[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER, IS MEXICO A SAFE HAVEN FOR KILLERS?: THE DEL
TORO CASE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-105
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-595 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California (Independent)
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
BOB BARR, Georgia PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
DOUG OSE, California
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Sharon Pinkerton, Deputy Staff Director
Gil Macklin, Professional Staff Member
Sean Littlefield, Professional Staff Member
Andrew Greeley, Clerk
Cherri Branson, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 23, 1999.................................... 1
Statement of:
Bellush, James, husband of Sheila Bellush.................... 12
Borek, Jamison S., Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State;
Mary Lee Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice; and Earl Moreland, district
attorney, Sarasota, FL, accompanied by Charlie Roberts,
assistant STATE attorney................................... 23
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida................................................. 7
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Bellush, James, husband of Sheila Bellush, prepared statement
of......................................................... 16
Borek, Jamison S., Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State:
Letter dated July 29, 1999............................... 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 9
Moreland, Earl, district attorney, Sarasota, FL, prepared
statement of............................................... 51
Warren, Mary Lee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, prepared statement of............... 38
GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER, IS MEXICO A SAFE HAVEN FOR KILLERS?: THE DEL
TORO CASE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Gilman, Ros-Lehtinen,
Souder, Hutchinson, Ose, Mink, Cummings, Kucinich, and
Blagojevich.
Also present: Representative Brady from Texas.
Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, deputy staff director;
Steve Dillingham, special counsel; Gil Macklin and Sean
Littlefield, professional staff members; Andy Greeley, clerk;
Cherri Branson, minority counsel; and Ellen Rayner, minority
chief clerk.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources to order. We will begin the hearing with my opening
statement then I'll defer to other Members, and we'll proceed
with our two panels today.
Today, this subcommittee will address an issue that lies at
the very root of many difficulties we, in the United States,
have encountered with Mexico. And that is, the question of
getting U.S. citizens who have committed capital crimes
extradited back to the United States to face justice.
The issue is a question of extradition. And it is at the
heart of cooperating with law abiding nations in our world
community. I believe it is the key to international law
enforcement and respect for law and order.
Unfortunately, international extradition, especially with
our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is seldom publicly examined.
That is why this issue is a subject of our oversight hearing
today. A critical part of returning a United States citizen to
face prosecution is the adherence to the current United States-
Mexican extradition treaty, which dates from 1980.
The treaty is still in effect. It has never lapsed. It
binds both governments to an agreed upon standard. It is about
the very rule of law in our civilized societies, one that
serves as the basis of both of our democracies. There is no
doubt that the United States-Mexican extradition treaty of 1980
has been taken for granted on numerous occasions. It is taken
for granted in trade and commercial matters, and unfortunately,
it is also taken for granted on matters of immigration.
Today, this subcommittee will examine extradition problems
the United States has had with the Government of Mexico. In
particular, we are going to address the case of the State of
Florida v. Jose Luis Del Toro. We will not take anything for
granted in this hearing. I want to provide background on the
depth of this particular case which I believe may be useful for
the subcommittee.
The U.S. Government has requested the extradition of Jose
Luis Del Toro to Florida where he is wanted for the brutal
murder of Sheila Bellush, a resident of Sarasota, FL. The U.S.
Government has waited more than 18 months for action on this
matter.
The Government of Mexico has refused to turn over Jose Luis
Del Toro, despite our complete cooperation and agreement to
every demand.
The U.S. Government has moved to extradite Jose Luis Del
Toro under treaty agreements that are plain and clear. There is
no argument concerning issues of law in this case. The United
States Government is seeking the return of a United States
citizen, not a Mexican national.
Jose Luis Del Toro was born in the United States to
American parents. His entry into Mexico was, in fact, illegal.
When he was apprehended by Mexican authorities, he should have
been sent back immediately to the United States. This did not
happen, and we would have to ask ourselves why not.
This hearing will examine the answers given to the United
States Government about why the Government of Mexico has failed
to cooperate on this and numerous other cases of extradition.
The witnesses we will call include a bereaved husband and
father of five and a decorated U.S. Marine, a State prosecutor
from Florida, and a Member of Congress. We will hear, in our
second panel from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. State
Department officials.
These witnesses will tell a story, and it isn't a pretty
one. It is a story that we all must take into account because
it tells a larger story of who our friends and allies are.
In addition to the Del Toro case, Mexico has repeatedly
failed to respect over 275 extradition requests in the last 10
years. These cases include murder and illegal narcotics
trafficking. In fact, Mexico has failed to extradite a single
major Mexican drug kingpin.
I'm certain that Mexico has become, unfortunately, a haven
for murderers and drug lords. And personally, I hold great
contempt for their inaction with respect to international law.
Our hearing today will focus on one of the most serious
cases, the Del Toro case. We'll highlight through this process,
the Government of Mexico's lack of respect for international
justice. That concludes my opening statement.
Mrs. Mink, if I may----
Mrs. Mink. I will yield to my colleague.
Mr. Gilman. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Mica. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
Chairman Mica for holding this important hearing. I want to
welcome Congressman Miller, who has been doing an outstanding
job of keeping this issue before the Congress, and Mr. Bellush
for his untiring efforts in coming before our panel this
morning.
Our hearing is about a simple search for justice that is
why we are here today. We want extradition from Mexico of an
American citizen who has been charged with the heinous crime of
premeditated murder. We and the family of the victim, Sheila
Bellush, want and deserve straight answers as to why Mexico and
our government are not doing all that we can in the infamous
Del Toro case.
There can be no safe havens for anyone charged with murder
and fleeing accountability within our system of justice.
Whether those criminals flee to Thailand, Europe, Mexico or
elsewhere around the globe, they must be held accountable to
our institutions and the laws that they violate. Our nations
must work together in helping us obtain that accountability. We
also have a mutual obligation to do the same on our end as
well.
Today's hearing is not about extradition of high-level drug
kingpins from Mexico and the numerous problems in the Mexican
legal system when our government asks for extradition of
Mexican nationalists involved in the illicit drug trade.
