[Senate Treaty Document 107-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                     Treaty Doc.
                                                                 107-18
______________________________________________________________________
 
              INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              TRANSMITTING

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM (``CONVENTION'') ADOPTED AT 
   THE THIRTY-SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE 
   ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (``OAS'') MEETING IN BRIDGETOWN, 
BARBADOS, AND SIGNED BY THIRTY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, 
                            ON JUNE 3, 2002

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 November 12, 2002.--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, November 12, 2002.
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 Inter-American 
Convention Against Terrorism, adopted at the Thirty-Second 
Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly meeting in 
Bridgetown, Barbados, on June 3, 2002, and opened for signature 
on that date. At that time it was signed by 30 of the 33 
members attending the meeting, including the United States. It 
has subsequently been signed by another two member states, 
leaving only two states that have not yet signed. In addition, 
I transmit herewith, for the information of the Senate, the 
report of the Department of State.
    The negotiation of the Interior-American Convention Against 
Terrorism (the ``Convention'') was a direct response to the 
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. 
At that time, the OAS was meeting in Lima, Peru, to adopt a 
Democratic Charter uniting all 34 democracies in the 
hemisphere. The OAS member states expressed their strong 
commitment to assist the United States in preventing such 
incidents from occurring again anywhere in our hemisphere. 
Within 10 days, the foreign ministers of the OAS member states, 
meeting in Washington, D.C., endorsed the idea of drafting a 
regional convention against terrorism. Argentina, Peru, Chile, 
and Mexico played particularly important roles in the 
development and negotiation of the Convention.
    The Convention will advance important United States 
Government interests and enhance hemispheric security by 
improving regional cooperation in the fight against terrorism. 
The forms of enhanced cooperation include exchanges of 
information, exchanges of experience and training, technical 
cooperation, and mutual legal assistance. The convention is 
consistent with, and builds upon previous counterterrorism 
instruments and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which 
mandates certain measures to combat terrorism.
    The Convention provides for regional use of a variety of 
legal tools that have proven effective against terrorism and 
transnational organized crime in recent years. Since fighting 
terrorist financing has been identified as an essential part of 
the fight against terrorism, the Convention addresses crucial 
financial regulatory, as well as criminal law, aspects. 
Existing Federal authority is sufficient to discharge the 
obligations of the united States under this Convention, and 
therefore no implementing legislation will be required.
    In particular, the Convention mandates the establishment of 
financial intelligence units for the collection, analysis, and 
dissemination of terrorist financing information and the 
establishment and enhancement of channels of communication 
between law enforcement authorities for secure and rapid 
exchange of information concerning all aspects of terrorist 
offenses; the exchange of information to improve border and 
customs control measures to detect and prevent movement of 
terrorists and terrorist-related materials; and technical 
cooperation and training programs.
    The Convention also provides measures relating to the 
denial of refugee or asylum status. In addition, the Convention 
provides that terrorist acts may not be considered 
``political'' offenses for which extradition or mutual legal 
assistance requests can be denied, and provides for other 
mechanisms to facilitate mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters.
    In sum, the Convention is in the interests of the United 
States and represents an important step in the fight against 
terrorism. I therefore recommend that the Senate give prompt 
and favorable consideration to the Convention, subject to the 
understanding that are described in the accompanying report of 
the Department of State, and give its advice and consent to 
ratification.

