent permitted by their respective laws, in precautionary measures and measures for securing the proceeds, fruits and instrumentalities of the crime. Article 16. Date, Place and Modality of the Execution of the Request for Assistance The requested state shall set the date and place for execution of the request for assistance and may so inform the requesting state. Officials and interested parties of the requesting state or their representatives may, after informing the central authority of the requested state, be present at and participate in the execution of the request for assistance, to the extent not prohibited by the law of the requested state, and provided that the authorities of the requested state have given their express consent thereto. CHAPTER III Service of Judicial Decisions, Judgments, and Verdicts, and Appearance of Witnesses and Expert Witnesses Articles 17 to 23

184

APPENDIX A

CHAPTER IV Transmittal of Information and Records Articles 24 and 25 CHAPTER V Procedure Articles 26 to 31 CHAPTER VI Final Clauses Articles 32 to 40 EXCERPTS Article 18. Testimony in the Requested State At the request of the requesting state, any person present in the requested state shall be summoned to appear before a competent authority, in accordance with the law of the requesting state, to give testimony or to provide documents, records, or evidence. Article 19. Testimony in the Requesting State When the requesting state requests that a person appear in its territory to give testimony or a report, the requested state shall invite the witness or expert witness to appear voluntarily, without the use of threats or coercive measures, before the appropriate authority in the requesting state. If deemed necessary, the central authority of the requested state may make a written record of the individual’s willingness to appear in the requesting state. The central authority of the requested state shall promptly inform the central authority of the requesting state of the response of the person. Article 20. Transfer of Persons Subject to Criminal Proceedings A person subject to criminal proceedings in the requested state whose presence in the requesting state is needed for purposes of assistance under this convention shall be transferred temporarily to the requesting state for that purpose if the person and the requested state consent to the transfer. A person subject to criminal proceedings in the requesting state whose presence in the requested state is needed for purposes of assistance under this convention shall be transferred temporarily to the requested state if the person consents and both states agree. The actions set forth above may be denied for the following reasons, among others:

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

185

a. the individual in custody or serving a sentence refuses to consent to the transfer; b. as long as his presence is necessary in an investigation or criminal proceeding that is under way in the jurisdiction to which he is subject at the time; c. there are other considerations, whether legal or of another nature, as determined by the competent authority of the requested or requesting state. For purposes of this article: a. the receiving state shall have the authority and the obligation to keep the transferred person in physical custody unless otherwise indicated by the sending state; b. the receiving state shall return the transferred person to the sending state as soon as circumstances permit or as otherwise agreed by the central authorities of two states; c. the sending state shall not be required to initiate extradition proceedings for the return of the transferred person; d. the transferred person shall receive credit toward service of the sentence imposed in the sending state for time served in the receiving state; and e. the length of time spent by the person in the receiving state shall never exceed the period remaining for service of the sentence or 60 days, whichever is less, unless the person and both states agree to an extension of time. Article 21. Transit The states parties shall render cooperation, to the extent possible, for travel through their territory of the persons mentioned in the preceding article, provided that the respective central authority has been given due advance notice and that such persons travel in the custody of agents of the requesting state. Such prior notice shall not be necessary when air transportation is used and no regular landing is scheduled in the territory of the state party or states parties to be overflown. Article 25. Limitation on the Use of Information or Evidence The requesting state may not disclose or use any information or evidence obtained in the course of application of this convention for purposes other than those specified in the request for assistance without prior consent from the central authority of the requested state. In exceptional cases, if the requesting state needs to disclose and use, in whole or in part, the information or evidence for purposes other than those specified, it shall request authorization therefor from the requested state, which, at its discretion, may accede to or deny that request, in whole or in part.

186

APPENDIX A

The information or evidence that must be disclosed and used to the extent necessary for proper fulfillment of the procedure or formalities specified in the request shall not be subject to the authorization requirement set forth in this article. When necessary, the requested state may ask that the information or evidence provided remain confidential according to conditions specified by the central authority. If the requesting party is unable to accede to such request, the central authorities shall confer in order to define mutually acceptable terms of confidentiality. Article 26. Requests for assistance shall contain the following details: a. the crime to which the procedure refers; a summary description on the essential facts of the crime investigation, or criminal proceeding in question; and a description of the facts to which the request refers; b. proceeding giving rise to the request for assistance, with a precise description of such proceeding; c. where pertinent, a description of any proceeding or other special requirement of the requesting state; d. a precise description of the assistance requested and any information necessary for the fulfillment of that request. When the requested state is unable to comply with a request for assistance, it shall return the request to the requesting state with an explanation of the reason therefor. The requested state may request additional information when necessary for fulfillment of the request under its domestic law or to facilitate such fufillment. When necessary, the requesting state shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 24 of this convention. Article 29. The requested state shall be responsible for all regular costs of executing a request in its territory, except for those listed below, which shall be borne by the requesting state: a. fees for expert witnessed; and b. travel costs and other expenses related to the transportation of persons from the territory of one state to that of the other. If it appears that the processing of the request might entail unusual costs, the states parties shall confer to determine the terms and conditions under which the assistance could be rendered.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

187

Article 30. To the extent that they find it useful and necessary for furthering the implementation of this convention, the states parties may exchange information on matters related to its application. Article 31. The domestic law of each party shall govern liability for damages arising from the acts of its authorities in the execution of this Convention. Neither party shall be liable for damages that may arise from the acts committed by the authorities of the other party in the formulation or execution of a request under this Convention. Final Clauses (Articles 32 to 40) Signature, ratification, accession, reservations, and other clauses.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD

Done in the city of Managua, Nicaragua, June 9, 1993

THE MEMBER STATES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,

CONSIDERING that, according to Article 2.e of the OAS Charter, one of the essential purposes of the Organization of American States is to “seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise among them”; INSPIRED BY THE DESIRE to cooperate to ensure improved administration of justice through the social rehabilitation of the sentenced persons; PERSUADED that to attain these ends, it is advisable that the sentenced person be given an opportunity to serve the sentence in the country of which the sentenced person is a national; and CONVINCED that the way to bring about this result is to transfer the sentenced person, RESOLVES to adopt the following Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad: ARTICLE I DEFENITIONS For the purposes of this convention: 1. Sentencing state: means the state party from which the sentenced person would be transferred. 2. Receiving state: means the state party to which the sentenced person would be transferred. 3. Sentence: means the final judicial decision imposing, as a penalty for the commission of a criminal offense, imprisonment or a term of parole, probation, or other form of supervision without imprisonment. A sentence is understood to be final when no ordinary legal appeal against the conviction or sentence is pending in the sentencing state and the period for its appeal has expired.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD

189

4. Sentenced person: means the person who is to serve or is serving a sentence in the territory of a state party. ARTICLE II GENERAL PRINCIPLES In accordance with the provisions of this convention: a. a sentence imposed in one state party upon a national of another state party may be served by the sentenced person in the state of which he or she is a national; and b. the states parties undertake to afford each other the fullest cooperation in connection with the transfer of sentenced persons. ARTICLE III CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS CONVENTION This convention shall be applicable only under the following conditions: 1. The sentence must be final, as defined in Article 1.3 of this convention. 2. The sentenced person must consent to the transfer, having been previously informed of the legal consequences thereof. 3. The act for which the person has been sentenced must also constitute a crime in the receiving state. For this purpose, no account shall be taken of differences of terminology or of those that have no bearing on the nature of the offense. 4. The sentenced person must be a national of the receiving state. 5. The sentence to be served must not be the death penalty. 6. At least six months of the sentence must remain to be served at the time the request is made. 7. The administration of the sentence must not be contrary to domestic law in the receiving state. ARTICLE IV PROVISION OF INFORMATION 1. Each state party shall inform any sentenced person covered by the provisions of this convention as to its content. 2. The states parties shall keep the sentenced person informed as to the processing of the transfer.

190

APPENDIX A

ARTICLE V PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER The transfer of a sentenced person from one state to another shall be subject to the following procedure: 1. The request for application of this convention may be made by the sentencing state, the receiving state, or the sentenced person. The procedures for the transfer may be initiated by the sentencing state or by the receiving state. In these cases, it is required that the sentenced person has expressed consent to the transfer. 2. The request for transfer shall be processed through the central authorities indicated pursuant to Article XI of this convention, or, in the absence thereof, through consular or diplomatic channels. In conformity with its domestic law, each state party shall inform those authorities it considers necessary as to the content of this convention. It shall also endeavor to establish mechanisms for cooperation among the central authority and the other authorities that are to participate in the transfer of the sentenced person. 3. If the sentence was handed down by a state or province with criminal jurisdiction independent from that of the federal government, the approval of the authorities of that state or province shall be required for the application of this transfer procedure. 4. The request for transfer shall furnish pertinent information establishing that the conditions of Article III have been met. 5. Before the transfer is made, the sentencing state shall permit the receiving state to verify, if it wishes, through an official designated by the latter, that the sentenced person has given consent to the transfer in full knowledge of the legal consequences thereof. 6. In taking a decision on the transfer of a sentenced person, the states parties may consider, among other factors, the possibility of contributing to the person’s social rehabilitation; the gravity of the offense; the criminal record of the sentenced person, if any; the state of health of the sentenced person; and the family, social, or other ties the sentenced person may have in the sentencing state and the receiving state. 7. The sentencing state shall provide the receiving state with a certified copy of the sentence, including information on the amount of time already served by the sentenced person and on the time off that could be credited for reasons such as work, good behavior, or pre trial detention. The receiving state may request such other information as it deems necessary. 8. Surrender of the sentenced person by the sentencing state to the receiving state shall be effected at the place agreed upon by the central authorities.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD

191

The receiving state shall be responsible for custody of the sentenced person from the moment of delivery. 9. All expenses that arise in connection with the transfer of the sentenced person until that person is placed in the custody of the receiving state shall be borne by the sentencing state. 10. The receiving state shall be responsible for all expenses arising from the transfer of the sentenced person as of the moment that person is placed in the receiving state’s custody. ARTICLE VI REFUSAL OF TRANSFER REQUEST When a state party does not approve the transfer of a sentenced person, it shall notify the requesting state of its refusal immediately, and whenever possible and appropriate, explain its reasons for the refusal. ARTICLE VII RIGHTS OF THE SENTENCED PERSON WHO IS TRANSFERRED AND MANNER OF SERVING SENTENCE 1. A sentenced person who is transferred under the provisions of this convention shall not be arrested, tried, or sentenced again in the receiving state for the same offense upon which the sentence to be executed is based. 2. Except as provided in Article VIII of this convention, the sentence of a sentenced person who is transferred shall be served in accordance with the laws and procedures of the receiving state, including application of any provisions relating to reduction of time of imprisonment or of alternative service of the sentence. No sentence may be enforced by a receiving state in such fashion as to lengthen the sentence beyond the date on which it would expire under the terms of the sentence of the court in the sentencing state. 3. The authorities of a sentencing state may request, by way of the central authorities, reports on the status of service of the sentence of any sentenced person transferred to a receiving state in accordance with this convention. ARTICLE VIII REVIEW OF SENTENCE AND EFFECTS IN THE RECEIVING STATE The sentencing state shall retain full jurisdiction for the review of sentences issued by its courts. It shall also retain the power to grant pardon, amnesty, or mercy to the sentenced person. The receiving state, upon receiving notice of any decision in this regard, must take the corresponding measures immediately.

192

APPENDIX A

ARTICLE IX APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION IN SPECIAL CASES This Convention may also be applicable to persons subject to supervision or other measures under the laws of one of the states parties relating to youthful offenders. Consent for the transfer shall be obtained from the person legally authorized to grant it. By agreement between the parties, this convention may be applied to persons whom the competent authority has pronounced unindictable, for purposes of treatment of such persons in the receiving state. The parties shall, in accordance with their laws, agree on the type of treatment to be accorded such individuals upon transfer. For the transfer, consent must be obtained from a person legally authorized to grant it. ARTICLE X TRANSIT If the sentenced person, upon being transferred, must cross the territory of a another state party to this convention, the latter shall be notified by way of transmittal of the decision granting the transfer by the state under whose custody the transfer is to be effected. In such cases, the state of transit may or may not consent to the transit of the sentenced person through its territory. Such notification shall not be necessary when air transport is used and no regular landing is scheduled in the territory of the state party that is to be overflown. ARTICLE XI CENTRAL AUTHORITY Upon signing, ratifying, or acceding to this convention, the states parties shall notify the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States of the central authority designated to perform the functions provided herein. The General Secretariat shall distribute to the states parties to this convention a list of the designations it has received. ARTICLE XII RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AGREEMENTS None of the stipulations of this convention shall be construed to restrict other bilateral or multilateral treaties or other agreements between the parties. FINAL CLAUSES ARTICLE XIII This convention is open to signature by the Member states of the Organization of American States.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD

193

ARTICLE XIV This convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. ARTICLE XV This convention shall remain open to accession by any other state. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. ARTICLE XVI The States may set forth reservations to this convention at such time as they approve, sign, ratify, or accede to it, provided that the reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of this convention and that they relate to one or more specific provisions. ARTICLE XVII This convention shall enter into force for the ratifying states on the thirtieth day following the date on which the second instrument of ratification has been deposited. For each state that ratifies the convention or accedes to it after the second instrument of ratification has been deposited, the convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the day on which such state has deposited its instrument of ratification or accession. ARTICLE XVIII This convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any state party may denounce it. The denunciation shall be registered with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. At the end of one year from the date of the denunciation, the convention shall cease to be in force for the denouncing state. However, its provisions shall remain in force for the denouncing state with respect to sentenced persons transferred in accordance with this convention, until the respective sentences have been served. Requests for transfer being processed at the time the denunciation of this convention is made will continue to be processed and executed, unless the parties agree to the contrary. ARTICLE XIX The original of this convention, whose texts in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General

194

APPENDIX A

Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall send a certified copy, for registry and publication, to the Secretariat of the United Nations, pursuant to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States shall notify the Member states of that Organization and the states that have acceded to the convention of the signatures affixed, the instruments of ratification, accession, or denunciation deposited, and the reservations set forth, if any. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Convention, which shall be called the “Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad”. DONE IN THE CITY OF MANAGUA, NICARAGUA, the ninth of June in the year one thousand nine hundred ninety-three.

A–57: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD

ADOPTED AT: DATE: CONF/ASSEM/MEETING: ENTRY INTO FORCE: DEPOSITORY:

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA 06/09/93 TWENTY-THIRD REGULAR SESSION OF THE OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 04/12/96, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONVENTION GENERAL SECRETARIAT TO OAS (ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT AND RATIFICATIONS)

GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A-57 SIGNATORY

SIGNATURE

REF

05/05/99 07/08/94 04/22/97 06/09/93 03/14/96 11/25/03 06/04/95 // 12/05/94 06/02/98 01/10/95 04/14/94

6

COUNTRIES

Brazil Canada Chile Costa Rica Ecuador Guatemala Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay United States Venezuela

RA/AC/AD REF

01/03/01 06/03/95 08/20/98 03/20/96 // // 05/27/97 07/09/01 11/05/98 // // 09/13/95

REF ⫽ REFERENCE D ⫽ DECLARATION R ⫽ RESERVATION INFORMA ⫽ INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE TREATY

1

2

DEPOSIT

04/26/01 06/04/95 10/14/98 06/02/96 // // 06/02/97 10/09/01 12/07/98 // 05/25/01 03/14/96

INST

INFORMA

REF

AD 04/26/01 8 RA // RA 03/17/99 5 RA 09/22/97 4 // // 10 RA 09/12/97 3 AD 11/25/02 9 RA // // RA 05/25/01 7 RA //

INST ⫽ TYPE OF INSTRUMENT RA ⫽ RATIFICATION AC ⫽ ACCEPTANCE AD ⫽ ACCESSION

196

APPENDIX A

A–57 INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES ABROAD 1. CANADA. (Declaration made at the time of ratification) The Government of Canada declares that under current legislation it can neither transfer nor receive persons under Article IX “Application of the Convention in Special Cases” whom the competent authority has pronounced unindictable for the purposes of treatment. Information provided in accordance with Article XVIII. On June 20, 1995, the Government of Canada notified the General Secretariat with Note OAS No. 0048, that the Central Authority of Canada for the Convention is the Manager, International Transfers, Correctional Service Canada, Solicitor General Canada, 340 Laurier Avenue, West, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0P9. 2. –Venezuela: (Provided information in accordance with ARTICLE XI) Appointed the Ministry of Justice as the Central Authority competent to carry out the functions entrusted to it in the Convention. 3. –Mexico: (Provided information in accordance with ARTICLE XI) Secretaria de Gobernacion Procuraduria General de la Republica 4. –Costa Rica: (Provided information in accordance with ARTICLE XI) Appointed the Direccion General de Adaptacion Social del Ministerio de Justicia y Gracia as the Central Authority competent to carry out the functions entrusted to it in the Convention. 5. –Chile: (Provided information in accordance with ARTICLE XI) Appointed the Ministry of Justice as the Central Authority competent to carry out the functions entrusted to it in the Convention. 6. –Brasil: RESERVATION (May 5, 1999) The Brazilian Government hereby issues its reservation to the following text, found in Article VII.2: “including application of any provisions relating to reduction of time of imprisonment or of alternative service of the sentence.”

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON SERVING CRIMINAL SENTENCES

197

7. –Brasil: (Provided information in accordance with Artilcle XI) Central Authority – (April 26, 2001) Secretaria Nacional de Justicia de Brasil Ministerio de Justicia Esplanada dos Ministerios, Bloco T – 4. Andar, sal 424 700–900 Brasilia, DF. – Brasil Telefone: (55 61) 429–3145/3394 Telefax: (55 61) 226–5023 8. –UNITED STATES: RESERVATION/UNDERSTANDING. – (May 25, 2001) (1) Reservation. – With respect to Article V, paragraph 7, the United States of America will require that whenever one of its nationals is to be returned to the United States, the sentencing state provide the United States with the documents specified in that paragraph in the English language, as well as the language of the sentencing state. The United States undertakes to furnish a translation of those documents into the language of the requesting state in like circumstances. (2) Understanding. – The United States of America understands that the consent requirements in Articles III, IV, V and VI are cumulative; that is, that each transfer of a sentenced person under this Convention shall require the concurrence of the sentencing state, the receiving state, and the prisoner, and that in the circumstances specified in Article V, paragraph 3, the approval of the state or province concerned shall also be required. United States: (Provided information in accordance with ARTICLE XI) (May 25, 2001) Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice, Office of Enforcement Operations, International Prisoner Transfer Unit 10th and Constitution Ave., NW John C. Keeney Building, 12th Floor Washington D.C. 20004–7600 Phone 202–514 3173 Fax 202–514 9003 9. –Nicaragua: Appointed the Supreme Court of Justice as the Central Authority. (November 25, 2002)

198

APPENDIX A

10. –Guatemala: Declarations made by Guatemala when signing the Convention: 1. Article I.3: It is the understanding of the Republic of Guatemala that a sentence is final when there is no legal appeal or remedy pending against it whatsoever, the period for appeals or remedies has expired, and no notice thereof has been given. 2. Article VI: The Republic of Guatemala may deny the transfer of a sentenced person until he or she has paid the fines imposed or said fines have been converted into prison time by the judicial authorities, as provided for in the sentence, and he or she has paid civil liability unless, in both cases, payment is guaranteed to the satisfaction of the State’s judicial authorities. The State retains the right to waive or cancel, in favor of the sentenced person, payment for the redress of damage, as long as this is allowed under domestic law. 3. Article IX: For the Republic of Guatemala, youthful offenders are unindictable.

A–59: OPTIONAL PROTOCOL RELATED TO THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

ADOPTED AT: DATE: CONF/ASSEM/MEETING:

ENTRY INTO FORCE: DEPOSITORY:

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA 06/11/93 THIRD REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES // IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT AND RATIFICATIONS)

GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A–59 SIGNATORY

SIGNATURE

REF

RA/AC/AD REF

DEPOSIT

INST

INFORMA

REF

RA RA

// // // // // //

1

COUNTRIES

Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Paraguay United States

05/03/94 05/15/97 // 03/14/96 06/02/98 01/10/95

// // 12/04/02 12/26/01 // 01/05/01

REF ⫽ REFERENCE D ⫽ DECLARATION R ⫽ RESERVATION INFORMA ⫽ INFORMATION REQUIRED

// // 01/13/03 03/08/02 // 05/25/01

RA

INST ⫽ TYPE OF INSTRUMENT RA ⫽ RATIFICATION AC ⫽ ACCEPTANCE AD ⫽ ACCESSION

BY THE TREATY

1. –UNITED STATES. – Understandings: (May 25, 2001) (1) IN GENERAL . – The United States understands that the Convention and Optional Protocol are not intended to replace, supersede, obviate or otherwise interfere with any other existing bilateral or multilateral treaties or conventions, including those that relate to mutual assistance in criminal matters. (2) Article 25. – The United States understands that Article 25 of the Convention, which limits disclosure or use of information or evidence obtained under the Convention, shall no longer apply if such information or evidence is made public,

200

APPENDIX A

in a manner consistent with Article 25, in the course of proceedings in the Requesting State. (3) PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. – The United States shall exercise its rights to limit the use of assistance it may provide under the Convention and/or Optional Protocol so that any assistance provided by the Government of the United States shall not be transferred to or otherwise used to assist the International Criminal Court contemplated in the Statute adopted in Rome, Italy, on July 17, 1998, unless the Statute establishing that Court has entered into force for the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required by Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN MINORS

Approved by the Fifth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP-V), held in Mexico City March 14–19, 1994 convoked by the Organization of American States1

The States Parties to this Convention, Considering the importance of ensuring comprehensive and effective protection for minors, through appropriate mechanisms to guarantee respect for their rights; Aware that the international traffic in minors is a universal concern; Taking into consideration conventions on international protection of minors, particularly the provisions of Articles 11 and 35 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989; Convinced of the need to regulate civil and penal aspects of the international traffic in minors; and Reaffirming the importance of international cooperation to achieve effective protection of the best interests of minors, Have agreed upon the following: (35 articles)

CHAPTER ONE General Provisions Article 1 The purpose of the present Convention, with a view to protection of the fundamental rights of minors and their best interests, is the prevention and punishment of the international traffic in minors as well as the regulation of its civil and penal aspects. Accordingly, the States Parties to this Convention undertake to: a) ensure the protection of minors in consideration of their best interests;

1

International Legal Materials. Volume XXXIII, Number 3, May 1994, pp. 723 to 731

202

APPENDIX A

b) institute a system of mutual legal assistance among the States Parties, dedicated to the prevention and punishment of the international traffic in minors, as well as adopt related administrative and legal provisions to that effect; and c) ensure the prompt return of minors who are victims of international traffic to the State of their habitual residence, bearing in mind the best interests of the minors. Article 2 This Convention shall apply to any minor who is habitually resident in a State Party or is located in a State Party at the time when an act of international traffic occurs in respect of him or her. For the purpose of the present Convention: a) “Minor” means any human being below the age of eighteen. b) “International traffic in minors” means the abduction, removal or retention, or attempted abduction, removal or retention, of a minor for unlawful purposes or by unlawful means. c) “Unlawful purpose” includes, among others, prostitution, sexual exploitation, servitude or any other purpose unlawful in either the State of the minor’s habitual residence or the State Party where the minor is located. d) “Unlawful means” includes, among others, kidnapping, fraudulent or coerced consent, the giving or receipt of unlawful payments or benefits to achieve the consent of the parents, persons or institution having care of the child, or any other means unlawful in either the State of the minor’s habitual residence or the State Party where the minor is located. Article 3 This Convention shall also cover the civil aspects of the wrongful removal, transfer, or retention of minors internationally, not dealt with by other international conventions on this subject. Article 4 To the extent possible, States Parties shall cooperate with States that are not parties in preventing and punishing international traffic in minors, and in protecting and caring for minors who are victims of that wrongful act. The competent authorities of a State Party are to notify the competent authorities of a State that is not a Party whenever a minor is within its territory who has been a victim of international traffic in minors in a State Party.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN MINORS

203

Article 5 For the purposes of the present Convention, each State Party shall designate a Central Authority and shall inform the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States of that designation. A federal State, or a State in which several legal systems apply, or a State with autonomous territorial units may designate more than one Central Authority, specifying the legal or territorial area covered by each of them. The State making use of this possibility shall designate the Central Authority to which all communications should be addressed. Should a State Party designate more than one Central Authority, it shall so inform the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article 6 States Parties shall protect the minor’s interests with a view to ensuring that all procedures applied pursuant to the present Convention shall remain confidential.

CHAPTER II Penal Aspects Article 7 The States Parties undertake to adopt effective measures, under their domestic law, to prevent and severely punish the international traffic in minors defined in this Convention. Article 8 The States Parties to the present Convention undertake to: a) assist each other promptly and expeditiously through their Central Authorities, as permitted by the domestic laws of each State and by applicable international treaties, to conduct judicial and administrative proceedings, to take evidence, and to take any other procedural steps that may be necessary for fulfilling the objectives of this Convention; b) establish through their Central Authorities mechanisms for the exchange of information about any domestic statute, case law, administrative practices, statistics and modalities regarding international traffic in minors in their States; and c) order such measures as may be necessary to remove any obstacles that might affect the enforcement of this Convention in their States.

204

APPENDIX A

Article 9 The following shall have competence in cases of crimes involving international traffic in minors: a) the State Party where the wrongful conduct occurred; b) the State Party that is the habitual residence of the minor; c) the State Party in which the alleged offender is located if said offender has not been extradited; d) the State Party in which the minor who is a victim of said traffic is located. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, the State Party that first conducted formal proceedings concerning the wrongful act shall have preference. Article 10 If one of the States Parties where extradition is subject to the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from a State Party with which it has no such treaty, or if it has such a treaty, this crime is not among the extraditable offenses, it may consider the present Convention as the legal grounds needed to grant extradition in the case of the international traffic in minors. Further, States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the international traffic in minors as a basis for extradition between them. Where no extradition treaty exists, extradition shall be subject to the other conditions required by the domestic laws of the requested State. Article 11 The actions taken in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the competent authorities of the State Party where the minor is located from ordering, at any time, said minor’s immediate return to the State of his or her habitual residence, bearing in mind the best interests of the minor. CHAPTER III Civil Aspects (Articles 12 to 22) Excerpts Article 12 A request for locating and returning a minor under the present Convention shall be lodged by those entitled to do so by the laws of the State where the minor habitually resides.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN MINORS

205

Article 13 The judicial or administrative authorities of the State Party of the minor’s habitual residence, or those of the State Party where the minor is or is assumed to be retained, shall be competent to hear the request for the minor’s location and return, at the option of the complainants. When in the complainants’ view there are urgent reasons, the request may be submitted to the judicial or administrative authorities of the State Party where the wrongful act occurred. Article 17 In keeping with the purposes of this Convention, the Central Authorities of the States Parties shall exchange information and cooperate with their competent judicial and administrative authorities on all matters concerning control of the entry of minors into and departure from their territories. Article 22 The States Parties shall adopt the measures needed to ensure that no costs are charged for proceedings to secure the return of the minor, in accordance with their laws and shall advise persons legitimately interested in the return of the minor of the public defender services, benefits to the needy and other forms of free legal aid to which they may be entitled under the laws and regulations of the respective Parties.

CHAPTER IV Final Clauses (Articles 23 to 35) (Signature, ratification or accession, declaration, reservation, and other provisions.)

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS

Approved by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States at its Meeting held in Belem, State of Para, Brazil, on June 9, 1994.1

This Convention consists of 22 articles. Following are the texts of some of these articles: Article I The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disapperance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; b) To punish within their jurisdictions those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; c) To cooperate with one another in helping to prevent, punish and eliminate the forced disappearance of persons; d) To take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention. Article II For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. Article III The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offence and to impose an appropriate punishment 1 OAS General Assembly, Twenty-Fourth Regular Session, Belem do Para, Brazil, June 6–10, 1994, Proceedings, Volume I, pp. 13–19

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS

207

commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined. The States Parties may establish mitigating circumstances of persons who have participated in acts constituting forced disappearance when they help to cause the victim to reappear alive or provide information that sheds light on the forced disappearance of a person. Article IV The acts constituting the forced disappearance of persons shall be considered offenses in every State Party. Consequently, each State Party shall take measures to establish its jurisdiction over such cases in the following instances: a) When the forced disappearance of persons or any act constituting such offense was committed within its jurisdiction; b) When the accused is a national of that state; c) When the victim is a national of that state and that state sees fit to do so. Every State Party shall, moreover, take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the crime described in this Convention when the alleged criminal is within its territory and it does not proceed to extradite him. This Convention does not authorize any State Party to undertake, in the territory of another State Party, the exercise of jurisdiction or the performance of functions that are placed within the exclusive purview of the authorities of that other Party by its domestic law. Article V The forced disappearance of persons shall not be considered a political offense for purposes of extradition. The forced disappearance of persons shall be deemed to be included among the extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty entered into between State Parties. The States Parties undertake to include the offense of forced disappearance as one which is extraditable in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them in the future. Every State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty and receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty may consider this Convention as the necessary legal basis for extradition with respect to the offense of forced disappearance. State Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offense as extraditable, subject to the conditions imposed by the law of the requested state.

208

APPENDIX A

Extradition shall be subject to the provisions set forth in the constitution and other laws of the requested state. Article VI When a State Party does not grant the extradition, the case shall be submitted to its competent authorities as if the offense had been committed within its jurisdiction, for the purposes of investigation and when appropriate, for criminal action, in accordance with its national law. Any decision adopted by these authorities shall be communicated to the state that has requested the extradition. Article VII Criminal prosecution for the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty judicially imposed on its perpetrator shall not be subject to statutes of limitations. However, if there should be a norm of a fundamental character preventing application of the stipulation contained in the previous paragraph, the period of limitation shall be equal to that which applies to the gravest crime in the domestic laws of the corresponding State Party. Article IX Persons alleged to be responsible for the acts constituting the offense of forced disappearance of persons may be tried only in the competent jurisdictions of ordinary law in each state, to the exclusion of all other special jurisdictions, particularly military jurisdictions. The acts constituting forced disappearance shall not be deemed to have been committed in the course of military duties. Privileges, immunities, or special dispensations shall not be admitted in such trials, without prejudice to the provisions set forth in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article X In no case may exceptional circumstances such as a state of war, the threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency be invoked to justify the forced disappearance of persons. In such cases, the right to expeditious and effective judicial procedures and recourse shall be retained as a means of determining the whereabouts or state of health of a person who has been deprived of freedom, or of identifying the official who ordered or carried out such deprivation of freedom. In pursuing such procedures or recourse, and in keeping with applicable domestic law, the competent judicial authorities shall have free and immediate access to all detention centers and to each of their units, and to all places

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS

209

where there is reason to believe the disappeared person might be found, including places that are subject to military jurisdiction. Article XI Every person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought before a competent judicial authority without delay, in accordance with applicable domestic law. The States Parties shall establish and maintain official up-to-date registries of their detainees and, in accordance with their domestic law, shall make them available to relatives, judges, attorneys, any other person having a legitimate interest, and other authorities. Article XII The States Parties shall give each other mutual assistance in the search for, identification, location, and return of minors who have been removed to another state or detained therein as a consequence of the forced disappearance of their parents or guardians. Article XIII For the purposes of this Convention, the processing of petitions or communications presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging the forced disappearance of persons shall be subject to the procedures established in the American Convention on Human Rights and to the Statute and Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, including the provisions on precautionary measures. Article XV None of the provisions of this Convention shall be interpreted as limiting other bilateral or multilateral treaties or other agreements signed by the Parties. This Convention shall not apply to the international armed conflicts governed by the 1949 Geneva Convention and its Protocol concerning protection of wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces; and prisoners of war and civilians in time of war. Articles XVI to XXII — Final Clauses (Signature, ratification, accession, reservation, entry into force, and other clauses)

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Done at Caracas, March 29, 19961

This Convention contains 28 articles: Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI to Article XXVIII.

Definitions Purposes Preventive Measures Scope Jurisdiction Acts of Corruption Domestic Law Transnational Bribery Illicit Enrichment Notification Progressive Development Effect on State Property Extradition Assistance and Cooperation Measures Regarding Property Bank Secrecy Nature of the Act Central Authorities Temporal Application Other Agreements or Practices Final clauses

EXCERPTS Article I Definitions For the purposes of this Convention: “Public function” means any temporary or permanent, paid or honorary activity, performed by a natural person in the name of the State or in the service of the State or its institutions, at any level of its hierarachy.

1

International Legal Materials, Volume XXXV, Number 3, May 1996. pp. 724 to 734.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

211

“Public official”, “government official”, or “public servant” means any official or employee of the State or its agencies, including those who have been selected, appointed, or elected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or in the service of the State, at any level of its hierarchy. “Property” means assets of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, and any document or legal instrument demonstrating, purporting to demonstrate, or relating to ownership or other rights pertaining to such assets. Article II Purposes The purposes of this Convention are: 1. To promote and strengthen the development by each of the States Parties of the mechanisms needed to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption; and To promote, facilitate and regulate cooperation among the States Parties to ensure the effectiveness of measures and actions to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption in the performance of public functions and acts of corruption specifically related to such performance. Article III Preventive Measures For the purposes set forth in Article II of this Convention, the States Parties agree to consider the applicability of measures within their own institutional systems to create, maintain and strengthen: 1. Standards of conduct for the correct, honorable, and proper fulfillment of public functions. These standards shall be intended to prevent conflicts of interest and mandate the proper conservation and use of resources entrusted to government officials in the performance of their functions. These standards shall also establish measures and systems requiring government officials to report to appropriate authorities acts of corruption in the performance of public functions. Such measures should help preserve the public’s confidence in the integrity of public servants and government processes. 2. Mechanisms to enforce these standards of conduct. 3. Instruction to government personnel to ensure proper understanding of their responsibilities and the ethical rules governing their activities. 4. Systems for registering the income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform public functions in certain posts as specified by law and, where appropriate, for making such registrations public.

212

APPENDIX A

5. Systems of government hiring and procurement of goods and services that assure the openness, equity and efficiency of such systems. 6. Government revenue collection and control systems that deter corruption. 7. Laws that deny favorable tax treatment for any individual or corporation for expenditures made in violation of the anticorruption laws of the States Parties. 8. Systems for protecting public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including protection of their identities, in accordance with their Constitutions and the basic principles of their domestic legal systems. 9. Oversight bodies with a view to implementing modern mechanisms for preventing, detecting, punishing and eradicating corrupt acts. 10. Deterrants to the bribery of domestic and foreign government officials, such as mechanisms to ensure that publicly held companies and other types of associations maintain books and records which, in reasonable detail, accurately reflect the acquisition and disposition of assets, and have sufficient internal accounting controls to enable their officers to detect corrupt acts. 11. Mechanisms to encourage participation by civil society and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to prevent corruption. 12. The study of further preventive measures that take into account the relationship between equitable compensation and probity in public service. Article IV Scope This Convention is applicable provided that the alleged act of corruption has been committed or has effects in a State Party. Article VI Acts of Corruption 1. This Convention is applicable to the following acts of corruption: a. The solicitation or acceptance, directly or indirectly, by a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or emission in the performance of his public functions; b. The offering or granting, directly or indirectly, to a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

213

for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions; c. Any act or omission in the discharge of his duties by a government official or a person who performs public functions for the purpose of illicitly obtaining benefits for himself or for a third party; d. The fraudulent use or concealment of property derived from any of the acts referred to in this article; and e. Participation as a principal, coprincipal, instigator, accomplice or accessory after the fact, or in any other manner, in the commission or attempted commission of, or in any collaboration or conspiracy to commit, any of the acts referred to in this article. 2. This Convention shall also be applicable by mutual agreement between or among two or more States Parties with respect to any other act of corruption not described herein. Article VII Domestic Law The States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the acts of corruption described in Article VI(1) and to facilitate cooperation among themselves pursuant to this Convention. Article XIII Extradition 1. This article shall apply to the offenses established by the States Parties in accordance with this Convention. 2. Each of the offenses to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any extradition treaty existing between or among the States Parties. The States Parties undertake to include such offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between or among them. 3. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it does not have an extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition with respect to any offence to which this article applies. 4. States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offenses to which this article applies as extraditable offenses between themselves.

