[Senate Treaty Document 105-21]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Treaty Doc.
SENATE
1st Session 105-21
_______________________________________________________________________
EXTRADITION TREATY WITH TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
__________
MESSAGE
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, SIGNED AT PORT OF
SPAIN ON MARCH 4, 1996
July 31, 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 31, 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 Government of the United States of America
and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, signed at Port of
Spain on March 4, 1996.
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 explains, 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.
This Treaty will, upon entry into force, enhance
cooperation between the law enforcement communities of both
countries and thereby make a significant contribution to
international law enforcement efforts. Upon entry into force,
it will supersede the Extradition Treaty between the United
States and Great Britain signed at London on December 22, 1931,
and made applicable to Trinidad and Tobago upon its entry into
force on June 24, 1935, and which the United States and
Trinidad and Tobago have continued to apply following Trinidad
and Tobago's independence. That treaty has become outmoded, and
the new Treaty will provide significant improvements.
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, June 13, 1997.
The President,
The White House.
The President: I have the honor to submit to you the
Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States
of America and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (the
``Treaty''), signed at Port of Spain on March 4, 1996. 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 United States
ability to prosecute serious offenders including, especially,
narcotics traffickers and terrorists.
The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral
cooperation between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.
Upon entry into force, it will supersede the Extradition Treaty
between the United States and Great Britian signed at London on
December 22, 1931, and made applicable to Trinidad and Tobago
upon its entry into force on June 24, 1935, and which the
United States and Trinidad and Tobago have continued to apply
following Trinidad and Tobago independence. That treaty has
become outmoded and the new Treaty will provide significant
improvements. The Treaty can be implemented without new further
legislation.
Article 1 obligates each Contracting State to extradite to
the other, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, any person
charged with or convicted of an extraditable offense.
Article 2(1) defines an extraditable offense as one
punishable under the laws of both Contracting States by
deprivation of liberty for a 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
Contracting States.
Article 2(2) defines an extraditable offense to include
also an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, aiding or abetting,
counselling, or procuring the commission of or being an
accessory before or after the fact to 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 the States with
discretion to grant or deny extradition if the offense for
which extradition is sought would not be punishable under the
laws of the Requested State in similar circumstances. The
United States recognizes the extraterritorial application of
many of its criminal statutes and frequently makes requests for
fugitives whose criminal activity occurred in foreign countries
with the intent, actual or implied, of affecting the United
States. Trinidad and Tobago did not indicate any anticipated
difficulty with this provision.
Article 2 contains two further provisions proposed by
Trinidad and Tobago to facilitate judicial inquiry into the
existence of dual criminality notwithstanding differences in
the way national criminal laws describe or categories offenses.
Article 2(3)(c) instructs the States, in determining whether an
offense is extraditable, to evaluate the totality of the acts
or omissions presented by the Requesting State, irrespective of
differences in how both States' laws describe theconstituent
elements of the offense. Article 2(6) contains a similarly helpful
provision which rules out a refusal of extradition for revenue-related
offenses on the ground that the Requested State's laws do not impose
the same kind of tax or duty or do not contain a similar regulation to
that of the Requesting State.
Article 3 provides that extradition shall not be refused on
the ground that the person sought is a national of the
Requested State. 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 an offense of a political character. Article
4(2) specifies three categories of offenses that shall not be
considered to be political offenses:
(a) a murder or other willful crime against the
person of a Head of State of one of the Contracting
States, or of a member of the Head of State's family;
(b) an offense for which both Contracting States are
obliged pursuant to a multilateral international
agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit
the case to their competent authorities for a decision
as to prosecution; and
(c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the
offenses described above, or aiding and abetting a
person who commits or attempts to commit such offenses.
The Treaty's political offense exception is substantially
identical to that contained in several other modern extradition
treaties, including the treaty with Jordan which recently
received Senate advice and consent. Examples of offenses
covered by Article 4(2)(b) include:
--aircraft hijacking covered by The Hague Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at
The Hague December 16, 1970, and entered into force
October 14, 1971 (22 U.S.T. 1641; TIAS No. 7192); and,
--aircraft sabotage covered by the Montreal Convention for
the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of
Civil Aviation, done at Montreal September 23, 1971,
and entered into force January 26, 1973, (24 U.S.T.