We have had hearings on that vital question of Mexican drug
kingpins and extradition to the United States. We are all too
familiar with those problems and the endless delays and
procedural maneuvering that continues south of the border.
The United States-Mexico extradition treaty establishes
that the Mexican Government may refuse to extradite persons for
crimes punishable by the death penalty. The words extradition
may be refused in article 8 of the treaty. Those mandatory
words suggest that Mexican Government could have returned Mr.
Del Toro without delay.
Although the State of Florida clearly, for good reason,
wished to seek the death penalty, the prosecutors in that case
agreed to waive the death penalty at the Mexican Government's
insistence. Now, Mr. Del Toro still sits in Mexico, appealing
the extradition ruling while Sheila Bellush's family is
grieving, deprived of the justice they truly deserve.
I'll be raising these extradition concerns and problems at
an interparliamentary meeting with the Mexican Congress later
this week which I believe the chairman will attend as well. The
case before us today involves a treaty between our Nation and
Mexico in effect since 1980. It is a treaty that we both have
an obligation to honor and to implement. If it is inadequate or
can be changed, then let's move forward on that front. If it is
being misused or misinterpreted, then let's raise our voices in
concern.
Our hearing today will highlight the need for more
accountability in our legal system in a tragic case of
injustice that's before us today, and we look forward to
reviewing today's testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
Mr. Mica. I thank the Chair of our International Relations
Committee and a member of our subcommittee for his opening
statement. I now yield to our ranking member, the gentlelady
from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink.
Mrs. Mink. I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for
yielding and for convening this very, very important meeting. I
especially want to commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Miller, for his tenacious commitment to the search for justice
in this case and to express my personal compassion and sympathy
to Mr. Bellush and his entire family for the ordeal they have
had to endure.
While we may have some differences with respect to the
performance of Mexico on other matters, it seems clear to me,
in this case where our families have been especially aggrieved
and the accused perpetrator of this crime is an American
citizen, that any evasion of the responsibilities of the
Government of Mexico ought to be put to task.
I appreciate the opportunity to have the hearing point this
out again, as you have so consistently, Mr. Miller, on previous
occasions. I look forward to your testimony. I only regret that
the Subcommittee on Education and Workforce has scheduled a
conflicting markup on several bills which convenes in about 10
minutes. I will have to absent myself until those markup votes
are taken, hopefully I'll have a chance to return but I will
certainly read the record. Again, welcome to both of you. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady. I would like to yield now,
if I may. We have another member of this subcommittee who's
joined us, Mr. Cummings from Maryland, who failed to debate me
this morning on Fox because he was tied up in traffic, but I'm
delighted to see that he's made it this morning for our
hearing.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I'm so happy that you made it
clear I was tied up in traffic. I was ready for the battle but
traffic stopped me. Mr. Chairman, extradition agreements enable
countries to enforce their laws and pursue criminals after they
have fled the country where they have committed a crime.
Without strong extradition treaties in place, we face the
possibility of creating a home base for criminals in the way of
neighboring countries where they may be immune from punishment
for the crimes they committed.
Extradition treaties are important for us to examine,
considering that with Canada to the north and Mexico to the
south, the United States is bordered by two countries that
criminals can travel to with virtual ease in hopes of escaping
United States law.
In keeping with this, we need to maintain an agreement and
understanding with neighboring nations and those abroad so that
fugitives of other countries do not feel as though the United
States is a safe haven to avoid penalties or break the laws in
their homeland.
The case of Jose Luis Del Toro illustrates the need for
examination of our country's extradition treaties with other
nations. It seems that, as extradition appeals are subject to
the review and judgment of the respective nation, there is a
potentially dangerous level of subjectivity from case to case
that could create loopholes for criminals in the future.
The implication of the Del Toro case should prompt a
thorough examination of both the extradition process and our
extradition treaties with other nations to ensure that the laws
of our Nation and others remain upheld even when fugitives
attempt to escape to freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for
being here today. As I have said many times to our witnesses,
you make it possible for us to be informed so that we can
appropriately uplift the lives of all Americans and people
around the world. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman. I would like to recognize
another member of our panel who has joined us, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
from Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want
to congratulate our other Florida colleague, Congressman Dan
Miller, for the leadership he has shown on this outrageous
case. It has not only galvanized the community he so proudly
represents in Sarasota, but has touched the hearts and the
conscience of all Floridians; and it should for all the
citizens in the United States who hear about this outrageous
act and the efforts the United States has undertaken to bring
this devil to justice.
It is incredible that, in spite of all our best efforts, no
progress has really been made on the case. I also want to point
out the great work that our colleague Kevin Brady has done on
the issue of extradition in general.
Through Congressman Brady's efforts, he was able to pass in
the State Department authorization a bill, an amendment, to our
committee that says the State Department must give us a full
report of the status of all extradition cases. What are the
obstacles? What are the countries' cooperation levels? He will
be filing a separate bill on this that has the support of both
chairman Gilman of the International Relations Committee and
Chairman Hyde of the Judiciary Committee. So we will either
pass it as a stand-alone bill or through the State Department
authorization bill.
I know in our community not only are we outraged about the
Jose Luis Del Toro case but also about the growing number of
fugitives who have sought refuge in Cuba, 80 fugitives and
counting. There is no extradition that will be forthcoming
through Fidel Castro. But it seems that in countries where we
do have friendly relations--and Mexico is one of those
countries--that in spite all of the trade agreements we have
signed with Mexico, we have not been successful in mandating
that cooperation and extradition cases be part of those deals.
So I congratulate all of the Members who have been working
so hard on this and many other cases of extradition.
Congressman Franks of New Jersey has also been very
instrumental in trying to call attention to a New Jersey case
that has not been resolved in the correct way either. So I
congratulate Congressman Miller and Congressman Brady for their
leadership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. We've already had an
introduction of a gentleman who's not a member of our panel,
but we're pleased to have him join us today and make an opening
statement at our hearing. Mr. Brady, the gentleman from Texas,
you're recognized sir.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, thank you very
much for shining a light, a very bright light on a very
terrible situation, one that many citizens are not aware of but
one that goes to the heart of justice here in America. Thank
you for being a leader on this issue. Representative Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, who is also on the International Relations
Committee, has been a strong supporter of our efforts to make
changes and update our extradition laws, for which I am
grateful.