214

APPENDIX A

5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the Requested State or by applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds on which the Requested State may refuse extradition. 6. If extradition for an offense to which this article applies is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, or because the Requested State deems that it has jurisdiction over the offense, the Requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution unless otherwise agreed with the Requesting State, and shall report the final outcome to the Requesting State in due course. 7. Subject to the provisions of its domestic law and its extradition treaties, the Requested State may, upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant and are urgent, and at the request of the Requesting State, take into custody a person whose extradition is sought and who is present in its territory, or take other appropriate measures to ensure his presence at extradition proceedings. Article XIV Assistance and Cooperation 1. In accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties, the States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual assistance by processing requests from authorities that, in conformity with their domestic laws, have the power to investigate or prosecute the acts of corruption described in this Convention, to obtain evidence and take other necessary action to facilitate legal proceedings and measures regarding the investigation or prosecution of acts of corruption. 2. The States Parties shall also provide each other with the widest measure of mutual technical cooperation on the most effective ways and means of preventing, detecting, investigating and punishing acts of corruption. To that end, they shall foster exchanges of experiences by way of agreements and meetings between competent bodies and institutions, and shall pay special attention to methods and procedures of citizen participation in the fight against corruption. Article XV Measures Regarding Property 1. In accordance with their applicabale domestic laws and relevant treaties or other agreements that may be in force between or among them, the States Parties shall provide each other the broadest possible measure of assistance in the identification, tracing, freezing, seizure and forfeiture of property or

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

215

proceeds obtained, derived from or used in the commission of offenses established in accordance with this Convention. 2. A State Party that enforces its own or another State Party’s forfeiture judgment against property or proceeds described in paragraph 1 of this article shall dispose of the property or proceeds in accordance with its laws. To the extent permitted by a State Party’s laws and upon such terms as it deems appropriate, it may transfer all or part of such property or proceeds to another State Party that assisted in the underlying investigation or proceedings. Article XVI Bank Secrecy 1. The Requested State shall not invoke bank secrecy as a basis for refusal to provide the assistance sought by the Requesting State. The Requested State shall apply this article in accordance with its domestic law, its procedural provisions, or bilateral or multilateral agreements with the Requesting State. 2. The Requesting State shall be obligated not to use any information received that is protected by bank secrecy for any purpose other than the proceeding for which that information was requested, unless authorized by the Requested State. Article XVII Nature of the Act For the purposes of articles XIII, XIV, XV and XVI of this Convention, the fact that the property obtained or derived from an act of corruption was intended for political purposes, or that it is alleged that an act of corruption was committed for political motives or purposes, shall not suffice in and of itself to qualify the act as a political offense or as a common offense related to a political offense.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS Adopted at Washington, D.C., 11/14/97 THE STATES PARTIES, AWARE of the urgent need to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, due to the harmful effects of these activities on the security of each state and the region as a whole, endangering the well-being of peoples, their social and economic development, and their right to live in peace; CONCERNED by the increase, at the international level, in the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and by the serious problems resulting therefrom; REAFFIRMING that States Parties give priority to preventing, combating, and eradicating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials because of the links of such activities with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and other criminal activities; CONCERNED about the illicit manufacture of explosives from substances and articles that in and of themselves are not explosives—and that are not addressed by this Convention due to their other lawful uses—for activities related to drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime and mercenary and other criminal activities; CONSIDERING the urgent need for all states, and especially those states that produce, export, and import arms, to take the necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; CONVINCED that combating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials calls for international cooperation, exchange of information, and other appropriate measures at the national, regional, and international levels, and desiring to set a precedent for the international community in this regard; STRESSING the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market;

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

217

MINDFUL of the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their security, and of the efforts carried out in the framework of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD); RECOGNIZING the importance of strengthening existing international law enforcement support mechanisms such as the International Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS) of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; RECOGNIZING that international trade in firearms is particularly vulnerable to abuses by criminal elements and that a “know-your-customer” policy for dealers in, and producers, exporters, and importers of, firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials is crucial for combating this scourage; RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purposes of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the State Parties; RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention; REAFFIRMING the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states, HAVE DECIDED TO ADOPT THIS INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS: Article I Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply: 1. “Illicit manufacturing”: the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:

218

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

APPENDIX A

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing. “Illicit trafficking”: the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it. “Firearms”: a. any barreled weapon which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive, except antique firearms manufactured before the 20th Century or their replicas; or b. any other weapon or destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine. “Ammunition”: the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm. “Explosives”: any substance or article that is made, manufactured, or used to produce an explosion, detonation, or propulsive or pyrotechnic effect, except: a. substances and articles that are not in and of themselves explosive; or b. substances and articles listed in the Appendix to this Convention. “Other related materials”: any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm. “Controlled delivery”: the technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials to pass out of, through, or into the territory of one or more states, with the knowledge and under the supervision of their competent authorities, with a view to identifying persons involved in the commission of offenses referred to in Article IV of this Convention. Article II Purpose

The purpose of this Convention is: to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; to promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experience among States Parties to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

219

Article III Sovereignty 1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states. 2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law. Article IV Legislative Measures 1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses. Article V Jurisdiction 1. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense in question is committed in its territory. 2. Each State Party may adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense is committed by one of its nationals or by a person who habitually resides in its territory. 3. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the alleged criminal is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person to another country on the ground of the nationality of the alleged criminal. 4. This Convention does not preclude the application of any other rule of criminal jurisdiction established by a State Party under its domestic law.

220

APPENDIX A

Article VI Marking of Firearms 1. For the purposes of identification and tracing of the firearms referred to in Article I.3.a, States Parties shall: a. require, at the time of manufacture, appropriate markings of the name of manufacturer, place of manufacture, and serial number; b. require appropriate markings on imported firearms permitting the identification of the importer’s name and address; and c. require appropriate markings on any firearms confiscated or forfeited pursuant to Article VII.1 that are retained for official use. 2. The firearms referred to in Article I.3.b should be marked appropriately at the time of manufacture, if possible. Article VII Confiscation or Forfeiture 1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked. 2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal. Article VIII Security Measures States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories. Article IX Export, Import, and Transit Licenses or Authorizations 1. States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

221

2. States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization. 3. States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations. 4. The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. Article X Strengthening of Controls at Export Points Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to detect and prevent illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials between its territory and that of other States Parties, by strengthening controls at export points. Article XI Recordkeeping States Parties shall assure the maintenance for a reasonable time of the information necessary to trace and identify illicitly manufactured and illicitly trafficked firearms to enable them to comply with their obligations under Articles XIII and XVII. Article XII Confidentiality Subject to the obligations imposed by their Constitutions or any international agreements, the States Parties shall guarantee the confidentiality of any information they receive, if requested to do so by the State Party providing the information. If for legal reasons such confidentiality cannot be maintained, the State Party that provided the information shall be notified prior to its disclosure. Article XIII Exchange of Information 1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:

222

APPENDIX A

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; b. the means of concealment used in the illicit manufacturing of or trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and ways of detecting them; c. routes customarily used by criminal organizations engaged in illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; d. legislative experiences, practices, and measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and e. techniques, practices, and legislation to combat money laundering related to illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 2. States Parties shall provide to and share with each other, as appropriate, relevant scientific and technological information useful to law enforcement, so as to enhance one another’s ability to prevent, detect, and investigate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and prosecute those involved therein. 3. States Parties shall cooperate in the tracing of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials which may have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked. Such cooperation shall include accurate and prompt responses to trace requests. Article XIV Cooperation 1. States Parties shall cooperate at the bilateral, regional, and international levels to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 2. States Parties shall identify a national body or a single point of contact to act as liaison among States Parties, as well as between them and the Consultative Committee established in Article XX, for purposes of cooperation and information exchange. Article XV Exchange of Experience and Training 1. States Parties shall cooperate in formulating programs for the exchange of experience and training among competent officials, and shall provide each other assistance that would facilitate their respective access to equipment or technology proven to be effective for the implementation of this Convention.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

223

2. States Parties shall cooperate with each other and with competent international organizations, as appropriate, to ensure that there is adequate training of personnel in their territories to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. The subject matters of such training shall include, inter alia: a. identification and tracing of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; b. intelligence gathering, especially that which relates to identification of illicit manufacturers and traffickers, methods of shipment, and means of concealment of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and c. improvement of the efficiency of personnel responsible for searching for and detecting, at conventional and nonconventional points of entry and exit, illicitly trafficked firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. Article XVI Technical Assistance States Parties shall cooperate with each other and with relevant international organizations, as appropriate, so that States Parties that so request receive the technical assistance necessary to enhance their ability to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, including technical assistance in those matters identified in Article XV.2. Article XVII Mutual Legal Assistance 1. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual legal assistance, in conformity with their domestic law and applicable treaties, by promptly and accurately processing and responding to requests from authorities which, in accordance with their domestic law, have the power to investigate or prosecute the illicit activities described in this Convention, in order to obtain evidence and take other necessary action to facilitate procedures and steps involved in such investigations or prosecutions. 2. For purposes of mutual legal assistance under this article, each Party may designate a central authority or may rely upon such central authorities as are provided for in any relevant treaties or other agreements. The central authorities shall be responsible for making and receiving requests for mutual legal assistance under this article, and shall communicate directly with each other for the purposes of this article.

224

APPENDIX A

Article XVIII Controlled Delivery 1. Should their domestic legal systems so permit, States Parties shall take the necessary measures, within their possibilities, to allow for the appropriate use of controlled delivery at the international level, on the basis of agreements or arrangements mutually consented to, with a view to identifying persons involved in the offenses referred to in Article IV and to taking legal action against them. 2. Decisions by States Parties to use controlled delivery shall be made on a case-by-case basis and may, when necessary, take into consideration financial arrangements and understandings with respect to the exercise of jurisdiction by the States Parties concerned. 3. With the consent of the States Parties concerned, illicit consignments under controlled delivery may be intercepted and allowed to continue with the firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials intact or removed or replaced in whole or in part. Article XIX Extradition 1. This article shall apply to the offenses referred to in Article IV of this Convention. 2. Each of the offenses to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any extradition treaty in force between or among the States Parties. The States Parties undertake to include such offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between or among them. 3. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it does not have an extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition with respect to any offense to which this article applies. 4. States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offenses to which this article applies as extraditable offenses between themselves. 5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the Requested State or by applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds on which the Requested State may refuse extradition. 6. If extradition for an offense to which this article applies is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, the Requested State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

225

under the criteria, laws, and procedures applied by the Requested State to those offenses when they are committed in its own territory. The Requested and Requesting States Parties may, in accordance with their domestic laws, agree otherwise in relation to any prosecution referred to in this paragraph. Article XX Establishment and Functions of the Consultative Committee 1. In order to attain the objectives of this Convention, the States Parties shall establish a Consultative Committee responsible for: a. promoting the exchange of information contemplated under this Convention; b. facilitating the exchange of information on domestic legislation and administrative procedures of the States Parties; c. encouraging cooperation between national liaison authorities to detect suspected illicit exports and imports of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; d. promoting training and exchange of knowledge and experience among States Parties and technical assistance between States Parties and relevant international organizations, as well as academic studies; e. requesting from nonparty states, when appropriate, information on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and f. promoting measures to facilitate the application of this Convention. 2. Decisions of the Consultative Committee shall be recommendatory in nature. 3. The Consultative Committee shall maintain the confidentiality of any information it receives in the exercise of its functions, if requested to do so. Article XXI Structure and Meetings of the Consultative Committee 1. The Consultative Committee shall consist of one representative of each State Party. 2. The Consultative Committee shall hold one regular meeting each year and shall hold special meetings as necessary. 3. The first regular meeting of the Consultative Committee shall be held within 90 days following deposit of the 10th instrument of ratification of this Convention. This meeting shall be held at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, unless a State Party has offered to host it.

226

APPENDIX A

4. The meetings of the Consultative Committee shall be held at a place decided upon by the States Parties at the previous regular meeting. If no offer of a site has been made, the Consultative Committee shall meet at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. 5. The host State Party for each regular meeting shall serve as Secretariat pro tempore of the Consultative Committee until the next regular meeting. When a regular meeting is held at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, a State Party that will serve as Secretariat pro tempore shall be elected at that meeting. 6. In consultation with the States Parties, the Secretariat pro tempore shall be responsible for: a. convening regular and special meetings of the Consultative Committee; b. preparing a draft agenda for the meetings; and c. preparing the draft reports and minutes of the meetings. 7. The Consultative Committee shall prepare its own internal rules of procedure and shall adopt them by absolute majority. Article XXII Signature This Convention is open for signature by member states of the Organization of American States. Article XXIII Ratification This Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article XXIV Reservations States Parties may, at the time of adoption, signature, or ratification, make reservations to this Convention, provided that said reservations are not incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention and that they concern one or more specific provisions thereof. Article XXV Entry into Force This Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following the date of deposit of the second instrument of ratification. For each state ratifying the

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT FIREARMS

227

Convention after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, the Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following deposit by such state of its instrument of ratification. Article XXVI Denunciation 1. This Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any State Party may denounce it. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. After six months from the date of deposit of the instrument of denunciation, the Convention shall no longer be in force for the denouncing State, but shall remain in force for the other States Parties. 2. The denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the time the Convention is in force for the denouncing State. Article XXVII Other Agreements and Practices 1. No provision in this Convention shall be construed as preventing the States Parties from engaging in mutual cooperation within the framework of other existing or future international, bilateral, or multilateral agreements, or of any other applicable arrangements or practices. 2. States Parties may adopt stricter measures than those provided for by this Convention if, in their opinion, such measures are desirable to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. Article XXVIII Conference of States Parties Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, the depository shall convene a conference of the States Parties to examine the functioning and application of this Convention. Each conference shall determine the date on which the next conference should be held. Article XXIX Dispute Settlement Any dispute that may arise as to the application or interpretation of this Convention shall be resolved through diplomatic channels or, failing which,

228

APPENDIX A

by any other means of peaceful settlement decided upon by the States Parties involved. Article XXX Deposit The original instrument of this Convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall forward an authenticated copy of its text to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication, in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States shall notify the member states of the Organization of the signatures, of the deposits of instruments of ratification and denunciation, and of any reservations. APPENDIX The term “explosives” does not include: compressed gases; flammable liquids; explosive actuated devices, such as air bags and fire extinguishers; propellant actuated devices, such as nail gun cartridges; consumer fireworks suitable for use by the public and designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, that contain pyrotechnic compositions and that do not project or disperse dangerous fragments such as metal, glass, or brittle plastic; toy plastic or paper caps for toy pistols; toy propellant devices consisting of small paper or composition tubes or containers containing a small charge or slow burning propellant powder designed so that they will neither burst nor produce external flame except through the nozzle on functioning; and smoke candles, smokepots, smoke grenades, smoke signals, signal flares, hand signal devices, and Very signal cartridges designed to produce visible effects for signal purposes containing smoke compositions and no bursting charges.

A-63: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

THIS CONVENTION WAS ADOPTED AT WASHINGTON, DC ON 11/14/97 AT THE TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES: ENTRY INTO FORCE: DEPOSITORY:

07/01/98 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARTICLE XXV OF THE CONVENTION GENERAL SECRETARIAT OAS (ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT AND RATIFICATIONS)

GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A–63 SIGNATORY

SIGNATURE REF

RA/AC/AD REF

11/14/97

DEPOSIT

INST

INFORMA

03/12/03

03/27/03

RA

//

11/14/97 04/15/98

08/13/01 06/05/98

10/09/01 07/30/98

RA RA

// //

04/06/01 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97

// 11/17/97 02/12/99 08/26/99 // 09/15/03 01/22/03 11/22/00 //

// 01/12/98 04/29/99 09/28/99 // 10/23/03 02/05/03 04/26/01 //

11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97 11/14/97

06/08/99 11/08/99 11/29/01 09/09/02 // // //

06/23/99 03/18/99 01/16/02 02/05/03 // // //

COUNTRIES

Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Bahamas (Commonwealth) Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras

RA RA RA RA RA RA

RA RA RA RA

// // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //

REF

R

230

APPENDIX A

Jamaica 11/14/97 Mexico 11/14/97 Nicaragua 11/14/97 Panama 11/14/97 Paraguay 11/14/97 Peru 11/14/97 Saint Lucia 06/03/98 St.Vincent & 11/14/97 Grenadines St. Kitts and 11/14/97 Nevis Suriname 11/14/97 Trinidad and 05/12/98 Tobago United States 11/14/97 Uruguay 11/14/97 Venezuela 11/14/97

// 05/19/98 08/24/99 06/17/99 09/19/00 06/04/99 01/23/03 //

// 06/01/98 11/09/99 09/28/99 04/04/01 06/08/99 04/30/03 //

//

//

//

// //

// //

// //

// 05/24/01 04/02/02

// 07/20/01 05/14/02

REF ⫽ REFERENCE D ⫽ DECLARATION R ⫽ RESERVATION INFORMA ⫽ INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE TREATY

RA RA RA RA RA RA

RA RA

// // // // // // // //

// // //

INST ⫽ TYPE OF INSTRUMENT RA ⫽ RATIFICATION AC ⫽ ACCEPTANCE AD ⫽ ACCESSION

1. – Argentina. – Reservation: entered upon depositing the instrument of ratification. “The Argentine Republic enters a reservation to Article 1, Definitions, paragraph 3, Firearms, of the Convention inasmuch as it excludes from the definition of firearms the phrase “except old, pre-twentieth century firearms or reproductions of them” at the end of said paragraph. October 9, 2001.

PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY

Approved at Asuncion, Paraguay, on June 8, 1990, at the Twentieth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States

The States Parties to this Protocol, Considering: That Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights recognizes the right to life and restricts the application of the death penalty; That everyone has the inalienable right to respect for his life, a right that cannot be suspended for any reason; That the tendency among the American States is to be in favor of abolition of the death penalty; That application of the death penalty has irrevocable consequences, forecloses the correction of judicial error, and precludes any possibility of changing or rehabilitating those convicted; That the abolition of the death penalty helps to ensure more effective protection of the right to life; That an international agreement must be arrived at that will entail a progressive development of the American Convention on Human Rights, and That States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights have expressed their intention to adopt an international agreement with a view to consolidating the practice of not applying the death penalty in the Americas, Have agreed to sign the following Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty: Article 1 The States Parties to this Protocol shall not apply the death penalty in their territory to any person subject to their jurisdiction. Article 2 1. No reservations may be made to this Protocol. However, at the time of ratification or accession, the States Parties to this instrument may declare that they reserve the right to apply the death penalty in wartime in accordance with international law, for extremely serious crimes of a military nature.

232

APPENDIX A

2. The State Party making this reservation shall, upon ratification or accession, inform the Secretary General of the Organization of American States of the pertinent provisions of its national legislation applicable in wartime, as referred to in the preceding paragraph. 3. Said State Party shall notify the Secretary General of the Organization of American States of the beginning or end of any state of war in effect in its territory. Article 3 This Protocol shall be open for signature and ratification or accession by any State Party in the American Convention on Human Rights. Ratification of this Protocol or accession thereto shall be made through the deposit of an instrument of ratification or accession with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article 4 This Protocol shall enter into force among the States that ratify or accede to it when they deposit their respective instruments of ratification or accession with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND PLAN OF ACTION*

December 11, 19941

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES –

Partnership for Development and Prosperity: Democracy, Free Trade and Sustainable Development in the Americas

“The elected Heads of State and Government of the Americas are committed to advance the prosperity, democratic values and institutions, and security of our Hemisphere. For the first time in history, the Americas are a community of democratic societies. Although faced with differing development challenges, the Americas are united in pursuing prosperity through open markets, hemispheric integration and sustainabale development. We are determined to consolidate and advance closer bonds of cooperation and to transform our aspirations into concrete realities. We reiterate our firm adherence to the principles of international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), including the principles of the sovereign equality of states, non-intervention, self-determination, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We recognize the heterogeneity and diversity of our resources and cultures, just as we are convinced that we can advance our shared interests and values by building strong partnerships”. Titles of the Chapters of this Declaration: To Preserve and Strengthen the Community of Democracies of the Americas. To Promote Prosperity Through Economic Integration and Free Trade. To Eradicate Poverty and Discrimination in Our Hemisphere. To Guarantee Sustainable Development and Conserve Our Natural Environment for Future Generations.

* Subsequent summits: 1998 – Santiago, 2001 – Quebec not included. 1 Done at Miami, Florida, on 11 December 1994, Authentic texts: English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. International Legal Materials, Vol. XXXIV, Number 3, May 1995, pp. 808–838.

234

APPENDIX A

PLAN OF ACTION – Table of Contents I.

Preserving and Strengthening the Community of Democracies of the Americas 1. Strengthening Democracy 2. Promoting and Protecting Human Rights 3. Invigorating Society/Community Participation 4. Promoting Cultural Values 5. Combating Corruption 6. Combating the Problem of Illegal Drugs and Related Crimes 7. Eliminating the Threat of National and International Terrorism 8. Building Mutual Confidence

II.

Promoting Prosperity Through Economic Integration and Free Trade 9. Free Trade in the Americas 10. Capital Markets Development and Liberalization 11. Hemispheric Infrastructure 12. Energy Cooperation 13. Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure 14. Cooperation in Science and Technology 15. Tourism

III. Eradicating Poverty and Discrimination in Our Hemisphere 16. Universal Access to Education 17. Equitable Access to Basic Health Services 18. Strengthening the Role of Women in Society 19. Encouraging Microenterprises and Small Businesses 20. White Helmets — Emergency and Development Corps IV. Guaranteeing Sustainable Development and Conserving Our Natural Environment for Future Generations 21. Partnership for Sustainable Energy Use 22. Partnership for Biodiversity 23. Partnership for Pollution Prevention EXCERPTS “The Heads of State and government participating in the 1944 Summit of the Americas in Miami, Florida, desirous of furthering the broad objectives set forth in their Declaration of Principles and mindful of the need for practical progress on the vital tasks of enhancing democracy, promoting development, achieving economic integration and free trade, improving the lives of their

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

235

people, and protecting the natural environment for future generations, affirm their commitment to this Plan of Action.” Following are excerpts of Chapter I of this Plan of Action: “1. Strengthening Democracy The strengthening, effective exercise and consolidation of democracy constitute the central political priority of the Americas. The Organization of American States (OAS) is the principal hemispheric body for the defense of democratic values and institutions; among its essential purposes is to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect to the principle of non-intervention. The OAS has adopted multilateral procedures to address the problems created when democratic order has been interrupted unconstitutionally. In order to prevent such crises, the OAS needs to direct more effort toward the promotion of democratic values and practices and to the social and economic strengthening of already-established democratic regimes.” “Governments will: – Give expeditious consideration to ratifying the Cartagena de Indias, Washington and Managua Protocols to the OAS Charter, if they have not already done so. – Strengthen the dialogue among social groups and foster grass roots participation in problem solving at the local level. – Support efforts by the OAS to promote democracy by: – Encouraging exchanges of election-related technologies and assisting national electoral organizations, at the request of the interested state. – Strengthening the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy so that it can provide assistance at the request of the interested state on such matters as legislative and judicial processes, government reforms (including administration of justice, technical modernization of national legislative bodies, simplification of government regulations and promotion of participation by community organizations in local democracy), and other institutional changes. – Encouraging opportunities for exchange of experiences among member states’ democratic institutions, particularly legislature-to-legislature and judiciary-to-judiciary. – Fostering understanding, dialogue and political reconciliation, at the request of the affected state and bearing in mind that national reconciliation comes from within. – Requesting the OAS to promote and follow up on these commitments.”

236

APPENDIX A

“5. Combating Corruption The problem of corruption is now an issue of serious interest not only in this Hemisphere, but in all regions of the world. Corruption in both the public and private sectors weakens democracy and undermines the legitimacy of governments and institutions. The modernization of the state, including deregulation, privatization and the simplification of government procedures, reduces the opportunities for corruption. All aspects of public administration in a democracy must be transparent and open to public scrutiny.” “Governments will: ....... – Ensure proper oversight of government functions by strenthening internal mechanisms, including investigative and enforcement capacity with respect to acts of corruption, and facilitating public access to information necessary for meaningful outside review. – Develop within the OAS, with due regard to applicable treaties and national legislation, a hemispheric approach to acts of corruption in both the public and private sectors that would include extradition and prosecution of individuals so charged, through negotiation of a new hemispheric agreement or new arrangements within existing frameworks for international cooperation.” “6. Combating the Problem of Illegal Drugs and Related Crimes The problems of illegal drug and related criminal activities pose grave threats to the societies, free market economies, and democratic institutions of the Hemisphere. Drug use imposes enormous social costs; drug money and income are net drains on economic growth; and drug lords and criminal organizations endanger the security of our people through corruption, intimidation, and violence. While drug trafficking continues to be a significant source of illegal funds, the money laundering industry increasingly deals with the proceeds of all types of criminal activity. An integrated and balanced approach that includes respect for national sovereignty is essential to confront all aspects of these problems. For these reasons, a broad coordinated hemispheric strategy to reduce drug use and production, including new enforcement methods that can disrupt drug trafficking and money laundering networks and prosecute those engaged in such activities, is required. In this context, governments note the work of the 1992 San Antonio Summit, endorse the efforts of the Inter-American Commission on Drug Abuse

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

237

Control, and agree to work together to formulate a counter-narcotics strategy for the 21st Century. “Governments will: – Ratify the 1988 United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Traffic of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances and make it a criminal offence to launder the proceeds of all serious crimes. – Enact legislation to permit the freezing and forfeiture of the proceeds of money laundering and consider the sharing of forfeited assets among governments.” – Hold a working-level conference, to be followed by a ministerial conference, to study and agree on a coordinated hemispheric response, including consideration of an inter-American convention, to combat money laundering. “7. Eliminating the Threat of National and International Terrorism National and international terrorism constitute a systematic and deliberate violation of the rights of individuals and an assault on democracy itself. Recent attacks that some of our countries have suffered have demonstrated the serious threat that terrorism poses to security in the Americas. Actions by governments to combat and eliminate this threat are essential elements in guaranteeing law and order and maintaining confidence in government, both nationally and internationally. Within this context, those who sponsor terrorist acts or assist in their planning or execution through the abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities or other means will be held responsible by the international community.” “Governments will: – Promote bilateral and subregional agreements with the aim of prosecuting terrorists and penalizing terrorist activities within the context of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. – Convene a special conference of the OAS on the prevention of terrorism. – Reaffirm the importance of the extradition treaties ratified by the states of the Hemisphere, and note that these treaties will be strictly complied with as an expression of the political will of governments, in accordance with international law and domestic legislation.”

SPECIALIZED CONFERENCE ON TERRORISM

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in Haiti in June of 19951

The General Assembly, Having seen the Declaration of Belem do Pará in which the General Assembly declared its “decision to cooperate in a reciprocal effort towards preventing and punishing terrorist acts, methods and practices, and the development of international law in this matter” (AG/DEC. 6–XXIV–0/94) and the Report of the Permanent Council on terrorism included under the agenda item on implementation of resolution AG/RES. 1254 (XXIV-0/94) “Summit of the Americas”; Recognizing the consideration given to this matter by the member states during the twenty-fifth regular session, at which its importance was emphasized and interest was expressed in moving forward with the quest for effective solutions that would help eliminate terrorism; Considering: That the section on “Eliminating the Threat of National and International Terrorism” contained in the Plan of Action of the Summit of the Americas states that the governments of the American states will promote bilateral and subregional agreements with the aim of prosecuting terrorists and penalizing terrorist activities within the context of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and will convene a special OAS conference on the prevention of terrorism; That in the document “A New Vision of the OAS” the General Secretariat of the Organization points to the essential need to develop new forms of interAmerican cooperation for confronting terrorism effectively; and That the Permanent Council placed consideration of the topic of terrorism on its agenda in the terms contained in the Plan of Action of the Summit of the Americas and subsequently set up a working group to study the various mandates relating to terrorism under consideration by the Organization; and

1 OAS General Assembly, Twenty-Fifth Regular Session held in Haiti, AG/doc. 3292/95, June 9, 1995.

SPECIALIZED CONFERENCE ON TERRORISM

239

Bearing in mind the provisions of Articles 127 and 128 of the Charter of the OAS concerning the Specialized Conferences, RESOLVES: 1. To convene an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, to be held during the first half of 1996. 2. To instruct the Permanent Council to draw up the agenda and rules of procedure of the conference, determine its date and site, and make any other preparations that may be necessary.

PLAN OF ACTION ON HEMISPHERIC COOPERATION TO PREVENT, COMBAT, AND ELIMINATE TERRORISM

(Adopted at the second plenary session, held on April 26, 1996)

The ministers and the heads of delegation of the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS), meeting in Lima, Peru, at the InterAmerican Specialized Conference on Terrorism, firmly resolved to achieve the overall objectives set forth in the Declaration of Lima to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, agree to the following Plan of Action: The governments 1. Shall endeavor to establish terrorist acts as serious common crimes or felonies under their domestic laws, if they have not yet done so. 2. Shall promote the prompt signing and ratification of and/or accession to international conventions related to terrorism, in accordance with their domestic laws. 3. Shall periodically share updated information on domestic laws and regulations adopted in the area of terrorism and on the signing and ratification of and/or accession to relevant international conventions. 4. Shall provide pertinent legal information and other background data on terrorism to the General Secretariat, which shall keep them organized and up-to-date. 5. Shall promote measures for mutual legal assistance to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. 6. In keeping with relevant domestic and international laws, shall extend their utmost cooperation with respect to criminal proceedings initiated against alleged terrorists, by providing to the state that has exercised jurisdiction any evidence in their possession. If appropriate, they shall facilitate direct communication among the jurisdictional bodies to expedite the presentation of evidence of the crime. 7. As an expression of their firm political will to employ all legal means to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism, shall promote strict and timely compliance with applicable extradition treaties or, if appropriate, shall deliver the alleged perpetrators of terrorist acts to their competent authorities for prosecution, in accordance with their domestic laws, if sufficient legal grounds for doing so exist.

PLAN OF ACTION ON HEMISPHERIC COOPERATION TO PREVENT

241

8. In keeping with their domestic laws, shall adopt the necessary measures to refuse to make concessions to terrorists who take hostages and to ensure that they are brought to justice. 9. When they deem it appropriate, shall report to each other and take measures to prevent and address any abuses, related to terrorist acts, of the privileges and immunities recognized in the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and on consular relations and in the applicable agreements concluded between states and international organizations and agencies. 10. Shall endeavor, in keeping with their domestic laws, to exchange information concerning terrorist individuals, groups, and activities. In this context, when a state finds that there are sufficient grounds for believing that a terrorist act is being planned, that state shall provide as soon as possible any pertinent information to those states potentially affected in order to prevent the commission of that act. 11. Shall endeavor to promote and enhance bilateral, subregional, and multilateral cooperation in police and intelligence matters to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. 12. Shall extend, when possible, their utmost cooperation and technical assistance for the regular and advanced training of personnel entrusted with counterterrorism activities and techniques. 13. Shall coordinate efforts and examine measures to improve cooperation in the areas of border security, transportation, and travel documents in order to prevent terrorist acts. They shall also promote the modernization of border control and information systems to prevent the passage of persons involved in terrorist acts as well as the transport of equipment, arms, and other materials that could be used to commit such acts. 14. Shall make special efforts to adopt, in their territories and in keeping with their domestic laws, measures to prevent the provision of material or financial support for any kind of terrorist activity. 15. Shall adopt measures to prevent the production of, trafficking in, and use of weapons, munitions, and explosive materials for terrorist activities. 16. Shall adopt measures to prevent the terrorist use of nuclear, chemical, and biological materials. 17. When appropriate, shall share information on the findings of and experience afforded by investigations of terrorist activities. 18. Shall endeavor to assist the victims of terrorist acts and shall cooperate among themselves to that end. 19. Where appropriate and in keeping with their domestic laws, shall furnish to the state of which the victims are nationals, in a complete and timely manner, the information in their possession regarding such victims and the circumstances of the crime.

242

APPENDIX A

20. Shall endeavor to provide humanitarian and all other forms of assistance to member states upon request following the commission of terrorist acts in their territories. 21. Shall begin to study, within the framework of the OAS and on the basis of an evaluation of existing international instruments, the need for and advisability of a new inter-American convention on terrorism. 22. Shall hold meetings and consultations to afford one another their utmost assistance and cooperation in preventing, combating, and eliminating terrorist activities in the Hemisphere and, within the framework of the OAS, shall follow up on the progress made in implementing this Plan of Action. 23. Shall recommend to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States that it consider convening a meeting of experts to examine ways to improve the exchange of information among the member states in order to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism.

DECLARATION OF LIMA TO PREVENT, COMBAT, AND ELIMINATE TERRORISM

(Adopted at the second plenary session, held on April 26,1996)

The ministers and the heads of delegation of the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS), meeting in Lima, Peru, from April 23 to 26, 1996, for the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, TAKING AS A BASIS the principles and purposes enshrined in the Charter of the Organization of American States; RECALLING that the Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion That Are of International Significance, signed in Washington, D.C., in 1971; resolutions AG/RES. 4 (I-E/70), AG/RES. 775 (XV-O/85), AG/RES. 1112 (XXI-O/91), and AG/RES. 1213 (XXIII-O/93); and the Declarations of Asunción (1990) and Belem do Pará (1994) attest to an evolution in the treatment by the Organization of American States of the serious and disturbing phenomenon of terrorism; CONSIDERING that, in the Declaration of Principles of the Summit of the Americas (Miami, December 1994), the heads of state and government said: “We condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we will, using all legal means, combat terrorist acts anywhere in the Americas with unity and vigor,” and that, in the Plan of Action under the section entitled “Eliminating the Threat of National and International Terrorism” (item 7), they affirmed that this scourge constitutes “a systematic and deliberate violation of the rights of individuals and an assault on democracy itself” and decided that “a special conference of the OAS on the prevention of terrorism” should be held; BEARING IN MIND that the ministers of foreign affairs of the Hemisphere noted in the Declaration of Montrouis: A New Vision of the OAS, adopted by the OAS General Assembly at its twenty-fifth regular session (June 1995), that “terrorism is a serious criminal phenomenon of deep concern to all member states, and that it has devastating effects on civilized coexistence, democratic institutions, and the lives, safety, and property of human beings,” and that at that session the General Assembly convened an Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism [AG/RES. 1350 (XXV-O/95)];

244

APPENDIX A

RECALLING the Declaration of Quito, signed at the IX Meeting of the Rio Group (September 1995), in which the heads of state and government said: “We reiterate our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms as well as our determination to make vigorous, united efforts to combat this scourge by all available legal means, since it violates basic human rights”; RECALLING also the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America (December 1995), signed by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, in which the parties undertake to prevent and combat, without exception, all types of criminal activity with a regional or international impact, such as terrorism; TAKING NOTE of the Final Declaration of the States Participating in the Meeting of Consultation on Cooperation to Prevent and Eliminate International Terrorism, adopted in Buenos Aires (August 1995) by Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Paraguay, the United States, and Uruguay, which, inter alia, reiterated that “the cooperation that exists between our governments must be enhanced,” in the context of which an agreement was signed in March 1996 among Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay to implement effective measures in response to the criminal phenomenon of terrorism; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the recent work of the United Nations and noting the documents issued by the Ottawa P-8 Ministerial Conference on Terrorism (December 1995) and the International Conference on Counterterrorism, held in Baguio (February 1996); MINDFUL that terrorist acts are an assault on the rule of law and democratic institutions and are often intended to destabilize democratically elected constitutional governments; CONCERNED by the detrimental effects terrorism can have on efforts to attain the common objective of regional integration and to promote economic and social development in the countries of the Hemisphere; RECOGNIZING that terrorist acts, by whomever and wherever perpetrated and whatever their forms, methods, or motives, are serious common crimes or felonies; DEEPLY ALARMED at the persistence of this scourge and at its occasional links to the illicit production and use of drugs and trafficking therein, to trafficking in chemical precursors, and to money laundering, as well as its possible ties to other criminal activities; RECOGNIZING the importance to the fight against terrorism of eliminating the illicit production and use of arms, munitions, and explosive materials and trafficking therein; and CONVINCED that existing regional cooperation must be intensified and that concerted and effective measures must be adopted urgently in response to the threat of terrorism,

DECLARATION OF LIMA

245

DECLARE: 1. That observance of international law, full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the sovereignty of states, the principle of nonintervention, and strict observance of the rights and duties of states embodied in the Charter of the OAS constitute the global framework for preventing, combating, and eliminating terrorism. 2. That terrorist violence erodes peaceful and civilized coexistence, affects the rule of law and the exercise of democracy, and endangers the stability of national institutions and the socioeconomic development of our countries. 3. That terrorism, as a serious form of organized and systematic violence, which is intended to generate chaos and fear among the population, results in death and destruction and is a reprehensible criminal activity. 4. Their most emphatic condemnation of all terrorist acts, wherever and by whomever perpetrated, and all methods used to commit them, regardless of the motivation invoked to justify the acts. 5. That terrorist acts are serious common crimes or felonies and, as such, should be tried by national courts in accordance with domestic law and the guarantees provided by the rule of law. 6. Their resolve to cooperate fully on matters of extradition, in conformity with their domestic law and treaties in force on the subject, without prejudice to the right of states to grant asylum when appropriate. 7. That terrorism, as noted by the heads of state and government at the Summit of the Americas, is a violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and an assault on democracy itself. 8. Their decision to study, on the basis of an evaluation of existing international instruments, the need for and advisability of concluding a new interAmerican convention on terrorism. 9. That it is important for OAS member states to ratify or accede to international instruments on terrorism as soon as possible and, when necessary, to implement them through their domestic laws. 10. Their decision to increase cooperation among member states in combating terrorist acts, while fully observing the rule of law and international norms, especially with regard to human rights. 11. That it is essential to adopt all bilateral and regional cooperation measures necessary to prevent, combat, and eliminate, by all legal means, terrorist acts in the Hemisphere, with full respect for the jurisdiction of member states and for international treaties and conventions.