                                                    George W. Bush.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                       Department of State,
                                       Washington, October 7, 2002.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Inter-
American Convention Against Terrorism (``Convention'') adopted 
at the Thirty-Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of 
the Organization of American States (``OAS'') meeting in 
Bridgetown, Barbados, and signed by thirty countries, including 
the United States, on June 3, 2002. It has been signed by two 
additional countries since that date. The Convention will enter 
into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit 
of the sixth instrument of ratification.
Introduction
    The Convention reflects the rapid response of the Western 
Hemisphere to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United 
States, as well as the outstanding solidarity among the other 
member states of the Hemisphere with the United States and the 
global coalition against terrorism.
    The purpose of the Convention is to promote the prevention, 
punishment, and elimination of terrorism. The States Parties 
agree to adopt specified measures and to strengthen cooperation 
among themselves in furtherance of that purpose. The Convention 
will advance important U.S. Government interests and enhance 
hemispheric security by improving regional cooperation in the 
fight against terrorism. The forms of enhanced cooperation 
include exchanges of information, exchanges of experience and 
training, technical cooperation, and mutual legal assistance. 
Existing federal authority is sufficient to discharge the 
obligations of the United States under this Convention, and 
therefore no implementing legislation will be required.
Background Information
    The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism was 
negotiated pursuant to a mandate adopted at the Organization of 
American States (OAS) Foreign Ministers' meeting of 
consultation of September 21, 2001. The negotiations were a 
direct response to the attacks on the United States of 
September 11.
    The OAS, which was meeting in Lima, Peru, on September 11, 
2001, to adopt the Inter-American Democratic Charter, was the 
first international organization to condemn the terrorist 
attacks on the United States. The organization expressed its 
strong commitment to assist the United States in preventing 
such incidents from occurring again anywhere in the Hemisphere. 
This was followed by many expressions of support from leaders 
of the OAS member states.
    Immediately upon returning to Washington, the OAS Permanent 
Council began to discuss ways to demonstrate regional 
solidarity, to enhance cooperation in the fight against 
terrorism, and to take concrete steps to assist the United 
States. This led to the September 21 meeting of OAS Foreign 
Ministers, who instructed the OAS to take a number of 
additional measure, including drafting the Convention and 
revitalizing the work of the Inter-American Committee Against 
Terrorism (CICTE) to develop practical measures that could be 
implemented on an urgent basis.
    Prior to the beginning of the negotiations, the UN Security 
Council adopted resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001), which 
calls upon 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,'' and 
``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.''
    Three negotiating rounds were held, all at the OAS 
Headquarters in Washington: November 26-28, 2001; January 22-
25, 2002; and March 18-21, 2002. Almost all of the thirty-four 
member states of the OAS participated in one or more of these 
rounds and in the inter-sessional discussions.