And Mr. Bellush, I am sorry that you must be here today. I
truly appreciate you helping us try to resolve this, not just
for your own sake, but for a lot of people whose names we don't
know and whose faces we'll never see. People who will find
themselves in a similar situation and will need that justice;
you are going to help us create that for those families. While
I have not met you personally, I had the opportunity earlier
this year in Mexico to plead your case, at the request of Mr.
Miller, directly to the attorney general's office in Mexico. To
talk about how strongly we want the extradition to occur and
how much we want justice in Florida.
You have a very good person fighting hard for you sitting
next to you, and I appreciate Mr. Miller's leadership. You
know, I wish I could say you were the exception rather than the
rule, but you're not.
If we look at ``Spooky'' Davis Alvarez, the serial killer
who fled California for Mexico; Charles Ng who raped and
tortured young people in a cabin in California who fled justice
for 11 years in Canada; Samuel Sheinbein who fled to Israel;
Ira Einhorn who brutally killed a young Texas girl, stuffed her
in a trunk and then left the country and today is still,
despite heroic attempts by the State of Pennsylvania, free in
the south of France. It goes on and on, these cases.
A hundred years ago, criminals would flee to the county
line or the State line to escape justice. Now, they flee the
country and the continent. It's up to us to update our laws to
make sure we close these safe havens for criminals because they
are trying to escape American justice by seeking safe harbor. I
think it's time, just as countries have updated their human
rights laws, their trade laws, the environmental laws, it's
time for the international community to update their
extradition laws.
Here in America, with half of our extradition treaties
predating World War II, you can tell why criminals that are
smart enough, and their attorneys, find those loopholes. It's
our responsibility to close them. I think America has a
responsibility to lead the international community in closing
these safe havens. Congress, through this hearing and through
legislation, is going to send a strong signal to the world that
we are serious about closing these safe havens. Working with
the State Department and the Justice Department together, we
have responsibility to close these safe havens. I appreciate
you being here and your leadership.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your statement and your
participation and leadership on this issue.
Now, I would like to turn to our first panel. Our first
panel, by way of introduction, the Honorable Dan Miller, a
Member of Congress representing Florida's 13th District; and
Mr. James Bellush, husband of Sheila Bellush. Gentlemen, Mr.
Miller, our panel is an investigations and oversight
subcommittee of Congress. We do not swear in Members of
Congress, but you are a witness, sir. And we are going to swear
you in. If you would stand, sir, and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. The witness answered in the
affirmative. Welcome, Mr. Miller and Mr. Bellush. Mr. Miller,
you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank you
very much for holding this hearing and the members of the
committee and the staff that made it possible.
This Del Toro case shocked our community 19 months ago. The
community continues to grieve for the Bellush family and for
the fact that we can't bring this case to a close. It is one of
the most frustrating things I have ever had to deal with. And
for someone who has never had to deal with the criminal justice
system before, I have learned a great deal. It's so
frustrating, you don't know where to turn.
There was great police work on this case. Mr. Del Toro
drove from San Antonio to Sarasota and committed the murder as
accused and then drove back to San Antonio. The local, State,
Federal, and international law enforcement officials acted very
quickly. This was a murder-for-hire case, a conspiracy with
several other people involved. They quickly identified those
people and arrested them. Mr. Del Toro was arrested in Mexico
in November 1997. We are pleased he was apprehended but the
frustration is our inability to bring this gentleman to trial.
I first became involved in this case when Earl Moreland,
who is our State Attorney, contacted me to help bring Del Toto
back to the United States. We didn't think there was going to
be a big deal because it should have been a clear-cut case. We
quickly discovered the complexity and really the helplessness
of this situation. The anger and frustration that we all share
has just outraged our entire community of Sarasota, especially
since they followed it so closely.
The extradition treaty that has been referred to in this
case was the United States-Mexico Treaty of 1978. It gives
Mexico the right to refuse extradition in cases where the death
penalty may potentially be applied. If there was ever a case
where the death penalty would be considered, it would be when a
person drives from San Antonio to Sarasota with the intent to
brutally murder a young mother of six children.
But this case is not just a case for Florida. Mexico shares
a very large border with the United States. As we began to
research the case, we came across other cases. Two months
before the Bellush murder, there was David ``Spooky'' Alvarez
who murdered his girlfriend and three other members of her
family in California.
The district attorney there is Gil Garcetti. Mr. Garcetti
decided he was not going to waive the death penalty. He said,
``To allow a vicious killer to avoid the most severe punishment
for these murders by merely crossing the border into Mexico
would encourage other murderers to seek refuge there.''
That's the frustration law enforcement has in making those
decisions. I know Mr. Moreland, and I know it was not an easy
decision for him to make either. But we want to bring Mr. Del
Toro to serve justice--justice delayed, they say, is justice
denied. To allow this escape from our justice system by
crossing the border into Mexico, is an escape that we need to
find a way to block, to stop.
Last year, as Mr. Gilman pointed out, his committee
approved--and Mr. Brady was helpful as were other Members and
it was supported on the floor of the House--a resolution that
we renegotiate that treaty with Mexico.
Much to my dismay, the administration is in opposition to
that, and I hope we'll hear this morning from the State
Department why they're opposed to the renegotiation of that
part of the extradition treaty.
As I said, we share a large border with Mexico, and there
are millions of people living along that border. It is so easy
to cross over. But we also have these problems with other
countries. We also share a large border with Canada, but Canada
is much more agreeable in their handling of some of these
cases. For example, the case you mentioned, Mr. Charles Ng, a
convicted serial killer, was brought back without assurances of
the death penalty. Canada is moving in a more cooperative
attitude on this issue than Mexico appears to be.
Mexico said they had no choice but to extradite. Well, he
should have been deported. We were expecting his deportation
days after he was arrested, and then at the last minute they
decided to go through the extradition process. But Mexico has
the ability to deport.
In December of this past year, James Edward Tillis was
accused of killing two people in Arkansas, crossed over to
Mexico; and was arrested and deported within the next day or
so.