COMMITMENT OF MAR DEL PLATA November 23–24, 1998

The ministers and heads of delegation of the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS), meeting in Mar del Plata, Argentina, on November 23 and 24, 1998, for the Second Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, to evaluate the progress made and define future courses of action to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism, pursuant to the mandate contained in the Plan of Action of the Second Summit of the Americas, held in Santiago, Chile, in April 1998, CONSIDERING the intention of the heads of state and government to combat, using all legal means, terrorist acts anywhere in the Hemisphere with unity and vigor, as affirmed in the Declaration of Principles of the First Summit of the Americas, held in Miami, in December 1994, and their decision, reiterated at the Second Summit of the Americas, in Santiago, Chile, to lend new impetus to the struggle against these criminal activities; BEARING IN MIND the results of the First Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, held in Lima, Peru, from April 23 to 26, 1996, which adopted the Declaration and the Plan of Action of Lima to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism; BEARING IN MIND the recommendations of the Meeting of Government Experts to Examine Ways to Improve the Exchange of Information and Other Measures for Cooperation among Member States to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, held in Washington, D.C., on May 5 and 6, 1997, pursuant to the General Assembly mandate contained in resolution AG/RES. 1399 (XXVI–0/96); RECALLING resolution AG/RES. 1492 (XXVII–O/97), through which the General Assembly instructed the Permanent Council to study the recommendations and proposals made at the above-mentioned Meeting of Government Experts and, particularly, the proposals on the exchange of information aimed at improving cooperation among the member states in order to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism; BEARING IN MIND, also, that resolution AG/RES. 1553 (XXVIII–O/98) instructed the Permanent Council to continue to consider appropriate ways and mechanisms for follow-up and implementation, as appropriate, of the measures recommended in the Plan of Action on Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism, held in Lima, Peru, in April 1996, including a study of the necessity and advisability of a new inter-American

COMMITMENT OF MAR DEL PLATA

247

convention on the subject, in the light of the evaluation of existing international instruments; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the provisions of resolution 51/210, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” which has as an appendix the Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 1996; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, open for signature as of January 12, 1998, at United Nations headquarters; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the progress made in the Hemisphere since the first Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism in obtaining a concerted and effective response to the terrorist threat, as well as the need to strengthen existing regional cooperation to achieve the objectives of the Plan of Action of Lima; CONVINCED of the urgency of adopting specific measures to obtain a concerted and effective response to the terrorist threat, within the framework of respect for state sovereignty and the principle of nonintervention, in order to ensure peaceful and civilized coexistence in the Hemisphere, the rule of law, and the stability and consolidation of representative democracy itself as the form of government of the member states; DETERMINED to promote the establishment of an effective institutional framework for concerted action and development of hemispheric cooperation to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism; PURSUANT to the principles and purposes embodied in the Charter of the Organization of American States, DECIDE TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING COMMITMENT: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

To reiterate their most emphatic condemnation and repudiation of all terrorist acts, which they recognize as serious common crimes that erode peaceful and civilized coexistence, affect the rule of law and the exercise of democracy, and endanger the stability of democratically elected constitutional governments and the socioeconomic development of our countries. To strengthen cooperation among the member states to combat terrorism, with full respect for the rule of international law and for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the sovereignty of states and the principle of nonintervention, and strict compliance with the rights and duties of states embodied in the Charter of the Organization of American States. To emphasize the effectiveness and significance of the general objectives and actions set forth in the Declaration and the Plan of Action of Lima, and to reiterate their firm intention to achieve them.

248 (iv)

APPENDIX A

To improve the exchange of information and other measures for cooperation among member states to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism, taking into account and welcoming the results of the Meeting of Government Experts. (v) To note with satisfaction the progress made in the area of bilateral, subregional, and multilateral cooperation, and, taking into consideration especially the subregional coordination efforts to prevent acts of terrorism reflected in the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, and the agreement between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, known as the Tripartite Agreement, to express, also, their determination to increase and strengthen initiatives such as those mentioned above. (vi) To note with satisfaction the entry into force on July 1, 1998, of the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, and to urge states that have not yet done so to sign or ratify this instrument, as appropriate. (vii) To recommend to the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth regular session that it establish an appropriate institutional framework, in keeping with the Charter of the Organization of American States and bearing in mind respect for state sovereignty and the principle of nonintervention, that shall be called Inter-American Committee on Terrorism (CICTE). It shall be formed by the competent national authorities in the member states of the Organization for the development of cooperation to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorist acts and activities, and it shall hold at least one session a year. The Inter-American Committee on Terrorism will be guided by international conventions on the subject, the principles and objectives of the Declaration and Plan of Action of Lima, the recommendations of the May 1997 Meeting of Government Experts to Examine Ways to Improve the Exchange of Information and Other Measures for Cooperation among the Member States in order to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism, the provisions of this Commitment to interAmerican action and those that may be adopted in the future to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. (viii) To propose that, at the time of establishing the terms of reference and functions of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism, consideration be given to the guidelines contained in Appendix I to this Commitment, aimed at establishing effective mechanisms for cooperation among the member states to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. (ix) To request the OAS General Assembly to instruct the General Secretariat to designate, within its sphere of competence, an instance to provide technical and administrative support to the Inter-American

COMMITMENT OF MAR DEL PLATA

249

Committee against Terrorism, in keeping with the resources allotted in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources, taking into account the process of modernization and strengthening of the OAS. (x) To transmit to CICTE, for implementation, proposals on the ways and means such as the “Directory of Competences for the Prevention, Combating, and Elimination of Terrorism,” and the “Inter-American Database on Terrorism,” proposed at the Meeting of Government Experts held at OAS headquarters in May 1997, as well as the establishment of a framework for technical cooperation that takes into account the guidelines contained in Appendices I, II, and III to this Commitment. (xi) To recommend the adoption of specific measures to respond in a concerted and effective manner to the terrorist threat and to agree, for these purposes, on guidelines for coordinated action among the member states, such as those envisaged in Appendices I, II, and III to this Commitment. (xii) To examine the possibility of designating, in accordance with the domestic legislation of each state, National Liaison Agencies for purposes of facilitating cooperation among the organs of the member states responsible for preventing, combating, and eliminating terrorism. (xiii) To encourage member states to continue to develop bilateral, subregional, or multilateral cooperation mechanisms, which does not preclude the competent organs of the OAS from considering the proposals contained in this Commitment. (xiv) To urge the member states that have not yet done so to promptly sign, ratify, or accede to, in conformity with their respective domestic legislation, the international conventions on terrorism referred to in United Nations resolution 51/210, namely the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed in Tokyo on September 14, 1963; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed in The Hague on December 16, 1970; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, concluded in Montreal on September 23, 1971; the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted in New York on December 14, 1973; the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted in New York on December 17,1979; the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed in Vienna on March 3, 1980; the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation,

250

APPENDIX A

signed in Montreal on February 24, 1988; the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done in Rome on March 10, 1988; the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, done in Rome on March 10, 1988; and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done in Montreal on March 1, 1991, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, available for signature at United Nations headquarters as of January 12, 1998. (xv) To make the greatest possible effort to make available to the Organization of American States sufficient funds to develop the joint programs and activities adopted by CICTE. (xvi) To seek the supplementary financial support required to conduct counterterrorism activities successfully within the framework of CICTE from external sources, including the OAS permanent observer states and other states and financial institutions, particularly the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB). (xvii) To recommend to the General Assembly that, at its twenty-ninth regular session, it consider the adoption of appropriate financing mechanisms, in particular the establishment of a specific fund for implementation of the programs and activities approved within the framework of CICTE. (xviii) To recommend to the General Assembly that it entrust the Permanent Council with continuing to study the need and advisability of a new inter-American convention on terrorism, in light of existing international instruments. (xix) To recommend to the General Assembly that it instruct the OAS General Secretariat to: a. Collaborate with CICTE in preparing the draft Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Statute should be approved by the General Assembly and the Rules of Procedure by CICTE itself. b. Collaborate in the preparation of the reports that CICTE shall have to present to the General Assembly through the Permanent Council. (xx) To recommend to the Permanent Council that, when presenting its observation and recommendations to the General Assembly regarding the CICTE report, in accordance with Article 91.f of the Charter, it include references to the need to coordinate the activities of that Committee with the work of the other bodies in the Organization. (xxi) To recommend to the Inter-American Juridical Committee that it study the strengthening of juridical and judicial cooperation, including extradition, as a form of combating terrorism, and that it collaborate with CICTE in devising norms on this subject.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

FIRST REGULAR SESSION October 28–29, 1999 Miami, Florida

OEA/Ser. L/X.2.1 CICTE/doc.8/99 rev. 1 19 November 1999 Original: Spanish

REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE) TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Introduction In compliance with the resolution “Support for the Work of the InterAmerican Committee Against Terrorism” [AG/RES. 1789 (XXXI-O/01)], adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) at its Thirty-First Regular Session, the Chair of the Inter-American Committee on Terrorism (CICTE) is pleased to submit this report on the implementation of that resolution and on CICTE’s activities during the period October 2001 and April 2002. I. COMPLIANCE WITH AG/RES. 1789 (XXXI-O/01) In operative paragraphs 1 and 3 of resolution AG/RES. 1789 (XXXI-O/01) the General Assembly urges Member States to, inter alia, respond to the questionnaire prepared by CICTE, by September 15, 2001. Subsequent to the holding of the First Special Session of CICTE on October 15, 2001, the Chairmanship of CICTE and its three Subcommittees (on Border Controls, Financial Controls and to Prepare the CICTE Work Plan 2002–2003) agreed to certain procedures and strategies in preparation for the Second Special Session to be held on November 29, 2001. It was considered useful for that process, to complete the register of principal representatives of the competent national authorities of CICTE and to have a point of contact within the Permanent Missions to the OAS—elements contained in the CICTE questionnaire. To this end, the Member States were requested by letter from the Chair to submit this information. To date, responses have been received to the questionnaire as a whole and to the Chair’s letter, from the following seventeen Member States: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, and Uruguay.

252

APPENDIX A

II. CICTE’S ACTIVITIES OCTOBER 2001–APRIL 2002 First Special Session, October 15, 2001 The work of CICTE took on new meaning and emphasis following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In furtherance of the decision taken by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OAS Member States at the TwentyThird Meeting of Consultation, through resolution RC.23/RES. 1/01 rev.l corr. 1 “Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat and Eliminate Terrorism”, CICTE held its First Special Session at OAS headquarters in Washington on October 15, 2001, initiating a new phase in the implementation of the OAS commitment to counter-terrorism. At that First Special Session, held on October 15th, 2001, CICTE decided to update the Work Plan adopted at the First Regular Session in Miami in December, 1999, in view of new threats posed by the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. It was also agreed that specific measures on border and financial controls would be presented for adoption at the ministerial level at the Second Regular Session of CICTE to be held in January 2002. To this end, CICTE established three Subcommittees which developed specific recommendations for actions to be undertaken by Member States on border and financial controls and develop a work plan for CICTE for the period 2002–2003. Second Special Session, November 29, 2001 The Second Special Session reviewed these recommendations and submitted same for the adoption at the Second Regular Session. Second Regular Session, January 28–29, 20021 With respect to financial controls, 18 recommendations were presented for implementation by Member States. Key among these were: to criminalize the financing of terrorism; to work towards capturing proceeds from terrorism and any channeling of funds to terrorist organizations; to develop training and assistance programs on financial controls; and to adopt and fully implement United Nations and other international conventions relating to terrorism, especially the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Regarding border controls, CICTE agreed to specific actions on: control measures at the physical borders; quality of identification and travel documents; customs control measures; and international cooperation mechanisms.

1 For the full proceedings, conclusions and recommendations of the Second Regular Session, see The Report of the Chair on the Second Regular Session of CICTE, Appendix II.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

253

The CICTE Work Plan 2002–2003, adopted at the Second Regular Session, includes developing a directory of hemispheric counter-terrorism experts, establishing a database and electronic network, and promoting training and international cooperation activities. The Second Regular Session was attended by high-level participants from 33 Member States, including Ministers of Government with responsibility for counter-terrorism, designated Principal Representatives to CICTE, and Permanent or Ad Interim Representatives to the OAS. Additionally, the Permanent Observers to the OAS from 25 countries also attended this session. The Secretary General addressed the opening session where he lauded the Member States for their revival of CICTE and urged them to maintain the fight against terrorism as a hemisphere-wide priority. The Chair’s Inter-sessional report2 detailed the work undertaken by CICTE since October 2001, leading up to the Second Regular Session. The Member States delivered their reports on the actions taken in furtherance of the decisions of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs set out in the resolution of the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation. At that time, Member States also agreed to hold the Third Regular Session of CICTE in January 2003, at a site to be determined. Secretariat support for CICTE In parallel with the two Special Sessions and the Second Regular Session, a Secretariat to support CICTE was established within the General Secretariat, staffed by individuals seconded by the governments of the United States, El Salvador and Uruguay. This Secretariat has established contacts with various multi-national organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and Interpol in order to further the work of CICTE. Through the voluntary financial support of several Member Nations and Observer Nations, CICTE has begun work to set up training programs and establish an electronic Inter-American Network of Experts regarding terrorism issues. This database will serve to support CICTE’s efforts to exchange best practices and information amongst the Member States to fight the scourge of terrorism. The Secretariat has also established close working relationships with other organs, agencies and entities of the OAS, especially the designated staff of the Office of the Secretary General, the Office of the Assistant Secretary General and the Permanent Council Secretariat.

2

See Appendix I.

MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS1

TERRORIST THREAT TO THE AMERICAS (Resolution adopted at the first plenary session, held on September 21, 2001) THE TWENTY-FOURTH MEETING OF CONSULTATION OF MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ACTING AS ORGAN OF CONSULTATION IN APPLICATION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE, CONSIDERING the terrorist attacks perpetrated in the United States of America on September 11, 2001, against innocent people from many nations; RECALLING the inherent right of states to act in the exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty); EMPHASIZING that Article 2 of the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) proclaims as essential purposes of the Organization to strengthen the peace and security of the continent and to provide for common action on the part of member states in the event of aggression; CONSIDERING that the obligation of mutual assistance and common defense of the American republics is essentially related to their democratic ideals and to their will to cooperate permanently in the fulfillment of the principles and purposes of a policy of peace; and TAKING NOTE of resolution CP/RES. 797 (1293/01), dated September 19, 2001, of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States acting as Provisional Organ of Consultation of the Rio Treaty, which called for a Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs to serve as the Organ of Consultation under the Rio Treaty, in connection with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, 1 Twenty-Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, OEA/Ser.F/II.24, RC.24/RES.1/01 – September 21, 2001 Washington D.C. – Original: Portugese.

TERRORIST THREAT TO THE AMERICAS

255

RESOLVES: 1. That these terrorist attacks against the United States of America are attacks against all American states and that in accordance with all the relevant provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) and the principle of continental solidarity, all States Parties to the Rio Treaty shall provide effective reciprocal assistance to address such attacks and the threat of any similar attacks against any American state, and to maintain the peace and security of the continent. 2. That, if a State Party has reason to believe that persons in its territory may have been involved in or in any way assisted the September 11, 2001 attacks, are harboring the perpetrators, or may otherwise be involved in terrorist activities, such State Party shall use all legally available measures to pursue, capture, extradite, and punish those individuals. 3. That the States Parties shall render additional assistance and support to the United States and to each other, as appropriate, to address the September 11 attacks, and also to prevent future terrorist acts. 4. That the States Parties shall keep the Organ of Consultation duly informed of all measures that they take in accordance with this resolution. 5. That this Meeting of Foreign Ministers in its capacity as Organ of Consultation shall remain open for the purpose of ensuring the prompt and effective implementation of this resolution and, if necessary, of taking appropriate additional measures to address this matter. 6. That we hereby designate a committee, to be composed of the representatives to the OAS Permanent Council of each State Party to the Rio Treaty, for the purpose of engaging in additional consultations and of taking measures in furtherance of the foregoing. 7. That we hereby request that all of the American Governments and the Organization of American States lend their full cooperation in the implementation of this resolution. 8. That the Permanent Council be entrusted with taking appropriate measures for implementing resolution RC.23/doc.7/01, adopted by the Twenty-third Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. 9. That the Security Council of the United Nations shall be informed promptly of the text of the present resolution and of any decisions that may be taken in connection with this matter.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

SECOND REGULAR SESSION January 28–29, 2002 Washington, D.C.

OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2 CICTE/doc.4/02 28 January 2002 Original: English

INTER-SESSIONAL REPORT BY THE CHAIR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE) (Presented to the Second Regular Session of CICTE) January 28–29, 2002 On September 21, 2001 the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS) Member States adopted resolution RC.23/RES. 1/01 rev. 1 corr. 1, which called for the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) to hold a special session. Accordingly, CICTE held its First Special Session at OAS headquarters in Washington on October 15, 2001, to begin implementation of the OAS commitment to counterterrorism as resolved by the Foreign Ministers. This Special Session was attended by representatives from all 34 Member States, 12 Observer States, as well as organizations of the inter-American System. OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria opened the session, reminding the assembled delegates of the mandate from the Foreign Ministers for CICTE to coordinate OAS action on terrorism with other OAS bodies, especially the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP), which had been tasked to draft an Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. His remarks were followed by a statement by the United States Department of State’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism Francis X. Taylor, who outlined the United States goal of eliminating the international terrorist threat through use of diplomatic, judicial, legislative and other tools that the OAS Member States can use at the bilateral, subregional and hemispheric levels. An official from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and officials from the Canadian Immigration and Customs services made presentations on their areas of expertise relevant to combating terrorism.

INTER-AMERICAN REPORT AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

257

Delegates at this special session reaffirmed the need for OAS Member States to ratify the 12 existing United Nations conventions and the OAS convention dealing with terrorism, as well as to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Many delegates reported stepped-up legislative actions to ensure the ratification or implementation of these instruments, with some noting that the obligations contained in Resolution 1373 had already been incorporated into their domestic law. There was also a call to sign and/or ratify conventions that refer to activities that may be conducted by terrorists, for example, the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials, and the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. OAS delegates urged that CICTE develop a network of experts and competent authorities to enable close cooperation and rapid response to terrorist threats and attacks. CICTE was also urged to identify training and capacity-building needs, encourage Member States to compare results from their initiatives, and work closely with the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), the Inter-American Commission on Ports, and other inter-American organizations with relevant expertise. The United States delegation informed that its government would be increasing training to CICTE member states through the Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program and will host a one-day exercise for high-level policy makers on January 30, 2002. The Delegation of Chile announced that his government would make a voluntary contribution of $10,000 to CICTE and urged others to join in this collaborative effort. The representatives from Mexico and El Salvador also stated that their governments would make financial contributions to CICTE in the near future. The United States was elected as the Chair of CICTE and Argentina as the Vice-Chair. Three subcommittees were formed and a Chair elected for each: Work Plan (Chaired by El Salvador); Financial Controls (Chaired by Colombia); and Border Controls (Chaired by Peru). A resolution proposed by Argentina and co-sponsored by all 34 member states was adopted stating CICTE’s renewed resolve in the fight against terrorism and its solidarity as a hemisphere in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It was agreed that a special session of CICTE would be held in Washington, D.C., on November 29, 2001 to report on the work of the subcommittees. The Financial Controls Subcommittee presented a draft plan of action with 18 specific recommendations for CICTE and OAS member states. Key among these were: to criminalize the financing of terrorism; to work towards capturing proceeds from terrorism and any channeling of funds to terrorist organizations; to develop training and assistance programs on financial controls; and to adopt

258

APPENDIX A

and fully implement United Nations and other international conventions relating to terrorism, especially the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The CICTE subcommittee benefited from the participation of the Financial Assets Task Force (FATF) experts and from Colombia’s expertise in combating money laundering and terrorism. The Border Controls subcommittee proposed specific actions in the areas of: control measures at the physical borders; quality of identification and travel documents; customs control measures; and international cooperation mechanisms. The third subcommittee report provided recommendations to update and reorganize the work plan of CICTE with emphasis for 2002 on developing a directory of hemispheric counterterrorism experts, establishing a database and electronic network, and promoting training and international cooperation activities. The Delegation of Argentina proposed a new structure for CICTE which stimulated debate on the potential size of the CICTE budget and the effect that CICTE could have on the Regular Fund budget. The Secretariat demonstrated that in the first year, CICTE’s expenses would be almost entirely borne by voluntary contributions of a few member states and secondments of personnel to a small secretariat. Consensus was not reached on this proposal, and it was agreed that CICTE’s future budget and structure would be discussed at the next regular meeting in January, but that no steps be taken toward commission status until a thorough budgetary review could be completed and CICTE’s status discussed in the January 2002 Regular Meeting. The working group preparing a Draft Inter-American Convention for the Prevention and Elimination of Terrorism made a report on the work achieved to date. At the conclusion of that special session, CICTE members agreed to hold the Second Regular Session in Washington, D.C. on January 28–29, 2002, and a draft agenda was approved for that meeting. CICTE members considered that government representatives at the regular session should be at the ministerial level, in order to put the appropriate emphasis on hemispheric efforts to combat terrorism. To date, CICTE has received voluntary contributions from the following member states and observers: Antigua & Barbuda Brazil Chile El Salvador Peru United States

US$

1,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 1.000.00 10,000.00 100,000.00

INTER-AMERICAN REPORT AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

259

Italy provided US$24,000.00 of computers and office equipment. In addition, the United States seconded two personnel to initiate the work of a small CICTE secretariat. The Secretary General has assisted the work of CICTE by providing office space and a secretary for the CICTE secretariat, and funding to cover the two special sessions and the Second Regular Session of CICTE.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

SECOND REGULAR SESSION January 28–29, 2002 Washington, D.C.

OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2 CICTE/doc.9/02 26 February 2002 Original: English

REPORT OF THE CHAIR ON THE SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM

1. INTRODUCTION The Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) held its Second Regular Session on January 28 and 29, 2002, at the Headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS). The main objectives of this Regular Session were to receive reports from Member States on their actions in followup to the decisions of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs taken at the TwentyThird Meeting of Consultation,1 and to adopt cooperation measures on border and financial controls, as well as the CICTE Work Plan 2002–2003. Background At its First Special Session, held on October 15th 2001, CICTE decided to update the Work Plan adopted at the First Regular Session in Miami in December 1999 in view of new threats posed by the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001 and the abovementioned resolution of the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation held on September 21, 2001. It was also agreed that specific measures would be presented for adoption at the ministerial level at the Second Regular Session of CICTE to be held in January 2002. With this in mind, three Subcommittees were established to formulate corresponding proposals: Subcommittee on Border Controls, under the chairmanship of the Permanent Representative of Peru to the OAS,

1 Resolution “Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat and Eliminate Terrorism”, OEA/Ser.F/II.23, RC.23/RES.1/01 rev. 1 corr. 1.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

261

Ambassador Eduardo Ferrero Costa; Subcommittee on Financial Controls, under the chairmanship of the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the OAS, Ambassador Humberto De La Calle; and the Subcommittee to Prepare the CICTE Work Plan 2002–2003, under the chairmanship of the Permanent Representative of El Salvador to the OAS, Ambassador Margarita Escobar. The Subcommittee’s proposals were approved by CICTE at its Second Special Session held on November 29, 2001, when it was also agreed that the Second Regular Session of CICTE would be held on January 28 and 29, 2002 to formally adopt these recommendations. These were duly transmitted to the Second Regular Session by the Chair, in his report “Conclusions and Recommendations”.2 It was also agreed on November 29th, that Member States would report on their actions taken, since September 11, 2001, to counter terrorism, in accordance with the abovementioned resolution of the Meeting of Consultation. Recognizing CICTE’s important coordinating role, it was also decided to continue consideration of cooperation possibilities with other organizations at the Second Regular Session. It was further agreed, that at the Second Regular Session a decision would be taken on the site and date of the next regular session. Chairmanship The Session was presided over by the United States, Chair of CICTE, represented by Mr. Steven Monblatt, Principal Representative of the United States to CICTE. The CICTE Vice-Chair, Argentina, was represented by that country’s Permanent Representative to the OAS, Ambassador Raul Ricardes. Participants3 The Second Regular Session was attended by high-level participants from 33 Member States, including Ministers of Government with responsibility for counter-terrorism, designated Principal Representatives to CICTE, and Permanent or Ad Interim Representatives to the OAS. The Permanent Observers to the OAS from 25 countries also attended this Regular Session. Special invitees included the OAS Secretary General, Dr. Cesar Gaviria, the OAS Assistant Secretary General, Ambassador Luigi R. Enaudi, and the

2 3

Document OEA/Ser.L/X.3.2, CICTE/doc.8 (II–E/01). List of Participants (Final Version), document OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2, CICTE/doc.7/02 rev. 1.

262

APPENDIX A

Regional Advisor/Regional Emergency Preparedness Program of the Pan American Health Organization, Dr. Jean Luc Poncelet.

II. PROCEEDINGS OPENING SESSION The Chair declared open the Second Regular Session of CICTE at 9:30 a.m. on January 28th. The Draft Agenda and Draft Calendar were adopted with an amendment proposed by the Chair.4 Secretary General Gaviria then delivered his address in which he lauded the Member States for their revival of CICTE and urged them to maintain the fight against terrorism as a hemisphere wide priority.5 FIRST PLENARY SESSION Inter-sessional report of the Chair The First Plenary Session began at 10:00 a.m. with the presentation of the Chair’s Inter-Sessional Report.6 Reports by Member States on actions taken in furtherance of the decisions of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs set out in the resolution of the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation Member States then delivered their respective reports7 in the following order: Brazil, El Salvador, Canada, Grenada, Argentina, Guatemala, United States, Antigua and Barbuda, Panama, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Peru, Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Costa Rica. The First Plenary Session was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. SECOND PLENARY SESSION Reports by Member States on actions taken in furtherance of the decisions of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs set out in the resolution of the Twenty-Third Meeting of Consultation The Second Plenary Session got underway at 2:40 p.m. with the continuation of the presentation of reports by Member States, in the following order:

4

Appendix IV, Agenda (Adopted at the Opening Session of the Second Regular Session, held on January 28, 2002), OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2, CICTE/doc.1/02 rev. 1. 5 See Appendix V for the complete text of the Secretary General’s remarks. 6 See document OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2, CICTE/doc.4/02.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

263

Guyana, Paraguay, Bolivia, Bahamas, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay, Belize, Honduras, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Jamaica and Haiti. The Committee accepted the Chair’s proposal that the two remaining Agenda items be postponed to the Third Plenary Session. The Session was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. THIRD PLENARY SESSION The Third Plenary Session commenced at 9:50 a.m. with the consideration of the two Agenda items postponed from the previous Second Plenary Session. Report by the Chair of the Working Group to Prepare the Draft Convention Against Terrorism Ambassador Miguel Ruíz-Cabañas, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the OAS, Chair of the Working Group to Prepare the Draft Convention Against Terrorism, delivered a brief oral report, updating CICTE on the work being done by said Working Group.8 Ambassador Ruíz-Cabañas recalled that this Working Group was established by the Permanent Council in order to comply with a mandate from the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, issued at the twentythird Meeting of Consultation, held in September 2001. The Chair expressed his conviction that it would be possible to conclude the preparation of the Draft Convention Against Terrorism in time for its presentation to the Thirty-Second Regular Session of the General Assembly scheduled for June 2002. Briefing on the Policy Formulation Exercise to be hosted by the United States on January 30, 2002 The United States’ facilitator for this event was John C. McKay, from the Office of Counter-Terrorism of the State Department, who briefly outlined the objective and structure of the policy formulation exercise to be hosted by the United States the following day for the participants in the Second Regular Session of CICTE. Consideration of the recommendations of the Second Special Session on Financial Controls, Border Controls and the CICTE Work Plan The Committee considered the recommendations of the Second Special Session of CICTE set out in the document “Conclusions and Recommendations”.9 7 All the reports and statements are published in the series OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2, CICTE/doc.8/02 and its addenda. 8 See the Report of the Chair on the Second Negotiation Meeting, held from January 22–25, 2002, document OEA/Ser.G, CP/CAJP–1866/02. 9 Document OEA/Ser.L/X.3.2, CICTE/doc.8 (II-E/01).

264

APPENDIX A

The Delegation of Mexico presented its proposals on amendments for these recommendations, recalling that these proposals had been circulated to Member States prior to the Session.10 After due consideration, these proposals were accepted. The Delegation of the United States delivered the following statement and requested that it be recorded in the minutes of this Session: “As noted by US Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his speech to this body yesterday, there are two additional areas for cooperation where my delegation believes CICTE can play an important role in combating terrorism effectively: cyberterrorism and mutual legal assistance. These areas have not been incorporated into the recommendations of the Second Special Session of CICTE. I would ask that my following remarks be incorporated into the record of his Second Regular Session of CICTE today and be considered in the future by the CICTE Secretariat and Member States in their activities for 2002 and 2003. With respect to cyberterrorism, we believe that CICTE should coordinate with OAS organs addressing cybercrime to ensure that effective methods for preventing and prosecution of cyberterrorism are developed in the Hemisphere. With respect to mutual legal assistance, we believe that CICTE, in order to enhance cooperation on terrorism investigations and prosecutions, should develop a plan for encouraging member states that have not already done so to become party to the OAS mutual legal assistance convention.”

As part of its Work Plan, CICTE considered its contributions to the ongoing negotiations on the Draft Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. The Delegation of El Salvador proposed an amendment with respect to this aspect of the Work Plan, which was agreed to. The Recommendations were adopted with the amendments proposed by the floor and are attached hereto.11 Consideration of the Financing of CICTE To commence the consideration of this item, the Chair noted that the General Secretariat had prepared an “Illustrative Budget for CICTE”12 presented for the consideration of the Member States. The Delegations of Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Mexico, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela took the floor to address various aspects of this item. Member States expressed their views with respect to the limited financial resources available to fund CICTE, any support services and its activities, and welcomed the Illustrative Budget as an 10 Document OEA/Ser.L/2.2, CICTE/doc.5/02, “Observations on the document “Conclusions and Recommendations” [CICTE/doc.8 (II-E/01)], (Mexico). 11 Appendix I “Border Control Measures”, Appendix II “Financial Control Measures”, and Appendix III, CICTE Work Plan 2002–2003. 12 Document OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2, CICTE/doc.6/02 corr.1.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

265

indication as to the future functioning of CICTE. In view of the OAS Secretary General’s decision to create a small CICTE secretariat, the Delegation of Argentina stated that there was no need at this time to pursue the Argentine proposal, submitted at the Second Special Session on restructuring CICTE. Consideration of ways in which CICTE might collaborate with other organs, agencies and entities CICTE continued its endeavors at liaising with other organs, agencies and entities, receiving an oral brief from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). PAHO was represented by Dr. Jean Luc Poncelet, Regional Advisor, Emergency Preparedness Program, who described how that Program responds to bio-terrorism, which includes a Task Force charged with addressing this issue. Dr. Poncelet noted that PAHO’s approach is based on the principle that building overall response capacity is the best response to terrorism and emphasizes cooperation among States, the incorporation of antibioterrorism activities into national preparedness plans, information management, and increasing funding from new sources. Consideration of the date and site of the Third Regular Session of CICTE The Delegation of El Salvador made a provisional offer to host the Third Regular Session of CICTE on the date decided by CICTE. The Chair stated that he had been informally approached by other countries about hosting the session and proposed to consult with OAS missions once a formal letter was received from El Salvador. The Chair then suggested that the next regular session be held in January 2003, and that, if there were no agreement to hold it in any Member State, it be held at OAS Headquarters. The Committee agreed to follow the procedure outlined by the Chair. CLOSING SESSION The Closing Session commenced at 11:35 a.m. with remarks by OAS Assistant Secretary General, Luigi R. Einaudi.13 In his intervention, Ambassador Einaudi noted that the high-level of representation of Member States is a clear indication of the commitment of governments to fight terrorism and to do so within the framework of the OAS and CICTE. Ambassador Einaudi informed of the concern expressed to him of the President of

13

See Appendix VI for the full text of the Assistant Secretary General’s remarks.

266

APPENDIX A

Honduras for citizen security, and suggested that CICTE is perfectly poised for addressing this issue as well. Ambassador emphasized that CICTE has an essential role in contributing to the greater security and prosperity of all Member States and citizens of the Hemisphere. After brief summary remarks by the Chair and expressions of appreciation by delegations to the Chair and the Secretariat, the Chair declared the Second Regular Session of CICTE adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE)

SECOND REGULAR SESSION January 28–29, 2002 Washington, D.C.

OEA/Ser.L/X.2.2 CICTE/doc.1/02 rev. 1 5 February 2002 Original: English

ADDRESS BY OAS SECRETARY GENERAL, CÉSAR GAVIRIA TRUJILLO, AT THE INAUGURATION OF THE SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM

Washington, D.C., January 28, 2002

Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Ministers, Ambassadors, experts, Chairman Monblatt, welcome to this Second Regular Session of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism. A few days ago, was four months since the infamous terrorist attack of September 11. Peoples are measured by the depth of their memories and our nations preserve intact their commitment and solidarity toward the victims from 28 of the 34 member countries of the OAS, and in particular with the American nation that bore the brunt of those cruel deeds. Because none of us should fail to realize that the objective of the extremists was to undermine our confidence in the democratic system and the values our society upholds. What they tried to do was to torpedo a political system that promotes individual accountability as essential to human dignity; that believes in consensus as a pillar of political legitimacy; and that rejects fundamentalism, because it chooses to be pluralist and has the faith in freedom, in all its ramifications. Ladies and Gentlemen: Here, what unites us is not collective fear, but the defense of shared values. On September 21, 2001, at their Meeting of Consultation, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoined all Member States of the OAS to adopt effective measures to prevent terrorist groups from being able to operate in their territories; to bolster regional and international cooperation; to strengthen, in particular, mutual legal assistance and the timely sharing of information; and to sign or ratify, as the case may be, the International Convention for the

268

APPENDIX A

Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted in New York on December 9, 1999. Likewise, the Ministers instructed the Permanent Council of the OAS to convene a meeting of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism to pinpoint urgently needed actions to strengthen inter-American cooperation to prevent, combat, and eradicate terrorism in the Hemisphere and they called for preparation of a draft Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, to be presented to the next General Assembly of the Organization. Over these past four months, the community of the Americas represented in the OAS has worked incessantly and tirelessly to comply with the mandates conferred by the Ministers. The Organ of Consultation of the twenty-fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the states parties to the Treaty of Rio remains open and operative under the leadership of the Ambassador of Brazil, who chairs the special committee made up of the representatives of each state party to this Treaty in the Permanent Council of the OAS. At its meeting of October 16, 2001, this Organ of Consultation reiterated its full individual and collective support for the tasks performed by the Government of the United States, and its members ratified their readiness to lend additional assistance and support, bearing in mind all the provisions of the aforementioned Treaty, in connection with the attacks of September 11 and to prevent and avoid future armed attacks by terrorists. At the same time, to comply with the mandate to draft an Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, a working group was installed, chaired by the Ambassador of Mexico, specifically to address this task. Last week this working group held a second meeting to discuss, compare notes, and identify the topics to be addressed. Time pressure and the quest for consensus have rendered this an even greater challenge, but I note with satisfaction that the group is confident that it can achieve its objective. Moreover, the countries continue to show clear and steadfast political resolve to make every effort and devote themselves wholeheartedly to such an important task. As for CICTE, I am delighted with its transformation, performance, and development, not just as a specialized body, but as a political forum for debate and the exchange of ideas. Clearly, its swift and incisive evolution owes much to the stimulus provided by member states and some observer countries (notably Italy) through various kinds of economic, logistical, and human resource contributions. Since the fateful attacks of September 11, CICTE has held two special meetings and innumerable informal meetings, resulting in significant contributions in the area of border controls and financial controls, and a work plan for 2002. Today we can talk not about a virtual Committee but one with a fixed abode of its own, full-time officers, and a window to the world through the Internet. Networks of experts and contacts are being cast among different

ADDRESS BY OAS SECRETARY GENERAL, CÉSAR GAVIRIA TRUJILLO

269

government entities and a directory of intergovernmental, competent authorities is being drafted along with databases on national laws, control of illicit arms and biological and chemical weapons, and think-tanks. Today this process is still being shaped, after we realized how little systematic and historical analysis of terrorism there had been. However, we have also realized that our countries will spare no pains to develop a hemispheric policy on the subject that serves to prevent events like those of September 11 from ever happening again. This second regular session of CICTE aims to define or formalize courses of action that CICTE will pursue in the immediate future and to adopt measures to enhance hemispheric cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Two questions might serve to establish parameters for debate, as the Committee sets about its task: The first question is: Are we doing enough to prevent and punish terrorism in our Hemisphere? And, second, are we playing our part? In other words, are we putting enough effort into doing what we should be doing as the political organization par excellence of the Hemisphere? I am convinced that the answer to both these questions is: yes. Aware that it is their most important political instrument, all countries in the Americas, without exception, have made common cause with the United States to consolidate a coalition that provides the legitimacy needed to act with the full political backing of the international community. In CICTE, all delegations have worked ceaselessly to turn political discourse into action, an effort underscored publicly at the last meeting by CICTE Chair Steve Montblatt, who himself deserves special mention as the architect of the Committee’s success. Our thanks go, too, to Ambassador Noriega, for coordinating the work so efficiently. I also think that we are moving in the right direction, with respect to our functions and responsibilities. Several priorities have already been established, some of which I wish to underline: As regards financial controls, we have seen recognition of the urgent need to expand the definition of what constitutes a terrorism-financing offense; CICTE’s assistance in the form of recommendations and the extension of the definition of financial institution to include non-bank financial institutions; the lifting of bank, exchange, and tax secrecy; and the incorporation into domestic legislations of the 40 recommendations and 8 special recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), as well as International Conventions, such as the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 1999 and resolution 1373 of the UN Security Council. With respect to financial controls, priority has been given to easing the flow of information needed to identify suspicious persons; the establishment of early warning systems; the construction of databases on migratory flows; and the training of migration officials.