Essential Elements of the Convention

    The Convention is designed to build upon the multilateral 
and bilateral instruments already in force and to which the 
United States is a Party by enhancing cooperation in 
preventing, punishing, and eradicating terrorism. It does so by 
elaborating for regional use a variety of legal tools that have 
proven effective against terrorism and transnational organized 
crime in recent years.
    Following the model of the 1999 International Convention 
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the 
Convention incorporates by reference the offenses set forth in 
ten counterterrorism instruments listed in paragraph 1 of 
Article 2 of the Convention. Negotiators chose this approach 
because of the breadth of converge already provided by these 
prior instruments (all crimes ordinarily recognized as 
terrorism-related offenses are covered, including hijackings, 
bombings, attacks on diplomats, and the financing of terrorism 
and the OAS's desire to respond rapidly to the events of 
September 11 and the continuing threat of terrorism in the 
region.
    All Parties are required under the Convention to ``endeavor 
to become a party'' to the ten prior instruments (the United 
States is already a Party to all of the instruments). In 
addition to facilitating implementation of the Convention, this 
obligation also advances implementation of UNSCR 1373, which 
``calls upon'' states to become Parties to these same 
instruments ``as soon as possible.'' Thus, we would hope that 
all Parties to the Convention will have become Parties to those 
instruments by the time they deposit their instruments of 
ratification for this Convention.
    However, so as not to delay a state from becoming a Party 
to this Convention, and in order to preserve the prerogatives 
of the legislative bodies in becoming Parties to the 
instruments listed in the Convention, the Convention provides 
that a state may declare that the obligations contained in the 
Convention do not apply to the offenses set forth in any one of 
the counterterorism instruments listed in Article 2 if it is 
not yet a Party to that instrument or if it ceases to be a 
Party. This procedure provides a high degree of flexibility for 
states that are considering becoming Parties to this 
Convention, without undermining the U.S. interest in having all 
states become Parties to all of the other international 
instruments relating to terrorism.
    In addition to incorporating the offenses from prior 
counterterrorism instruments, the Convention adopts elements 
from prior conventions and initiatives, in some cases expanding 
the scope of these elements and in other cases converting 
voluntary measures into legally binding ones. For example, 
Article 11 of the Convention prohibits Parties from denying 
extradition or mutual legal assistance requests on the sole 
ground that an offense covered by the Convention is or concerns 
a political offense. This provision appears in the more recent 
counterterrorism instruments and, by incorporating it into the 
Convention, its scope will be expanded to include offenses set 
forth in prior conventions and protocols as well.
    Another example is the Convention's requirement in 
paragraph 1 of Article 4 that Parties institute a legal and 
regulatory regime to prevent, combat, and eradicate the 
financing of terrorism. A similar requirement can be found in 
UNSCR 1373, but the Convention goes further by requiring that 
the regime include specific elements drawn from the forty 
recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money 
Laundering (FATF), an inter-governmental body whose purpose is 
to develop and promote policies to combat money laundering. In 
fulfillment of one of its requirements, the United States will 
notify the OAS Secretary General, upon the deposit of its 
instruments of ratification, the national authority designated 
to be its financial intelligence unit.
    In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Convention 
mandates that, when establishing their legal andregulatory 
regimes, Parties must use as ``guidelines'' the recommendations 
developed by specialized international and regional entities, in 
particular the FATF and, as appropriate, the Inter-American Drug Abuse 
Control Commission, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, and the 
South American Financial Action Task Force, which are likewise inter-
governmental bodies that develop policies relating to money laundering 
within their respective areas. Because the recommendations of these 
entities can change over time, the Convention requires that Parties use 
the recommendations of FATF, as well as the recommendations of the 
other entities, as ``guidelines'' in implementing paragraph 1 of 
Article 4, rather than requiring that the Parties implement all of 
those recommendations in full.
    Other measures incorporated into the Convention include: 
expanding the basis for seizure and forfeiture of funds and 
other assets; expansion of predicate offenses for money 
laundering; enhancing cooperation on border controls and among 
law enforcement authorities; establishment of a mechanism for 
transferring persons in custody for identification, testimony 
or other types of assistance; and denial of refugee status in 
cases where there are serious reasons for considering that the 
person has committed an offense covered by the Convention.
    The Convention facilitates the implementation of many of 
the mandatory measures called for in UNSCR 1373 by establishing 
mechanisms for cooperation in the region, and by mandating that 
Parties take specific, concrete steps that will advance their 
implementation of the more general measures set forth in that 
resolution. Those measures include: freezing funds or assets 
that are used in or form the proceeds of terrorist offenses; 
measures relating to the denial of refugee or asylum status; 
affording other Parties the greatest measure of assistance in 
connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings 
relating to terrorist acts; and detecting and preventing the 
movement of terrorists and terrorist groups by effective border 
controls and controls on the issuance of travel and identity 
documents.
    Article 10 establishes a procedure whereby persons in 
custody may be transferred to another party for the purpose of 
providing assistance in obtaining evidence for the 
investigation or prosecution of any of the listed offenses. 
Under this Article, the transfer would take place with the 
persons' consent and the agreement of the states sending and 
receiving the person. This provision is found in most modern 
U.S. mutual legal assistance treaties and in prior conventions 
relating to terrorism, in particular the 1997 International 
Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the 
1999 International Convention on the Suppression of the 
Financing of Terrorism. As in those other legal instruments, it 
is not meant to be the exclusive means of transferring persons 
in custody but rather creates one possible modality for such 
transfers. While implicit, it may be useful in the context of 
the Convention to underscore this point, and I therefore 
recommend that the following understanding be included in the 
United States instrument of ratification:

          The United States of America understands that, as in 
        other treaties with such provisions, nothing in Article 
        10 or in this Convention precludes the involuntary 
        transfer of persons pursuant to applicable domestic or 
        international law.

    Article 15 confirms that the Convention's implementation 
will take place with full respect for the rule of law, human 
rights, and fundamental freedoms. In addition, ``international 
humanitarian law'' is included among the other rights and 
obligations of states and individuals under international law 
that are not affected by this Convention. In this respect, the 
term ``international humanitarian law'' is used in this 
Convention in the same context as it is used in the 1999 
International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of 
Terrorism and the 1997 International Convention on the 
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This term is not used by 
United States armed forces and could be subject to varied 
interpretations.
    As was the case for those two earlier instruments, it is 
the United States' intention, in the context of this 
Convention, to interpret the term consistently with our 
understanding of the term ``law of war.'' To confirm the U.S. 
understanding on this point. I recommend that the following 
understanding to Article 15, paragraph 2, be included in the 
United States instrument of ratification:

          The United States of America understands that the 
        term ``international humanitarian law'' in paragraph 2 
        of Article 15 of the Convention has the same 
        substantive meaning as the term ``law of war.''