This is one case and there are many more. Our concern is to
get Mr. Del Toro back and the second part of our concern is to
prevent future Del Toro cases. We need to close this loophole
and make justice a priority. I mean, what would have happened
if Timothy McVeigh had crossed into Mexico? Would we still be
waiting for Timothy McVeigh to stand trial?
I hope this is an important step in getting justice served
in this country, and I thank you once again for having this
hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.003
Mr. Mica. Did you want to introduce Mr. Bellush?
Mr. Miller. With me today is a very brave individual who
has suffered the most in this case because it was his wife,
Sheila Bellush, who was murdered on that morning of November
1997. He was actually a short-term resident of Sarasota. He
moved from San Antonio and now has gone back home with his
parents so they can help to raise his six children. As you
know, he's a father of children that were 2-year-old
quadruplets at that time and he feels so strongly about
bringing this to conclusion that he is willing to testify
today.
I personally would have a very difficult time doing what
Jamie is doing today. So I'm glad that he's able to be with us
today to personalize the concern, the suffering that he has
experienced, and why we need to make these changes.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Bellush you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JAMES BELLUSH, HUSBAND OF SHEILA BELLUSH
Mr. Bellush. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee, I want to thank you today from the bottom of
my heart for giving me the opportunity to come before you today
and express the frustration and pain my family and I continue
to experience from the Mexican Government's delay in the
extradition of the suspected murderer of my wife, Jose Luis Del
Toro, Jr.
My name is Jamie Bellush, and 19 months ago I moved back to
northwest New Jersey into the home where I grew up. I'm a
widowed father of five including 3\1/2\-year-old quadruplets.
Yes, you heard me. That's three boys and one girl; you can see
their picture over there on the monitor. That's a current
picture. And a 15-year-old daughter. For the past 10 years, I
have been a pharmaceutical representative with Pfizer Inc.,
working in Florida, Texas, and New Jersey.
I'm a decorated former Marine Corps officer who served with
the 2nd Marine Division in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a
reservist during Operation Desert Storm.
On November 7, 1997, my wife was at our home in Sarasota,
FL, with our then 23-month-old quadruplets, Timmy, Joey,
Frankie, and Courtney. I left for my job at about 7:30 a.m.
Sheila had dropped off my daughter Stevie at school and I'm
sure stopped at McDonald's to get breakfast for the
quadruplets.
At approximately 10 a.m., Jose Luis Del Toro, Jr., entered
our home through the garage. He confronted Sheila in the
laundry room of our home. He aimed a .45 caliber pistol at her
face and fired a single bullet. The bullet entered her cheek
and exited out the back of her neck. I don't know how familiar
you are with handguns, but the .45 caliber handgun is probably
the most powerful handgun in the world.
The concussion and shock of the bullet dropped her to her
knees. The pathologist found bruises on her knees. She was
still alive, though, and despite unimaginable pain, struggled
to make it to the phone, I'm sure to call 911.
Not wanting this to happen, Jose Del Toro opened one drawer
in the kitchen and then another. He found a sharp knife with
approximately an 8-inch blade. He used the knife to slice
Sheila's throat first on one side and then the other. At one
point while she struggled to ward off Del Toro; he stabbed her
right through her hand. Losing blood, she fell to the floor in
the kitchen. She was only 5 foot 3 in stature and a mere 107
pounds, no match for her attacker, a muscular, agile former
high school football player.
You can only imagine the sight as she lay on the floor of
the kitchen taking in her last gasps of air through the pools
of her own blood. Imagine the confusion and horror of Courtney,
Timmy, Joey, and Frankie wondering why Mommy can't get up. At
about 4 p.m. that afternoon, my stepdaughter Stevie got off the
bus. Her mother was her hero and best friend. She would share
all of her school girl crushes with her mom. And on that day,
she was especially excited because a cute new guy had asked her
out.
She bounded into the front door of the house never
suspecting what she was about to find. She saw her quadruplet
baby brothers and sister huddled together crying without
diapers on and I'm sure starving for not having been fed since
the morning. She then looked into the red-stained kitchen to
see her mother's bloody body, a horrific scene that will be
branded on her memory for eternity.
At this time, Mr. Del Toro was well on his way back to San
Antonio, TX. Del Toro, as you may know, was a trigger man in an
elaborate murder-for-hire conspiracy. Mr. Del Toro thought he
had gotten away. But in his mission to destroy the life of my
beloved wife, he left in his wake a cesspool of evidence. This
evidence includes, but is not certainly limited to, an eye
witness seeing a man matching his description walking through
the neighborhood; a lawn maintenance man who copied down the
license plate number of the car in which Del Toro was the only
driver; a perfect fingerprint on the dryer of our home that
matched De Toro's; a copy of the Texas driver's license of Del
Toro, who had checked into the Hampton Inn in Sarasota, FL.
After driving back to Austin, TX, Del Toro changed out of
his clothes at his friend's house. The police later collected
the clothing he was wearing at the time of the murder,
spattered with Sheila's blood. He left his car in Austin, which
was later recovered by police. In the car they found the gun
used to murder Sheila, a hotel room key, and towel from the
Hampton Inn in Sarasota as well as the address to our home in
Sarasota.
But the best evidence of all, Del Toro's own cousin, Sammy
Gonzalez who himself was involved in the conspiracy, has pled
guilty to solicitation of capital murder and agreed to testify
against his own cousin and his involvement in the crime.
So why are we here today? And why isn't Del Toro sitting on
death row in a Florida prison? And why has my family been
subjected to continued anguish and been denied justice? Because
Mr. Del Toro, who is an American citizen, and who murdered
another American citizen on American soil, crossed the border
into Mexico.
The Mexican Government has decided to interfere with the
American justice system and allowed Del Toro to appeal his
extradition all the way to the Mexican supreme court and harbor
this criminal in a Mexican jail. This is not an isolated
incident, as you're well aware. Mexico has time and time again
delayed the extradition of wanted violent criminals.
It would have been simple, legal, and reasonable for the
Mexican Government to simply deport Del Toro and turn him over
to Texas Rangers. And when was Del Toro arrested? On November
20, 1997, the day we buried Sheila on a cold, windy hillside in
New Jersey.