270

APPENDIX A

Consideration has also been given to the need to improve the quality of I.D. and travel documents; harmonize customs procedures and policies; prevent arms trafficking; provide officials with regular training and technical skills; and reinforce customs communication networks. New tasks and challenges will emerge. We will have to consolidate ties with our peers in Europe and Asia, both politically and operationally. We are advancing further and more surely than other organizations in the world, which should prompt us to share the experience we have acquired. We must think of producing periodical status and trend reports on terrorism in the Hemisphere. We have to be rigorous in our evaluation of results and the targets set by the Committee, and we have to manage to transmit knowledge and experience through numerous civilian, police, and military organizations, which, though their institutional culture varies, are all equally important. The challenge we face, ministers and ambassadors, is to remain steadfast in our political resolve to make the struggle against terrorism a hemispheric priority transcending an emotional reaction that at times can be volatile and fleeting. Terrorism seeks, with a macabre dance of death, to terrify and paralyze our societies, to undermine our ability to muster the rule of law. And if, to cite Brian Jenkins’ memorable phrase, terrorism is theater, we must be able to control the stage. For that, the response has to be vigorous: bolstering our institutions, endowing them with specialized functions, and creating new ones if need be. We need to persevere, with will-power, professionalism, and dedication. Thank you very much.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

ADOPTED AT: DATE: MARC OF ADOPTION: ENTRY INTO FORCE: DEPOSITARY:

Bridgetown, Barbados 06/03/2002 Thirty-second regular session of the OAS General Assembly 07/10/2003 OAS General Secretariat (original instrument and instruments of ratification)

THE STATES PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION, BEARING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Charter of the United Nations; CONSIDERING that terrorism represents a serious threat to democratic values and to international peace and security and is a cause of profound concern to all member states; REAFFIRMING the need to adopt effective steps in the inter-American system to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism through the broadest cooperation; RECOGNIZING that the serious economic harm to states which may result from terrorist acts is one of the factors that underscore the need for cooperation and the urgency of efforts to eradicate terrorism; REAFFIRMING the commitment of the states to prevent, combat, punish, and eliminate terrorism; and BEARING IN MIND resolution RC.23/RES. 1/01 rev. 1 corr. 1, “Strengthening Hemispheric Cooperation to Prevent, Combat, and Eliminate Terrorism,” adopted at the Twenty-third Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING: Article 1 Object and purposes The purposes of this Convention are to prevent, punish, and eliminate terrorism. To that end, the states parties agree to adopt the necessary measures and to strengthen cooperation among them, in accordance with the terms of this Convention.

272

APPENDIX A

Article 2 Applicable international instruments 1. For the purposes of this Convention, “offenses” means the offenses established in the international instruments listed below: a. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970. b. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971. c. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973. d. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979. e. Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at Vienna on March 3, 1980. f. Protocol on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988. g. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988. h. Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988. i. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997. j. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999. 2. Upon depositing its instrument of ratification to this Convention, a state party that is not a party to one or more of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this article may declare that, in application of this Convention to such state party, that particular instrument shall be deemed not to be included in that paragraph. The declaration shall cease to have effect as soon as that instrument enters into force for that state party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact. 3. When a state party ceases to be a party to one of the international instruments listed in paragraph 1 of this article, it may make a declaration, as provided in paragraph 2 of this article, with respect to that instrument.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

273

Article 3 Domestic measures Each state party, in accordance with the provisions of its constitution, shall endeavor to become a party to the international instruments listed in Article 2 to which it is not yet a party and to adopt the necessary measures to effectively implement such instruments, including establishing, in its domestic legislation, penalties for the offenses described therein. Article 4 Measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the financing of terrorism 1. Each state party, to the extent it has not already done so, shall institute a legal and regulatory regime to prevent, combat, and eradicate the financing of terrorism and for effective international cooperation with respect thereto, which shall include: a. A comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory regime for banks, other financial institutions, and other entities deemed particularly susceptible to being used for the financing of terrorist activities. This regime shall emphasize requirements for customer identification, record-keeping, and the reporting of suspicious or unusual transactions. b. Measures to detect and monitor movements across borders of cash, bearer negotiable instruments, and other appropriate movements of value. These measures shall be subject to safeguards to ensure proper use of information and should not impede legitimate capital movements. c. Measures to ensure that the competent authorities dedicated to combating the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 have the ability to cooperate and exchange information at the national and international levels within the conditions prescribed under its domestic law. To that end, each state party shall establish and maintain a financial intelligence unit to serve as a national center for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of pertinent money laundering and terrorist financing information. Each state party shall inform the Secretary General of the Organization of American States of the authority designated to be its financial intelligence unit. 2. When implementing paragraph 1 of this article, states parties shall use as guidelines the recommendations developed by specialized international and regional entities, in particular the Financial Action Task Force and, as appropriate, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, and the South American Financial Action Task Force.

274

APPENDIX A

Article 5 Seizure and confiscation of funds or other assets 1. Each state party shall, in accordance with the procedures established in its domestic law, take such measures as may be necessary to provide for the identification, freezing or seizure for the purposes of possible forfeiture, and confiscation or forfeiture, of any funds or other assets constituting the proceeds of, used to facilitate, or used or intended to finance, the commission of any of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention. 2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to offenses committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the state party.

Article 6 Predicate offenses to money laundering 1. Each state party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its domestic penal money laundering legislation also includes as predicate offenses those offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention. 2. The money laundering predicate offenses referred to in paragraph 1 shall include those committed both within and outside the jurisdiction of the state party.

Article 7 Cooperation on border controls 1. The states parties, consistent with their respective domestic legal and administrative regimes, shall promote cooperation and the exchange of information in order to improve border and customs control measures to detect and prevent the international movement of terrorists and trafficking in arms or other materials intended to support terrorist activities. 2. In this context, they shall promote cooperation and the exchange of information to improve their controls on the issuance of travel and identity documents and to prevent their counterfeiting, forgery, or fraudulent use. 3. Such measures shall be carried out without prejudice to applicable international commitments in relation to the free movement of people and the facilitation of commerce.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

275

Article 8 Cooperation among law enforcement authorities The states parties shall work closely with one another, consistent with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems, to enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement action to combat the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2. In this context, they shall establish and enhance, where necessary, channels of communication between their competent authorities in order to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information concerning all aspects of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention. Article 9 Mutual legal assistance The states parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of expeditious mutual legal assistance with respect to the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 and proceedings related thereto, in accordance with applicable international agreements in force. In the absence of such agreements, states parties shall afford one another expeditious assistance in accordance with their domestic law. Article 10 Transfer of persons in custody 1. A person who is being detained or is serving a sentence in the territory of one state party and whose presence in another state party is requested for purposes of identification, testimony, or otherwise providing assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation or prosecution of offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 may be transferred if the following conditions are met: a. The person freely gives his or her informed consent; and b. Both states agree, subject to such conditions as those states may deem appropriate. 2. For the purposes of this article: a. The state to which the person is transferred shall have the authority and obligation to keep the person transferred in custody, unless otherwise requested or authorized by the state from which the person was transferred.

276

APPENDIX A

b. The state to which the person is transferred shall without delay implement its obligation to return the person to the custody of the state from which the person was transferred as agreed beforehand, or as otherwise agreed, by the competent authorities of both states. c. The state to which the person is transferred shall not require the state from which the person was transferred to initiate extradition proceedings for the return of the person. d. The person transferred shall receive, for time spent in the custody of the state to which he or she was transferred, credit toward service of the sentence being served in the state from which he or she was transferred. 3. Unless the state party from which a person is to be transferred in accordance with the present article so agrees, that person, whatever his or her nationality, shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his or her personal liberty in the territory of the state to which that person is transferred in respect of acts or convictions prior to his or her departure from the territory of the state from which said person was transferred. Article 11 Inapplicability of political offense exception For the purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance, none of the offenses established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 shall be regarded as a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives. Accordingly, a request for extradition or mutual legal assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense or an offense inspired by political motives. Article 12 Denial of refugee status Each state party shall take appropriate measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national and international law, for the purpose of ensuring that refugee status is not granted to any person in respect of whom there are serious reasons for considering that he or she has committed an offense established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention. Article 13 Denial of asylum Each state party shall take appropriate measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national and international law, for the purpose of ensuring that

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

277

asylum is not granted to any person in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has committed an offense established in the international instruments listed in Article 2 of this Convention. Article 14 Nondiscrimination None of the provisions of this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to provide mutual legal assistance if the requested state party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinion, or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any of these reasons. Article 15 Human rights 1. The measures carried out by the states parties under this Convention shall take place with full respect for the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. 2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as affecting other rights and obligations of states and individuals under international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international refugee law. 3. Any person who is taken into custody or regarding whom any other measures are taken or proceedings are carried out pursuant to this Convention shall be guaranteed fair treatment, including the enjoyment of all rights and guarantees in conformity with the law of the state in the territory of which that person is present and applicable provisions of international law. Article 16 Training 1. The states parties shall promote technical cooperation and training programs at the national, bilateral, subregional, and regional levels and in the framework of the Organization of American States to strengthen the national institutions responsible for compliance with the obligations assumed under this Convention. 2. The states parties shall also promote, where appropriate, technical cooperation and training programs with other regional and international organizations conducting activities related to the purposes of this Convention.

278

APPENDIX A

Article 17 Cooperation through the Organization of American States The states parties shall encourage the broadest cooperation within the pertinent organs of the Organization of American States, including the InterAmerican Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), on matters related to the object and purposes of this Convention. Article 18 Consultations among the parties 1. The states parties shall hold periodic meetings of consultation, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating: a. The full implementation of this Convention, including the consideration of issues of interest relating thereto identified by the states parties; and b. The exchange of information and experiences on effective means and methods to prevent, detect, investigate, and punish terrorism. 2. The Secretary General shall convene a meeting of consultation of the states parties after receiving the 10th instrument of ratification. Without prejudice to this, the states parties may hold consultations as they consider appropriate. 3. The states parties may request the pertinent organs of the Organization of American States, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultations referred to in the previous paragraphs and to provide other forms of assistance with respect to the implementation of this Convention. Article 19 Exercise of jurisdiction Nothing in this Convention entitles a state party to undertake in the territory of another state party the exercise of jurisdiction or performance of functions that are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other state party by its domestic law. Article 20 Depositary The original instrument of this Convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

279

Article 21 Signature and ratification 1. This Convention is open for signature by all member states of the Organization of American States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. Article 22 Entry into force 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following the date of deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification of the Convention with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. 2. For each state ratifying the Convention after deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification, the Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following the deposit by such state of its instrument of ratification. Article 23 Denunciation 1. Any state party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States. Denunciation shall take effect one year following the date on which notification is received by the Secretary General of the Organization. 2. Such denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the time the Convention is in force for the denouncing state.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A-66 COUNTRY Antigua y Barbuda Argentina Bahamas Barbados Belize Bolivia Brasil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominica Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haití Honduras Jamaica México Nicaragua Panamá Paraguay Perú República Dominicana San Kitts y Nevis Santa Lucía St. Vicente & Grenadines Suriname Trinidad & Tobago United States Uruguay Venezuela

SIGNATURE RATIFICATION/ ACCESSION

DEPOSIT INFORMATION*

06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 12/02/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 – 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 07/16/2002

02/20/2003 – – – – – – 11/28/2002 – – – – – 03/13/2003 – – – – – – 04/02/2003 06/10/2003 – – 06/05/2003 –

03/27/2003 – – – – – – 12/02/2002 – – – – – 05/08/2003 – – – – – – 06/09/2003 06/10/2003 – – 06/09/2003 –

– – – – – – – – – – – – Yes – – – – – – – Yes – – – – –

06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002

– – –

– – –

– –

06/03/2002 10/02/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002 06/03/2002

– – – – –

– – – – –

– – – – –

*DECLARATIONS/RESERVATIONS/DENUNCIATIONS/WITHDRAWALS

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

281

Ecuador: Declaration upon signature: ( June 3, 2002) Upon signing this Convention, the Government of Ecuador: 1. Deplores that the member states have not been able to reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism and its classification as an international crime against humanity. 2. Considers that the Convention, despite the gaps therein, can be an effective mechanism for the states of the Americas to pursue their struggle against the crime of terrorism. 3. Expresses its conviction that it is necessary for the states to affirm their unwaivable political resolve to adhere strictly to the principles and provisions of the Convention. 4. Declares that the signing of this Convention does not entail acceptance or approval of international instruments to which Ecuador is not a party. Consequently, Ecuador will apply those instruments to which it is or may become a party. Mexico: Interpretative declaration upon signature in respect of Article 15, paragraph 2: (June 3, 2002) “Without detriment to Mexico’s determination to combat all terrorist acts, methods, and practices, it is my Government’s interpretation that the right to asylum is part of international human rights law as referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of this Convention, since both Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article XXVII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man embody the right of every person to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory. Accordingly, any request for cooperation made pursuant to this Convention will be decided on by my Government in accordance with the Convention, Mexico’s domestic laws, and other applicable international instruments.” Interpretative declarations made when depositing the instrument of ratification (June 9, 2003) “Without detriment to Mexico’s determination to combat all terrorist acts, methods, and practices, it is my Government’s interpretation that the right to asylum is part of international human rights law as referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of this Convention, since both Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article XXVII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man embody the right of every person to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory.” “Mexico interprets Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention to mean that the measures to provide for the identification, freezing, seizure, or, where

282

APPENDIX A

appropriate, confiscation of funds or other assets constituting the proceeds of, used to facilitate, or used or intended to finance the commission of the offenses referred to in Article 2, shall be taken, when it is a case of offenses committed outside the jurisdiction of the Mexican State, in accordance with domestic legislation and through the mutual legal assistance treaties referred to in Article 9 of the Convention.”

Appendix B Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the United Nations

CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES

Adopted on December 19, 1988 by the United Nations Conference held in Vienna, November 25 – December 20, 19881

This Convention consists of 34 articles. Following are the titles of these articles and the text of Article 6. Extradition. Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 Article 10

– – – – – – – – – –

Article 11 Article 12

– –

Article 13 Article 14

– –

Article 15 Article 16

– –

Article 17 Article 18

– –

1

DEFINITIONS SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION OFFENCES AND SANCTIONS JURISDICTION CONFISCATION EXTRADITION MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS OTHER FORMS OF COOPERATION AND TRAINING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE FOR TRANSIT STATES CONTROLLED DELIVERY’ SUBSTANCES FREQUENTLY USED IN THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURE OF NARCOTIC DRUGS OR PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT MEASURES TO ERADICATE ILLICIT CULTIVATION OF NARCOTIC PLANTS AND TO ELIMINATE ILLICIT DEMAND FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES COMMERCIAL CARRIERS COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS AND LABELLING OF EXPORTS ILLICIT TRAFFIC BY SEA FREE TRADE ZONE AND FREE PORTS

United Nations Economic and Social Council E/CONF.82/15/Corr.2, 20 December 1988.

286

APPENDIX B

Article 19 Article 20

– –

Article Article Article Article

21 22 23 24

– – – –

Article 25

–

Article 26 Article 27

– –

Article Article Article Article Article Article Article

– – – – – – –

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

THE USE OF THE MAILS INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE PARTIES FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD REPORTS OF THE BOARD APPLICATION OF STRICTER MEASURES THAN THOSE REQUIRED BY THIS CONVENTION NON-DEROGATION FROM EARLIER TREATY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS SIGNATURE RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL OR ACT OF FORMAL CONFIRMATION ACCESSION ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS CONVENTION DENUNCIATION AMENDMENTS SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AUTHENTIC TEXTS DEPOSITARY

Text of Article 6. EXTRADITION: 1. This article shall apply to the offences established by the Parties in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1. 2. Each of the offences to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between Parties. The Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 3. If a Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which this article applies. The Parties which require detailed legislation in order to use this Convention as a legal basis for extradition shall consider enacting such legislation as may be necessary. 4. The Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offences to which this article applies as extraditable offences between themselves. 5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the requested Party or by applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds upon which the requested Party may refuse extradition.

CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS

287

6. In considering requests received pursuant to this article, the requested State may refuse to comply with such requests where there are substantial grounds leading its judicial or other competent authorities to believe that compliance would facilitate the prosecution or punishment of any person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or would cause prejudice for any of those reasons to any person affected by the request. 7. The Parties shall endeavour to expedite extradition procedures and to simplify evidentiary requirements relating thereto in respect of any offence to which this article applies. 8. Subject to the provisions of its domestic law and its extradition treaties, the requested Party may, upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant and are urgent, and at the request of the requesting Party, take a person whose extradition is sought and who is present in its territory into custody or take other appropriate measures to ensure his presence at extradition proceedings. 9. Without prejudice to the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction established in accordance with its domestic law, a Party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall: a) If it does not extradite him in respect of an offence established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, on the grounds set forth in article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, unless otherwise agreed with the requesting Party; b) If it does not extradite him in respect of such an offence and has established its jurisdiction in relation to that offence in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph (b), submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, unless otherwise requested by the requesting Party for the purposes of preserving its legitimate jurisdiction. 10. If extradition, sought for purposes of enforcing a sentence, is refused because the person sought is a national of the requested Party, the requested Party shall, if its law so permits and in conformity with the requirements of such law, upon application of the requesting Party, consider the enforcement of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the requesting Party, or the remainder thereof. 11. The Parties shall seek to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements to carry out or to enhance the effectiveness of extradition. 12. The Parties may consider entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements, whether ad hoc or general, on the transfer to their country of persons sentenced to imprisonment and other forms of deprivation of liberty for offences to which this article applies, in order that they may complete their sentences there.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST THE RECRUITMENT, USE, FINANCING AND TRAINING OF MERCENARIES

Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 4, 19891

This Convention contains 21 articles.

EXCERPTS Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, a mercenary is any person who: Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party; is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at: (i) overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or (ii) undermining the territorial integrity of a State; has not been sent by a State on official duty.

Article 2 Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.

1 United Nations General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session. 72nd plenary meeting, December 4, 1989. A/RES/44/34

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST MERCENARIES

289

Article 3 1. A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention. 2. Nothing in this article limits the scope of application of article 4 of the present Convention. Article 4 An offence is committed by any person who: a) Attempts to commit one of the offences set forth in the present Convention; b) Is the accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit any of the offences set forth in the present Convention. Article 12 The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any other offence of a grave nature under the law of that State. Article 15 1. The offences set forth in articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present Convention shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider the present Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

290

APPENDIX B

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those offences as extraditable offences between themselves, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 4. The offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 9 of the present Convention.

Article 16 The present Convention shall be applied without prejudice to: a) The rules relating to the international responsibility of States; b) The law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law, including the provisions relating to the status of combatant or of prisoner of war.

Articles 17 to 21 Final Clauses

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 19901

Following is the text of this resolution: The General Assembly, Bearing in mind the Milan Plan of Action,2 adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and approved by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/32 of 29 November 1985, Bearing in mind also the Guiding Principles for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in the Context of Development and a New International Economic Order, principle 37 of which stipulates that the United Nations should prepare model instruments suitable for use as international and regional conventions and as guides for national implementing legislation, Recalling resolution 1 of the Seventh Congress, on organized crime, in which Member States were urged, inter alia, to increase their activity at the international level in order to combat organized crime, including, as appropriate, entering into bilateral treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance, Recalling also resolution 23 of the Seventh Congress, on criminal acts of a terrorist character, in which all States were called upon to take steps to strengthen cooperation, inter-alia, in the area of extradition, Calling attention to the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Acknowledging the valuable contributions of Governments, non-governmental organizations and individual experts, in particular the Government of Australia and the International Association of Penal Law, Gravely concerned by the escalation of crime, both national and transnational,

1 United Nations General Assembly. 68th plenary meeting, December 14, 1990. A/RES/45/116 2 Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Milan, 26 August-6 September 1985; report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales No.E.86.IV.1) chap.I, Sect.A.

292

APPENDIX B

Convinced that the establishment of bilateral and multilateral arrangements for extradition will greatly contribute to the development of more effective international cooperation for the control of crime, Conscious of the need to respect human dignity and recalling the rights conferred upon every person involved in criminal proceedings, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Conscious that in many cases existing bilateral extradition arrangements are outdated and should be replaced by modern arrangements which take into account recent developments in international criminal law, Recognizing the importance of a model treaty on extradition as an effective way of dealing with the complex aspects and serious consequences of crime, especially in its new forms and dimensions, 1. Adopts the Model Treaty on Extradition contained in the annex to the present resolution as a useful framework that could be of assistance to States interested in negotiating and concluding bilateral agreements aimed at improving cooperation in matters of crime prevention and criminal justice; 2. Invites Member States, if they have not yet established treaty relations with other States in the area of extradition, or if they wish to revise existing treaty relations, to take into account, whenever doing so, the Model Treaty on Extradition; 3. Urges all States to strengthen further international cooperation in criminal justice; 4. Requests the Secretary General to bring the present resolution, with the Model Treaty, to the attention of Member States; 5. Urges Member States to inform the Secretary General periodically of efforts undertaken to establish extradition arrangements; 6. Requests the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to review periodically the progress attained in this field; 7. Also requests the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control, where requested, to provide guidance and assistance to Member States in the development of legislation that would enable giving effect to the obligations in such treaties as are to be negotiated on the basis of the Model Treaty on Extradition; 8. Invites Member States, on request, to make available to the Secretary General the provisions of their extradition legislation so that these may be made available to those Member States desiring to enact or further develop legislation in this field.

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

293

ANNEX Model Treaty on Extradition The ___________________________________________________ and the ___________________________ Desirous of making more effective the cooperation of the two countries in the control of crime by concluding a treaty on extradition, Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1 Obligation to extradite Each Party agrees to extradite to the other, upon request and subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, any person who is wanted in the requesting State for prosecution for an extraditable offence or for the imposition or enforcement of a sentence in respect of such an offence.3

ARTICLE 2 Extraditable offences 1. For the purposes of the present Treaty, extraditable offences are offences that are punishable under the laws of both Parties by imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least (one/two) year(s), or by a more severe penalty. Where the request for extradition relates to a person who is wanted for the enforcement of a sentence of imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty imposed for such an offence, extradition shall be granted only if a period of at least (four/six) months of such sentence remains to be served. 2. In determining whether an offence is an offence punishable under the laws of both Parties, it shall not matter whether: (a) The laws of the Parties place the acts or omissions constituting the offence within the same category of offence or denominate the offence by the same terminology;

3

Reference to the imposition of a sentence may not be necessary for all countries.

294

APPENDIX B

(b) Under the laws of the Parties the constituent elements of the offence differ, it being understood that the totality of the acts or omissions as presented by the requesting State shall be taken into account. 3. Where extradition of a person is sought for an offence against a law relating to taxation, customs duties, exchange control or other revenue matters, extradition may not be refused on the ground that the law of the requested State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, customs duty or exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the requesting State.4 4. If the request for extradition includes several separate offences each of which is punishable under the laws of both Parties, but some of which do not fulfill the other conditions set out in paragraph 1 of the present article, the requested Party may grant extradition for the latter offences provided that the person is to be extradited for at least one extraditable offence.

ARTICLE 3 Mandatory grounds for refusal Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: (a) If the offence for which extradition is requested is regarded by the requested State as an offence of a political nature;5 (b) If the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, political opinions, sex or status, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons; (c) If the offence for which extradition is requested is an offence under military law, which is not also an offence under ordinary criminal law; (d) If there has been a final judgement rendered against the person in the requested State in respect of the offence for which the person’s extradition is requested;

4 Some countries may wish to omit this paragraph or provide an optional ground for refusal under article 4. 5 Some countries may wish to add the following text: “Reference to an offence of a political nature shall not include any offence in respect of which the Parties have assumed an obligation, pursuant to any multilateral convention, to take prosecutorial action where they do not extradite, or any other offence that the Parties have agreed is not an offence of a political character for the purposes of extradition.”

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

295

(e) If the person whose extradition is requested has, under the law of either Party, become immune from prosecution or punishment for any reason, including lapse of time or amnesty;6 (f ) If the person whose extradition is requested has been or would be subjected in the requesting State to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or if that person has not received or would not receive the minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings, as contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14; (g) If the judgement of the requesting State has been rendered in absentia, the convicted person has not had sufficient notice of the trial or the opportunity to arrange for his or her defence and he has not had or will not have the opportunity to have the case retried in his or her presence.7

ARTICLE 4 Optional grounds for refusal Extradition may be refused in any of the following circumstances: (a) If the person whose extradition is requested is a national of the requested State. Where extradition is refused on this ground, the requested State shall, if the other State so requests, submit the case to its competent authorities with a view to taking appropriate action against the person in respect of the offence for which extradition had been requested; (b) If the competent authorities of the requested State have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings against the person for the offence in respect of which extradition is requested; (c) If a prosecution in respect of the offence for which extradition is requested is pending in the requested State against the person whose extradition is requested; (d) If the offence for which extradition is requested carries the death penalty under the law of the requesting State, unless that State gives such assurance as the requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out;8

6

Some countries may wish to make this an optional ground for refusal under article 4. Some countries may wish to add to article 3 the following ground for refusal: “If there is insufficient proof, according to the evidentiary standards of the requested State, that the person whose extradition is requested is a party to the offence”. (See also footnote 14) 8 Some countries may wish to apply the same restriction to the imposition of a life, or indeterminate, sentence. 7

296

APPENDIX B

(e) If the offence for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of either Party and the law of the requested State does not provide for jurisdiction over such an offence committed outside its territory in comparable circumstances; (f) If the offence for which extradition is requested is regarded under the law of the requested State as having been committed in whole or in part within that State.9 Where extradition is refused on this ground, the requested State shall, if the other State so requests, submit the case to its competent authorities with a view to taking appropriate action against the person for the offence for which extradition had been requested; (g) If the person whose extradition is requested has been sentenced or would be liable to be tried or sentenced in the requesting State by an extraordinary or ad hoc court or tribunal; (h) If the requested State, while also taking into account the nature of the offence and the interests of the requesting State, considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the extradition of that person would be incompatible with humanitarian considerations in view of age, health or other personal circumstances of that person.

ARTICLE 5 Channels of communication and required documents 1. A request for extradition shall be made in writing. The request, supporting documents and subsequent communications shall be transmitted through the diplomatic channel, directly between the ministries of justice or any other authorities designated by the Parties. 2. A request for extradition shall be accompanied by the following: (a) In all cases, (i) As accurate a description as possible of the person sought, together with any other information that may help to establish that person’s identity, nationality and location; (ii) The text of the relevant provision of the law creating the offence or, where necessary, a statement of the law relevant to the offence and a statement of the penalty that can be imposed for the offence;

9 Some countries may wish to make specific reference to a vessel under its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws at the time of the commission of the offence.

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

297

(b) If the person is accused of an offence, by a warrant issued by a court or other competent judicial authority for the arrest of the person or a certified copy of that warrant, a statement of the offence for which extradition is requested and a description of the acts or omissions constituting the alleged offence, including an indication of the time and place of its commission;10 (c) If the person has been convicted of an offence, by a statement of the offence for which extradition is requested and a description of the acts or omissions constituting the offence and by the original or certified copy of the judgement or any other document setting out the conviction and the sentence imposed, the fact that the sentence is enforceable, and the extent to which the sentence remains to be served; (d) If the person has been convicted of an offence in his or her absence, in addition to the documents set out in paragraph 2 (c) of the present article, by a statement as to the legal means available to the person to prepare his or her defence or to have the case retried in his or her presence; (e) If the person has been convicted of an offence but no sentence has been imposed, by a statement of the offence for which extradition is requested and a description of the acts or omissions constituting the offence and by a document setting out the conviction and a statement affirming that there is an intention to impose a sentence. 3. The documents submitted in support of a request for extradition shall be accompanied by a translation into the language of the requested State or in another language acceptable to that State.

ARTICLE 6 Simplified extradition procedure The requested State, if not precluded by its law, may grant extradition after receipt of a request for provisional arrest, provided that the person sought explicitly consents before a competent authority.

10 Countries that require a judicial assessment of the sufficiency of evidence may wish to add the following clause: “and sufficient proof in a form acceptable under the law of the requested State, establishing, according to the evidentiary standards of that State, that the person is a party to the offence”. (See also footnote 7)

298

APPENDIX B

ARTICLE 7 Certification and authentication Except as provided by the present Treaty, a request for extradition and the documents in support thereof, as well as documents or other material supplied in response to such a request, shall not require certification or authentication.11

ARTICLE 8 Additional information If the requested State considers that the information provided in support of a request for extradition is not sufficient, it may request that additional information be furnished within such reasonable time as it specifies.

ARTICLE 9 Provisional arrest 1. In case of urgency the requesting State may apply for the provisional arrest of the person sought pending the presentation of the request for extradition. The application shall be transmitted by means of the facilities of the International Criminal Police Organization, by post or telegraph or by any other means affording a record in writing. 2. The application shall contain a description of the person sought, a statement that extradition is to be requested, a statement of the existence of one of the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 5 of the present Treaty, authorizing the apprehension of the person, a statement of the punishment that can be or has been imposed for the offence, including the time left to be served and a concise statement of the facts of the case, and a statement of the location, where known, of the person. 3. The requested State shall decide on the application in accordance with its law and communicate its decision to the requesting State without delay. 4. The person arrested upon such an application shall be set at liberty upon the expiration of (40) days from the date of arrest if a request for extradition, supported by the relevant documents specified in paragraph 2 of article 5 11 The laws of some countries require authentication before documents transmitted from other countries can be admitted in their courts and, therefore, would require a clause setting out the authentication required.

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

299

of the present Treaty, has not been received. The present paragraph does not preclude the possibility of conditional release of the person prior to the expiration of the (40) days. 5. The release of the person pursuant to paragraph 4 of the present article shall not prevent rearrest and institution of proceedings with a view to extraditing the person sought if the request and supporting documents are subsequently received.

ARTICLE 10 Decision on the request 1. The requested State shall deal with the request for extradition pursuant to procedures provided by its own law, and shall promptly communicate its decision to the requesting State. 2. Reasons shall be given for any complete or partial refusal of the request.

ARTICLE 11 Surrender of the person 1. Upon being informed that extradition has been granted, the Parties shall, without undue delay, arrange for the surrender of the person sought and the requested State shall inform the requesting State of the length of time for which the person sought was detained with a view to surrender. 2. The person shall be removed from the territory of the requested State within such reasonable period as the requested State specifies and, if the person is not removed within that period, the requested State may release the person and may refuse to extradite that person for the same offence. 3. If circumstances beyond its control prevent a Party from surrendering or removing the person to be extradited, it shall notify the other Party. The two Parties shall mutually decide upon a new date of surrender, and the provisions of paragraph 2 of the present article shall apply. ARTICLE 12 Postponed or conditional surrender 1. The requested State may, after making its decision on the request for extradition, postpone the surrender of a person sought, in order to proceed

300

APPENDIX B

against that person, or, if that person has already been convicted, in order to enforce a sentence imposed for an offence other than that for which extradition is sought. In such a case the requested State shall advise the requesting State accordingly. 2. The requested State may, instead of postponing surrender, temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State in accordance with conditions to be determined between the Parties. ARTICLE 13 Surrender of Property 1. To the extent permitted under the law of the requested State and subject to the rights of third parties, which shall be duly respected, all property found in the requested State that has been acquired as a result of the offence or that may be required as evidence shall, if the requesting State so requests, be surrendered if extradition is granted. 2. The said property may, if the requesting State so requests, be surrendered to the requesting State even if the extradition agreed to cannot be carried out. 3. When the said property is liable to seizure or confiscation in the requested State, it may retain it or temporarily hand it over. 4. Where the law of the requested State or the protection of the rights of third parties so require, any property so surrendered shall be returned to the requested State free of charge after the completion of the proceedings, if that State so requests. ARTICLE 14 Rule of speciality 1. A person extradited under the present Treaty shall not be proceeded against, sentenced, detained, re-extradited to a third State, or subjected to any other restriction of personal liberty in the territory of the requesting State for any offence committed before surrender other than: (a) An offence for which extradition was granted; (b) Any other offence in respect of which the requested State consents.12 Consent shall be given if the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to extradition in accordance with the present Treaty.13 12

Some countries may wish to add, as a third case, explicit consent of the person. Some countries may not wish to assume that obligation and may wish to include other grounds in determining whether or not to grant consent. 13

MODEL TREATY ON EXTRADITION

301

2. A request for the consent of the requested State under the present article shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 5 of the present Treaty and a legal record of any statement made by the extradited person with respect to the offence. 3. Paragraph 1 of the present article shall not apply if the person has had an opportunity to leave the requesting State and has not done so within (30/45) days of final discharge in respect of the offence for which that person was extradited or if the person has voluntarily returned to the territory of the requesting State after leaving it. ARTICLE 15 Transit 1. Where a person is to be extradited to a Party from a third State through the territory of the other Party, the Party to which the person is to be extradited shall request the other Party to permit the transit of that person through its territory. This does not apply where air transport is used and no landing in the territory of the other Party is scheduled. 2. Upon receipt of such a request, which shall contain relevant information, the requested State shall deal with this request pursuant to procedures provided by its own law. The requested State shall grant the request expeditiously unless its essential interests would be prejudiced thereby.14 3. The State of transit shall ensure that legal provisions exist that would enable detaining the person in custody during transit. 4. In the event of an unscheduled landing, the Party to be requested to permit transit may, at the request of the scorting officer, hold the person in custody for (48) hours, pending receipt of the transit request to be made in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present article. ARTICLE 16 Concurrent requests If a Party receives requests for extradition for the same person from both the other Party and a third State it shall, at its discretion, determine to which of those States the person is to be extradited.

14 Some countries may wish to agree on other grounds for refusal, which may also warrant refusal for extradition, such as those related to the nature of the offence (e.g. political, fiscal, military) or to the status of the person (e.g. their own nationals).

302

APPENDIX B

ARTICLE 17 Costs 1. The requested State shall meet the cost of any proceedings in its jurisdiction arising out of a request for extradition. 2. The requested State shall also bear the costs incurred in its territory in connection with the seizure and handing over of property, or the arrest and detention of the person whose extradition is sought.15 3. The requesting State shall bear the costs incurred in conveying the person from the territory of the requested State, including transit costs.

ARTICLE 18 Final Provisions 1. The present Treaty is subject to (ratification, acceptance or approval). The instruments of (ratification, acceptance or approval) shall be exchanged as soon as possible. 2. The present Treaty shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the day on which the instruments of (ratification, acceptance or approval) are exchanged. 3. The present Treaty shall apply to requests made after its entry into force, even if the relevant acts or omissions occurred prior to that date. 4. Either Contracting Party may denounce the present Treaty by giving notice in writing to the other Party. Such denunciation shall take effect six months following the date on which such notice is received by the other Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Treaty. ________________________

___________________________

DONE at _________________________ on ______________________ in the ____________________ and ________________ languages, (both/all) texts being equally authentic.

15 Some countries may wish to consider reimbursement of costs incurred as a result of withdrawal of a request for extradition or provisional arrest.

DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE

Approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 18, 19921

The United Nations proclaimed this Declaration on December 18, 1992, as a body of principles for all States and urged that all efforts be made so that the Declaration becomes generally known and respected. This Declaration contains 21 articles. Article 1, paragraph 1, of this Declaration provides that “Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field.”

Excerpts Article 2 1. No State shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances. 2. States shall act at the national and regional levels and in cooperation with the United Nations to contribute by all means to the prevention and eradication of enforced disappearance. Article 3 Each State shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent and terminate acts of enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction.