    Recent precedents exist for the conclusion of law 
enforcement-related treaties within the OAS framework. For 
example, the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption done 
at Caracas on March 29, 1996, was signed by the United States 
on June 2, 1996, and that Convention entered into force for the 
United States on October 29, 2000. The United States also 
signed the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in 
Criminal Matters done at Nassau on May 23, 1992, and a related 
Optional Protocol done at Managua on June 11, 1993, on January 
10, 1995, and that Convention and its Optional Protocol entered 
into force for the United States on June 24, 2001.

Conclusion

    Accompanying this Report is an article-by-article analysis 
of the Convention.
    I believe that this Convention, by enhancing regional 
cooperation in the fight against terrorism, will enhance the 
security of the Western Hemisphere and the national security of 
the United States. I therefore recommend that the Convention be 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to 
ratification subject to the understandings described herein at 
the earliest possible date. The Departments of Justice and 
Treasury join me in urging rapid ratification of the 
Convention.
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                   Colin L. Powell.
    Enclosure: As stated.

     Article-by-Article Analysis of the Convention Text Summary of 
                               Provisions

    The Convention consists of a Preamble and twenty-three 
articles. Among the substantive articles are three articles on 
international cooperation against the financing of terrorism, 
seven articles on other types of international cooperation, 
three articles relating to denial of safe haven for suspected 
terrorists, an article on non-discrimination, and an article on 
protection of human rights.
    Object and Purposes: Article 1 defines the purposes of the 
Convention as the prevention, punishment, and elimination of 
terrorism. The Parties commit to adopt the necessary measures 
and to strengthen cooperation among themselves, in accordance 
with the terms of the Convention.
    Applicable International Instruments: The term ``offenses'' 
is used in a number of articles (Articles 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 
12, and 13). Under Article 2, the term is defined to mean the 
offenses described in one or more of the ten international 
instruments relating to terrorism listed in paragraph 1 of that 
Article (hereinafter ``listed offenses'').\1\ Since it was 
anticipated that not all states would be Party to all ten 
instruments at the time of becoming Party to the Convention, 
Article 2 contains a mechanism for a State Party to this 
Convention that is not a Party to one or more of the listed 
international instruments to declare that the obligations 
contained in the Convention do not apply to the offenses set 
forth in any of the listed instruments if it is not yet a Party 
to that instrument. These provisions follow the model of the 
International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of 
Terrorism done at New York on December 9, 1999 (``Terrorism 
Financing Convention'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There are 12 UN conventions and protocols on terrorism. 
Following the practice adopted in the 1999 Terrorism Financing 
Convention, only 10 of the instruments are listed in this Convention. 
The 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed 
on Board Aircraft was omitted as being unnecessary in view of the more 
recent 1970 Hague Convention and 1971 Montreal Convention on terrorism 
related to aircraft. The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
Explosives was omitted because it does not set forth a criminal 
offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Domestic Measures: Article 3 calls upon all Parties to 
``endeavor'' to become Parties to all ten of the instruments 
listed in paragraph 1 of Article 2 and to adopt the necessary 
measures to implement them effectively. Some delegations 
proposed during the negotiations to make this provision 
mandatory but a number of states responded that such an 
obligation could be read by legislatures as taking away or 
diminishing their involvement or prerogative in the process of 
becoming Parties to the ten listed instruments. A similar 
provision appears in paragraph 3(d) of UN Security Council 
Resolution 1373 (2001) (``UNSCR 1373'').
    Measures To Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate Financing of 
Terrorism: Article 4 commits each Party, to the extent that it 
has not already done so, to institute a legal and regulatory 
regime to prevent, combat, and eradicate the financing of 
terrorism and for effective international cooperation in that 
area, which includes:
         --A comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory 
        regime for banks and other financial institutions and 
        other entities deemed to be susceptible to being used 
        for the financing of terrorist activities;
         --Measures to detect and monitor the movement across 
        borders of cash, bearer negotiable instruments, and 
        other appropriate movements of value; and
         --Measures to ensure that the competent authorities 
        have the ability to cooperate and exchange information 
        at the national and international levels, including the 
        establishment and maintenance of a financial 
        intelligence unit.
    These provisions are similar to provisions in the Terrorism 