So here we are 19 months later, and the Mexican Government
still cannot even give us a broad estimate of when he will be
returned to the United States to stand trial. As another
infringement to our national sovereignty, the Mexican
Government has forced the State of Florida to agree not to
impose the death penalty when Del Toro is convicted. So Mr. Del
Toro will spend the rest of his life in prison for
slaughtering, no, butchering my wife in cold blood in front of
our children.
Let me briefly touch on who Sheila was. Sheila's father,
Francis Anthony Walsh, Jr.'s name is listed on a black granite
wall near the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, when she was 10, his plane
was shot down over Laos. She was a wonderful, warm woman who
had Jesus Christ in her heart. Everyone who ever met her loved
her. She was a devoted mother. She was bright and funny. She
was one of the most beautiful women I have ever met. And it was
an honor and a privilege to have been her husband.
She was my biggest fan and I hers. She was my support. She
was the only mother my children will ever have. I loved her
very much, and to this day there is a hole in my heart. Not 10
minutes go by without me thinking of her. I grieved at first
because I lost my beloved wife who had so much life left to
live. Now I grief because I will not have Sheila--I'm sorry. I
then grieved because our children--for my children because they
no longer had a mother. Now I grieve because I will not have
Sheila to share those special memories and prideful moments as
our children grow up, the graduations, the recitals, the little
league games, and the rest.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please do not
allow Sheila to die in vain.
Please change the extradition treaty with Mexico and
prevent the delay of justice and the pain for other victims of
crime whose perpetrators run to Mexico. Please decertify and
withhold financial aid from Mexico and other countries that do
not cooperate and interfere with our criminal justice system.
It is time we stop playing patsy politics with Mexico.
I just want to thank a couple of people. I want to thank
Mr. Moreland, Mr. Roberts, and the rest of the State
prosecutor's office in Sarasota, the county district attorneys,
the Sarasota County sheriff's, and the Texas rangers who have
done a phenomenal job in this case.
I want to thank Mr. Dan Miller from Florida and you, Mr.
Chairman, for the courage to stand and voice outrage at the
delay of the Mexican Government in extraditing Jose Luis Del
Toro. Additionally, I want to thank Mr. Gilman for moving House
Resolution 381 through the International Relations Committee to
a full House vote on the floor.
And last, I want to thank Senator Bob Torricelli who has
done more for me than just writing letters and making phone
calls, but became a fervent advocate for one of his
constituents and getting personally involved in helping me and
my family.
And finally, I want to leave you with an image. And that's
why we don't keep helium balloons in our house for long. I tell
Timmy, Joey, Frankie, and Courtney that Mommy is in Heaven with
Jesus. They ask me if she's still bleeding. Yes, they remember
what they saw. They walk outside and they let their helium
balloons go. We asked them why they do this. And they tell me
they're sending them up to Mommy in heaven. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bellush follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.006
Mr. Mica. Mr. Bellush, you have to be one of the most
compelling witnesses I think I've ever heard in my short
tenure, 7 years in Congress. I'm sure the other members of the
panel join me in commending you for your courage in coming
forward. I know it has to be difficult. If there is any sense
to be made out of the whole horror of all of this, hopefully
your testimony and your statement today will get people's
attention.
Sometimes it takes incredible tragedy in our country to get
the people's attention to what needs to be done and what's
right. So again, I just--you're one of the most courageous men
I have ever met. I thank you.
I thank Mr. Miller, too, for bringing this to our
attention. He's represented you very well, been an untiring
advocate, brought this before the House and Mr. Brady and
others. I'm just a small bit-player in the congressional
process in taking over the responsibility of drug policy. I
really am appalled that Mexico, as a neighbor and ally, could
allow this injustice, not just in your case, but dozens and
dozens of cases.
I said in my opening statement we have 275 requests for
extradition, some 40 major drug kingpins who have inflicted
death and destruction on our young people and similar
unbelievable stories. The hardest thing I have to do is talk to
people like you and then to parents who have lost a young
person to the horrors of Mexican heroin or cocaine that has
come through our now open commercial borders.
Sir, I heard in your testimony, you said we should use
whatever tools we have at our disposal including
decertification. We do provide Mexico with very substantial
trade benefits; NAFTA has given them great advantages and an
open commercial border. We bailed out Mexico when they were at
their financial wits' end.
You feel that, again, we should use whatever means possible
to get some attention to this extradition item. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bellush. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Mica. In your struggle----
Mr. Bellush. If I could just say one other thing.
Mr. Mica. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Bellush. I'm continually appalled at how our government
continues to sit back and hand out money to foreign governments
when they have absolute disregard and contempt for our criminal
procedure and our laws.
You look at the case--I mean, I'm fervently pro-Israeli,
but I'm appalled that the Israeli Government has failed to
extradite--I can't recall the gentleman's name right now--but
Sheinbein, this man, he mutilated somebody. And Mr. Mica, I
don't understand. I mean, I know I'm just a private citizen,
but it just blows me away that we just stand there and let
people trample all over our judicial system and still hand out
the money.
Mr. Mica. Not only stand there, but at great benefit--trade
and finance benefits. We get very little respect in return. In
fact, I consider this an affront to the American people.
In your quest for justice, can you tell me about your
cooperation from our State Department in this matter?
Mr. Bellush. Sir, I've had absolutely no contact with the
State Department at all. All my contact with--I have spoken to
someone in the Justice Department a couple of times, but most
of my contact has come through Mr. Miller's office or Senator
Torricelli's office. Quite frankly, that's sort of sad when you
think about it that--I mean, Charlie Roberts' office down in
Sarasota, the State prosecutor's office, has continual
communications with the victims.
I've got no communications from the State Department or the
Justice Department on a regular basis. And quite frankly, that
should--those should happen. I shouldn't have to go to Mr.
Torricelli and Mr. Miller or Ms. Roukema, who is my local
representative in New Jersey, to find out what the status of
the extradition is.
Mr. Mica. You don't feel that in your particular case in
trying to pursue this extradition that either State nor Justice
has been responsive?