1 United Nations General Assembly. 92nd plenary meeting, December 18, 1992. A/RES/47/133

304

APPENDIX B

Article 4 1. All acts of enforced disappearance shall be offences under criminal law punishable by appropriate penalties which shall take into account their extreme seriousness. 2. Mitigating circumstances may be established in national legislation for persons who, having participated in enforced disappearances, are instrumental in bringing the victims forward alive or in providing voluntarily information which would contribute to clarifying cases of enforced disappearance. Article 5 In addition to such criminal penalties as are applicable, enforced disappearances render their perpetrators and the State or State authorities which organize, acquiesce in or tolerate such disappearances liable under civil law, without prejudice to the international responsibility of the State concerned in accordance with the principles of international law. Article 7 No circumstances whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked to justify enforced disappearances. Article 8 1. No State shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that he would be in danger of enforced disappearance. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 14 Any person alleged to have perpetrated an act of enforced disappearance in a particular State shall, when the facts disclosed by an official investigation so warrant, be brought before the competent civil authorities of that State for the purpose of prosecution and trial unless he has been extradited to another State wishing to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the relevant international

DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS

305

agreements in force. All States should take any lawful and appropriate action available to them to bring to justice all persons presumed, responsible for an act of enforced disappearance, who are found to be within their jurisdiction or under their control. Article 18 1. Persons who have or are alleged to have committed offences referred to in article 4, paragraph 1, above, shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or similar measures that might have the effect of exempting them from any criminal proceedings or sanction. 2. In the exercise of the right of pardon, the extreme seriousness of acts of enforced disappearance shall be taken into account. Article 19 The victims of acts of enforced disappearance and their family shall obtain redress and shall have the right to adequate compensation, including the means for as complete a rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of enforced disappearance, their dependants shall also be entitled to compensation. Article 21 The provisions of the present Declaration are without prejudice to the provisions enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in any other international instrument, and shall not be construed as restricting or derogating from any of those provisions.

CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF UNITED NATIONS AND ASSOCIATED PERSONNEL

Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 19941 This Convention contains 29 articles: Article Article Article Article Article Article Article

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Article

8.

Article

9.

Article Article

10. 11.

Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article Article

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24 to Article 29 - Final clauses.

1

Definitions Scope of Application Identification Agreements on the Status of the Operation Transit Respect for Laws and Regulations Duty to Ensure the Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel Duty to Release or Return United Nations and Associated Personnel Captured or Detained Crimes Against United Nations and Associated Personnel Establishment of Jurisdiction Prevention of Crimes Against United Nations and Associated Personnel Communication of Information Measures to Ensure Prosecution or Extradition Prosecution of Alleged Offenders Extradition of Alleged Offenders Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Fair Treatment Notification of Outcome of Proceedings Dissemination Savings Clauses Right of Self-Defence Dispute Settlement Review Meetings

United Nations General Assembly. 84th plenary meeting, December 9, 1994. A/RES/49/59.

CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL

307

EXCERPTS Article 1 Definitions For the purposes of this Convention: a) “United Nations personnel” means: (i) Persons engaged or deployed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as members of the military, police or civilian components of a United Nations operation; (ii) Other officials and experts on mission of the United Nations or its specialized agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency who are present in an official capacity in the area where a United Nations operation is being conducted; b) “Associated personnel” means: (i) Persons assigned by a Government or an intergovernmental organization with the agreement of the competent organ of the United Nations; (ii) Persons engaged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations or by a specialized agency or by the International Atomic Energy Agency; (iii) Persons deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organization or agency under an agreement with the Secretary-General of the United Nations or with a specialized agency or with the International Atomic Energy Agency, to carry out activities in support of the fulfillment of the mandate of a United Nations operation; c) “United Nations operation” means an operation established by the competent organ of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and conducted under United Nations authority and control: (i) Where the operation is for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or (ii) Where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared, for the purposes of this Convention, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation; d) “Host State” means a State in whose territory a United Nations operation is conducted; e) “Transit State” means a State, other than the host State, in whose territory United Nations and associated personnel or their equipment are in transit or temporarily present in connection with a United Nations operation.

308

APPENDIX B

Article 2 Scope of application 1. This Convention applies in respect of United Nations and associated personnel and United Nations operations, as defined in article 1. 2. This Convention shall not apply to a United Nations operation authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies. Article 3 Identification 1. The military and police components of a United Nations operation and their vehicles, vessels and aircraft shall bear distinctive identification. Other personnel, vehicles, vessels and aircraft involved in the United Nations operation shall be appropriately identified unless otherwise decided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. All United Nations and associated personnel shall carry appropriate identification documents. Article 4 Agreements on the status of the operation The host State and the United Nations shall conclude as soon as possible an agreement on the status of the United Nations operation and all personnel engaged in the operation including, inter alia, provisions on privileges and immunities for military and police components of the operation. Article 9 Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel 1. The intentional commission of: a) A murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of any United Nations or associated personnel; b) A violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transportation of any United Nations or associated personnel likely to endanger his or her person or liberty; c) A threat to commit any such attack with the objective of compelling a physical or juridical person to do or to refrain from doing any act; d) An attempt to commit any such attack; and

CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL

309

e) An act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack, or in an attempt to commit such attack, or in organizing or ordering others to commit such attack, shall be made by each State Party a crime under its national law. 2. Each State Party shall make the crimes set out in paragraph 1 punishable by appropriate penalties which shall take into account their grave nature. Article 10 Establishment of jurisdiction 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 9 in the following cases: a) When the crime is committed in the territory of that State or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State. 2. A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such crime when it is committed: a) By a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or b) With respect to a national of that State; or c) In an attempt to compel that State to do or to abstain from doing any act. 3. Any State Party which has established jurisdiction as mentioned in paragraph 2 shall notify the Secretary General of the United Nations. If such State Party subsequently rescinds that jurisdiction, it shall notify the Secretary General of the United Nation. 4. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 9 in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person pursuant to article 15 to any of the States Parties which have established their jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2. 5. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Article 11 Prevention of crimes against United Nations and associated personnel States Parties shall cooperate in the prevention of the crimes set out in article 9, particularly by: a) Taking all practicable measures to prevent preparation in their respective territories for the commission of those crimes within or outside their territories; and b) Exchanging information in accordance with their national law and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those crimes.

310

APPENDIX B

Article 13 Measures to ensure prosecution or extradition 1. Where the circumstances so warrant, the State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its national law to ensure that person’s presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition. 2. Measures taken in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be notified, in conformity with national law and without delay, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, either directly or through the Secretary-General, to: a) The State where the crime was committed; b) The State or States of which the alleged offender is a national or, if such person is a stateless person, in whose territory that person has his or her habitual residence; c) The State or States of which the victim is a national; and d) Other interested States. Article 14 Prosecution of alleged offenders The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the law of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State. Article 15 Extradition of alleged offenders 1. To the extent that the crimes set out in article 9 are not extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties, they shall be deemed to be included as such therein. States Parties undertake to include those crimes as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those crimes. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State. 3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those crimes as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State.

CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL

311

4. Each of those crimes shall be treated, for the purposes of extradition between States Parties, as if it had been committed not only in the place in which it occurred but also in the territories of the States Parties which have established their jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of article 10. Article 16 Mutual assistance in criminal matters 1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the crimes set out in article 9, including assistance in obtaining evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. The law of the requested State shall apply in all cases. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not affect obligations concerning mutual assistance embodied in any other treaty. Article 17 Fair treatment 1. Any person regarding whom investigations or proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the crimes set out in article 9 shall be guaranteed fair treatment, a fair trial and full protection of his or her rights at all stages of the investigations or proceedings. 2. Any alleged offender shall be entitled: a) To communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the State or States of which such person is a national or which is otherwise entitled to protect that persons’s rights or, if such person is a stateless person, of the State which, at that person’s request, is willing to protect that person’s rights; and b) To be visited by a representative of that State or those States. Article 21 Right of self-defence Nothing in this Convention shall be construed so as to derogate from the right to act in self-defence. Article 22 Dispute settlement 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within

312

APPENDIX B

six months from the date of the request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by application in conformity with the Statute of the Court. 2. Each State Party may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or accession thereto declare that it does not consider itself bound by all or part of paragraph 1. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 or the relevant part thereof with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation. 3. Any State Party which has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary General of the United Nations. Article 23 Review meetings At the request of one or more States Parties, and if approved by a majority of States Parties, the Secretary General of the United Nations shall convene a meeting of the States Parties to review the implementation of the Convention, and any problems encountered with regard to its application. Articles 24 to 29 Final clauses

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME (NEW YORK, 15 NOVEMBER 2000)

OBJECTIVES Recognizing that organized crime is a serious and growing problem for all countries, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Convention) aims at promoting international cooperation to prevent and combat transnational organized crime. As the first comprehensive multilateral legal instrument in the fight against organized crime, the Convention, together with its three Protocols, provides law enforcement and judicial authorities with unique tools to combat this problem. It is also intended to provide greater coordination of national policy, legislative, administrative and enforcement approaches to organized crime.

KEY PROVISIONS The Convention standardizes terminology and concepts, creating a common basis for national crime-control frameworks. Such concepts include “organized criminal group”, a definition of which was internationally agreed upon for the first time. The Convention establishes four specific crimes (participation in an organized criminal group, money laundering, corruption and obstruction of justice) to combat activities in which organized criminal groups are commonly engaged. Under the Convention, States parties shall criminalize these offences in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. The Convention contains specific provisions for preventing, investigating and prosecuting these offences as well as serious crime, when they are transnational in nature and involve an organized criminal group. States parties to the Convention are obliged to adopt domestic laws and practices that would prevent or suppress organized crime-related activities. To combat money laundering, countries would have to require their banks to keep accurate records and make them available for inspection by domestic law enforcement authorities. It should be noted that bank secrecy cannot be used to shield criminal activities. States parties to the Convention are also required to take appropriate action to confiscate illicitly acquired assets. In particular, the Convention created an

314

APPENDIX B

asset-sharing mechanism under which States parties are encouraged to contribute confiscated assets to bodies working for the fight against organized crime. One of the most important international cooperation components of the Convention is its extradition provision. This provision is vital to ensuring that there are “no safe havens” to which offenders can flee. Under the Convention, fiscal matters should not be a sole ground for refusing extradition. Mutual legal assistance is another important judicial cooperation tool provided for by the Convention. Under the Convention, assistance is to be channeled through central authorities to regulate the process. One of its innovative elements is that the Convention allows for electronic transmission of requests for quicker processing. The nature of transnational organized crime makes the protection of victims and witnesses a matter of such importance that the Convention also requires States parties to adopt appropriate measures to protect witnesses from potential intimidation or retaliation. This includes physical protection, relocation and, with appropriate legal safeguards, concealment of identities. The Convention further calls on States to support the efforts of developing countries to fight transnational organized crime and assist them to implement the Convention through technical cooperation as well as financial and material assistance. As regards the implementation mechanism, the Convention establishes a conference of the parties to improve the capacity of States parties to combat transnational organized crime. The Conference will first meet within the first year of the entry into force of the Convention.

ENTRY INTO FORCE The Convention is not yet in force. It shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the fortieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. For this purpose, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of such organization (article 38).

HOW TO BECOME A PARTY The Convention is closed for signature. The Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States. The Convention is open for accession by any State or any regional economic integration organization of which at least one member State is a party (article 36).

UN CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

315

OPTIONAL AND/OR MANDATORY DECLARATIONS States parties whose domestic law requires involvement of an organized criminal group for purposes of the offences established in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1 (a) (i), of the Convention and States parties whose domestic law requires an act in furtherance of the agreement for purposes of the offences established in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1 (a) (i), of the Convention shall so inform the depositary at the time of their signature or of the deposit of their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval of or accession to the Convention (article 5(3)). States that make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall inform the depositary whether they will take this Convention as the legal basis for cooperation on extradition with other States parties to this Convention at the time of the deposit of their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (article 16(5)). Each State party shall designate a central authority that shall have the responsibility and power to receive requests for mutual legal assistance and either to execute them or to transmit them to the competent authorities for execution. This designation of authority shall be notified to the depositary at the time each State deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (article 18 (13)). Likewise, each State party shall notify the depositary of the language or languages acceptable for purposes of mutual legal assistance (article 18(14)). A regional economic integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by the Convention. Such organizations must also inform the depositary of any relevant modification in the extent of its competence (article 36). RESERVATIONS The Convention is silent with regard to reservations. Pursuant to article 35(3), States may declare that they do not consider themselves bound by article 35(2), according to which disputes among States parties relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention, which are not settled by negotiation, will be submitted to arbitration and, failing agreement on the organization of the arbitration six months after the date of the request for arbitration, to the International Court of Justice (article 35 (3)). WITHDRAWAL/DENUNCIATION Each State party may denounce the Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Such denunciation shall

316

APPENDIX B

become effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General (article 40). A regional economic integration organization shall cease to be a party to the Convention when all of its member States have denounced it (article 40(2)). Denunciation of the Convention also entails the denunciation of the Protocols (article 40(3)).

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1373 (2001)

September 28, 2001

The Security Council, Reaffirming its resolutions 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999 and 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001, Reaffirming also its unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks which took place in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001, and expressing its determination to prevent all such acts, Reaffirming further that such acts, like any act of international terrorism, constitute a threat to international peace and security, Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001), Reaffirming the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Deeply concerned by the increase, in various regions of the world, of acts of terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism, Calling on States to work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism, Recognizing the need for States to complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism, Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that all States shall: (a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts; (b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the

318

APPENDIX B

intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts; (c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities; (d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons; 2. Decides also that all States shall: (a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information; (c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens; (d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens; (e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts; (f ) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings; (g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel

UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

1373 (2001)

319

documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents; 3. Calls upon all States to: (a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups; (b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts; (c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts; (d) Become parties as soon as possible to the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, including the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999; (e) Increase cooperation and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism and Security Council resolutions 1269 (1999) and 1368 (2001); (f ) Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts; (g) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists; 4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security; 5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations;

320

APPENDIX B

6. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all the members of the Council, to monitor implementation of this resolution, with the assistance of appropriate expertise, and calls upon all States to report to the Committee, no later than 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution and thereafter according to a timetable to be proposed by the Committee, on the steps they have taken to implement this resolution; 7. Directs the Committee to delineate its tasks, submit a work programme within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, and to consider the support it requires, in consultation with the Secretary-General; 8. Expresses its determination to take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter; 9. Decides to remain seized of this matter.

Appendix C Texts and Excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the Council of Europe

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Adopted by the Council of Europe Paris, December 13, 19571

The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Considering that this purpose can be attained by the conclusion of agreements and by common action in legal matters; Considering that the acceptance of uniform rules with regard to extradition is likely to assist this work of unification, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 - Obligation to extradite The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order. Article 2 - Extraditable offences 1. Extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. Where a conviction and prison sentence have occurred or a detention order has been made in the territory of the requesting Party, the punishment awarded must have been for a period of at least four months. 2. If the request for extradition includes several separate offences each of which is punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order, but of which some do not fulfil the condition with regard to the amount of punishment which may be awarded, the requested Party shall also have the right to grant extradition for the latter offences. 1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume I, 1949–1961. Strasbourg 1993. pp. 193–206.

324

APPENDIX C

3. Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention. 4. Any Contracting Party which wishes to avail itself of the right provided for in paragraph 3 of this article shall, at the time of deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession, transmit to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe either a list of the offences for which extradition is allowed or a list of those for which it is excluded and shall at the same time indicate the legal provisions which allow or exclude extradition. The Secretary General of the Council shall forward these lists to the other signatories. 5. If extradition is subsequently excluded in respect of other offences by the law of a Contracting Party, that Party shall notify the Secretary General. The Secretary General shall inform the other signatories. Such notification shall not take effect until three months from the date of its receipt by the Secretary General. 6. Any Party which avails itself of the right provided for in paragraphs 4 or 5 of this article may at any time apply this Convention to offences which have been excluded from it. It shall inform the Secretary General of the Council of such changes, and the Secretary General shall inform the other signatories. 7. Any Party may apply reciprocity in respect of any offences excluded from the application of the Convention under this article. Article 3 - Political offences 1. Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested Party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence. 2. The same rule shall apply if the requested Party has substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. 3. The taking or attempted taking of the life of a Head of State or a member of his family shall not be deemed to be a political offence for the purposes of this Convention. 4. This article shall not affect any obligations which the Contracting Parties may have undertaken or may undertake under any other international convention of a multilateral character. Article 4 - Military offences Extradition for offences under military law which are not offences under ordinary criminal law is excluded from the application of this Convention.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

325

Article 5 - Fiscal offences Extradition shall be granted, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, for offences in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange only if the Contracting Parties have so decided in respect of any such offence or category of offences. Article 6 - Extradition of nationals 1. a) A Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals. b) Each Contracting Party may, by a declaration made at the time of signature or of deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession, define as far as it is concerned the term “nationals” within the meaning of this Convention. c) Nationality shall be determined as at the time of the decision concerning extradition. If, however, the person claimed is first recognised as a national of the requested Party during the period between the time of the decision and the time contemplated for the surrender the requested Party may avail itself of the provision contained in subparagraph a) of this article. 2. If the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate. For this purpose, the files, information and exhibits relating to the offence shall be transmitted without charge by the means provided for in Article 12, paragraph 1. The requesting Party shall be informed of the result of its request. Article 7 - Place of commission 1. The requested Party may refuse to extradite a person claimed for an offence which is regarded by its law as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as its territory. 2. When the offence for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting Party, extradition may only be refused if the law of the requested Party does not allow prosecution for the same category of offence when committed outside the latter Party’s territory or does not allow extradition for the offence concerned. Article 8 - Pending proceedings for the same offences The requested Party may refuse to extradite the person claimed if the competent authorities of such Party are proceeding against him in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested.

326

APPENDIX C

Article 9 - Non bis in idem Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences. Article 10 - Lapse of time Extradition shall not be granted when the person claimed has, according to the law of either the requesting or the requested Party, become immune by reason of lapse of time from prosecution or punishment. Article 11 - Capital punishment If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting Party, and if in respect of such offence the death-penalty is not provided for by the law of the requested Party or is not normally carried out, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurance as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death-penalty will not be carried out. Article 12 - The request and supporting documents 1. The request shall be in writing and shall be communicated through the diplomatic channel. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties. 2. The request shall be supported by: a) the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or of the warrant of arrest or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting Party; b) a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested. The time and place of their commission, their legal descriptions and a reference to the relevant legal provisions shall be set out as accurately as possible; and c) a copy of the relevant enactments or, where this is not possible, a statement of the relevant law and as accurate a description as possible of the person claimed, together with any other information which will help to establish his identity and nationality. Article 13 - Supplementary information If the information communicated by the requesting Party is found to be insufficient to allow the requested Party to make a decision in pursuance of this

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

327

Convention, the latter Party shall request the necessary supplementary information and may fix a time-limit for the receipt thereof. Article 14 - Rule of speciality 1. A person who has been extradited shall not be proceeded against, sentenced or detained with a view to the carrying out of a sentence or detention order for any offence committed prior to his surrender other than that for which he was extradited, nor shall he be for any other reason restricted in his personal freedom, except in the following cases: a) when the Party which surrendered him consents. A request for consent shall be submitted, accompanied by the documents mentioned in Article 12 and a legal record of any statement made by the extradited person in respect of the offence concerned. Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to extradition in accordance with the provisions of this Convention; b) when that person, having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Party to which he has been surrendered, has not done so within 45 days of his final discharge, or has returned to that territory after leaving it. 2. The requesting Party may, however, take any measures necessary to remove the person from its territory, or any measures necessary under its law, including proceedings by default, to prevent any legal effects of lapse of time. 3. When the description of the offence charged is altered in the course of proceedings, the extradited person shall only be proceeded against or sentenced in so far as the offence under its new description is shown by its constituent elements to be an offence which would allow extradition. Article 15 - Re-extradition to a third state Except as provided for in Article 14, paragraph 1 b), the requesting Party shall not, without the consent of the requested Party, surrender to another Party or to a third State a person surrendered to the requesting Party and sought by the said other Party or third State in respect of offences committed before his surrender. The requested Party may request the production of the documents mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 2. Article 16 - Provisional arrest 1. In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in accordance with its law.

328

APPENDIX C

2. The request for provisional arrest shall state that one of the documents mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 2 a), exists and that it is intended to send a request for extradition. It shall also state for what offence extradition will be requested and when and where such offence was committed and shall so far as possible give a description of the person sought. 3. A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the competent authorities of the requested Party either through the diplomatic channel or direct by post or telegraph or through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) or by any other means affording evidence in writing or accepted by the requested Party. The requesting authority shall be informed without delay of the result of its request. 4. Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within a period of 18 days after arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 12. It shall not, in any event, exceed 40 days from the date of such arrest. The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded, but the requested Party shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought. 5. Release shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition if a request for extradition is received subsequently. Article 17 - Conflicting requests If extradition is requested concurrently by more than one State, either for the same offence or for different offences, the requested Party shall make its decision having regard to all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness and place of commission of the offences, the respective dates of the requests, the nationality of the person claimed and the possibility of subsequent extradition to another State. Article 18 - Surrender of the person to be extradited 1. The requested Party shall inform the requesting Party by the means mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 1, of its decision with regard to the extradition. 2. Reasons shall be given for any complete or partial rejection. 3. If the request is agreed to, the requesting Party shall be informed of the place and date of surrender and of the length of time for which the person claimed was detained with a view to surrender. 4. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article, if the person claimed has not been taken over on the appointed date, he may be released after the expiry of 15 days and shall in any case be released after the expiry of 30 days. The requested Party may refuse to extradite him for the same offence.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

329

5. If circumstances beyond its control prevent a Party from surrendering or taking over the person to be extradited, it shall notify the other Party. The two Parties shall agree a new date for surrender and the provisions of paragraph 4 of this article shall apply. Article 19 - Postponed or conditional surrender 1. The requested Party may, after making its decision on the request for extradition, postpone the surrender of the person claimed in order that he may be proceeded against by that Party or, if he has already been convicted, in order that he may serve his sentence in the territory of that Party for an offence other than that for which extradition is requested. 2. The requested Party may, instead of postponing surrender, temporarily surrender the person claimed to the requesting Party in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement between the Parties. Article 20 - Handing over of property 1. The requested Party shall, in so far as its law permits and at the request of the requesting Party, seize and hand over property: a) which may be required as evidence, or b) which has been acquired as a result of the offence and which, at the time of the arrest, is found in the possession of the person claimed or is discovered subsequently. 2. The property mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article shall be handed over even if the extradition, having been agreed to, cannot be carried out owing to the death or scape of the person claimed. 3. When the said property is liable to seizure or confiscation in the territory of the requested Party, the latter may, in connection with pending criminal proceedings, temporarily retain it or hand it over on condition that it is returned. 4. Any rights which the requested Party or third parties may have acquired in the said property shall be preserved. Where these rights exist, the property shall be returned without charge to the requested Party as soon as possible after the trial. Article 21 - Transit 1. Transit through the territory of one of the Contracting Parties shall be granted on submission of a request by the means mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 1, provided that the offence concerned is not considered by the Party requested to grant transit as an offence of a political or purely military character having regard to Articles 3 and 4 of this Convention.

330

APPENDIX C

2. Transit of a national, within the meaning of Article 6, of a country requested to grant transit may be refused. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of this article, it shall be necessary to produce the documents mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 2. 4. If air transport is used, the following provisions shall apply: a) when it is not intended to land, the requesting Party shall notify the Party over whose territory the flight is to be made and shall certify that one of the documents mentioned in Article 12, paragraph 2 a) exists. In the case of an unscheduled landing, such notification shall have the effect of a request for provisional arrest as provided for in Article 16, and the requesting Party shall submit a formal request for transit; b) when it is intended to land, the requesting Party shall submit a formal request for transit. 5. A Party may, however, at the time of signature or of the deposit of its instrument of ratification of, or accession to, this Convention, declare that it will only grant transit of a person on some or all of the conditions on which it grants extradition. In that event, reciprocity may be applied. 6. The transit of the extradited person shall not be carried out through any territory where there is reason to believe that his life or his freedom may be threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Article 22 - Procedure Except where this Convention otherwise provides, the procedure with regard to extradition and provisional arrest shall be governed solely by the law of the requested Party. Article 23 - Language to be used The documents to be produced shall be in the language of the requesting or requested Party. The requested Party may require a translation into one of the official languages of the Council of Europe to be chosen by it. Article 24 - Expenses 1. Expenses incurred in the territory of the requested Party by reason of extradition shall be borne by that Party. 2. Expenses incurred by reason of transit through the territory of a Party requested to grant transit shall be borne by the requesting Party. 3. In the event of extradition from a non-metropolitan territory of the requested Party, the expenses occasioned by travel between that territory and the metropolitan territory of the requesting Party shall be borne by the latter. The same rule shall apply to expenses occasioned by travel between the nonmetropolitan territory of the requested Party and its metropolitan territory.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

331

Article 25 - Definition of “detention order” For the purposes of this Convention, the expression “detention order” means any order involving deprivation of liberty which has been made by a criminal court in addition to or instead of a prison sentence. Article 26 - Reservations 1. Any Contracting Party may, when signing this Convention or when depositing its instrument of ratification or accession, make a reservation in respect of any provision or provisions of the Convention. 2. Any Contracting Party which has made a reservation shall withdraw it as soon as circumstances permit. Such withdrawal shall be made by notification to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. 3. A Contracting Party which has made a reservation in respect of a provision of the Convention may not claim application of the said provision by another Party save in so far as it has itself accepted the provision. Article 27 - Territorial application 1. This Convention shall apply to the metropolitan territories of the Contracting Parties. 2. In respect of France, it shall also apply to Algeria and to the overseas Departments and, in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the Channel Islands and to the Isle of Man. 3. The Federal Republic of Germany may extend the application of this Convention to the Land of Berlin by notice addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who shall notify the other Parties of such declaration. 4. By direct arrangement between two or more Contracting Parties, the application of this Convention may be extended, subject to the conditions laid down in the arrangement to any territory of such Parties, other than the territories mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this article, for whose international relations any such Party is responsible. Article 28 - Relations between this Convention and bilateral Agreements 1. This Convention shall, in respect of those countries to which it applies, supersede the provisions of any bilateral treaties, conventions or agreements governing extradition between any two Contracting Parties. 2. The Contracting Parties may conclude between themselves bilateral or multilateral agreements only in order to supplement the provisions of this Convention or to facilitate the application of the principles contained therein.

332

APPENDIX C

3. Where, as between two or more Contracting Parties, extradition takes place on the basis of a uniform law, the Parties shall be free to regulate their mutual relations in respect of extradition exclusively in accordance with such a system notwithstanding the provisions of this Convention. The same principle shall apply as between two or more Contracting parties each of which has in force a law providing for the execution in its territory of warrants of arrest issued in the territory of the other Party or Parties. Contracting Parties which exclude or may in the future exclude the application of this Convention as between themselves in accordance with this paragraph shall notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe accordingly. The Secretary General shall inform the other Contracting Parties of any notification received in accordance with this paragraph. Article 29 - Signature, ratification and entry into force 1. This Convention shall be open to signature by the members of the Council of Europe. It shall be ratified. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council. 2. The Convention shall come into force 90 days after the date of deposit of the third instrument of ratification. 3. As regards any signatory ratifying subsequently the Convention shall come into force 90 days after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification. Article 30 - Accession 1. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may invite any State not a member of the Council to accede to this Convention, provided that the resolution containing such invitation receives the unanimous agreement of the members of the Council who have ratified the Convention. 2. Accession shall be by deposit with the Secretary General of the Council of an instrument of accession, which shall take effect 90 days after the date of its deposit. Article 31 - Denunciation Any Contracting Party may denounce this Convention in so far as it is concerned by giving notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Denunciation shall take effect six months after the date when the Secretary General of the Council received such notification. Article 32 - Notifications The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the members of the Council and the government of any State which has acceded to this Convention of:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

333

a) the deposit of any instrument of ratification or accession; b) the date of entry into force of this Convention c) any declaration made in accordance with the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1, and of Article 21, paragraph 5; d) any reservation made in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 1; e) the withdrawal of any reservation in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 2; f ) any notification of denunciation received in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 and by the date on which such denunciation will take effect. In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Convention. Done at Paris, this 13th day of December 1957, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to the signatory governments.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, April 20, 19591

Preamble: The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity among its members; Believing that the adoption of cannon rules in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters will contribute to the attainment of this aim; Considering that such mutual assistance is related to the question of extradition, which has already formed the subject of a Convention signed on 13th December 1957, Have agreed as follows:

CHAPTER I. General Provisions Articles 1 and 2

CHAPTER II. Letters Rogatory Articles 3 to 6

CHAPTER III. Service of Writs and Records of Judicial Verdicts - Appearance of Witnesses, Experts and Prosecuted Persons Articles 7 to 12

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume I, 1949-1961. Strasbourg, 1993. pp. 257 to 270.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

335

CHAPTER IV. Judicial Records Article 13 CHAPTER V. Procedure Articles 14 to 20 CHAPTER VI. Laying of Information in Connection with Proceedings Article 21 CHAPTER VII. Exchange of Information from Judicial Records Article 22

CHAPTER VIII. Final Provisions Articles 23 to 30 Excerpts Article 1. 1. The Contracting Parties undertake to afford each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, the widest measure of mutual assistance in proceedings in respect of offences the punishment of which, at the time of the request for assistance, falls within the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities of the requesting Party. 2. This Convention does not apply to arrests, the enforcement of verdicts or offences under military law which are not offences under ordinary criminal law. Article 2. Assistance may be refused: a. if the request concerns an offence which the requested Party considers a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence, or a fiscal offence;

336

APPENDIX C

b. if the requested Party considers that execution of the request is likely to prejudice the sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests of its country. Article 3. 1. The requested Party shall execute in the manner provided for by its law any letters rogatory relating to a criminal matter and addressed to it by the judicial authorities of the requesting Party for the purpose of procuring evidence or transmitting articles to be produced in evidence, records or documents. 2. If the requesting Party desires witnesses or experts to give evidence on oath, it shall expressly so request, and the requested Party shall comply with the request if the law of its country does not prohibit it. 3. The requested Party may transmit certified copies or certified photostat copies of records or documents requested, unless the requesting Party expressly requests the transmission of originals, in which case the requested Party shall make every effort to comply with the request. Article 4. On the express request of the requesting Party the requested Party shall state the date and place of execution of the letters rogatory. Officials and interested persons may be present if the requested Party consents. Article 8. A witness or expert who has failed to answer a summons to appear, service of which has been requested, shall not, even if the summons contains a notice of penalty, be subjected to any punishment or measure of restraint, unless subsequently he voluntarily enters the territory of the requesting Party and is there again duly summoned. Article 12. 1. A witness or expert, whatever his nationality, appearing on a summons before the judicial authorities of the requesting Party shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty in the territory of that Party in respect of acts or convictions anterior to his departure from the territory of the requested Party. 2. A person, whatever his nationality, summoned before the judicial authorities of the requesting Party to answer for acts forming the subject of proceedings against him, shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty for acts or convictions anterior

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

337

to his departure from the territory of the requested party and not specified in the summons. 3. The immunity provided for in this article shall cease when the witness or expert or prosecuted person, having had for a period of fifteen consecutive days from the date when his presence is no longer required by the judicial authorities an opportunity of leaving, has nevertheless remained in the territory, or having left it, has returned. Article 14. 1. Requests for mutual assistance shall indicate as follows: a. the authority making the request, b. the object of and the reason for the request, c. where possible, the identity and the nationality of the person concerned, and d. where necessary, the name and address of the person to be served. 2. Letters rogatory referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5 shall, in addition, state the offence and contain a summary of the facts. Article 22. Each Contracting Party shall inform any other Party of all criminal convictions and subsequent measures in respect of nationals of the latter Party, entered in the judicial records. Ministries of Justice shall communicate such information to one another at least once a year. Where the person concerned is considered a national of two or more other Contracting Parties, the information shall be given to each of these Parties, unless the person is a national of the Party in the territory of which he was convicted.

CHAPTER VIII. Final Provisions Articles 23 to 30 Signature, reservation, ratification or accession, denunciation, and other final provisions.

3070 (XXVIII). IMPORTANCE OF THE UNIVERSAL REALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND OF THE SPEEDY GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES FOR THE EFFECTIVE GUARANTEE AND OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The General Assembly, Faithful to its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Mindful of the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, Bearing in mind the Political Declaration adopted by the Fourth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Algiers from 5 to 9 September 1973,1 Recalling its resolutions 2588 B (XXIV) of 15 December 1969, 2787 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971, 2955 (XXVII) of 12 December 1972 and 2963 E (XXVII) of 13 December 1972, as well as resolution VIII adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights held at Teheran in 1968,2 Noting with satisfaction the Secretary-General’s report of 21 September 19733 and the assistance being given to dependent Territories by certain Governments, specialized agencies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, Disturbed at the continued repression and inhuman treatment inflicted on peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, including inhuman treatment of people imprisoned because of their struggle for self-determination, Recognizing the imperative need to put an early end to colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation, 1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of all people under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation to self-determination, freedom and independence in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 1514 1

A/9330 and Corr.1, p. 3. Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights (United Nations publication, Sales No.: E.68.XIV.2), p. 9. 3 A/9154. 2

IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSAL REALIZATION OF SELF-DETERMINATION

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

339

(XV) of 14 December 1960, 2649 (XXV) of 30 November 1970 and 2787 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971; Also reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; Calls upon all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with relevant resolutions of the United Nations, to recognize the right of all peoples to self-determination and independence and to offer moral, material and any other assistance to all peoples struggling for the full exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination and independence; Strongly condemns the Governments of Portugal and South Africa, as well as all others which continue to disregard United Nations resolutions bearing on the right of all peoples to self-determination and independence; Further condemns the policies of those members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other countries which assist Portugal and other racist régimes in Africa and elsewhere in their suppression of peoples’ aspirations for, and enjoyment of, human rights; Condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to selfdetermination and independence of peoples, notably the peoples of Africa still under colonial domination and the Palestinian people; Expresses its appreciation for the efforts of Governments, United Nations agencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations which have extended various forms of assistance to dependent Territories and appeals to them to increase further such assistance; Welcomes the initiative taken by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in appointing a Special Rapporteur4 at its twenty-seventh session to prepare a detailed study on the historical and current development of the right of peoples to self-determination, on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations and other instruments adopted by United Nations organs, with particular reference to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; Requests the Secretary-General to continue to assist the specialized agencies and other organizations within the United Nations system in working out measures for the provision of increased international assistance to the peoples of colonial Territories; Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the General Assembly at its twenty-ninth session. 2185th plenary meeting 30 November 1973

4

See E/CN.4/1128, part B, resolution 5 (XXVI).

3074 (XXVIII). PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE DETECTION, ARREST, EXTRADITION AND PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

The General Assembly, Recalling its resolutions 2583 (XXIV) of 15 December 1969, 2712 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2840 (XXVI) of 18 December 1971 and 3020 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972, Taking into account the special need for international action in order to ensure the prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Having considered the draft principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity,5 Declares that the United Nations, in pursuance of the principles and purposes set forth in the Charter concerning the promotion of co-operation between peoples and the maintenance of international peace and security, proclaims the following principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity: 1. War crimes and crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed, shall be subject to investigation and the persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed such crimes shall be subject to tracing, arrest, trial and, if found guilty, to punishment. 2. Every State has the right to try its own nationals for war crimes or crimes against humanity. 3. States shall co-operate with each other on a bilateral and multilateral basis with a view to halting and preventing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and shall take the domestic and international measures necessary for that purpose. 4. States shall assist each other in detecting, arresting and bringing to trial persons suspected of having committed such crimes and, if they are found guilty, in punishing them.

5

See A/9136.

IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSAL REALIZATION OF SELF-DETERMINATION

341

5. Persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if found guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in the countries in which they committed those crimes. In that connexion, States shall co-operate on questions of extraditing such persons. 6. States shall co-operate with each other in the collection of information and evidence which would help to bring to trial the persons indicated in paragraph 5 above and shall exchange such information. 7. In accordance with article 1 of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 14 December 1967,6 States shall not grant asylum to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity. 8. States shall not take any legislative or other measures which may be prejudicial to the international obligations they have assumed in regard to the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 9. In co-operating with a view to the detection, arrest and extradition of persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and, if found guilty, their punishment, States shall act in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.7 2187th plenary meeting 3 December 1973

6 7

Resolution 2312 (XXII). Resolution 2625 (XXV), appendix.

3134 (XXVIII). REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The General Assembly, Recalling that, in its resolution 3057 (XXVIII) of 2 November 1973 on the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, the General Assembly has emphasized, in the programme for the Decade, the need for universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,8 as well as the need for giving full effect to all the provisions of the Convention, Having considered the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the fourth year of its activities,9 submitted under article 9, paragraph 2, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Noting the decisions of the Committee contained in chapter X of its report, 1. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; 2. Expresses its satisfaction at the increasing participation of States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in submitting their reports to the Committee and by sending representatives to the Committee when it considers their reports; 3. Endorses the Committee’s request in its decision 2 (VIII) of 21 August 1973 concerning specific information to be made available to the Committee by the Trusteeship Council and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples under article 15 of the Convention, on Trust Territories, Non-Self-Governing Territories and all other Territories to which General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 applies, and draws to the attention of these organs the conclusions and recommendations set out in the report of the Committee10 concerning information submitted by them; 4. Takes note of the Committee’s decision 4 (VII) of 25 April 1973 relating to information supplied by the Syrian Arab Republic and, in this connexion, recalls its endorsement of the Committee’s decision 4 (IV) of 30 August 1971 in section III of General Assembly resolution 2784 (XXVI) of 6 December 1971; 5. Endorses the request of the Committee contained in its decision 5 (VII) of 4 May 1973 concerning the holding of one of its sessions in 1974 at Geneva; 8

Resolution 2106 A (XX), appendix. Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/9018). 10 Ibid., para. 135. 9

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE 1957 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, October 15, 19751

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory to this Protocol, Having regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition opened for signature in Paris on 13 December 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) and in particular Articles 3 and 9 thereof; Considering that it is desirable to supplement these Articles with a view to strengthening the protection of humanity and of individuals, Have agreed as follows:

CHAPTER I Article 1 For the application of Article 3 of the Convention, political offences shall not be considered to include the following: a) the crimes against humanity specified in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted on 9 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations; b) the violations specified in Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; c) any comparable violations of the laws of war having effect at the time when this Protocol enters into force and of customs of war existing at that time, which are not already provided for in the above-mentioned provisions of the Geneva Conventions. 1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume IV, 1975–1982. Strasbourg, 1983, pp. 15 to 19.

