[Senate Treaty Document 105-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Treaty Doc.
SENATE
1st Session 105-18
_______________________________________________________________________
EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ARGENTINA
__________
MESSAGE
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, SIGNED AT BUENOS AIRES ON JUNE 10, 1997
July 30, 1997.--Treaty was read the first time and, together with the
accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and
ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
The White House, July 30, 1997.
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition
Treaty between the United States of America and the Argentine
Republic, signed at Buenos Aires on June 10, 1997.
In addition, I transmit, for the information of the Senate,
the report of the Department of State with respect to the
Treaty. As the report states, the Treaty will not require
implementing legislation.
The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and
content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the
United States.
Upon entry into force, this Treaty would enhance
cooperation between the law enforcement authorities of both
countries, and thereby make a significant contribution to
international law enforcement efforts. The Treaty would
supersede the Extradition Treaty Between the United States of
America and the Republic of Argentina signed at Washington on
January 21, 1972.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to
ratification.
William J. Clinton.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
Department of State,
Washington, July 9, 1997.
The President,
The White House.
The President: I have the honor to submit to you the
Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the
Argentine Republic (the ``Treaty''), signed at Buenos Aires on
June 10, 1997. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to
the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
The Treaty follows closely the form and content of
extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.
The Treaty represents part of a concerted effort by the
Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop
modern extradition relationships to enhance the ability of the
United States to prosecute serious offenders, including,
especially, narcotics traffickers and terrorists.
The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral
cooperation between the United States and Argentina. Upon entry
into force, it would supersede the extradition treaty currently
in force between the two countries, which was signed at
Washington on January 21, 1972. That treaty has become outmoded
and the new treaty will provide significant improvements. The
Treaty can be implemented without new legislation.
Article 1 obligates each Party to extradite to the other,
pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, any person charged
with or found guilty of an extraditable offense in the
Requesting State.
Article 2(1) defines an extraditable offense as one
punishable under the laws in both Parties by deprivation of
liberty for a maximum period of more than one year, or by a
more severe penalty. Use of such a ``dual criminality'' clause
rather than a list of offenses covered by the Treaty obviates
the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as additional
offenses become punishable under the laws of both Parties.
Article 2(2) defines an extraditable offense to include
also an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, or the participation
in the commission of, an extraditable offense.
Additional flexibility is provided by Article 2(3), which
provides that an offense shall be considered an extraditable
offense: whether or not the laws in the Contracting States
place the offense within the same category of offenses or
describe the offense by the same terminology; or whether or not
the offense is one for which United States federal law requires
the showing of such matters as interstate transportation or use
of the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, such matters being merely for the purpose of
establishing jurisdiction in a United States federal court.
With regard to offenses committed outside the territory of
the Requesting State, Article 2(4) provides that an offense
described in Article 2 shall be an extraditable offense if the
offense has effects in the territory of the Requesting State,
or if the laws in the Requested State provide for punishment of
an offense committed outside its territory in similar
circumstances.
Article 3 provides that extradition and surrender shall not
be refused on the ground that the person sought is a national
of the Requested Party. Neither Party, in other words, may
invoke nationality as a basis for denying an extradition.
As is customary in extradition treaties, Article 4
incorporates a political offense exception to the obligation to
extradite. Article 4(1) states generally that extradition shall
not be granted for a political offense. Article 4(2) expressly
excludes from the reach of the political offense exception
several categories of offenses:
(a) an attack or willful crime against the physical
integrity of the Head of State of one of the Parties,
or of a member of the Head of State's family;
(b) an offense for which both Parties are obliged
pursuant to a multilateral international agreement on
genocide, acts of terrorism, illicit trafficking in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, or other
crimes, to extradite the person sought or submit the
case to their competent authorities for decision as to
prosecution; and
(c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit the offenses
described above, or participation in the commission of
such offenses.
Article 4(3) provides that extradition shall not be granted
if the competent authority of the Requested State determines
that the request was politically motivated.
Article 4(4) provides that the Requested State may refuse
extradition for offenses under military law that are not
offenses under ordinary criminal law (for example, desertion).
Article 5 bars extradition when the person sought has been
convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same
offense, but does not bar extradition if the competent
authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute
for the acts for which extradition has been requested. In
addition, extradition cannot be refused on the ground that the
authorities in the Requested State, after initiating criminal
proceedings, have decided to discontinue them, so long as the
Requested State's laws regarding double jeopardy would permit
the future reinstitution of such criminal proceedings.
Under Article 6, when an offense for which extradition is
requested is punishable by death under the laws in the
Requesting State and is not so punishable under laws in the
Requested State, the Requested State may refuse extradition
unless the Requesting State provides assurances that the death
penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried
out.
Article 7 provides that extradition shall not be denied on
the ground that the prosecution or penalty would be barred
under the statute of limitations in the Requested State.