Mr. Bellush. Yes, sir. And I don't know exactly what goes
on. I'm sure there are wonderful people that work in those
departments but there has been very little communication. There
have been a couple of times I spoke to somebody at the Justice
Department and no communications with the State Department at
all.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I will yield at this time to the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you, Mr. Miller, for your efforts. I think this is very,
very important. And I appreciate it. And to you, Mr. Bellush, I
want to thank you. I can only echo the words of our chairman,
you have a lot more courage than I do. I think it would be very
difficult for me to do what you just did. And I do appreciate
it.
One of the things, I'm glad you raised the issue of the
Sheinbein case because that comes out of my State. And I agree
with you. I think this country needs to take another look at
what we do with regard to these types of issues. The chairman
said he's just a small player--and I guess to a degree we all
are small players here--but we also represent, this Congress
does, some 270 million people. And certainly, we represent you.
I think whenever we have a policy that allows anyone to
escape the laws of this country when they commit crimes in this
country, no matter what they are, I think we have a major,
major problem. So I just want you to know that we will do
everything in our power, working with your Congressman and
others, to try to make sure we do not let your wife die in
vain.
The role that you played here this morning, is more
important than you may ever know, because so often I think what
happens in the Congress is that we fail to put a face on the
policies and put feelings on the policies and see behind them.
You have given us that opportunity to peer in a window of your
house, on a very painful day.
So I really don't have any questions of you. I'm just
curious as to the next panel, what they will have to say. I am
so interested to hear this. I just thank you very much.
Mr. Bellush. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Miller, a quick question. You were
responsible for introducing House Resolution 381, in which you
recommended the President of the United States should
renegotiate the current extradition treaty with Mexico. Were
you given any explanation from the administration about its
opposition to this resolution? Maybe you would like to comment
about your efforts in trying to pass this resolution.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to submit a prepared statement for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection the entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Mr. Miller. Yes. It was last fall, in October, that House
Resolution 381 was passed by voice vote on the floor of the
House to ask for renegotiation of the extradition treaty. The
administration, and specifically the State Department, said
they were basically opposed, and we'll hear in the next panel
more details of that. They say it is because the death penalty
is the objection.
However, Mexico apparently may not recognize the life
sentence either. There is a case of a drug dealer that Mexico
refused to extradite because they don't support life sentences.
So I don't know where we can draw the line. Especially when you
have U.S. citizens accused of a crime in the United States.
Mexico should have nothing to do with the case. That's true
whether it's in Israel or Canada. That's certainly true in the
United States. If we have a Mexican citizen in the United
States, that person should be sent back as fast as possible.
It's one of the many frustrations in this case, and that's
the reason, 19 months later, we're still waiting for a person
to stand trial in Sarasota.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I would like to yield now, if I may,
to the gentleman from Texas for questions, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Chairman Mica.
You've served your country in peacetime and war as a U.S.
Marine. The Marines are known for taking on the toughest
assignments, doing the hardest jobs. You were called upon by
the United States Government to do everything possible to
liberate Kuwait, and you served with the 2nd Marine Division.
It's one thing to demand that Mexico deport this United
States citizen--and I'm from Texas. And this Jose Del Toro is a
Texan, an American citizen. He doesn't deserve any protection
from Mexico on this issue. But there's also the question, are
we doing all that we can to help you see justice in this case?
And from your perspective do you feel that everything humanly
possible has been done by the U.S. Government to return Jose
Del Toro to America for justice?
Mr. Bellush. Mr. Brady, no, sir. I don't think it has been.
I hate to think that, but I think my wife's murder deserves the
attention of Mr. Clinton. I know he has taken trips down to
Mexico and I just--I can't believe that this isn't a priority,
to address this issue of extradition.
The other area where I think there's significant room for
improvement, not--aside from renegotiating the extradition
treaty, are the communications channels from the State and
Justice Departments.
Mr. Brady. Tell me about that.
Mr. Bellush. As I stated earlier, I think there must be
some way that the State and or Justice Departments could
communicate on a more regular basis with victims to tell them
what the status of extradition is. Even if somebody drops a
letter in the mail to me every month and said, ``Mr. Bellush,
we're sorry to tell you there's no further progress in the
case.'' That would be appreciated.
As I stated earlier, anytime there's any development in a
criminal matter in the State of Florida, I get a letter from
the Florida State attorney's office trial dates, hearing dates,
those kind of things. As a victim, I think you deserve to know
these things. And I certainly think that with an international
issue like extradition you should certainly know about these
things.
Mr. Brady. How often do you talk to the State Department?
How often do they contact you?
Mr. Bellush. I have never spoken to anybody in the State
Department. I believe I spoke to somebody in the Justice
Department once or twice. But all those phone calls were
originated from me. They weren't phone calls made to you or
communication made to me. They were all phone calls that were
originated by me. Again, I'm not here to bash the State or
Justice Departments, but certainly this is an area where we
need improvement.
Mr. Brady. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I want to thank you, Mr. Bellush. As I said, you
have been an incredible witness. We salute you for serving your
country. Today, you serve very well the memory of your wife,
and you've also served this country, I think, and your children
with your testimony today. Because it is so important that we
bring this killer to justice and that we, as representatives of
you and the American people, see that extradition is carried
through and that there is justice and particularly in this
case, international justice.
I have no further questions at this point for you or Mr.
Miller. There is a vote in progress, so we're going to excuse
you. Again, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for your
courage in coming forward and for what you've done today to
shed light on this important issue. I know that your being here
is going to make a big difference. So I thank you, sir. And
thank you, Mr. Miller.
I'll excuse both of our witnesses. We will recess for 15
minutes. And reconvene at 11:15, after this vote. At that time,
we'll hear from our second panel. This meeting stands in
recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I would like to call this meeting of the
subcommittee back to order. Our order of business is to hear
from the second panel on the topic ``Is Mexico a Safe Haven for
Murderers?'' and in particular today, we're looking at the Del
Toro case.