344

APPENDIX C

CHAPTER II Article 2 1. Article 9 of the Convention shall be supplemented by the following text, the original Article 9 of the Convention becoming paragraph 1 and the under-mentioned provisions becoming paragraphs 2, 3, and 4: 2. The extradition of a person against whom a final judgment has been rendered in a third State, Contracting Party to the Convention, for the offence or offences in respect of which the claim was made, shall not be granted: a) if the afore-mentioned judgment resulted in his acquittal; b) if the term of imprisonment or other measure to which he was sentenced: i) has been completely enforced; ii) has been wholly, or with respect to the part not enforced, the subject of a pardon or an amnesty; c) if the court convicted the offender without imposing a sanction. 3. However, in the cases referred to in paragraph 2, extradition may be granted: a) if the offence in respect of which judgment has been rendered was committed against a person, an institution or any thing having public status in the requesting State; b) if the person on whom judgment was passed had himself a public status in the requesting State; c) if the offence in respect of which judgment was passed was committed completely or partly in the territory of the requesting State or in a place treated as its territory. 4. The provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not prevent the application of wider domestic provisions relating to the effect of ne bis in idem attached to foreign criminal judgments.”

CHAPTER III Articles 3 to 9 Final Provisions: Signature, accession, reservations, ratification, denunciation and other final clauses.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, January 27, 19771

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members; Aware of the growing concern caused by the increase in acts of terrorism; Wishing to take effective measures to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts do not escape prosecution and punishment; Convinced that extradition is a particularly effective measure for achieving this result, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives: a) an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970; b) an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971; c) a serious offence involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents; d) an offence involving kidnapping, the taking of a hostage or serious unlawful detention; e) an offence involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm or letter or parcel bomb if this use endangers persons; f ) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume IV. 1975–1982. Strasbourg, 1983, pp. 41 to 47.

346

APPENDIX C

Article 2 1. For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, a Contracting State may decide not to regard as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives a serious offence involving an act of violence, other than one covered by Article 1, against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person. 2. The same shall apply to a serious offence involving an act against property, other than one covered by Article 1, if the act created a collective danger for persons. 3. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence. Article 3 The provisions of all extradition treaties and arrangements applicable between Contracting States, including the European Convention on Extradition, are modified as between Contracting States to the extent that they are incompatible with this Convention. Article 4 For the purposes of this Convention and to the extent that any offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 is not listed as an extraditable offence in any extradition convention or treaty existing between Contracting States, it shall be deemed to be included as such therein. Article 5 Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for an offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. Article 6 1. Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over an offence mentioned in Article 1 in the case where the suspected offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him after receiving a request for extradition from a Contracting State

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

347

whose jurisdiction is based on a rule of jurisdiction existing equally in the law of the requested State. 2. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Article 7 A Contracting State in whose territory a person suspected to have committed an offence mentioned in Article 1 is found and which has received a request for extradition under the conditions mentioned in Article 6, paragraph 1, shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit the case, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. Article 8 1. Contracting States shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual assistance in criminal matters in connection with proceedings brought in respect of the offences mentioned in Article 1 or 2. The law of the requested State concerning mutual assistance in criminal matters shall apply in all cases. Nevertheless this assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives. 2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to afford mutual assistance if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for mutual assistance in respect of an offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. 3. The provisions of all treaties and arrangements concerning mutual assistance in criminal matters applicable between Contracting States, including the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, are modified as between Contracting States to the extent that they are incompatible with this Convention. Article 9 1. The European Committee on Crime Problems of the Council of Europe shall be kept informed regarding the application of this Convention.

348

APPENDIX C

2. It shall do whatever is needful to facilitate a friendly settlement of any difficulty which may arise out of its execution. Article 10 1. Any dispute between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, which has not been settled in the framework of Article 9, paragraph 2, shall, at the request of any Party to the dispute, be referred to arbitration. Each Party shall nominate an arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall nominate a referee. If any Party has not nominated its arbitrator within the three months following the request for arbitration, he shall be nominated at the request of the other Party by the President of the European Court of Human Rights. If the latter should be a national of one of the Parties to the dispute, this duty shall be carried out by the Vice-President of the Court or, if the Vice-President is a national of one of the Parties to the dispute, by the most senior judge of the Court not being a national of one of the Parties to the dispute. The same procedure shall be observed if the arbitrators cannot agree on the choice of referee. 2. The arbitration tribunal shall lay down its own procedure. Its decisions shall be taken by majority vote. Its award shall be final. Articles 11 to 16 Final Provisions

SECOND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE 1957 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, March 17, 19781

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory to this Protocol, Desirous of facilitating the application of the European Convention on Extradition opened for signature in Paris on 13 December 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) in the field of fiscal offences; Considering it also desirable to supplement the Convention in certain other respects, Have agreed as follows: EXCERPTS CHAPTER I Article 1 Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention shall be supplemented by the following provision: “This right shall also apply to offences which are subject only to pecuniary sanctions. CHAPTER II Article 2 Article 5 of the Convention shall be replaced by the following provisions: “Fiscal offences 1. For offences in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange, extradition shall take place between the Contracting Parties in accordance

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements, Volume IV, 1975–1982. Strasbourg, 1983, pp. 124 to 130.

350

APPENDIX C

with the provisions of the Convention if the offence, under the law of the requested Party, corresponds to an offence of the same nature. 2. Extradition may not be refused on the ground that the law of the requested Party does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs or exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the requesting Party.”

CHAPTER III Article 3 The Convention shall be supplemented by the following provisions: “Judgments in absentia 1. When a Contracting Party requests from another Contracting Party the extradition of a person for the purpose of carrying out a sentence or detention order imposed by a decision rendered against him in absentia, the requested Party may refuse to extradite for this purpose if, in its opinion, the proceedings leading to the judgment did not satisfy the minimum rights of defence recognised as due to everyone charged with criminal offence. However, extradition shall be granted if the requesting Party gives an assurance considered sufficient to guarantee to the person claimed the right to a retrial which safeguards the rights of defence. This decision will authorise the requesting Party either to enforce the judgment in question if the convicted person does not make an opposition or, if he does, to take proceedings against the person extradited. 2. When the requested Party informs the person whose extradition has been requested of the judgment rendered against him in absentia, the requesting Party shall not regard this communication as a formal notification for the purposes of the criminal procedure in that State.”

CHAPTER IV Article 4 The Convention shall be supplemented by the following provisions: “Amnesty Extradition shall not be granted for an offence in respect of which an amnesty has been declared in the requested State and which that State had competence to prosecute under its own criminal law.”

SECOND ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE

1957 EUROPEAN CONVENTION

351

CHAPTER V Article 5 Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Convention shall be replaced by the following provisions: “The request shall be in writing and shall be addressed by the Ministry of Justice of the requesting Party to the Ministry of Justice of the requested Party; however, use of the diplomatic channel is not excluded. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties.”

CHAPTER VI Article 10 The European Committee on Crime Problems of the Council of Europe shall be kept informed regarding the application of this Protocol and shall do whatever is needful to facilitate a friendly settlement of any difficulty which may arise out of its execution. Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 Final Provisions: Signature, accession, ratification, acceptance, reservations, entry into force, denunciation, and other final clauses.

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, March 17, 19781

This Protocol contains 12 articles. Following are the texts of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. Article 1. The Contracting Parties shall not exercise the right provided for in Article 2 (a) of the Convention to refuse assistance solely on the ground that the request concerns an offence which the requested Party considers a fiscal offence. Article 2. 1. In the case where a Contracting Party has made the execution of letters rogatory for search or seizure of property dependent on the condition that the offence motivating the letters rogatory is punishable under both the law of the requesting Party and the law of the requested Party, this condition shall be fulfilled, as regards fiscal offences, if the offence is punishable under the law of the requesting Party and corresponds to an offence of the same nature under the law of the requested Party. 2. The request may not be refused on the ground that the law of the requested Party does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain a tax, duty, customs and exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the requesting Party. Article 3. The Convention shall also apply to: a) the service of documents concerning the enforcement of a sentence, the recovery of a fine or the payment of costs of proceedings;

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements, Volume IV, 1975–1982. Strasbourg, 1983, pp. 131 to 136.

ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL

353

b) measures relating to the suspension of pronouncement of a sentence or of its enforcement, to conditional release, to deferment of the commencement of the enforcement of a sentence or to the interruption of such enforcement. Article 4. Article 22 of the Convention shall be supplemented by the following text, the original Article 22 of the Convention becoming paragraph 1 and the belowmentioned provisions becoming paragraph 2: “2. Furthermore, any Contracting Party which has supplied the abovementioned information shall communicate to the Party concerned, on the latter’s request in individual cases, a copy of the convictions and measures in question as well as any other information relevant thereto in order to enable it to consider whether they necessitate any measures at national level. This communication shall take place between the Ministries of Justice concerned.” Articles 5 to 12 Final Provisions: Signature, accession, reservations, ratification, denunciation and other final clauses.

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF ACTS OF TERRORISM

Adopted by the Council of Europe on January 15, 19821

EXCERPTS The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15 (b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, RECOMMENDS the Governments of member States to give effect, by the most appropriate means, to the following measures aimed at improving international co-operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism directed against the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons, or against property where they create a collective danger for persons, including, in accordance with domestic law, attempts of or threats of or participation as an accomplice in these acts (referred to as “acts of terrorism” in the present recommendation).

I. Channels of communication for mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters 1. Direct communication between the authorities concerned in the requesting and requested State, of requests for judicial assistance and the replies thereto should be encouraged in all cases where it is permitted by the law of these States or by any treaty to which these States are Party, if it is likely to render mutual judicial assistance more expeditious. 2. Where direct transmission is permitted, cases involving acts of terrorism should be treated with urgency according to the procedure provided by Article 15 (2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters or by other treaties in force between member States or

1 International Legal Materials, Washington, D.C. Vol. XXI, Number 1, January 1982, pp. 199 to 201 (Recommendation No. R (82) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States, Council of Europe).

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

355

by the law of these States, so that letters rogatory may be addressed by the authority concerned in the requesting State, it being understood that the requested State may require a copy to be sent to its Ministry of Justice or other competent ministry. 3. Where requests for assistance and the replies thereto may be communicated directly between the authorities concerned in the requesting and the requested State, their transmission should be effected as rapidly as possible, either through Interpol National Central Bureau, insofar as this is not contrary to Interpol’s Constitution, or by other existing ways of transmission. 4. Where communication is effected between Ministries of Justice or other competent ministries, the authority concerned in the requesting State should be allowed directly to provide the authority concerned in the requested State with an advance copy of the request. The authority concerned in the requested State should be advised that the sole purpose of transmitting the copy is to enable it to prepare for the execution of the request.

II. Exchange of Information 5. Exchanges of information between member States should be improved and reinforced. To that end, the competent authorities should, insofar as this is not contrary to domestic law, be enabled to furnish, of their own accord, information in their possession on such matters as: i. measures concerning the prosecution of the alleged offender (e.g. arrest, indictment) ii. the outcome of any judicial or administrative proceedings (e.g. conviction, decision on extradition) iii. the enforcement of any sentence (including pardon, conditional release) iv. other relevant information relating to the whereabouts of the person concerned (e.g. expulsion, escape, execution of an extradition decision) to the authorities of any member State concerned, as for instance, the State where the act of terrorism was committed, the State which has jurisdiction over the offence, the State of which the offender is a national, the State where the offender has his habitual residence, or any other State likely to have an interest in the particular element of information. 6. The exchange of this information should be effected with all necessary expediency either through Interpol National Central Bureaux, insofar as this is not contrary to Interpol’s Constitution, or by other existing ways of transmission.

356

APPENDIX C

III. Prosecution and trial of offences of an international character 7. Where one or several acts of terrorism have been committed in the territory of two or several member States and there is a link between those acts or their authors, the member States concerned should examine the possibility of having the prosecution and the trial conducted in only one State. To that end, the States concerned should agree on the competent State, in accordance with existing international treaties and their internal law. The same should apply, if possible, where one or several acts of terrorism of an international character have been committed in the territory of a single State by several persons acting in unison who have been apprehended in various States. In negotiating such agreements on the competent State, the States concerned should, with a view to ensuring that prosecution and trial take place in the State best suited for conducting the proceedings, take into account the number of offences committed in each State, the seriousness of the offences, the availability of evidence, the personal circumstances of the alleged offender, in particular his nationality and residence, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

RECOMMENDATION 950 (1982) ON EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS

Adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on October 1, 19821

The Assembly, 1. Desirous to strike a balance between the will to safeguard human rights, on the one hand, and the importance of not leaving unpunished serious offences, on the other hand; 2. Considering that the European Convention on Extradition was concluded in 1957 in the framework of the Council of Europe; 3. Considering that this multilateral convention was ratified by fifteen member states and that Finland and Israel adhered to it; 4. Considering that, in addition to this convention, Council of Europe member states have concluded a wide range of bilateral extradition treaties with each other, and also with non-member states within and outside Europe; 5. Considering, however, that the existing extradition treaties sometimes prove to be inapplicable and obsolete, and therefore inadequate; 6. Concerned by the fact that improved means of transport and relaxed frontier control nowadays greatly facilitate the escape of criminals from member states; 7. Considering that criminals, especially those who have the financial means to do so, tend, more and more often, to take refuge in countries outside Europe, and that the lack of adequate legal instruments can and does prevent their extradition; 8. Noting that, in certain instances, criminals have been expelled to a country which might otherwise have made a request for extradition, but that such expulsion procedure is arbitrary and therefore unsatisfactory; 9. Considering that no reciprocal extradition treaties should be concluded with countries where there are chances of unfair trial or arbitrary judgment, or where torture is practised, unless proper guarantees are obtained,

1

International Legal Materials, Volume XXII, Number 3, May 1983, pp. 681 to 682.

358

APPENDIX C

10. Recommends that the Committee of Ministers: a) In respect of extradition from non-member states: i) Instruct the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) to study whether Council of Europe member states might accede to the Inter-American Convention on Extradition; ii) Ask governments of those member states which may extradite only if there is an extradition treaty with the requesting state, whether their national law does not provide for enough safeguards to drop this requirement; iii) Invite member governments to make an effort to improve their control of existing escape routes to other continents for criminals having the means to fly there; b) In respect of extradition from member states: i) Invite member governments, if and when proceeding to a review of their penal law, to take penal provisions in other member states into account, so that it may be easier to compare penal provisions from one country to another; ii) Invite governments of those member states which have not yet ratified the European Convention on Extradition and its two additional protocols to do so now; iii) Invite governments of member states which have ratified it to study whether, in accordance with Article 26, section 2, of the convention, they may reduce their reservations; iv) Instruct the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) to examine whether and to what extent extradition procedures may be simplified, and whether there have not been certain developments since the conclusion of the European Convention on Extradition (for instance in respect of statutory limitation of offences) which would allow for simplification of the existing extradition procedures; v) Draw the attention of member governments to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers on the practical application of the European Convention on Extradition, on extradition to states not party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and concerning the cooperation in the fight against economic crimes.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, November 24, 19831

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Considering that for reasons of equity and social solidarity it is necessary to deal with the situation of victims of intentional crimes of violence who have suffered bodily injury or impairment of health and of dependants of persons who have died as a result of such crimes; Considering that it is necessary to introduce or develop schemes for the compensation of these victims by the State in whose territory such crimes were committed, in particular when the offender has not been identified or is without resources; Considering that it is necessary to establish minimum provisions in this field; Having regard to Resolution (77) 27 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the compensation of victims of crime, Have agreed as follows:

PART I Basic Principles Article 1 The Parties undertake to take the necessary steps to give effect to the principles set out in Part I of this Convention.

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume V. 1983–1989, Strasbourg, 1990. pp. 40 to 45.

360

APPENDIX C

Article 2 1. When compensation is not fully available from other sources the State shall contribute to compensate: a. those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health directly attributable to an intentional crime of violence; b. the dependants of persons who have died as a result of such crime. 2. Compensation shall be awarded in the above cases even if the offender cannot be prosecuted or punished. Article 3 Compensation shall be paid by the State on whose territory the crime was committed: a. to nationals of the States Party to this Convention; b. to nationals of all member States of the Council of Europe who are permanent residents in the State on whose territory the crime was committed. Article 4 Compensation shall cover, according to the case under consideration, at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance. Article 5 The compensation scheme may, if necessary, set for any or all elements of compensation an upper limit above which and a minimum threshold below which such compensation shall not be granted. Article 6 The compensation scheme may specify a period within which any application for compensation must be made. Article 7 Compensation may be reduced or refused on account of the applicant’s financial situation. Article 8 1. Compensation may be reduced or refused on account of the victim’s or the applicant’s conduct before, during or after the crime, or in relation to the injury or death.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS

361

2. Compensation may also be reduced or refused on account of the victim’s or the applicant’s involvement in organised crime or his membership of an organisation which engages in crimes of violence. 3. Compensation may also be reduced or refused if an award or a full award would be contrary to a sense of justice or to public policy (ordre public). Article 9 With a view to avoiding double compensation, the State or the competent authority may deduct from the compensation awarded or reclaim from the person compensated any amount of money received, in consequence of the injury or death, from the offender, social security or insurance, or coming from any other source. Article 10 The State or the competent authority may be subrogated to the rights of the person compensated for the amount of the compensation paid. Article 11 Each Party shall take appropriate steps to ensure that information about the scheme is available to potential applicants.

PART II International Co-operation Article 12 Subject to the application of bilateral or multilateral agreements on mutual assistance concluded between Contracting States, the competent authorities of each Party shall, at the request of the appropriate authorities of any other Party, give the maximum possible assistance in connection with the matters covered by this Convention. To this end, each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to receive, and to take action on, requests for such assistance, and shall inform thereof the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Article 13 1. The European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) of the Council of Europe shall be kept informed regarding the application of the Convention.

362

APPENDIX C

2. To this end, each Party shall transmit to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe any relevant information about its legislative or regulatory provisions concerning the matters covered by the Convention.

PART III Final Clauses Articles 14 to 20 Signature, declaration, ratification or accession, reservation, denunciation and other clauses.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, November 26, 19871

The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto, Having regard to the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Recalling that, under Article 3 of the same Convention, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”; Noting that the machinery provided for in that Convention operates in relation to persons who allege that they are victims of violations of Article 3; Convinced that the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits, Have agreed as follows: ...................................... This Convention contains 5 Chapters and 23 Articles.

CHAPTER I. Articles 1 to 3

CHAPTER II. Articles 4 to 6

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume V. 1983–1989. Strasbourg, 1990. pp. 172 to 179.

364

APPENDIX C

CHAPTER III. Articles 7 to 14 CHAPTER IV. Articles 15 to 17 CHAPTER V. Articles 18 to 23 (Final Provisions) EXCERPTS CHAPTER I Article 1 There shall be established a European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee shall, by means of visits, examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 2 Each Party shall permit visits, in accordance with this Convention, to any place within its jurisdiction where persons are deprived of their liberty by a public authority. Article 3 In the application of this Convention, the Committee and the competent national authorities of the Party concerned shall co-operate with each other. CHAPTER II Article 4 1. The Committee shall consist of a number of members equal to that of the Parties.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE

365

2. The members of the Committee shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, known for their competence in the field of human rights or having professional experience in the areas covered by this Convention. 3. No two members of the Committee may be nationals of the same State. 4. The members shall serve in their individual capacity, shall be independent and impartial, and shall be available to serve the Committee effectively. Article 5 1. The members of the Committee shall be elected by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe by an absolute majority of votes, from a list of names drawn up by the Bureau of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe; each national delegation of the Parties in the Consultative Assembly shall put forward three candidates, of whom two at least shall be its nationals. 2. The same procedure shall be followed in filling casual vacancies. 3. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a period of four years. They may only be re-elected once. However, among the members elected at the first election, the terms of three members shall expire at the end of two years. The members whose terms are to expire at the end of the initial period of two years shall be chosen by lot by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after the first election has been completed. Article 6 1. The Committee shall meet in camera. A quorum shall be equal to the majority of its members. The decisions of the Committee shall be taken by a majority of the members present, subject to the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 2. 2. The Committee shall draw up its own rules of procedure. 3. The Secretariat of the Committee shall be provided by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

CHAPTER III Article 7 1. The Committee shall organise visits to places referred to in Article 2. Apart from periodic visits, the Committee may organise such other visits as appear to it to be required in the circumstances. 2. As a general rule, the visits shall be carried out by at least two members of the Committee. The Committee may, if it considers it necessary, be assisted by experts and interpreters.

366

APPENDIX C

Article 9 1. In exceptional circumstances, the competent authorities of the Party concerned may make representations to the Committee against a visit at the time or to the particular place proposed by the Committee. Such representations may only be made on grounds of national defence, public safety, serious disorder in places where persons are deprived of their liberty, the medical condition of a person or that an urgent interrogation relating to a serious crime is in progress. 2. Following such representations, the Committee and the Party shall immediately enter into consultations in order to clarify the situation and seek agreement on arrangements to enable the Committee to exercise its functions expeditiously. Such arrangements may include the transfer to another place of any person whom the Committee proposed to visit. Until the visit takes place, the Party shall provide information to the Committee about any person concerned. Article 10 1. After each visit, the Committee shall draw up a report on the facts found during the visit, taking account of any observations which may have been submitted by the Party concerned. It shall transmit to the latter its report containing any recommendations it considers necessary. The Committee may consult with the Party with a view to suggesting, if necessary, improvements in the protection of persons deprived of their liberty. 2. If the Party fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee may decide, after the Party has had an opportunity to make known its views, by a majority of two-thirds of its members to make a public statement on the matter. Article 11 1. The information gathered by the Committee in relation to a visit, its report and its consultations with the Party concerned shall be confidential. 2. The Committee shall publish its report, together with any comments of the Party concerned, whenever requested to do so by that Party. 3. However, no personal data shall be published without the express consent of the person concerned. Article 12 Subject to the rules of confidentiality in Article 11, the Committee shall every year submit to the Committee of Ministers a general report on its activities which shall be transmitted to the Consultative Assembly and made public.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE

367

CHAPTER IV Article 17 1. This Convention shall not prejudice the provisions of domestic law or any international agreement which provide greater protection for persons deprived of their liberty. 2. Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from the competence of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights or from the obligations assumed by the Parties under that Convention. 3 The Committee shall not visit places which representatives or delegates of protecting powers or the International Committee of the Red Cross effectively visit on a regular basis by virtue of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 thereto.

CONVENTION ON LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF THE PROCEEDS FROM CRIME

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, November 8, 19901

Preamble The member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatory hereto, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Convinced of the need to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society; Considering that the fight against serious crime, which has become an increasingly international problem, calls for the use of modern and effective methods on an international scale; Believing that one of these methods consists in depriving criminals of the proceeds from crime; Considering that for the attainment of this aim a well-functioning system of international cooperation also must be established, Have agreed as follows:

CHAPTER I - Use of terms Article 1 - Use of terms For the purpose of this Convention: a) “proceeds” means any economic advantage from criminal offences. It may consist of any property as defined in sub-paragraph b) of this article; b) “property” includes property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents or instruments evidencing title to, or interest in such property;

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume VI. 1990–1994. Strasbourg, 1994. pp. 113 to 136.

CONVENTION OF LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION

369

c) “instrumentalities” means any property used or intended to be used, in any manner, wholly or in part, to commit a criminal offence or criminal offences; d) “confiscation” means a penalty or a measure, ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence or criminal offences resulting in the final deprivation of property; e) “predicate offence” means any criminal offence as a result of which proceeds were generated that may become the subject of an offence as defined in Article 6 of this Convention.

CHAPTER II - Measures to be taken at national level Article 2 - Confiscation measures 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds. 2. Each Party may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, declare that paragraph 1 of this article applies only to offences or categories of offences specified in such declaration. Article 3 - Investigative and provisional measures Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to identify and trace property which is liable to confiscation pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, and to prevent any dealing in, transfer or disposal of such property. Article 4 - Special investigative powers and techniques 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its courts or other competent authorities to order that bank, financial or commercial records be made available or be seized in order to carry out the actions referred to in Articles 2 and 3. A Party shall not decline to act under the provisions of this article on grounds of bank secrecy. 2. Each Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to use special investigative techniques facilitating the identification and tracing of proceeds and the gathering of evidence related thereto. Such techniques may include monitoring orders, observation, interception of telecommunications, access to computer systems and orders to produce specific documents.

370

APPENDIX C

Article 5 - Legal remedies Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that interested parties affected by measures under Articles 2 and 3 shall have effective legal remedies in order to preserve their rights. Article 6 - Laundering offences 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally: a) the conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is proceeds, for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of assisting any person who is involved in the commission of the predicate offence to evade the legal consequences of his actions; b) the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of, property, knowing that such property is proceeds; and, subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system; c) the acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing, at the time of receipt, that such property was proceeds; d) participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit and aiding, abetting, facilitating and counselling the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with this article. 2. For the purposes of implementing or applying paragraph 1 of this article: a) it shall not matter whether the predicate offence was subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Party; b) it may be provided that the offences set forth in that paragraph do not apply to the persons who committed the predicate offence; c) knowledge, intent or purpose required as an element of an offence set forth in that paragraph may be inferred from objective, factual circumstances. 3. Each Party may adopt such measures as it considers necessary to establish also as offences under its domestic law all or some of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, in any or all of the following cases where the offender: a) ought to have assumed that the property was proceeds; b) acted for the purpose of making profit; c) acted for the purpose of promoting the carrying on of further criminal activity.

CONVENTION OF LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION

371

4. Each Party may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe declare that paragraph 1 of this article applies only to predicate offences or categories of such offences specified in such declaration.

CHAPTER III - International cooperation Section 1 - Principles of international cooperation Article 7 - General principles and measures for international cooperation 1. The Parties shall cooperate with each other to the widest extent possible for the purposes of investigations and proceedings aiming at the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds. 2. Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to enable it to comply, under the conditions provided for in this chapter, with requests: a) for confiscation of specific items of property representing proceeds or instrumentalities, as well as for confiscation of proceeds consisting in a requirement to pay a sum of money corresponding to the value of proceeds; b) for investigative assistance and provisional measures with a view to either form of confiscation referred to under a) above. Section 2 - Investigative assistance Article 8 - Obligation to assist The Parties shall afford each other, upon request, the widest possible measure of assistance in the identification and tracing of instrumentalities, proceeds and other property liable to confiscation. Such assistance shall include any measure providing and securing evidence as to the existence, location or movement, nature, legal status or value of the aforementioned property. Article 9 - Execution of assistance The assistance pursuant to Article 8 shall be carried out as permitted by and in accordance with the domestic law of the requested Party and, to the extent not incompatible with such law, in accordance with the procedures specified in the request.

372

APPENDIX C

Article 10 - Spontaneous information Without prejudice to its own investigations or proceedings, a Party may without prior request forward to another Party information on instrumentalities and proceeds, when it considers that the disclosure of such information might assist the receiving Party in initiating or carrying out investigations or proceedings or might lead to a request by that Party under this chapter. Section 3 - Provisional measures Article 11 - Obligation to take provisional measures 1. At the request of another Party which has instituted criminal proceedings or proceedings for the purpose of confiscation, a Party shall take the necessary provisional measures, such as freezing or seizing, to prevent any dealing in, transfer or disposal of property which, at a later state, may be the subject of a request for confiscation or which might be such as to satisfy the request. 2. A Party which has received a request for confiscation pursuant to Article 13 shall, if so requested, take the measures mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article in respect of any property which is the subject of the request or which might be such as to satisfy the request. Article 12 - Execution of provisional measures 1. The provisional measures mentioned in Article 11 shall be carried out as permitted by and in accordance with the domestic law of the requested Party and, to the extent not incompatible with such law, in accordance with the procedures specified in the request. 2. Before lifting any provisional measure taken pursuant to this article, the requested Party shall, wherever possible, give the requesting Party an opportunity to present its reasons in favor of continuing the measure. Section 4 - Confiscation Article 13 - Obligation to confiscate 1. A Party, which has received a request made by another Party for confiscation concerning instrumentalities or proceeds, situated in its territory, shall: a) enforce a confiscation order made by a court of a requesting Party in relation to such instrumentalities or proceeds; or b) submit the request to its competent authorities for the purpose of obtaining an order of confiscation and, if such order is granted, enforce it.

CONVENTION OF LAUNDERING, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION

373

2. For the purposes of applying paragraph 1. b) of this article, any Party shall whenever necessary have competence to institute confiscation proceedings under its own law. 3. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall also apply to confiscation consisting in a requirement to pay a sum of money corresponding to the value of proceeds, if property on which the confiscation can be enforced is located in the requested Party. In such cases, when enforcing confiscation pursuant to paragraph 1, the requested Party shall, if payment is not obtained, realise the claim on any property available for that purpose. 4. If a request for confiscation concerns a specific item of property, the Parties may agree that the requested Party may enforce the confiscation in the form of a requirement to pay a sum of money corresponding to the value of the property. Following are the titles of articles 14 to 35 of this Chapter. Article 14 - Execution of confiscation Article 15 - Confiscated property Article 16 - Right of enforcement and maximum amount of confiscation Article 17 - Imprisonment in default Section 5 - Refusal and postponement of cooperation Article 18 - Grounds for refusal Article 19 - Postponement Article 20 - Partial or conditional granting of a request Section 6 - Notification and protection of third parties’ rights Article 21 - Notification of documents Article 22 - Recognition of foreign decisions Section 7 - Procedural and other general rules Article 23 - Central authority Article 24 - Direct communication Article 25 - Form of request and languages Article 26 - Legalisation Article 27 - Content of request Article 28 - Defective requests Article 29 - Plurality of requests Article 30 - Obligation to give reasons

374

APPENDIX C

Article 31 - Information Article 32 - Restriction of use Article 33 - Confidentiality Article 34 - Costs Article 35 - Damages

CHAPTER IV - Final provisions – Articles 36 to 44

PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, November 4, 19931

This Protocol contains 9 articles. According to Article 1 of the Protocol, a sub-paragraph shall be added to Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention as follows: Where a member is to be elected to the Committee in respect of a non-member State of the Council of Europe, the Bureau of the Consultative Assembly shall invite the Parliament of that State to put forward three candidates, of whom two at least shall be its nationals. The election by the Committee of Ministers shall take place after consultation with the Party concerned.

As provided for in Article 2 of the Protocol, Article 12 of the Convention shall read as follows: Subject to the rules of confidentiality in Article 11, the Committee shall every year submit to the Committee of Ministers a general report on its activities which shall be transmitted to the Consultative Assembly and to any non-member State of the Council of Europe which is a party to the Convention, and made public.

Articles 3 to 9: Final Provisions

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume VI, 1990–1994. Strasbourg, 1994 pp. 243 to 246.

PROTOCOL NO. 2 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Adopted by the Council of Europe Strasbourg, November 4, 19931

This Protocol contains 4 articles Article 1 provides as follows: 1. In Article 5, paragraph 3, the second sentence shall read as follows: “They may be re-elected twice”

2. Article 5 of the Convention shall be supplemented by the following paragraphs 4 and 5: “4. In order to ensure that, as far as possible, one half of the membership of the Committee shall be renewed every two years, the Committee of Ministers may decide, before proceeding to any subsequent election, that the term or terms of office of one or more members to be elected shall be for a period other than four years but not more than six and not less than two years. 5. In cases where more than one term of office is involved and the Committee of Ministers applies the preceding paragraph, the allocation of the terms of office shall be effected by the drawing of lots by the Secretary General, immediately after the election.”

Articles 2, 3 and 4: Final Provisions

1 Council of Europe. European Conventions and Agreements. Volume VI, 1990–1994. Strasbourg, 1994. pp. 247 to 249.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST BOMBINGS (NEW YORK, 15 DECEMBER 1997)

OBJECTIVES The objective of the Convention is to enhance international cooperation among States in devising and adopting effective and practical measures for the prevention of the acts of terrorism, and for the prosecution and punishment of their perpetrators.

KEY PROVISIONS Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or extensive destruction likely to result or actually resulting in major economic loss. Any person also commits such an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth above or participates as an accomplice in an offence, organizes or directs others to commit an offence or in any other way contributes to the commission of such an offence by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. The Convention does not apply where an act of this nature does not involve any international elements as defined by the Convention. States parties are required to establish jurisdiction over and make punishable, under their domestic laws, the offences described, to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of the offences, and to assist each other in connection with criminal proceedings under the Convention. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences between States parties under existing extradition treaties and under the Convention itself.

ENTRY INTO FORCE The Convention entered into force on 23 May 2001, the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (article 22).

378

APPENDIX C

HOW TO BECOME A PARTY The Convention is closed for signature. It is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States. The Convention is open to accession by any State (article 21).

OPTIONAL AND/OR MANDATORY DECLARATIONS Pursuant to article 6(2), a State party may establish additional jurisdiction over offences under the Convention when the offence is committed under certain circumstances. Upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Convention, each State party shall notify the SecretaryGeneral of the jurisdiction it has established in accordance with article 6(2) (article 6(3)). The State party where an alleged offender is prosecuted shall, in accordance with its domestic law or applicable procedures, communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General (article 16).

RESERVATIONS The Convention is silent with regard to reservations. Pursuant to article 20(2), States may declare that they do not consider themselves bound by article 20(1), according to which disputes among States parties relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which are not settled by negotiation will be submitted to arbitration and, failing agreement on the organization of the arbitration six months after the date of the request for arbitration, to the International Court of Justice (article 20).

WITHDRAWAL/DENUNCIATION Any State party may denounce the Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Such denunciation shall take effect one year following the date on which the notification is received by the Secretary-General (article 23).

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (NEW YORK, 9 DECEMBER 1999)

OBJECTIVES The objective of the Convention is to enhance international cooperation among States in devising and adopting effective measures for the prevention of the financing of terrorism, as well as for its suppression through the prosecution and punishment of its perpetrators.

KEY PROVISIONS Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or with the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, to carry out any of the offences described in the treaties listed in the appendix to the Convention, or an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person not actively involved in armed conflict in order to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. Any person also commits such an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth above or participates as an accomplice in an offence, organizes or directs others to commit an offence or contributes to the commission of such an offence by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. For an act to constitute an offence, it is not necessary that funds were actually used to carry out an offence as described above. The provision or collection of funds in this manner is an offence whether or not the funds are actually used to carry out the proscribed acts. The Convention does not apply where an act of this nature does not involve any international elements as defined by the Convention. The Convention requires each State party to take appropriate measures, in accordance with its domestic legal principles, for the detection and freezing, seizure or forfeiture of any funds used or allocated for the purposes of committing the offences described. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences and States parties have obligations to establish their jurisdiction over the offences described, make the offences punishable

380

APPENDIX C

by appropriate penalties, take alleged offenders into custody, prosecute or extradite alleged offenders, cooperate in preventive measures and countermeasures, and exchange information and evidence needed in related criminal proceedings. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed to be extraditable offences between States parties under existing extradition treaties and under the Convention itself.

ENTRY INTO FORCE The Convention entered into force on 10 April 2002, the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession (article 26).

HOW TO BECOME A PARTY The Convention is closed for signature. It is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States. The Convention is open to accession by any State (article 25).

OPTIONAL AND/OR MANDATORY DECLARATIONS Upon ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Convention, a State party which is not a party to a treaty listed in the appendix to the Convention may declare that, in the application of the Convention to the State party, the treaty shall be deemed not to be included in the appendix referred to. Such declaration ceases to have effect as soon as the treaty enters into force for the State party, which shall notify the depositary of this fact (article 2(2)(a)). When a State party ceases to be a party to a treaty listed in the appendix to the Convention, it may make a declaration referred to in article 2(2)(a), with respect to that treaty (article 2(2)(b)). Pursuant to article 7(2), a State party may establish additional jurisdiction over offences under the Convention when the offence is committed under certain circumstances. Upon ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Convention, each State party shall notify the SecretaryGeneral of the jurisdiction it has established in accordance with article 7(2) (article 7(3)). The State party where an alleged offender is prosecuted shall, in accordance with its domestic law or applicable procedures, communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General (article 19).

SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM

381

RESERVATIONS The Convention is silent with regard to reservations. Pursuant to article 24(2), States may declare that they do not consider themselves bound by article 24(1), according to which disputes among States parties relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention which are not settled by negotiation will be submitted to arbitration and, failing agreement on the organization of the arbitration six months after the date of the request for arbitration, to the International Court of Justice (article 24). WITHDRAWAL/DENUNCIATION Any State party may denounce the Convention by written notification to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. Such denunciation shall take effect one year following the date on which notification is received by the Secretary-General (article 27).

SECURITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 1373 (2001) CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

Provisional summary record of the first part* of the 57th meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 6 March 2003, at 9.30 a.m. Chairman: Sir Jeremy Greenstock ....................................... (United Kingdom)

Contents Special meeting with international, regional and subregional organisations Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda Global standards on counter-terrorism Role of regional and subregional organisations in strengthening global counter-terrorism capacity The meeting was called to order at 9.35 am.

Special meeting with international, regional and subregional organisations Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda (S/AC.40/2003/SM.1/1 and S/AC.40/2003/SM.1/2) 1. The agenda was adopted. 2. The Chairman said that the special meeting of the Counter-Terrorism Committee with representatives of international, regional and subregional organisations was a historic occasion in the effort against terrorism, as it was the first time that such a wide range of professionals, Member States and others involved in that effort had been gathered together. By the end of the meeting, he hoped that the participants would have woven a tighter structure of cooperation.

* The summary record of the second part of the meeting, to be reconvened in the afternoon, appears as document S/AC.40/SR.57/Add. 1.

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

383

3. There were two channels of action in combating terrorism. The first was pursuing and bringing to justice those responsible for terrorist acts or providing support for terrorists. The second was the channel in which the Committee had been engaged for a year and a half: the essential task of dealing with the potential threat to societies and lives from individuals who had not yet been identified, or who had planned but not carried out terrorist acts. The Organisation had decided to place itself at the centre of coordinating that prevention effort. The starting point of United Nations action had been Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), which placed obligations on the Member States. The entire world community was vulnerable to terrorism, and protection could not be unilateral. The attacks in the United States of America on 11 September 2001 had been followed by attacks in Bali, Moscow, Mombasa, Bogota and other places; no region was safe. 4. The direct impact of terrorism had been horrific, but the indirect impact had been far-reaching and equally negative, affecting economies, societies, investment, tourism and many other legitimate activities. States must work together, with a common goal, to deal with the threat. Resolution 1373 (2001) had set such a goal, building on existing global standards, including the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, and it was legally binding on all States. The obligations imposed in the resolution could not be met effectively unless they were met willingly and collectively. To that end, the Counter-Terrorism Committee had been meeting weekly to further compliance with the resolution, engaging individual Member States and international, regional and subregional organisations, and working through interaction and consensus. 5. The purpose of the current meeting with regional and subregional organisations was to build a common structure to deal effectively with terrorism and to help all Member States to raise their capacity to combat that phenomenon. The requirement of resolution 1373 (2001), as executed through the Committee, was that each Member State should perform to its full ability in achieving the resolution’s aims. There would be differences between States, and some would need substantial assistance. No State would be asked to do more than it reasonably could, but every State would be asked to do its utmost. The current meeting was intended to help achieve that level of performance. 6. The Secretary-General said that he would like to thank the Chairman for chairing the Committee with distinction, energy and creativity since its establishment in October 2001; Mr. Arias, the Permanent Representative of Spain, would be succeeding him in April 2003. 7. The Committee was playing a vital role in the global effort to fight terrorism. By seeking to ensure compliance with resolution 1373 (2001), enhancing States’ counter-terrorism capacity and promoting universal adherence

384

8.

9.

10.

11.

APPENDIX C

to the counter-terrorism conventions, the Committee had demonstrated the universal nature of that challenge and the need for a universal response. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the more recent attacks in Bali, Mombasa and Moscow had shown that the scourge of terrorism knew no boundaries. Terrorism was clearly a threat to international peace and security, and the Security Council had made a commitment to fight it in every instance. The ministerial meeting of the Security Council that had taken place on 20 January 2003 had offered a fine demonstration of international commitment to that effort at the highest levels. Everyone was aware, however, of how much more damage terrorists could inflict if they were to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Although recent terrorist attacks had been massive in scale, future attacks could make them pale in comparison, particularly if terrorists were to acquire lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. It had never been more important to strengthen the multilateral regimes developed to prevent the proliferation of such weapons. For the fight against terrorism to be effective, everyone must work together to ensure that universal principles prevailed against lawlessness. Cooperation among international, regional and subregional organisations was essential, hence the importance of the current meeting. For international efforts to be effective in countering terrorism, cooperation must be more systematic, ensuring a proper division of labour based on comparative advantages. There was also a need to develop an international programme of action, founded on an unshakeable commitment to upholding the rule of law. As terrorism involved the calculated use of violence in violation of the law, responses to terrorism should aim to ensure the rule of law. Terrorist acts, particularly those involving the loss of life, constituted a grave violation of human rights. Responses to terrorism, as well as efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aimed to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law were essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism, not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension. Lastly, there was a need to strive to bridge the cultural and religious divides which led to polarization, suspicion and mistrust. All had a stake in that struggle and must feel that they were part of it. In the effort to address the problem of terrorism, the United Nations and its Member States must not lose sight of the broader international agenda. While there was a clear and urgent necessity to prevent despicable acts of terror, there was also a compelling need to continue striving towards the fulfilment of the goals enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the millennium development goals. To the extent that the Organisation succeeded in fighting poverty and injustice, suffering and war, it was also

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

385

likely to help counter the conditions that served as justification to those who would commit acts of terror. 12. The Chairman urged the participants to be guided by the suggested topics for discussion appearing under each agenda item in the provisional agenda and programme of work (S/AC.40/2003/SM.1/1), rather than simply providing a general briefing on their activities, since such general information had already been distributed as part of the index of international, regional and subregional organisations (S/AC.40/2003/SM.1/2) circulated by the Committee. The presence at the meeting of many Member States was welcome; their support of the work of the Committee had been appreciated. He would discuss the outcome of the meeting with all the Member States, so that they were informed of the general direction of global cooperation against terrorism. Global standards on counter-terrorism 13. Mr. Biggar (Expert, Counter-Terrorism Committee) said that resolution 1373 (2001) represented the Security Council’s principal response to the attacks of 11 September 2001. In adopting it, the Security Council had exercised its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Security Council resolutions were the highest norms in the international legal system, and as such imposed binding legal obligations on the Member States of the United Nations. 14. The approach of the Security Council in resolution 1373 (2001) was pragmatic: it recognized that the fight against terrorism would be protracted and had initiated a process to equip the international community to confront that phenomenon effectively and proactively. There were six key areas in which countermeasures should be taken against terrorism: legislation, financial law and practice, customs law and practice, extradition law and practice, police and law-enforcement work and illegal armstrafficking. Although the resolution had established clear objectives, it had said relatively little about how those objectives should be achieved, a situation the Security Council had recognized when it established the Committee to monitor implementation. 15. As the first step in implementing resolution 1373 (2001), the Security Council had required Member States to make an initial assessment of their counter-terrorism capacity. National assessments were reviewed by the Committee with the assistance of independent experts recruited from outside the Organisation. If it made sense for the Committee to draw on the skills of individuals with specialized knowledge, it made all the more sense for the Committee to draw on the many years of knowledge and

386

16.

17.

18.

19.

APPENDIX C

experience of international, regional and subregional organisations, which not only set standards but were in a unique position to evaluate their members’ performance in meeting those standards. Banking, finance, trade, transport and travel had expanded tremendously and had acquired a global reach. While those changes had been beneficial, they had left the world vulnerable to terrorist threats. To prevent further outrages, it was essential to turn to specialist international bodies with highly focused mandates and near-universal membership. Over the years, such organisations had established standards and recommendations for safety and security in their fields, and since the attacks of 11 September 2001 they had accelerated their efforts. Organisations such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the international financial institutions had contributed to the 12 existing international conventions relating to terrorism. In the absence of an agreed definition of international terrorism, those conventions would play a key role in developing a multilateral, treaty-based system of law to combat that phenomenon. The Security Council, in resolution 1373 (2001), had recognized the importance of ratifying those Conventions, but ratification meant little unless it was backed up by implementation in domestic law. Full ratification had been achieved by 25 per cent of States, another 25 per cent of States had made some progress in that direction, and the remaining 50 per cent had done little. There was clearly room for improvement. International cooperation and recourse to existing global standards was the best way to implement resolution 1373 (2001). Counter-terrorist measures should be consistent with the rule of law. National systems of justice played a key role in giving effect to the “extradite or prosecute” principle. Suspected terrorists must be brought before properly established and impartial courts and receive fair trials. While no one could guarantee the elimination of international terrorism, the aim of the Security Council in resolution 1373 (2001) was to make the lives and operations of terrorists as difficult as possible. Counter-terrorism efforts would only prevail if they succeeded in destroying the financial, legal and other environments in which terrorists thrived. The Chairman agreed that the rule of law must be upheld. The Committee should pursue its activities without undue damage to civil liberties. The meeting would return to that issue during the course of the day. Mr. Johnston (International Monetary Fund) said that prior to the attacks of 11 September 2001 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had not focused on the financing of terrorism. However, those attacks and the adoption of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) had propelled the

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

387

issues of countering the financing of terrorism and the related issue of combating money-laundering to the top of the IMF agenda. In November 2001, the International Monetary and Finance Committee of IMF had endorsed an action plan to intensify its efforts in those fields. Under that plan, it had adopted the 40 recommendations on moneylaundering and the eight special recommendations on terrorist financing of the Financial Action Task Force on money-laundering (FATF) for use as key standards, had developed a common methodology with FATF to assess compliance with those standards and had stepped up technical assistance to promote compliance. 20. The Committee had asked about experience in developing standards. IMF had intensified its activities in that regard in response to the financial crises of the 1990s, resulting in the adoption of 12 standards, developed either by IMF and World Bank staff or by outside standard-setting bodies, to support surveillance of the international financial system. Since broad consensus was essential, IMF had discussed the standards extensively within its own Executive Board and with other interested bodies and organisations. 21. In promoting international standards among its members, IMF worked through four main channels: the annual article IV consultations with members, periodic financial sector assessments (FSAPs), assessments of offshore financial centres and technical assistance. A new feature of IMF efforts to combat money-laundering and the financing of terrorism was its recognition of assessments made by FATF and regional FATF bodies that used the agreed methodology in their work. The aim was to prevent duplication of effort, make efficient use of scarce expertise on moneylaundering and the financing of terrorism and promote a global standard in dealing with those matters. 22. With regard to the problems which States faced in complying with standards, preliminary assessment of members’ compliance with the standards for combating money-laundering and the financing of terrorism had found that key weaknesses remained in non-industrialized countries, where the authorities, although they often set compliance with the FATF recommendations as a priority, were hindered by lack of skills and budgetary resources. The second finding was that some jurisdictions had focused on rule-making to the detriment of implementation, leaving the criminal justice and supervisory systems to combat money-laundering and the financing of terrorism underdeveloped. The third was that many States lacked the capacity to keep pace with changes in the international legal framework, leaving their implementation incomplete. The fourth finding was that many States needed to strengthen cooperation both domestically and internationally. IMF and the World Bank could help on

388

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

APPENDIX C

technical issues, but often a lack of political commitment was a more fundamental constraint on progress. The Committee had asked about actions taken by organisations to ensure member compliance with standards. IMF had had experience in assessing compliance with both legally binding and voluntary standards. The IMF Articles of Association imposed certain legal obligations on members, but the anti-money-laundering and combating financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) assessments, for example, were voluntary. In both situations IMF relied on a cooperative approach supported by technical assistance. Assessments were treated as a diagnostic tool as a basis for an action plan to address identified weaknesses. Members were encouraged to publish the results of assessments, using a standard IMF format, and the general expectation that the assessment would be published encouraged action by members. In terms of further work on the development of standards, IMF was continuing to collaborate with FATF on the revision of the recommendations on money-laundering and terrorist financing. The Committee had asked for suggestions on how it could help in the development, promotion and monitoring of international standards. IMF was able to share its assessments, with the consent of its members, and would find it useful if the Committee could reciprocate. It would be helpful if the Committee could endorse the international approach adopted by IMF, the World Bank and FATF to apply a common methodology in conducting assessments, and it would be useful to coordinate the coverage and format of questionnaires sent out by different organisations to avoid “assessment fatigue”. IMF saw great value in maintaining contact with the Committee through informal consultations on the operational level. Mr. Crayston (International Civil Aviation Organisation) said that his organisation’s activities related to counter-terrorism formed part of a wider programme of prevention of and response to acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation mandated by the high-level ministerial conference of February 2002 and the resulting aviation security plan of action adopted by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in June 2002. ICAO had had a great deal of experience in setting international standards. Since a plane leaving New York, for example, could be operating almost anywhere in the world the next day, it was essential for aircraft operations to be governed by harmonized international standards. ICAO standards and recommended practices, most of them safety-related, were contained in the 18 appendices to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The standards were developed by an expert group from different States, with industry involvement, then were sent to States for comment

RESOLUTION

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

389

and subsequently adopted by the ICAO Council. Those of greatest relevance to counter-terrorism were contained in appendix 17 on security. ICAO promoted its standards by developing guidance material and operating some 50 training courses a year. It conducted aviation security audits, shared its findings with the States concerned and provided assistance to rectify deficiencies. The main problems encountered stemmed from a lack of national aviation security programmes or of national legislation giving legal force to the programmes, or from inadequate coordination between relevant authorities. ICAO had a particular problem in that the agencies with which it worked directly, usually the civil aviation authorities or the ministry of transport, were often outranked by the agencies charged with implementation of security measures, such as the police or military. Some States felt that the problem was chiefly financial, but until national legislation, programmes and oversight mechanisms were in place aviation security was unlikely to be fully effective. All ICAO standards were binding, unless a State filed what was termed a “difference” with ICAO, which would then inform all other States that a certain standard was not followed in the particular State. States that did not file differences were presumed to be following ICAO standards, although admittedly it was not possible to be certain to what extent they were complying. To address that problem, ICAO had begun undertaking audits to determine the status of implementation of certain of the safety-related appendices. Two States had been audited for implementation of appendix 17, and another 20 such audits were expected to be completed by the end of 2003, another 40 in 2004 and 40 in each succeeding year. States not meeting the standards would be required to develop action plans to remedy deficiencies. ICAO standards were continuously under review. For instance, the events of 11 September 2001, when aircraft had been used as weapons for the first time, had prompted changes to appendix 17. The aviation security panel would soon be considering the issue of the use of surface-toair missiles against aircraft. Under appendix 9 on facilitation, standards were being strengthened on machine-readable travel documents and advance passenger information systems. The Committee might be able to assist ICAO to increase implementation of its standards by delivering a message to States emphasizing the need to comply with ICAO security-related standards and by helping States to obtain funds to remedy deficiencies revealed by ICAO aviation security audits. For its part, ICAO was ready to share its standard-setting experience with the Committee and with participating international, regional and subregional organisations.

390

APPENDIX C

33. The Chairman reminded the participants that the Committee was not set up to be a direct provider of assistance or funding but rather a provider of ideas and contacts on how Member States might solve their problems and a catalyst to bring others together. 34. Mr. Mitropoulos (International Maritime Organisation) said that he was pleased to report that in December 2002 the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security held at the organisation’s headquarters in London had adopted new standards for incorporation into the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the most important of the many International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conventions relating to security, along with a new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, both to enter into force on 1 July 2004. According to modest estimates, the standards would apply to some 50,000 ships and 10,000 ports in international trade. Of course, the standards would enhance maritime security only when implemented. IMO was actively assisting member Governments in preparing for implementation of the new measures and reminding them of the consequences if ships flying their flag were found not to be in compliance. 35. IMO devoted significant resources to technical cooperation activities to encourage wider acceptance and implementation of agreed standards. For example, following the events of 11 September 2001, it had allocated substantial funds for regional seminars and workshops on prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism against ships and ports. Problems in meeting standards were sometimes due to a lack of economic or political interest in the regulated areas but more often to a lack of technical and administrative expertise and financial resources. The IMO integrated technical cooperation programme conducted in conjunction with the World Maritime University, the International Maritime Law Institute and the International Maritime Academy had borne fruit in terms of greater implementation. IMO was engaged in a technical cooperation project for capacity-building in developing countries to strengthen their maritime security infrastructure and systems, and the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Security had called for the establishment of a maritime security trust fund to provide a dedicated source of financial support for national initiatives in that regard. 36. While IMO itself could not sanction non-compliance, most of the conventions allowed the parties to take action, such as delaying the departure of sub-standard ships until compliance was achieved. IMO also issued non-binding recommendations and guidelines. Further work on standards was needed in the development of guidance for consistent and uniform implementation of agreed standards by national authorities. 37. The Committee could help by impressing upon Member States the need to implement IMO security measures in order to safeguard both their

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

391

security and trade facilitation interests and by sensitizing potential donor countries to the need to assist developing countries in the implementation of the new requirements and the procurement of physical security equipment. IMO would continue to coordinate its activities with other United Nations programmes and agencies through the Chief Executives Board and to cooperate with the Committee on common goals. 38. Mr. Lempiainen (World Customs Organisation) said that his organisation had over 50 years of experience in promoting cooperation and developing standards in the areas of customs control and facilitation, and more recently in the areas of security and computerization, and several of its instruments were relevant to the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). The conventions and other instruments of the World Customs Organisation (WCO) were developed in collaboration with IMO and other international organisations, including many of those present, and also with international business. For example, the resolution on security and facilitation of the international trade supply chain, which was adopted in June 2002 in response to the increased threat of terrorism, set tasks requiring the collaboration of the entire global customs community, such as determining a standardized set of data elements necessary to identify high-risk goods and establishing the legal basis and procedures for advance electronic transmission of customs data. 39. WCO promoted its standards through brochures, global symposiums and regional and national events and devoted considerable effort to training and technical assistance. One of the immediate challenges it faced was to strike a balance between facilitation and security. Many of its members were developing countries, and there was an ongoing debate within the organisation about the importance of physical versus economic security. The longer-term challenges were capacity-building and reform of customs administration and infrastructure. Not all WCO instruments were legally binding; conventions were binding between parties, but WCO recommendations and resolutions were not legally binding on members. However, the political and economic pressure to comply was strong. 40. Work was well advanced on developing instruments on mutual assistance between customs administrations, a framework model for electronic customs communications and risk management guidelines. In the area of security, more work was needed in the short term on an operational model to address the questions of who should share what information with whom along the entire trade supply chain and how and when, which were issues with important economic and political implications. In general, however, the organisation was assigning higher priority to implementation and capacity-building than to development of standards.

392

APPENDIX C

41. It would be helpful to the World Customs Organisation if the Committee could encourage the adoption of WCO instruments relevant to implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). The Committee could play a valuable role in maintaining the dialogue on capacity-building and serve as a permanent reporting arrangement. 42. Mr. Prendergast (Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs) said that the Secretary-General, responding to the perceived need, following the events of 11 September 2001, for a broad and sustained strategy to combat terrorism, had created the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism, combining the expertise available within key agencies, programmes and departments with the input of independent specialists. The Policy Working Group had decided to focus its work on three key areas: dissuasion, denial and cooperation. 43. First, it had considered ways to dissuade would-be-perpetrators of terrorist acts through effective norm-setting and the implementation of pertinent international legal instruments, an active public information campaign and the promotion of international consensus in support of the fight against terrorism. The United Nations system was promoting the ratification and entry into force of conventions related to counter-terrorism, particularly through the provision of legal and technical advice. The Office of the Secretary-General, the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Public Information were working to ensure that the United Nations was projecting a principled message on the unacceptability of terrorism while stressing the need to address the threat through international cooperation, to ensure respect for human rights in counterterrorism efforts and to find political solutions to disputes and conflicts. 44. The Policy Working Group had proposed ways to deny terrorists opportunities to commit acts of terrorism, namely, by supporting the monitoring efforts of the Committee; by strengthening global norms against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; by providing technical and expert support to States seeking to curb the flow of arms, funds and technology to terrorist cells; and by redoubling efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts that could become breeding grounds for terrorism. 45. On the score of cooperation, it had considered ways to encourage subregional, regional and global organisations to join forces in a common campaign. It was clear that a threat as complex as international terrorism demanded sustained joint efforts. The Secretary-General would be including the theme on the agenda of his upcoming summer meeting with the heads of regional organisations. 46. The Chairman said that those involved in counter-terrorism efforts should be aware that they were promoting an activity that could potentially

RESOLUTION

47.

48.

49.

50.

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

393

come into conflict with other standards, such as human rights, that were equally binding on Member States. It would be useful to hear later from some of the legal organisations present in that regard. Mr. Schmoll (Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering), describing his organisation’s experience in producing international standards, primarily the 40 recommendations on money-laundering published in 1990 and currently under review and the eight special recommendations on terrorist financing formulated after 11 September 2001, said that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) used political engagement to encourage countries to adopt such recommendations and evaluated the extent of implementation among FATF members. FATF encouraged non-members to adopt recommendations through FATF-style regional bodies and also worked with individual countries that found it difficult to bring their practices into line with international standards. One challenge faced by FATF was how to publicize its standards, although some success had been achieved through regional groups, consistent attendance at relevant meetings and use of the Internet. The other main problem was to ensure sound interpretation of the FATF standards. Two interpretative notes and a best-practices paper had therefore been produced on the eight special recommendations. Interpretation of recommendations clearly required further attention, and additional interpretation guidelines would be presented at a forthcoming FATF meeting. He hoped that the Counter-Terrorism Committee could work even more closely with FATF and regional bodies so that the resulting exchange of information and experience could be used to shape their respective standards. Mr. Laborde (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) said that ratification of the international conventions on terrorism was not sufficient; the main criminalization provisions needed to be embodied in Member States’ penal codes. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) had produced a legislative guide to the universal anti-terrorism conventions and protocols, soon to appear in a revised version. UNODC had also updated its manual on United Nations model treaties on extradition and on mutual assistance in criminal matters, and had produced legislative guides on implementing the international instruments on combating drugs and transnational organized crime, which served as a useful complement to counter-terrorism instruments. Ms. Nilsson (International Atomic Energy Agency) said that, after 45 years’ experience with nuclear safety standards, her organisation had broadened its mission to include nuclear security, with the goal of preventing nuclear or radioactive material from being used in weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had

394

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

APPENDIX C

found that establishing and developing security standards was more challenging than working with safety standards, partly as a result of the need to work with law-enforcement and customs agencies in addition to nuclear authorities. In areas that touched on national security, it was vital for an international organisation to find the right role for itself and the right ways of approaching cooperation with member States and other organisations. It was also important to ensure the confidentiality of shared sensitive information. Standards were useless unless applied, especially in developing countries. The IAEA Director General and Board of Governors had approved a plan of action to provide member States with legislative assistance and training. The programme would be financed through member States’ voluntary contributions to the Nuclear Security Fund. IAEA would continue to work with the Counter-Terrorism Committee and other organisations to implement its programme of action in a way that avoided duplication and made best use of available resources. Mr. Sourvanos (Council of the European Union) said that the Council’s Committee on Terrorism regularly reviewed the 12 international conventions on terrorism and advised Member States on how to use executive machinery for the suppression of terrorism. The Committee focused on strengthening capacity in the areas of police, intelligence, customs, border controls and weapons access and on providing bilateral assistance (including to non-European Union countries). Mr. Trapp (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) said that his organisation was concerned with national implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, which was soon to be reviewed at a conference of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He echoed the calls for increased cooperation and reduction of duplication, especially important for small countries with few resources. Mr. Florent (France) explained that the Counter-Terrorism Committee was at the stage of checking whether Member States had introduced legislation to enforce resolution 1373 (2001), and whether such legislation was being implemented with the requisite human and technical resources. With reference to what the FATF and ICAO representatives had said about verifying Member States’ compliance with their standards, he wondered whether the Committee could have access to the results of such assessments. The Chairman said that a balance had to be struck between confidentiality and the transparent promotion of global standards.

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

395

The meeting was suspended at 11.20 am. and resumed at 11.45 a.m. 56. Ms. Kohonen (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) said that the three areas in which human rights concerns intersected with terrorism were human rights violations as a result of terrorism, human rights violations as a cause of terrorism and respect for the human rights framework in the fight against terrorism. In the latter area the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had a particular responsibility and could add value to the counter-terrorism debate. OHCHR applied the framework provided by the almost universally ratified human rights instruments and standards to both terrorist acts and counter-terrorist efforts. Compliance with the relevant conventions was assessed by treaty-monitoring bodies, and cases of human rights violations, such as prolonged incommunicado detention, restrictions on the media or on freedom of speech and extensions of the powers of law-enforcement officials, were investigated by special rapporteurs. The Human Rights Committee had adopted General Comment No. 29 (CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/ Add.ll), which defined the parameters of a state of emergency and advised Governments on the powers and limitations that applied in such cases. 57. OHCHR had briefed the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and had prepared a further guidance note on compliance with international human rights standards to assist Member States in their implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). That note was available on the Committee’s web site, and Member States should refer to it when reporting to the Committee. OHCHR could also provide technical assistance to Member States either at their request or upon referral by the Counter-Terrorism Committee. Assistance would include providing technical advice on revising legislation on states of emergency and training of law-enforcement or legal officials. 58. She was pleased to note such productive examples of cooperation as the Assistance Expert’s intention to address the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, and the Human Rights Committee’s plan to brief the CounterTerrorism Committee on how General Comment No. 29 applied to the latter’s work. 59. The Chairman stated that, while the Counter-Terrorism Committee was careful not to ask Member States to do anything that would violate human rights in their implementation of resolution 1373 (2001), it was not the Committee’s task to monitor compliance with human rights obligations. There was a clear understanding between the Committee and the human rights bodies about their respective roles, and he hoped they could continue to work closely together. 60. Mr. Everts (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) said that his organisation felt that regional organisations should play a supportive

396

61.

62.

63.

64.

APPENDIX C

role, and interpreted that to mean that it should encourage its 55 participating States to comply with international standards. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) therefore attempted to create political commitment and devise ways of assisting States in the adoption and implementation of standards. An OSCE Ministerial Council had recently adopted a Charter on Preventing and Combating Terrorism. OSCE had achieved considerable success in its support role, since 40 per cent of its participating States were parties to all 12 international conventions on terrorism and 90 per cent had made some form of pledge to engage in international commitments. In addition to international standards, OSCE concerned itself with regional standards and codes of conduct on the political and military aspects of security. OSCE was also working on a recommendation on the production of and trafficking in small arms and light weapons. Such standards, once accepted, were regularly reviewed in terms of practical implementation by the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna or the Forum for Security Cooperation, which had recently been tasked with the review of counter-terrorism issues. The first OSCE annual security review conference would be held during 2003 to assess what had been achieved and what remained to be done. Mr. de Vel (Council of Europe) underlined the irreversible commitment of the Council of Europe to the rule of law and the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms while engaging in the fight against terrorism, based on its 50 years of experience in protecting human rights while combating international crime. Its Committee of Ministers had adopted guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism, specifying the limits imposed by international human rights instruments and the European Court of Human Rights. The programme of action to combat terrorism had three elements: strengthening the legal framework against terrorism, safeguarding fundamental values, and attacking the root causes of terror. To strengthen the legal framework, the Council had called on its members to ratify all international and European conventions on terrorism, which had shown results, including the withdrawal of reservations to conventions by some Governments and the strengthening of extradition and mutual assistance treaties. Its efforts to safeguard fundamental values had resulted in the adoption of the guidelines on human rights and terrorism. A draft protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism limited the political exception to extradition and provided for a follow-up mechanism. Another instrument on the protection of witnesses was also under preparation. Combating the financing of terrorism was also a priority, and the Council’s monetary committee was looking at the question of money-laundering in

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

397

cooperation with the Financial Action Task Force. It provided assistance to States mainly in the area of drafting anti-terror legislation that also upheld fundamental human rights. It had recently held a tripartite meeting with the European Union and the United Nations in that area as well, and its work was open to observer countries. Role of regional and subregional organisations in strengthening global counter-terrorism capacity 65. Ms. Brizuela de Avila (Organisation of American States), speaking in her capacity as Chair of the Inter-American Committee on CounterTerrorism (CICTE), said that regional organisations like the Organisation of American States (OAS) had a strategic role to play in the implementation of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Her Committee was made up of representatives of all States members of OAS and was responsible for policy coordination among members in fighting terrorism and for setting up the plan of work in that area. The Committee coordinated its efforts with other OAS committees on financing of terrorism, drug trafficking and illicit arms trade, as well as the Human Rights Committee. 66. With regard to the role the Committee had played in encouraging OAS member States to meet international and regional standards, it had given impetus to the adoption of the Declaration of San Salvador on combating terrorism and to the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, which established a common legal foundation on which member States could base national legislation with unified criteria and procedures. It had also developed model laws and self-evaluation guides based on international standards to help disseminate information on available resources. 67. As she saw it, the role of subregional and regional organisations in promoting practical cooperation was to provide a forum for an exchange of information on best practices; identify opportunities for training and build a network of counter-terrorism experts; develop a communications network; provide training for border, customs and immigration officials; and promote technological support for common standards. One of the lessons learned thus far was that national contact points must be identified and understandings reached on their responsibilities, both within Governments and among the regional groups. A habit of regular communication must be developed within the counter-terrorism community. The advantage of discussing terrorism at the regional level was that a sense of common ground was created which facilitated the exchange of information at political and technical levels. 68. As for structures needed in regional and subregional organisations to promote an effective and practical discussion of counter-terrorism issues, in

398

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

APPENDIX C

the experience of CICTE the establishment of its own secretariat with OAS had been crucial in allowing it to establish points of contact in member States for the exchange of information on best practices and maintain a database of available resources, national authorities, procedural manuals and directories of national legislation. The political bodies of a regional organisation should be kept informed of the work of such a secretariat. The current meeting was an excellent example of the ways in which the Counter-Terrorism Committee could support the activities of regional and subregional organisations. Its role as a forum for exchange of information and experience would certainly enhance future cooperation. It could take advantage of communications technology to provide secure exchanges of information. The Committee could also develop a reporting method that would extract vital information and facilitate analysis and comparison. OAS had made an integrated response to terrorism at the political, legal and technical levels, the latter represented by CICTE and its secretariat. It stood ready to work with other regional organisations in that fight. The Chairman said that OAS was in advance of many regional organisations in its response to the requirements of the Committee, and he was certain that it would be willing to share experiences and best practices. Mr. Ward (Assistance Expert, Counter-Terrorism Committee) said that all States should have a strong interest in seeing that their neighbours had in place a platform for combating terrorism and in preventing their territories from being used, directly or indirectly, in support of terrorism. States in all regions were recognizing that no country was safe from terrorism if its neighbour was not. The impact of an act of terrorism could be just as great on a neighbouring State as on the target State. It followed, therefore that each State in a region or subregion had a vested interest in seeing that compliance with Security Council resolutions was achieved across the region. There might be wide variations in the capacity of States within a region to implement the resolution, and thus regional and subregional organisations had an important role to play to ensure that no gaps were left within their territory. Some regional organisations had developed and were implementing action plans aimed at promoting full implementation of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) in their respective regions, while others were falling behind. Those regional organisations should take appropriate action to ensure that each State had the requisite legislative framework against terrorism and the means to implement it. Any organisation lacking the capacity to assume that role was obliged to seek assistance to enhance its capability to fulfil that responsibility. Regional and subregional organisations provided an important forum for members to discuss and initiate action and could play a significant role in

RESOLUTION

75.

76.

77.

78.

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

399

achieving greater coherence in regional capacity-building, higher standards of implementation by setting minimum acceptable standards, training for relevant actors and exchange of expertise for greater uniformity, better coordination among neighbouring States and greater communication and exchange of information. They could also help to tailor assistance to the needs of their members and facilitate assistance among States within the region. Each organisation could provide a forum for sharing of best practices. States in some regions had been working together in practical ways to improve regional capacity against terrorism. Some had established a technical body to carry out that important task, and those which had not done so should give it consideration. Such a technical body could be tasked with implementing decisions related to suppression of terrorism taken at the political level and following up with member States on their implementation, coordinating regional initiatives, keeping members informed of their obligations and the relevant international and regional standards and developing points of contact within each region with the Counter-Terrorism Committee. The current meeting provided an opportunity to share experience in those areas. The Ministerial Declaration in the appendix to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) called on regional and subregional organisations to work with the Committee and other international organisations to facilitate sharing of best practice against terrorism and to assist their members in fulfilling their obligation to combat terrorism. It was important to broaden the contacts between the Committee and regional organisations, and for those organisations to play an active coordination role in facilitating cooperation between States on counter-terrorism matters in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions. More and more organisations were looking at what they had to offer in countering terrorism and informing the Committee of their willingness to help. That they were building their capacity to counter terrorism in all its forms was a new process of engagement by those organisations and a reflection of their seriousness and determination. The Chairman said that all countries and regional organisations needed the will to act, the knowledge of how to act and the necessary machinery, leading up to action itself. He hoped that regional organisations would hold their own follow-up meeting on those issues. Ms. Mahlangu (Inter-Parliamentary Union) said that the Union’s action in combating terrorism was based on its firm belief that terrorism undermined democracy and human rights, the cornerstones of world peace and security. The Inter-Parliamentary Union had always condemned all forms and acts of terrorism and fully supported United Nations measures

400

APPENDIX C

to combat it, particularly Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Parliaments had a crucial role to play in combating terrorism. They established the legal framework for the implementation of counterterrorism measures at both the national and international levels. In that connection, the Inter-Parliamentary Union encouraged its members to ensure the ratification of the relevant international instruments, their incorporation into the body of national legislation and their effective implementation and to report regularly on their activities in that regard. 79. Through its technical cooperation programme, the Union helped parliaments to strengthen their law-making and oversight capacities and organized awareness programmes on the manifestations and consequences of terrorism, the importance of the relevant international instruments and ways and means of ensuring government compliance with their provisions. The Inter-Parliamentary Union addressed some of the root causes of terrorism by promoting a culture of democracy and human rights and was committed to ensuring more effective monitoring of parliamentary action to combat terrorism. 80. Mr. Abbas (League of Arab States) said that, as part of the follow-up to resolution 1373 (2001), the League had taken many steps to combat international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It was pursuing its efforts to strengthen cooperation in judicial and security matters among its member States as a party to the 1988 Convention of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism and, in that context, had held a number of symposiums on terrorism, moneylaundering and implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Since the Arab States participated actively in the initiatives of both the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the League to combat international terrorism, a panel of Arab experts had been established to consider resolution 1373 (2001) and submit recommendations on it. The secretariat of the League of Arab States was making every effort to strengthen coordination of its activities with those of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. 81. The League was cooperating with all other States in the pursuit, arrest, extradition and prosecution of terrorists in the spirit of the draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism. The draft convention should include a specific definition of terrorism and distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate rights of people to resist foreign occupation. While the League of Arab States condemned terrorism in all its forms, regardless of its religious, ethnic or national links, it believed that counterterrorism efforts must respect individual and collective freedoms in accordance with religious values, the principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and human rights

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

401

treaties. Lastly, he called for an end to the arbitrary and selective stigmatizing of Arab and Muslim citizens by the United States of America and Western countries, and for addressing the root causes of terrorism through dialogue among different cultures and civilizations. 82. Mr. Kebe (African Union) said that the Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism of the Organisation of African Unity had predated the events of 11 September 2001 by nearly two years. Immediately after the terrorist attack on the United States of America, the African Union had held a meeting in Dakar and another in Algiers with a view to “Africanizing” the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). By 6 December 2002, however, only 18 out of 53 countries had ratified the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, prompting the secretariat of the African Union to establish a structure to promote accession to and ratification of the instrument. There were also other difficulties that hindered its implementation, for instance, in convincing countries that, whether or not they were directly affected by the threat of terrorism, they could suffer its indirect consequences by being used as transit States or staging areas for terrorist actions, or in promoting counter-terrorism as a high priority in countries trying to cope with very basic development issues in all sectors, including health, education and employment. The most effective approach to enhancing counter-terrorism initiatives in Africa might be to incorporate them within the overall framework of development and to provide needed assistance to that end. 83. Mr. Milintachinda (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) said that, at its annual October meeting following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the 21 member economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) had issued a statement on fighting terrorism which included a commitment to support the global fight against terrorism and the implementation of Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001). That commitment had been further strengthened at the annual meeting held in October 2002 in Mexico following the terrorist bombing in Bali and incidents in other APEC economies. The 2002 statement on fighting terrorism and promoting growth contained, inter alia, a timetable for member economies to take action to secure the movement of goods and people, check financial flows to terrorist organisations and promote cybersecurity. Since that time, APEC, which included many of the world’s largest ports and busiest airports, had further strengthened its security measures, particularly through its Counter-Terrorism Action Plan designed to strengthen member economies’ capacity to protect cargo and passengers in international shipping and aviation, secure energy supplies and protect the health of their populations.