564; TIAS No. 7570).
Article 4(3) provides that extradition shall not be granted
if the executive authority of the Requested State determines
that the request was politically motivated.
Article 4(4) permits the executive authority of the
Requested State to deny extradition for military offenses 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
or have decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the
person sought.
Article 6 enables extradition requests to be granted
irrespective of statutes of limitations in either the
Requesting or Requested State.
Article 7 establishes the procedures and describes the
documents that are required to support an extradition request.
The Article requires that all requests be submitted in writing
through the diplomatic channel. Article 7(3)(c) provides that a
request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution
be supported by evidence providing probable cause under the law
of the Requested State for arrest and committal for trial if
the offense had been committed in the Requested State. This is
a lesser evidentiary standard than that contained in the
current extradition treaty, and therefore should significantly
improve the United States' ability to obtain extradition of
fugitives from abroad.
Article 8 establishes the procedures under which documents
submitted pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty shall be
received and admitted into evidence.
Article 9 sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest
and detention of a person sought pending presentation of the
formal request forextradition. Article 9(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 9(5) provides explicitly that discharge from custody pursuant
to Article 9(4) does not prejudice subsequent rearrest and extradition
upon later delivery of the extradition request and supporting
documents.
Article 10 specifies the procedures governing surrender and
return of persons sought. It requires the Requested State to
provide prompt notice to the Requesting State through the
diplomatic channel regarding its extradition decision. If the
request is denied in whole or in part, Article 10(2) requires
the Requested State to provide information regarding the
reasons therefor. If extradition is granted, the person sought
must be removed from the territory of the Requested State
within the time prescribed by its law.
Article 11 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 its
prosecution has been concluded and the sentence has been
served.
Article 12 sets forth a nonexclusive 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 13 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 13(3) imposes an
obligation to respect the rights of third Parties in affected
property.
Article 14 sets forth the rule of speciality. It provides,
subject to specific exceptions, 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, unless a waiver of the rule is
granted by the executive authority of the Requested State.
Similarly, the Requesting State may not extradite such 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 thirty days of
being free to do so.
Article 15 permits surrender to the Requesting State
without further proceedings if the person sought provides
written consent thereto.
Article 16 governs the transit through the territory of one
Contracting State of a person being surrendered to the other
State by a third State.
Article 17 contains provisions on representation and
expenses that are similar to those found in other modern
extradition treaties. Specifically, the Requested State is
required to represent the interests of the Requesting State in
any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. The
United States and Trinidad and Tobago understand that the
Requesting State will bear the costs in the event it must
retain private counsel to pursue the extradition request. The
Requesting State is required to bear the expenses related to
the translation of documents and the transportation of the
person surrendered. Article 17(3) clarifies that neither State
shall make any pecuniary claim against the other State arising
out of the arrest, detention, examination, or surrender of
persons sought under the Treaty.
Article 18 states that the United States Department of
Justice and the Attorney General in Trinidad and Tobago may
consult with each other directly or through the facilities of
INTERPOL in connection with the processing of individual cases
and in furtherance of maintaining and improving Treaty
implementation procedures.
Article 19, 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.
Ratification and entry into force are addressed in Article
20. That Article provides that the States shall exchange
diplomatic notes notifying one another of the completion of
their respective requirements for entry into force, whereupon
the Treaty shall enter into force. Upon the entry into force of
this Treaty, the Extradition Treaty between the United States
of America and Great Britain, signed at London December 22,
1931, shall cease to have effect, with noted exceptions,
between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago.
Under Article 21, either Contracting State may terminate
the Treaty at any time upon written notice to the other
Contracting State, with termination to become effective six
months after the date of receipt 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 an early
date.
Respectfully submitted,
Madeleine Albright.