Financing Convention and UNSCR 1373. When establishing and 
implementing these financial control measures, the Parties 
agree to use as guidelines the recommendations developed by 
specialized international and regional entities, in particular 
the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and, 
as appropriate, other regional entities. However, because the 
recommendations of these entities can change over time, the 
requirement is that the Parties use the recommendations of 
these entities as ``guidelines'' rather than that the Parties 
implement all of those recommendations in full.
    Seizure and Confiscation of Funds or Other Assets; 
Predicate Offenses to Money Laundering: Under Article 5, each 
Party commits, in accordance with the procedures established in 
its domestic law, to take necessary measures to identify, 
freeze or seize, and confiscate funds or assets used or 
intended to be used to finance terrorist acts or the proceeds 
resulting from,regardless of whether the offenses were 
committed within or outside the jurisdiction of the State Party. This 
obligation extends the requirement that such funds be frozen pursuant 
to UNSCR 1373. Under Article 6 each Party must take the necessary 
measures to ensure that its domestic penal money laundering legislation 
includes as predicate offenses the listed offenses, regardless of 
whether the offenses were committed within or outside the jurisdiction 
of the State Party.
    Cooperation on Border Controls: Article 7 requires that 
each Party, consistent with its respective domestic legal and 
administrative regimes, promote cooperation and information 
exchange in order to improve border and customs control 
measures to detect and prevent intentional movement of 
terrorists and trafficking in arms or other materials intended 
to support terrorist activities. Article 7 also obligates 
Parties to promote cooperation and information exchange to 
improve controls on issuance of travel and identity documents 
and to prevent counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use. 
Article 7 will facilitate implementation of paragraph 2(g) of 
UNSCR 1373 and takes into account the recommendations of the 
Subcommittee on Border Controls of the Inter-American Committee 
Against Terrorism (CICTE) that were adopted while the 
Convention was under negotiation.
    Cooperation Among Law Enforcement Authorities: Under 
Article 8, the Parties commit to work closely with each other, 
consistent with their respective domestic legal and 
administrative systems, to enhance the effectiveness of law 
enforcement actions to combat the listed offenses. This Article 
directs Parties to establish and enhance, where necessary, 
channels of communication to facilitate the secure and rapid 
exchange of information concerning all aspects of the listed 
offenses.
    Mutual Legal Assistance: Article 9 provides that the 
Parties commit to afford each other the greatest measure of 
expeditious mutual legal assistance with respect to the 
prevention, investigation, and prosecution of the listed 
offenses and related proceedings in accordance with existing 
treaties or, in the absence of a treaty, in accordance with 
domestic law. In terms of existing treaties, the Inter-American 
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, done at 
Nassau on May 23, 1992, entered into force on April 14, 1996, 
and for the United States, on June 24, 2001, has only seven 
Parties--the United States, Canada, Ecuador, Grenada, Panama, 
Peru, and Venezuela. Another ten states have signed that 
instrument (The Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, El 
Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Suriname, and Uruguay).
    The United States has bilateral mutual legal assistance 
treaties in force with sixteen OAS member states: Antigua and 
Barbuda, Argentina, The Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, 
Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, St. Kitts and 
Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and 
Tobago, and Uruguay. In the absence of a treaty, assistance 
would be provided pursuant to the U.S. judicial assistance 
statute, 28 U.S.C. 1782.
    Transfer of Persons in Custody: Article 10 establishes a 
procedure whereby persons in custody in the territory of one 
Party may, with that person's consent and the agreement of both 
the sending and receiving states, be transferred to another for 
the purposes of providing assistance in obtaining evidence for 
the investigation or prosecution of any of the listed offenses. 
The Article is consistent with Article 13 of the International 
Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, done at 
New York on December 15, 1997 (``Terrorist Bombings 
Convention'') and Article 16 of the Terrorism Financing 
Convention. Although such provisions appear in most modern U.S. 
mutual legal assistance treaties, in the area of multilateral 
treaties designed to counter terrorism they are a recent 
innovation, and this Convention enables the mechanism to be 
applied among the Parties with respect to the offenses 
established in the eight earlier UN instruments relating to 
terrorism, in addition to the two most recent conventions 
referred to above.
    As in these other legal instruments, this procedure is not 
meant to be the exclusive means of transferring persons in 
custody but rather creates one possible modality for such 
transfers. While implicit, it is recommended that the following 
understanding be included in the United States instrument of 
ratification:

          The United States of America understands that, as in 
        other treaties with such provisions, nothing in Article 
        10 or in this Convention precludes the involuntary 
        transfer of persons pursuant to applicable domestic or 
        international law.

    Inapplicability of Political Offense Exception: Article 11 
provides that the listed offenses shall not be considered 
political offenses or offenses connected with a political 
offense or offenses inspired by political motives, for purposes 
ofextradition or mutual legal assistance. This provision is 
identical to Article 14 of the Terrorism Financing Convention and 
Article 11 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention. This provision thus 
requires that this principle be applied to the offenses established in 
the UN instruments relating to terrorism that preceded the Terrorist 
Bombings and Terrorism Financing Conventions.
    The specific consequence of the Convention's narrowing of 
the political offense exception for the listed offenses will 
vary depending on the age of the relevant bilateral U.S. 
extradition treaty or mutual legal assistance treaty. 
Generally, under modern extradition treaties concluded by the 
United States, the political offense exception is already 
precluded for all crimes covered under ``prosecute or 
extradite'' conventions and protocols relating to terrorism to 
which the United States and its extradition treaty partner are 
Parties. Older treaties generally provide fugitives the right 
to claim political offense but do not expressly narrow the 
political offense exception by reference to the conventions and 
protocols relating to terrorism. As between the United States 
and any other Party to the Convention, the political offense 
provisions in these older treaties will be narrowed by virtue 
of Article 12, even in the absence of a provision similar to 
those in modern extradition treaties narrowing the political 
offense exception.
    Denial of Refugee Status and Denial of Asylum: Article 12 
and 13 facilitate implementation of paragraph 3(f) of UNSCR 
1373, which calls upon all Member States to ``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.''
    Article 12 requires each party to take appropriate 
measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national 
and international law, to ensure that refugee status is not 
granted to any person about whom there are ``serious reasons'' 
for considering that such person has committed a listed 
offense. Article 13 requires each Party, along similar lines, 
to ensure that asylum is not granted to any person about whom 
there are ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that such person 
has committed a listed offense. Article 12 tracks the specific 
wording of Article 1.F. of the Convention relating to the 
Status of Refugees, done at New York on July 28, 1951, which 
was incorporated by reference into the Protocol relating to the 
Status of Refugees, done at New York on January 31, 1967, and 
which entered into force for the United States on November 1, 
1968. Article 1.F. states that ``[t]he provisions of this 
Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom 
there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) he has 
committed a serious non-political crime against peace, a war 
crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the 
international instruments drawn up to make provision with 
respect of such crimes; (b) he has committed a serious non-
political crime outside of the country of refuge prior to his 
admission to that country as a refugee; and (c) he has been 
guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the 
United Nations.'' Article 13 uses different ``reasonable 
grounds'' language because of certain differences, particularly 
in Latin American systems, between refugee and asylum 
processes.
    Non-Discrimination: Article 14 states that nothing in the 
Convention shall be interpreted as requiring a Party to provide 
mutual legal assistance if the requested Party has substantial 
grounds to believe that the request was 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. This language 
is consistent with Article 15 of the Terrorism Financing 
Convention and Article 12 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention.
    Human Rights: Article 15 is the only article in the 
Convention that specifically addresses human rights matters. 
The Article represents a significant compromise between those 
states, including the United States, that believed that human 
rights issues were adequately addressed in other instruments 
and need not be mentioned in a law enforcement instrument, and 
those states that asserted that the history of human rights 
abuses in Latin America necessitated a provision addressing 
human rights concerns.
    The first paragraph of Article 15 states that the measures 
carried out by the Parties under this Convention must take 
place with full respect for the rule of law, human rights, and 
fundamental freedoms.
    The second paragraph of Article 15, which states that 
nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as affecting 
other rights and obligations of states and individuals under 
international law, is consistent with Article 21 of the 
Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 19 of the Terrorist 
Bombings Convention. The listing of the sources of the rights 
and obligations ismore comprehensive in the Convention than in 
the other two instruments at the request of many delegations that 
sought to have references to specific subsets of international law that 
they believed were relevant to the Convention. The subsets of 
international law that were eventually agreed to included international 
human rights law and international refugee law; international 
humanitarian law was also included, just as it was in the Terrorism 
Financing Convention and the Terrorist Bombing Convention.
    The term ``international humanitarian law'' is not used by 
United States armed forces and can be subject to varied 
interpretations. It is the United States' intention, in the 
context of this Convention, to interpret the term consistently 
with its understanding of the term ``law of war.'' To confirm 
the U.S. understanding on this point, it is recommended that 
the following understanding to this paragraph be included in 
the United States instrument of ratification:

          The United States of America understands that the 
        term ``international humanitarian law'' in paragraph 2 
        of Article 15 of the Convention has the same 
        substantive meaning as the law of war.

    The third paragraph of Article 15 refers to persons taken 
into custody, or regarding whom other measures are taken 
pursuant to this Convention, and provides that they shall be 
guaranteed fair treatment. This language is consistent with 
Article 17 of the Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 14 
of the Terrorist Bombings Convention.
    Training: Under paragraph 1 of Article 16, the Parties 
commit to promote technical cooperation and training at all 
levels and in the framework of the OAS. The United States is 
already providing training and other forms of assistance to a 
number of countries in the region and plans to encourage and 
facilitate such cooperation through CICTE. However, because 
U.S. provision of training and assistance is subject to the 
availability of funds, U.S negotiators were careful to limit 
the legal obligation in Article 16 to the promotion of training 
and assistance.
    Because negotiators recognized the global nature of the 
terrorist threat and the global response to that threat, 
paragraph 2 of Article 16 directs the parties to promote, where 
appropriate, technical cooperation and training programs with 
other regional and international organizations. This provision 
is designed to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that 
limited resources are used most effectively.
    Cooperation Through the OAS: Article 17 represents a 
compromise between those delegations that wanted no reference 
to CICTE at all in the Convention and those states that wanted 
CICTE to be established as the follow-up mechanism for the 
implementation of the Convention. The United States recognized 
the important role that CICTE could play in the implementation 
of the Convention and firmly supports its work. However, the 
United States was not prepared to establish CICTE as the 
permanent implementing body for the Convention due to financial 
and other concerns. In order to maintain maximum flexibility 
during implementation, Article 17 requires only that Parties 
``encourage'' the broadest cooperation within the pertinent OAS 
bodies organs, including CICTE, on matters related to the 
object and purpose of the Convention.
    Consultation Among the Parties: Article 18 requires the 
parties to hold periodic meetings, as appropriate, with a view 
to facilitating full implementation of the Convention and the 
exchange of information and experiences on preventing, 
detecting, investigating, and punishing terrorism. It states 
that the OAS Secretary General shall convene a meeting of 
consultation after the tenth state becomes a Party to the 
Convention, and further states that the Parties may request the 
OAS, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultation and to 
provide other forms of assistance concerning the implementation 
of the Convention.
    Exercise of Jurisdiction: Article 19 states that nothing in 
this Convention entitles a Party to undertake, in the territory 
of another Party, the exercise of its jurisdiction or the 
performance of functions that are exclusively reserved to the 
authorities of the other state by its domestic law. This 
Article is similar to Article 22 of the Terrorism Financing 
Convention and Article 18 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention.
    Final Clauses: Articles 20-23 contain the final clauses. 
The OAS shall serve as depositary for the Convention. Only OAS 
member states may become Parties to the Convention. The 
Convention will enter into force on the thirtieth day following 
the date of deposit of the sixth instrument of ratification. A 
Party may denounce the convention by written notification to 
the Secretary General of the OAS. Denunciation would take 
effect one year following the date the notification is received 
by the Secretary General. Requests for information or 
assistance made while the convention is in force for that 
denouncing state will not be affected by the denunciation.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