402

APPENDIX C

84. Referring to the question about structures, he said that APEC had established a counter-terrorism task force to coordinate the implementation of its October 2002 statement on fighting terrorism, assist member States to assess their counter-terrorism needs, support capacity-building and provide technical assistance, including through consultation with the international financial institutions. As its membership represented a broad range of cultures and economic levels, APEC had diverse strengths and potentialities for cooperation with international organisations. Currently, it cooperated with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the World Customs Organisation (WCO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Its action plan called for strengthened cooperation among its various counter-terrorism working groups and committees. 85. With regard to the question about how the Counter-Terrorism Committee could support regional efforts, he proposed establishing a link between the APEC and Counter-Terrorism Committee web sites, since the APEC web site contained substantial information on counter-terrorism measures and on simultaneously boosting security and trade. Two weeks earlier, a meeting co-hosted by APEC, the United States of America and Thailand had brought together representatives of government agencies and companies at the Secure Trade in the APEC Region Conference (STAR). The conference had stressed the need for new partnerships between government and business and, in general, greater coordination between public and private entities at both the national and international levels in the fight against terrorism. 86. Mr. Zugic (South-East European Cooperation Process) said that counterterrorism should be interpreted very broadly as encompassing such issues as organized crime, illicit trafficking and money-laundering, which threatened the security of societies. The Ministers of the Interior of the members of the South-East European Cooperation Process met regularly to debate very concrete issues, such as border control and judicial measures. He stressed the importance of avoiding duplication by establishing a very clear division of labour between the work of regional and subregional organisations. The South-East European Cooperation Process stood ready to share information and provide assistance to other organisations. 87. Mr. McNamara (United States of America), speaking as a member of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, stressed the importance of earlier remarks by the representative of France concerning the need to avoid duplication. He also welcomed the Chairman’s outline of parameters for cooperation by regional and subregional organisations with the CounterTerrorism Committee (will, knowledge, machinery and action). Indeed,

RESOLUTION

1373 CONCERNING COUNTER-TERRORISM

403

any information provided to the Committee by regional and subregional organisations would facilitate and sharpen its capacity to evaluate their implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). The Committee would greatly appreciate copies of action plans, as well as information on how they were being implemented, the kind of assistance regional and subregional organisations could offer and the extent to which they felt they had the potential to implement counter-terrorism measures or were implementing them in practice, along the lines of the OAS Matrix and initiatives being taken by other organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). A description of counter-terrorism mechanisms, including their structure, mandate and budgetary allocations, and a progress report on their work, would also be extremely helpful. 88. The Chairman noted that, under the role of regional organisations, the checklist also stressed the sharing of information. Regional and subregional organisations should exchange information packets and models for launching counter-terrorism mechanisms and keep the CounterTerrorism Committee regularly informed of their timetables for implementing counter-terrorism measures and the results achieved. The meeting was suspended at 1.10 p.m.

EXTENDED CONTENTS

Foreword vii Comments and Acknowledgements by Lydia B. Zanotti (Mrs. Isidoro Zanotti) xvii Introduction xix About the Author xxi Chapter One Multilateral Treaties and Conventions on Extradition Among American Countries 1. First Multilateral Treaty in History Dealing Specifically and Exclusively with Extradition in a Broad Context. Treaty on Extradition Signed in Lima, Peru, 1879 2. American Congress of Jurists, Lima, Peru, 1877–1880, Treaty on Extradition a. Proposal for the Convocation of the Congress of Jurists, 1874–1875 b. Note to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Countries, 1875 c. American Congress of Jurists, Lima, 1877–1880 d. Treaty on Extradition, Lima, Peru, March 27, 1879 e. Information on the Deliberations of the Congress of Jurists 3. Treaties on Other Matters, Containing Provisions on Extradition, 1848, 1856 4. Regional Treaties and Conventions 5. Treaties and Conventions on Extradition Adopted by the Inter-American System 6. Inter-American Conventions on Other Matters, Containing Provisions on Extradition 7. Inter-American Conventions on Asylum 8. Other Inter-American Instruments

10 10 11

Chapter Two Steps Taken and Work Accomplished by Organs of the Organization of American States in the Field of Extradition – 1954 to 1981 1. Resolution CVII of the Tenth Inter-American Conference

13 13

1

1 1 2 4 4 5 5 7 7 8

406

EXTENDED CONTENTS

2. Work of the Inter-American Juridical Committee and of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. First Four Draft Conventions on Extradition a. First Draft Convention on Extradition, 1954 b. Second Draft Convention, 1956 c. Third Draft Convention, 1957 d. Fourth Draft Convention, 1959 e. Drafts on Asylum 3. New Structure of the OAS; 1967–1970. Special Reports of the Inter-American Juridical Committee and Action by the OAS General Assembly, 1971 4. Action by the OAS General Assembly, 1972 5. Fifth Draft Convention on Extradition, 1973. Study of this Draft by the OAS Permanent-Council, 1973–1974 6. The Sixth and Final Draft Convention on Extradition, 1977 7. Convocation of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, 1977 8. Study by the Permanent Council of the CJI 1977 Draft Convention and Statement of Reasons Prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee 9. Decisions of the Permanent Council on the Rules of Procedure, place and date of the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX) 10. Technical Studies and Documents Prepared for CEDEX by the OAS General Secretariat 11. The Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, Caracas, February 16–25, 1981, and the Results of Its Deliberations Chapter Three Multilateral Conventions whose Purposes are to Prevent or Repress Specific Categories of Offenses, Containing Provisions on Extradition 1. Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948 2. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, approved by the United Nations on March 30, 1961. Protocol of 1972 3. Convention on Offenses and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft; Signed at Tokyo on

14 14 14 15 16 17

19 20 20 23 25

26

27 28

29

33

33 33

EXTENDED CONTENTS

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

September 14, 1963, under the Auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Signed at The Hague, December 16, 1970, under the Auspices of ICAO Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971, under the Auspices of the ICAO Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that Are of International Significance, Signed in Washington, D.C., February 2, 1971, at the Third Special Session of the OAS General Assembly Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, December 4, 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 30, 1973 Convention on the Protection of the Archeological, Historical and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, Approved on June 16, 1976 by resolution AG/RES. 210 (VI-0/76 of the OAS General Assembly European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Adopted by the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, January 27, 1977 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 17, 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 1980

Chapter Four Comparative Analysis Introduction a. Multilateral treaties and Conventions on extradition quoted in the comparative analysis 1. Obligation to extradite 2. Jurisdiction 3. Extraditable offenses

407

34

35

35

37

37

38

38

39

41 43

45 45 45 48 50 52

408

EXTENDED CONTENTS

4. Grounds for denying extradition a. Political offenses b. Other grounds for denying extradition 5. Belgian clause 6. Military offenses 7. Fiscal offenses (taxes, duties, Customs, exchange) 8. Specific categories of offenses 9. Asylum and other humanitarian aspects a. Introduction b. Refusal of extradition for reasons of health, race, religion, or nationality c. Deferral of surrender for reasons of health, age or other humanitarian considerations d. Asylum, extradition and Human Rights e. Declarations on territorial asylum (Council of Europe and United Nations) 10. Extradition or nonextradition of nationals 11. Prosecution by the requested State 12. Transmission of request for extradition, supporting documents and legal assistance a. Transmission of request for extradition b. Supporting documents, Supplementary information and legal assistance 13. Rule of specialty 14. Request by more than one State 15. Provisional detention and precautionary measures 16. Non bis in idem 17. Expenses 18. Simplified extradition 19. Re-extradition 20. Other procedural rules 21. Final provisions

54 55 56 57 59 61 62 63 63 64 64 66 73 74 76 77 77 78 80 81 82 84 84 85 86 86 88

APPENDICES A. Texts and excerpts of Multilateral Treaties and Conventions on Extradition, Asylum and Other Instruments among American Countries 1879 Treaty on Extradition, signed at Lima on March 27, 1879 at the American Congress of Jurists

91 93

EXTENDED CONTENTS

1889 Treaty on International Penal Law, signed at Montevideo on January 23, 1889 at the First South American Congress on Private International Law 1911 Agreement of Extradition, signed at Caracas on July 18, 1911 at the Bolivarian Congress, Agreement to Interpreting the Agreement on Extradition of July 18, 1911 1923 Convention on Extradition, signed at Washington, D.C., on February 7, 1923 at the Conference on Central American Affairs 1928 Convention on Private International Law (Bustamante Code), signed at Havana on February 20, 1928 at the Sixth International Conference on American States (Book IV, Title III, Extradition, Articles 344–381) 1933 Convention on Extradition, signed at Montevideo on December 26, 1933 at the Seventh International Conference of American States 1933 Convention on Political Asylum, signed at Montevideo on December 26, 1933 at the Seventh International Conference of American States 1934 Central American Convention on Extradition, signed at Guatemala City on April 12, 1934 1939 Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge, signed at Montevideo on August 4, 1939 at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law 1940 Treaty on International Penal Law, signed at Montevideo on March 19, 1940 at the Second South American Congress on Private International Law (revision of the 1889 Treaty on International Penal Law) 1954 Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, signed at Caracas on March 28, 1954 at the Tenth Inter-American Conference 1954 Convention on Territorial Asylum, signed at Caracas on March 28, 1954 at the Tenth Inter-American Conference 1971 Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance, signed at Washington, D.C., on February 2, 1971, at the Third Special Session of the General Assembly of American States.

409

97

105

111

116

121

128 130

134

138

148

153

158

410

EXTENDED CONTENTS

1981 Inter-American Convention on Extradition, Signed at Caracas on February 25, 1981 at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition convoked by the Organization of American States. 1985 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, signed at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, on December 9, 1985 at the Fifteenth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. 1992 Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, adopted At Nassau, Bahamas, on May 23, 1992, at the Twenty Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. 1993 Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, adopted at Managua, Nicaragua on June 9, 1993. 1994 Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors, approved by the Fifth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP-V), held in Mexico City, March 14–19, 1994 convoked by the Organization of American States. 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, approved by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States at its Meeting in Belem, State of Para, Brasil, June 9, 1994. 1996 Inter-American Convention Against Corruption done at Caracas, on March 29, 1996. 1997 Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and trafficking Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other related material, adopted in Washington, D.C. on November 14, 1997. Other Inter-American Instruments: 1990 Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, approved at Asuncion on June 8, 1990, at the Twentieth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States 1994 – 2001 Summit of the Americas: Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, done at Miami, on December 11, 1994

162

174

180

188

201

206 210

216

231

233

EXTENDED CONTENTS

1995 Specialized Conference on Terrorism. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States held in Haiti in June of 1995 All the Inter-American terrorism related documents about terrorism. 1996 Plan of Action on Hemispheric Cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism. 1996 Declaration of Lima to prevent, combat, and eliminate terrorism. 1998 Commitment of Mar Del Plata, November 23–24, 1998 1999 Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) First Regular Session 2001 Terrorist Threat to Americas 2002 Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) Second Regular Session 2002 Address by OAS Secretary General, César Gaviria Trujillo, at the Inauguration of the Second Regular Session of the Inter-American Committee against terrorism 2002 Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism. B. Texts and excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the United Nations 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted on December 19, 1988 by a United Nations Conference held in Vienna, November 25 – December 20, 1988 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 4, 1989 1990 Model Treaty on Extradition – Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1990 1992 Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 18, 1992 1995 Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1994 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (New York, November 15, 2000)

411

238

240 243 246 251 254 256

267 271

283

285

288

291

303

306 313

2001 UN Security Council Resolution 1373, September 28, 2001 C. Texts and excerpts of Multilateral Conventions and Other Instruments on Extradition Adopted by the Council of Europe 1957 European Convention on Extradition, adopted by the Council of Europe at Paris, December 13, 1957 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, on April 20, 1959 1973 General Assembly 28th Session on November 30 and December 3, 1973 1975 Additional Protocol to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, on October 15, 1975 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, on January 27, 1977 1978 Second Additional Protocol to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, on March 17, 1978 1978 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, adopted by the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, on March 17, 1978 1982 Recommendation Concerning International Cooperation in the Prosecution and Punishment of Acts of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Europe on January 15, 1982 1982 Recommendation 950 (1982) on Extradition of Criminals, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on October 1, 1982 1983 European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, adopted by the Council of Europe on November 24, 1983 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the Council of Europe on November 26, 1987 1990 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime, adopted by the Council of Europe on November 8, 1990

317

321 323

334 338

343

345

349

352

354

357

359

363

368

1993 Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the Council of Europe on November 4, 1993 1994 Protocol No. 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the Council of Europe on November 4, 1993 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (New York, December 15, 1997) 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism (New York, December 9, 1999) 2001 Provisional Summary Record of the first part of the 57th meeting of the Security Council Committee on Counter-Terrorism (New York, March 6, 2003)

375

376 377 379

382

INDEX

Agreement on Extradition, 1911 Agreement interpreting, 110 Belgian clause, 58 extradition, exclusions from, 107 extraditable offenses, 105, 106 more than one State, request by, 81–2 request for, 107, 108 several nations demanding, 108 general provisions, 109 jurisdiction, 51 obligation to extradite, 49 provisional arrest of fugitive, 108 text of, 105–109 Aircraft Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure, 34, 35, 77 Convention on Offenses and Certain other Acts Committed on Board, 34 American Congress of Jurists agenda, 2, 3 civil law topics, 2 countries participating in, 4 deliberations of, 5–7 installation, 4, 5 law professors, representation by, 4 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, incitation to, 4 proposal for convocation of, 2–4 Treaty on Extradition, adoption of, 1 approval of, 5 Treaty to Establish Uniform Rules on Matters of Private International Law, approval of, 5 American Convention on Human Rights adoption of, 73 asylum provisions, 64, 73

Pact of San José, 11 Protocol to abolish the Death Penalty, 231, 232 American countries American Congress of Jurists. See American Congress of Jurists American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 11 asylum Conventions, 10, 11 Central American Convention on Extradition. See Central American Convention on Extradition, 1934 Continental Treaty signed by Chile, Peru and Ecuador, 7 Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological, Historic and Artistic Heritage of, 38, 39 Conventions including extradition provisions, 10 extradition Treaties and Conventions, 8, 9 Inter-American Juridical Committee. See Inter-American Juridical Committee multilateral extradition treaties Treaty on Extradition, 1879. See Treaty on Extradition, 1879 updating, 13 regional Treaties and Conventions, 7, 8 Treaty of Confederation among the Republics of Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Nueva Grenada, 7 Treaty on Extradition, 1879. See Treaty on Extradition, 1879 Ammunition definition, 218 manufacturing and trafficking, Convention. See Inter-American Convention against Illicit

416

INDEX

Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials Apartheid Convention on Suppression and Punishment of, 38 Asylum comparative analysis of treaties, health, age or other humanitarian considerations, deferral of surrender for, 64–66 health, race, religion or nationality, refusal of extradition on grounds of, 64 introduction, 63, 64 nationals, extradition or nonextradition of, 74, 75 Convention. See Convention on Political Asylum, 1933 diplomatic, Convention on. See Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954 Inter-American Conference, conventions adopted by, 13 Inter-American Convention on Extradition, right under, 165 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, provision of, 178 Inter-American Conventions, 10, 11 Inter-American Juridical Committee, drafts by, 17–19 Inter-American System, steps taken by, 67–73 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 74 persons accused of terrorism offenses, denial to, 276 territorial, Convention on. See Convention on Territorial Asylum, 1954 declarations on, 73, 74 Treaty on International Penal Law, 1889, provisions of, 99

Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge. See Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge, 1939 Bilateral extradition treaties early, 1 punishable acts, catalogue of, 6 Central American Convention on Extradition, 1934 extradition, conditions for, 131–133 exclusions from, 130, 131 request for, 131, 132 obligation to extradite, 49 text of, 130–133 Central American Convention, 1923 nationals, extradition or nonextradition of, 75 Civil aviation Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against, 35, 36 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances extraditable offenses, 286, 287 text of, 285–287 Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, 1954 adoption of, 13, 70 draft, 18 extradition rule, 71 Protocol, 72 reservations, 151, 152 resolutions, 18 text of, 148–151 Convention on Extradition, 1923 extradition, conditions for, 112 exclusions from, 112 request for, 113 text of, 111–115 Convention on Extradition, 1933 Belgian clause, 59 expenses, 85 extraditable offenses, 54

INDEX

extradition, exclusions from, 121, 122 request for, 122, 123 undertakings, 124 grounds for denying extradition, 55, 57 jurisdiction, 51 military offenses, 59 obligation to extradite, 49 political offenses, 55 requested State, prosecution by, 76 reservations, 125–127 supporting documents, supplementary information and legal assistance, 79 text of, 121–125 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime, 1990 confiscation, 369, 372, 373 international cooperation, 371–373 investigative and provisional measures, 369, 371, 372 investigative assistance, 371, 372 laundering offences, 370 legal remedies, 370 national level, measures to be taken at, 369–371 provisional measures, 372 special investigative powers and techniques, 369 text of, 368–374 use of terms, 368, 369 Convention on Political Asylum, 1933 text of, 128, 129 Convention on Private International law (Bustamente Code) Belgian clause, 58 expenses, 84, 85 extraditable offenses, 53 extradition provisions, 117–120 grounds for denying extradition, 55–57 jurisdiction, 51 nationals, extradition or nonextradition of, 75

417

penal matters, general rules of competence in, 116 exceptions, 116 political offenses, 55 requested State, prosecution by, 76 supporting documents, supplementary information and legal assistance, 79 Convention on Territorial Asylum, 1954 adoption of, 13, 70 draft Protocol, 72 extradition rule, 71 reservations, 155–157 text of, 153–155 Corruption acts of, 212, 213 Inter-American Convention against. See Inter-American Convention against Corruption Council of Europe extradition of criminals, Recommendation, 357, 358 international cooperation in prosecution and punishment of terrorism, Recommendation, 354–356 money laundering Convention. See Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime territorial asylum, declarations on, 73 Crimes against humanity international cooperation, UN Resolution, 340, 341 Cultural history Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological, Historic and Artistic Heritage of the American Nations, 38, 39 Death penalty American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol, 231, 232 European Convention on Extradition, provisions of, 326 extraditable offenses subject to, 6–7

418

INDEX

European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, 1987 European Committee, establishment of, 364 meetings, 365 members, 364, 365 reports, 366 visits by, 365, 366 Protocol No. 1, 374 Protocol No. 2, 375 text of, 363–367 European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977 dispute settlement, 348 establishment of jurisdiction, 346 extraditable offences, 346 mutual assistance, 347 political offences, 345, 346 request for extradition, 347 text of, 345–348 European Convention on Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime, 1983 basic principles, 359–361 international cooperation, 361 text of, 359–362 European Convention on Extradition, 1957 Additional Protocol, 343, 344 adoption of, 1 amnesty, 350 asylum provisions, 64 Belgian clause, 59 bilateral agreements, relations with, 331, 332 capital punishment, offender liable to, 326 conflicting requests, 328 detention order, definition, 331 expenses, 85, 330 extraditable offences, 323, 324 final provisions, 332, 333 First Additional Protocol, 56

fiscal offences, 61, 62, 325, 349 grounds for denying extradition, 55, 56 judgments in absentia, 350 jurisdiction, 51 language of documents, 330 lapse of time, immunity by way of, 326 military offences, 59, 324 more than one State, request by, 82 national, extradition of, 75, 325 non bis in idem, 84, 326 obligation to extradite, 49, 323 offences, extraditable, 323, 324 fiscal, 61, 62, 325, 349 military, 59, 324 place of commission of, 325 political, 55, 56, 324 same, pending proceedings for, 325 political offenses, 55, 56, 324 procedure, 330 property, handing over, 329 provisional arrest, 327, 328 provisional detention and precautionary measures, 83 re-extradition, 86 request, 326, 351 supporting documents, supplementary information and legal assistance, 79, 80 transmission of, 77, 78 requested State, prosecution by, 76 rule of speciality, 81, 327 Second Additional Protocol, 349–351 Explanatory Report, 61, 62 supplementary information, 326 surrender of person to be extradited, 328 postponed or conditional, 329 territorial application, 331 text of, 323–333 third state, re-extradition in, 327 transit, 329, 330

419

INDEX

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1959 Additional Protocol, 352, 353 communication of information, 337 letters rogatory, 336 refusal of assistance, 335 requests, 337 text of, 334–337 witnesses and experts, 336 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977 complete and comprehensive nature of, 41 European Committee on Crime Problems of the Council of Europe, functions of, 40 extradition provisions, 39–41 Explosives definition, 218, 228 manufacturing and trafficking, Convention. See Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials Extraditable offenses Agreement on Extradition, 1911, 105, 106 apartheid, 38 civil aviation, against, 35, 36 comparative analysis of treaties, 52–54 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 286, 287 Convention on Extradition, 1933, 54 Convention on Private International law (Bustamente Code), 53 corruption, 213, 214 crimes against persons and related extortion, 37 death penalty, subject to, 6, 7 European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, under, 346

European Convention on Extradition, 323, 324 firearms, ammunition or explosives, relating to, 224 forced disappearance, 207 Inter-American Convention on Extradition, 1981, 52, 53, 163 International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use and Training of Mercenaries, 289 internationally protected persons, against, 37, 38 Model Treaty on Extradition, 293, 294 narcotic drugs, single Convention, 33 political, 6 punishable acts, catalogue of, 6 torture, 177, 178 Treaty on Extradition, 1879, 53 Treaty on International Penal Law, 1889, 53, 100 Treaty on International Penal Law, 1940, 54 Firearms definition, 218 manufacturing and trafficking, Convention. See Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials marking, 220 Forced disappearances definition, 206 extraditable offenses, 207 Inter-American Convention. See Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons mutual assistance, 209 UN Declaration on protection of persons from, 303–305 Genocide Convention, 33 definition, 33

420 Hostages International Convention Against the Taking of, 41, 42 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights first Statute, 72 provision for, 72, 73 Inter-American Convention against Corruption, 1996 acts of corruption, 212, 213 assistance and mutual cooperation, 214 bank secrecy, 215 definitions, 210, 211 domestic law, 213 extradition, 213, 214 nature of act, 215 preventive measures, 211, 212 property measures regarding, 214, 215 purposes of, 211 scope, 212 text of, 210–215 Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, 1997 confidentiality, 221 confiscation or forfeiture, 220 Consultative Committee, 225, 226 controlled delivery, 224 cooperation, 222 definitions, 217, 218 experience and training, exchange of, 222, 223 export, import, and transit licences or authorizations, 220, 221 export points, strengthening controls at, 221 extradition, 224 final clauses, 226–228 firearms, marking, 220 information, exchange of, 221, 222

INDEX

jurisdiction, 219 legislative measures, 219 mutual legal assistance, 223 preamble, 216, 217 purpose of, 218 ratification, etc, general information, 229, 230 recordkeeping, 221 reservations, 226 security measures, 220 sovereignty, 219 technical assistance, 223 text of, 216–228 Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, 2002 applicable international instruments, 272 asylum, denial of, 276 border controls, cooperation on, 274 consultation among parties, 278 domestic measures, 273 exercise of jurisdiction, 278 final provisions, 278, 279 human rights, 277 law enforcement agencies, cooperation among, 275 measures to prevent, combat and eradicate the financing of terrorism, 273 money laundering, predicate offences, 274 mutual legal assistance, 275 non-discrimination, 277 object and purposes, 271, 272 Organization of American States, cooperation through, 278 political offense exception, inapplicability, 276 preamble, 271 ratification, etc, general information, 280–282 refugee status, denial of, 276 seizure and confiscation of funds or other assets, 274 text of, 271–279

INDEX

training, 277 transfer of persons in custody, 275, 276 Inter-American Convention on Extradition, 1981 adoption of, 14, 31 arbitration rules, 41 asylum provisions, health, age or other humanitarian considerations, deferral of surrender for, 65, 66 health, race, religion or nationality, refusal of extradition on grounds of, 64 introduction, 63 right of asylum, 165 summary, 66–73 authentic texts, 31 Belgian clause, 57 custody of person sought, agents of requesting State, by, 170 period for taking, 169 decision, communication of, 86, 168 deferral of surrender, 87 excluded penalties, 165 expenses, 84, 170 extraditable offenses, 52, 53, 163 final provisions, 88, 89, 170–173 grounds for denying extradition, 54–56, 164 Guatemala, declaration by, 173 INTERPOL provision, consideration of, 83 jurisdiction, 50, 163 legal assistance, 166 legal rights and assistance, 86, 168 military offenses, 59 more than one State, request by, 81 nationality provisions, 165 nationals, extradition or nonextradition of, 74, 75 obligation to extradite, 48, 49, 162 other Conventions, relations with, 172 person sought, period for taking custody of, 87 surrender of, 86

421

political offenses, 55 preamble, 162 precautionary measures, 82, 83, 167 procedural rules, 86, 87 property, delivery of, 86, 168 provisional detention, 82, 83, 167 re-extradition, 86 request for extradition, more than one State, by, 168 same offense, not made twice for, 168 supplementary information, 166 supporting documents, supplementary information and legal assistance, 78, 79, 166 transmission, 77, 165 requested State, prosecution by, 165 reservation, 173 rule of speciality, 80, 167 simplified extradition, 85, 169 specific categories of offenses, 62, 63 specific offenses, 164 surrender of persons sought, 168 deferral, 169 territorial application, special cases of, 171 transit, 87, 170 waiver of legalization, 87, 170 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, 1994 accused, trial of, 208 extraditable offenses, 207 forced disappearance, meaning, 206 justifications, 208 limitation, prosecution not subject to, 208 mutual assistance, 209 offences, 207 text of, 206–209 Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors, 1994 central authority, 203 civil aspects, 204, 205 general provisions, 201–203

422

INDEX

penal aspects, 203, 204 purpose of, 201 scope and application, 202 text of, 201–205 Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1992 assistance, execution of request, 183 refusal of, 182 requests for, 182, 186, 187 scope of, 181 central authority, 181 double criminality, 181 final clauses, 184 general provisions, 180–182 information and records, transmittal of, 184 judicial decisions, judgments and verdicts, service of, 183 measures for securing assets, 183 military crimes, application to, 182 person subject to criminal proceedings, transfer of, 184, 185 procedure, 184 purpose of, 180 scope and application, 180 search, seizure, attachment and surrender of property, 183 testimony, 184 text of, 180–187 transit, 185 use of information as evidence, limitation on, 185 witnesses, appearance of, 183 Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, 1999 application in special cases, 192 central authority, 192, 196–198 conditions for application of, 189 declarations, 196–198 definitions, 188 final clauses, 192–194 general principles, 189 information, provision of, 189 optional protocol, 199, 200

provided information, 196–198 ratification, etc, general information, 195–200 relationship to other agreements, 192 reservations, 196, 197 review of sentence, 191 sentenced person, rights of, 191 text of, 188–194 transfer, procedure, 190 refusal of request, 191 transit, 192 Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 1985 asylum, right of, 178 impartial examination of allegations, 176 order of superior, acting under, 175 police and public officers, duties of, 176 text of, 174–179 torture, definition, 174, 175 extraditable crime, as, 177, 178 extradition of accused, 177 jurisdiction over, 177 justification, exclusion of, 175 persons guilty of, 175 prevention and punishment, measures for, 175 statements obtained by, 176 victims, compensation for, 176 Inter-American Council of Jurists asylum, drafts on, 17–19 draft Extradition Conventions, consideration of, 15, 16, 19 OAS, as organ of, 13 Inter-American Juridical Committee asylum, drafts on, 17–19 draft extradition conventions, preparation of, 13 asylum provisions, 63–73 Fifth, 20–23 final approval, 24 First, 14 Fourth, 16, 17, 19

INDEX

Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition, consideration by. See InterAmerican Specialized Conference on Extradition jurisdiction, 52 military offenses, 59–61 obligation to extradite, 50 Permanent Council, study by, 26, 27 Second, 14, 15 Sixth and final, 23–521 statement of reasons, 26, 27 Third, 15 political offenses, study on, 18 special reports, 19 Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition (CEDEX) convocation, 25, 26 documents of, 30 draft extradition conventions, proposals for amendment or additions to, 30, 31 governments represented, 29 Permanent Observers, 30 place and date, 28 report, 31 Rules of Procedure, 27, 30 technical and secretarial services, 30 technical studies and documents prepared for, 28, 29 International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use and Training of Mercenaries, 1989 excepts, 288–290 extraditable offenses, 289 mercenary, definition, 289 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, 1979 offenses, 41 right of asylum, 74 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, 1997 becoming party to, 378 entry into force, 377 key provisions, 377

423

objectives, 377 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 378 reservations, 378 withdrawal/denunciation, 378 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 becoming party to, 380 entry into force, 380 key provisions, 379 objectives, 379 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 380 reservations, 381 withdrawal/denunciation, 381 Internationally protected persons Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against, 37, 38, 58, 76, 77 Mercenaries definition, 289 International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use and Training of, 288–290 Minors international traffic in, InterAmerican Convention. See Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors Model Treaty on Extradition additional information, 298 certification and authentication of requests, 298 channels of communication, 296, 297 concurrent requests, 301 costs, 302 decision on request, 299 extraditable offences, 293, 294 final provisions, 302 obligation to extradite, 293 postponed or conditional surrender, 299 property, surrender of, 300

424

INDEX

provisional arrest, 298 refusal of extradition, grounds for, mandatory, 294, 295 optional, 295, 296 required documents, 296, 297 resolution, 291, 292 rule of speciality, 300, 301 simplified extradition procedure, 297 surrender of person sought, 299 transit, 301 Money laundering European Convention. See Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime offences, 370 predicate offences, 274 Multilateral extradition treaties American, 1 comparative analysis, asylum, 63–74 Belgian clause, 57–59 expenses, 84, 85 extraditable offenses, 52–54 fiscal offenses, 61, 62 grounds for denying extradition, 54–57 jurisdiction, 50–52 military offenses, 59–61 more than one State, request by, 81, 82 objectives, 45 obligation to extradite, 48–51 political offenses, 55 procedural rules, 86, 87 provisional detention and precautionary measures, 82, 83 re-extradition, 86 request for extradition, transmission of, 77, 78 requested State, prosecution by, 76, 77 rule of speciality, 80, 81 simplified extradition, 85 specific categories of offenses, 62, 63

supporting documents, supplementary information and legal assistance, 78–80 European. See also European Convention on Extradition, 1957 list of, 45–48 Mutual assistance Benelux Treaty. See Treaty Among Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands Concerning Extradition and Mutual Assistance, 1962 channels of communication, 354, 355 corruption offenses, 214 European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, under, 347 European Convention. See European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters forced disappearance, return of minors, 209 Inter-American Convention. See Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters, 1992 United Nations and associated personnel, crimes against, 311 Narcotic drugs Convention Against Illicit Traffic in. See Convention Against Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Single Convention, 33, 34 Nationality Inter-American Convention on Extradition, provisions of, 165 Nuclear material Convention on Physical Protection of, 43, 44, 77 Organization of American States asylum, steps taken as to, 67–73

INDEX

Commitment of Mar Del Plata, 246–250 Declaration of Lima to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism, 243–245 draft Extradition Convention, resolution on, 20 Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, Address by Secretary-general, Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, at Second Regular Session, 267–270 Chair, inter-sessional report, 256–259 First Regular Session, report of, 251–253 Second Regular Session, report of, 260–266 Inter-American Juridical Committee. See Inter-American Juridical Committee Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition. See Inter-American Specialized Conference on Extradition Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 254, 255 multilateral rules on extradition, updating, 13, 14 new structure, 19 plan of action on hemispheric cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism, 240–242 Protocol of Buenos Aires, 19, 60, 72 resolution of Right of Asylum, 69 Psychotropic substances Convention Against Illicit Traffic in. See Convention Against Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Racial discrimination elimination, UN Committee Report, 342 Self-determination UN Resolution, 338, 339

425

Sentence serving abroad, Inter-American Convention. See Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, 1999 Summit of the Americas Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, 233–237 Terrorism Commitment of Mar Del Plata, 246–250 Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion that are of International Significance, 37, 57, 76 Panama, Statement of, 161 text of, 158–161 counter-terrorism, international standards, 385–397 regional and subregional organisations, role of, 397–403 Declaration of Lima to prevent, combat and eliminate, 243–245 European Convention. See European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, 1977 exchanges of information, 355 Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, Address by Secretary-general, Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, at Second Regular Session, 267–270 Chair, inter-sessional report, 256–259 First Regular Session, report of, 251–253 Second Regular Session, report of, 260–266 Inter-American Convention. See InterAmerican Convention Against Terrorism International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,

426

INDEX

becoming party to, 378 entry into force, 377 key provisions, 377 objectives, 377 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 378 reservations, 378 withdrawal/denunciation, 378 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, becoming party to, 380 entry into force, 380 key provisions, 379 objectives, 379 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 380 reservations, 381 withdrawal/denunciation, 381 international cooperation in prosecution and punishment of, Council of Europe Recommendation, 354–356 Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 254, 255 plan of action on hemispheric cooperation to prevent, combat and eliminate, 240–242 prosecution and trial of offences of international character, 356 Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1371, report of 57th meeting, 382–403 Specialized Conference on, resolution of, 238, 239 UN Security Council Resolution 1373, following September 11 attacks, 317–320 Torture definition, 174, 175 European Convention. See European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, 1987

Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish. See InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 1985 Transnational Organized Crime, UN Convention Against, 2000 entry into force, 314 key provisions, 313, 314 objectives, 313 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 315 party, becoming, 314 reservations, 315 withdrawal/denunciation, 315, 316 Treaty Among Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands Concerning Extradition and Mutual Assistance, 1962 Belgian clause, 59 fiscal offenses, 62 grounds for denying extradition, 55, 56 jurisdiction, 52 political offenses, 55, 56 provisional detention and precautionary measures, 83 re-extradition, 86 simplified extradition, 85 Treaty of Amiens scope of, 1 Treaty on Extradition, 1879 American Congress of Jurists, adoption by, 1 approval of, 5 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, incitation to, 4 proposal for convocation of, 2–4 articles of, 5 draft, 5 extraditable offenses, 53 failure to enter into force, 1, 5 first multilateral extradition treaty, as, 1 grounds for denying extradition, 55 obligation to extradite, 49 political offenses, 55

INDEX

precedent, as, 5 retroactivity, 6 scope of, 5 text of, 93–96 urgent need, meeting, 7 Treaty on International Penal Law, 1889 asylum, 99 extradition, circumstances for, 100, 101 extraditable offenses, 53, 100 proceedings, 101–103 several nations demanding, 101 general provisions, 104 jurisdiction, 50, 97–99 military offenses, 59 precautionary arrest, 103, 104 text of, 97–104 Treaty on International Penal Law, 1940 aliens, expulsion of, 139 armed forces, crimes by, 139 Belgian clause, 59 diplomatic mission, crimes by members of, 139 expenses, 85 extraditable offenses, 54 extradition, demand for, 143–145 different States demanding, 143 exclusions from, 142 procedure, 143–146 provisional arrest, 146 system of, 141–143 general provisions, 146 grounds for denying extradition, 55 high seas, pursuit on, 140 jurisdiction, 51, 138–141 military offenses, 59 more than one State, request by, 82 nationals, extradition or nonextradition of, 75 political offenses, 55 reservation, 147 rule of speciality, 80 ships or aircraft, crimes on, 139–141

427

territorial waters, 140 text of, 138–147 Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge, 1939 asylum, foreign territory, in, 136, 137 political, 134–136 general provisions, 137 text of, 134–137 United Nations alleged offenders, extradition of, 310, 311 prosecution of, 310 Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Report of, 342 Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2000, entry into force, 314 key provisions, 313, 314 objectives, 313 optional and/or mandatory declarations, 315 party, becoming, 314 reservations, 315 withdrawal/denunciation, 315, 316 Convention on Safety of UN and Associated Personnel, text of, 306–312 crimes, national law, under, 308 prevention of, 309 Declaration on Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 303–305 definitions, 307 dispute settlement, 311, 312 establishment of jurisdiction, 309 fair treatment, right to, 311 identification, 308 international cooperation in detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Resolution, 340, 341

428

INDEX

mercenaries. See International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use and Training of Mercenaries, 1989 Model Treaty on Extradition. See Model Treaty on Extradition mutual assistance, 311 prosecution or extradition, measures to ensure, 310 review meetings, 312 scope of application, 308 Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1371, report of 57th meeting, 382–403 Security Council Resolution 1373, following September 11 attacks, 317–320

self-defence, right to, 311 self-determination, Resolution 3070, 338, 339 status of operation, agreement on, 308 territorial asylum, declarations on, 74 Victims of violent crime compensation, European Convention, basic principles, 359–361 international cooperation, 361 text of, 359–362 War crimes international cooperation, UN Resolution, 340, 341

Studies on the Law of Treaties 1.

Duncan B. Hollis, Merritt R. Blakeslee and L. Benjamin Ederington (eds.): National Treaty Law and Practice. Dedicated to the Memory of Monroe Leigh. 2005 ISBN 90-04-14417-X

2.

Ulrich Beyerlin, Peter-Tobias Stoll and Rüdiger Wolfrum (eds.): Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements. A Dialogue between Practitioners and Academia. 2006 ISBN 90-04-14617-2

3.

Isidoro Zanotti: Extradition in Multilateral Treaties and Conventions. 2006 ISBN 90-04-14901-5