The second panel consists of Mr. Earl Moreland, district
attorney from Sarasota, FL. I believe he's also accompanied by
Mr. Charlie Roberts, assistant State attorney, who will be
available for questions. Our second panelist is Ms. Mary Lee
Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General with the Department
of Justice. Our fourth witness is Ms. Jamison S. Borek, Deputy
Legal Advisor to the Department of State.
As I explained to our earlier panelists, this is an
investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress. So if
you would stand, please, and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Witnesses answered in the affirmative. We ask
that you limit your opening statement to 5 minutes, your oral
presentation before the subcommittee. If you have lengthy
statements or additional information you would like submitted
for the record, we will do that by unanimous consent request.
With those comments, I would like to recognize first Ms.
Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor to the Department of
State. You're recognized.
STATEMENTS OF JAMISON S. BOREK, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARY LEE WARREN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND EARL MORELAND, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, SARASOTA, FL, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLIE ROBERTS,
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
Ms. Borek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee for this opportunity to testify before you today. I
will give a little overview of the extradition relationship
with Mexico, and I understand that the other witnesses will
speak more specifically about the Del Toro case.
As you have noted, the extradition relationship with Mexico
is based on our fairly modern 1980 treaty, which replaced a
badly outdated bilateral treaty that had been in force since
1899.
There are a number of issues in the extradition
relationship which have been noted so far in this hearing. One
of them is certainly the question of the extradition of
nationals. The treaty provides, as do a number of treaties,
that the extradition of nationals is discretionary. Many
countries are prohibited by their constitution or other
domestic law or as a matter of policy do not extradite their
own nationals. This includes a number of countries in Europe
such as France, Germany, Austria, and Belgium, as well as many
in this hemisphere, such as Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and
Venezuela.
The U.S. Government does not consider it appropriate, for
the reasons that have been noted in this hearing, to create a
situation in which nationals can never be extradited for
prosecution in the United States or in any other country. And
it has been a very high priority to try to convince all
countries to agree to extradite their nationals.
This is a particular problem, I might note, with civil law
countries. Common law countries, which share a comparable legal
tradition with the United States, do tend to extradite
nationals. It is the civil law countries, the countries with
European based or Spanish based legal systems, which tend not
to do so.
They also tend to have laws that permit them to prosecute
their own nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the world.
And so, historically, the view has been ``we will prosecute
them here rather than in other countries.'' There are a number
of problems with this and as I say, it's been a strong policy
of the Justice and State Departments and the U.S. Government as
a whole to try to negotiate treaties that provide for
extradition of nationals on a mandatory basis in all cases.
We have made some notable advances in the hemisphere, for
example, in recent treaties with Bolivia and Argentina; but it
is still obviously an issue that we're grappling with.
Turning specifically to Mexico, as I noted, it is
discretionary in the treaty whether or not to extradite
nationals; and for many years the Government of Mexico did not
extradite nationals at all, citing limitations under domestic
law. In 1996, there was a breakthrough of sorts in that the
Government of Mexico determined that they could apply language
in domestic extradition law to extradite nationals in
exceptional cases.
Since then, they have been extraditing a number of
nationals, not by any means at all. There are still, in many
cases, a decision to prosecute domestically. And there have
been difficulties with challenges in courts in Mexico
concerning the extradition of nationals.
There have been problems, in particular over the last--
basically, since late last year, with the interpretation of
article 4 of the Mexican Penal Code. A number of court
decisions in which the courts ruled that because it was
possible to prosecute the nationals in Mexico, it was necessary
to prosecute them and they could not be extradited.
The Government of Mexico has been working with us very
closely in an effort to litigate this issue successfully in
courts, to take the question to the Supreme Court of Mexico
where hopefully there would be a reversal of this decision. So
far, however, this is still in process. There has to be a split
of decisions in order for the supreme court to take the case,
and they are looking for the split of decisions to be able to
do so.
Another issue which is particularly relevant to the Del
Toro case is the question of the amparo process. The amparo
process is essentially a constitutional bill of rights-type
equivalent in the Mexican legal system, whereby individual
citizens can challenge the constitutionality of an action of
the government as applied to them.
I have to note that in general, the U.S. Government wants
American citizens to benefit from legal guarantees in foreign
countries. As a general principle, we believe Americans should
enjoy equal rights and equal treatment in foreign courts and in
foreign criminal justice systems. So there is no objection in
principle to American citizens being able to take advantage of
this remedy; however, there are problems with the remedy
itself.
The difficulty is that, unlike the United States system
where you must raise problems at certain times, you can only
raise them so often, and if you fail to raise them you are
precluded from raising them, in Mexico you can bring an amparo
challenge at many different points in time in different courts
and over and over again. And therefore there is a much more
undisciplined and lengthy delaying process than the comparable
process in the United States.
Nonetheless, the amparo is widely regarded in Mexico as one
of the sort of constitutional bulwarks of their rights and
guarantees. Although they recognize there are certainly abuses,
there's also a strong feeling, a sort of popular feeling, as I
understand it, in favor of the process.
Another area of concern which has been mentioned is life
imprisonment. This is not something which is provided for in
the treaty, and it is not something which the Government of
Mexico itself has created problems with. But there have been a
number of court decisions holding that for constitutional
reasons, life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment. I
think the terminology is a little different--it's ``cruel and
extreme.'' And that someone could not be extradited to face
life imprisonment.
The Government of Mexico is again litigating these cases.
It's too soon, I think, to say how the litigation is going.
These are fairly recent developments, and they are still being
litigated.
Finally, there is also the problem of the death penalty. I
have to say, this is a different sort of problem in a way than
the nationality problem and in some ways a larger problem.
As I noted, there are a number of countries which have a
practice of not extraditing without assurances that the death
penalty will not be imposed. This includes a number of
countries in Europe and other parts of the world. This
reflects, from their point of view, a human rights concern. I
think you must be aware there are a number of countries which
do not believe in the death penalty. There are a lot of
extradition treaties in which the other party has insisted that
in death penalty cases extradition be discretionary and they
have asked for assurances in practice.
We are very much against this and certainly we have spent a
lot of time defending the death penalty, not only in the
extradition context but also in the human rights context. For
example, in the Human Rights Commission where there are
regularly resolutions against the death penalty, it is a
different kind of problem and one that we were struggling with
without, perhaps, some of the prospects of progress that we
have seen in the nationality area.