Articles 8-10 address procedures governing the presentation
and processing of extradition requests. Article 8 describes the
documents that are required to support a request for
extradition. Article 9 provides that all documents submitted by
the Requesting State shall be translated into the language of
the Requested State. Article 10 establishes the procedures
under which documents submitted pursuant to Article 8 shall be
received and admitted into evidence in the Requested State.
Article 11 sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest
and detention of a person sought pending presentation of the
formal request for extradition. Article 11(4) provides that if
the Requested State's executive authority has not received the
request for extradition and supporting documentation within
sixty days after the provisional arrest, the person may be
discharged from custody. Article 11(5) provides explicitly that
discharge from custody pursuant to Article 11(4) does not
prejudice subsequent rearrest and extradition upon later
delivery of the extradition request and supporting documents.
Article 12 specifies the procedures governing the surrender
and return of persons sought. The Requested State is required
to notify promptly the Requesting State of its decision on
extradition and, if the request is denied in whole or in part,
to provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial of the
request. If the request is granted, the Parties shall agree on
the time and place for the surrender of the person sought. Such
person must be removed from the territory of the Requested
State within the time prescribed by the law of the Requested
State, or within thirty days from the time of notification by
the Requested State of its decision on the request for
extradition, whichever is longer. Otherwise, that person may be
discharged from custody, and the Requested State may refuse a
subsequent extradition request from the Requesting State for
that person for the same offense. This Article also provides
that if assurances in connection with application of the death
penalty are required pursuant to Article 6, they shall be
provided prior to the surrender of the person sought.
Article 13 concerns temporary and deferred surrender. If a
person whose extradition is sought is being prosecuted or is
serving a sentence in the Requested State, that State may
temporarily surrender the person to the Requesting State solely
for the purpose of prosecution. Alternatively, the Requested
State may postpone the extradition proceedings until the
domestic prosecution has been concluded and any sentence
imposed has been served.
Article 14 sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be
considered by the Requested State in determining to which State
to surrender a person sought by more than one State.
Article 15 provides for the seizure and surrender to the
Requesting State of property connected with the offense for
which extradition is granted, to the extent permitted under the
law of the Requested State. Such property may be surrendered
even when extradition cannot be effected due to the death,
disappearance, or escape of the person sought. Surrender of
property may be deferred if it is needed as evidence in the
Requested State and may be conditioned upon satisfactory
assurances that it will be returned. Article 15(3) imposes an
obligation to respect the rights of third Parties in affected
property.
Article 16 sets forth the rule of speciality. It provides
that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be detained,
tried, or punished in the Requesting State for an offense other
than that for which extradition has been granted. However, the
Article sets forth a number of exceptions, including the grant
of a waiver by the competent authority of the Requested State.
Similarly, the Requesting State may not extradite the person to
a third state for an offense committed prior to the original
surrender unless the surrendering State consents. These
restrictions do not apply if the extradited person leaves the
Requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to
it or fails to leave the Requesting State within twenty days of
being free to do so.
Article 17 permits surrender to the Requesting State
without further proceedings if the person sought directly and
expressly consents.
Article 18 governs the transit through the territory of one
Party of a person being surrendered to the other Party by a
third State.
Article 19 contains provisions on representation and
expenses that are similar to those found in other modern
extradition treaties. Specifically, the Requested State bears
the expenses for the legal representation of the Requesting
State in any proceedings arising out of a request for
extradition. The Requesting State shall bear the expenses
related to the translation of documents and the transportation
of the person surrendered. Article 19(3) clarifies that neither
Party shall make any pecuniary claim against the other Party
related to the arrest, detention, examination, custody, or
surrender of persons sought under the Treaty.
Article 20 provides that, for the United States of America,
the term ``competent authority'' as used in the Treaty means
the appropriate authorities of its executive branch.
Article 21 states that the Parties may consult with each
other directly in connection with the processing of individual
cases and in furtherance of maintaining and improving the
procedures for the implementation of the Treaty.
Article 22, like the parallel provision in almost all
recent United States extradition treaties, states that the
Treaty shall apply to offenses committed before as well as
after the date the Treaty enters into force.
Article 23 contains final clauses dealing with the Treaty's
ratification, entry into force and termination. Paragraph 1
states that the Treaty shall be subject to ratification, and
the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as
possible. Paragraph 2 states that the Treaty shall enter into
force the day after the date of the exchange of instruments of
ratification. Paragraph 3 provides that, upon entry into force
of this Treaty, the Treaty on Extradition Between the United
States of America and the Republic of Argentina, signed at
Washington January 21, 1972, shall cease to be in force, with
noted exceptions. Paragraph 4 provides that either Party may
terminate the Treaty at any time by giving written notice
through the diplomatic channel to the other Party, and the
termination shall be effective six months after the date of
such notice.
A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating
delegation and will be submitted separately to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate at the earliest
possible date.
Respectfully submitted.
Thomas R. Pickering.