Thus, as I say, these are problems which, to a certain
extent, are not unique; however, with Mexico there is a special
relationship geographically. Because of the possibility of
people going back and forth across the border, obviously the
impact of these problems is very severe, and the concern that
we have about them is equally very severe. The extradition
relationship has been, for a very long time, at the top of our
United States-Mexico bilateral agenda, as has law enforcement
generally.
I think it's fair to say that with the development of these
additional problems, particularly in recent years, there is an
even more intensified awareness and commitment to grappling
with these issues in the U.S. Government at the State
Department and I think I can say also the Department of
Justice. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that the full
statement be accepted for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection the full statement will be made
part of the record. We'll withhold questions until we've heard
from the other witnesses in this panel.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Borek follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.014
Mr. Mica. I recognize next Mary Lee Warren, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, the Department of Justice. Welcome.
Ms. Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss
with you the history and status of the Jose Luis Del Toro case
and to provide you with continuing information about our
overall extradition relationship with the Government of Mexico.
In the second regard, I will offer an update on events that
have transpired over the last month since my prior testimony
before this subcommittee. I request that my full written
statement be included in the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection so ordered.
Ms. Warren. Clearly the case of Jose Luis Del Toro is a
matter of extraordinary significance to all. Mr. Bellush has
provided a moving personal account of the crime, its
devastating impact, and the frustration that is felt with the
process of bringing Del Toro back to Florida to face justice.
We too at the Department of Justice have voiced our concern
about the crime and the delay, and we offer our sympathies once
more to the family who has suffered this horror. Today I will
limit my testimony to a description of the actions taken by the
two governments to effect his return to this country.
In the 10-day period from November 11, 1997, 4 days after
the murder, to November 21, 1997, first, the Florida
authorities notified the Department of Justice that they
believed Del Toro was in Mexico. Mexican officials and our
Embassy were officially notified; the United States requested
his deportation or, in the alternative, provisional arrest for
extradition. The authorities located Del Toro in Monterrey,
Mexico; and he was arrested for extradition pursuant to the
treaty by the Mexican authorities.
It has been asked why Del Toro, a United States citizen,
was not simply and summarily deported from Mexico rather than
being brought within the more lengthy and complicated
extradition process. Clearly, the U.S. Government would have
preferred the use of deportation mechanisms in this case.
Indeed, our INS agents at our Embassy in Mexico City worked
hard pursuing this course when they were first informed that
Del Toro might very well be in Mexico.
It appears, however, due to the extreme brutality of the
crime charged, the threat posed by Del Toro to others, the real
risk that he might succeed in his flight from justice, and the
perceived difficulties in obtaining nearly immediate assurances
that the fugitive would not receive the death penalty if
surrendered to the United States, the office of the Mexican
attorney general believed that the wiser, safer course of
action was to obtain a provisional arrest warrant for
extradition under the treaty so that they could guarantee their
legal authority to arrest and detain Del Toro as soon as he
could be found.
In retrospect, all of us including the Mexican Government,
wish that Del Toro had simply been deported; but during the
fast-breaking events in late November 1997, the immediate and
primary goal was to ensure that he did not get away. Both
governments have now learned from this experience that when
necessary and mutually acceptable, death penalty assurances can
be provided promptly in deportation cases as they must be
provided in extradition cases under the treaty.
But in those last minutes in the hunt for Del Toro,
arresting and holding him seemed far more important than the
particular avenue for his return.
Continuing with the chronology, by early January 1998, well
within the limitations period, Florida authorities compiled an
impressive package of proof which was then formally submitted
to the Government of Mexico. By the end of March 1998, both the
court that initially provides an opinion on extraditability and
the foreign ministry had decided in favor of our request. This
is a very speedy handling of the request.
Immediately following the entry of the court, an Executive
order authorizing extradition, Del Toro, using the Mexican
amparo process, began his legal challenges to his surrender
back to the United States. In the extradition context, the
amparo process is something akin to habeas corpus, as Ms. Borek
has mentioned.
Our best understanding of the nature and status of Del
Toro's amparo is that first he sought relief from two district
courts challenging the constitutionality of our extradition
treaty. His challenge was rejected by both district courts and
thereafter found by the Mexican supreme court to be ineligible
for immediate review.
He then sought relief in the same two district courts
challenging the legality of the Mexican Government's actions in
complying with the treaty and holding him for extradition.
Again, his challenge was rejected by those two district courts
and found procedurally deficient by the supreme court. Del
Toro's case as it relates to the legality of the extradition
order issued by the foreign ministry in Mexico is now before an
appellate or circuit court in Mexico.
The ability of a fugitive like Del Toro to file claims on
various issues in different district courts, neither of which
was the original extradition court, is unlike anything we have
in our common law tradition. It is painfully slow and from our
perspective prone to corruptive influences.
We need to appreciate, however, that the amparo process in
Mexico, like the writ of habeas corpus in the United States is
one that embodies a fundamental right, as Ms. Borek mentioned.
There came a time in our recent history that the dilatory and
practiced abuses of the habeas corpus writ by some defendants
so delayed the progress of their cases and so clogged our
courts that these abuses began to threaten the full and fair
administration of justice to all--other defendants, the
prosecution, and the public.
Congress then enacted landmark habeas corpus reforms. In my
humble opinion, Mexico's amparo process would be well served by
taking analogous reforms.
A final thought on the Del Toro case: it should be
emphasized that we have prevailed in Mexico before the courts
and in the foreign ministry at every turn. Lengthy as the
process has been, Del Toro has lost at every effort.
Let me give you a brief update on where we are in our
fugitive and consultative relationship with Mexico. There have
been no dramatic changes in our fugitive relationship since
last month's hearing before the subcommittee.
Nevertheless, we note that after 3\1/2\ years of fighting
his extradition, William Brian Martin, a U.S. citizen accused
of major narcotics offenses in the district of Arizona, was
returned to the U.S. authorities. A second United States
citizen was recently returned through the United States-Mexican
prisoner transfer treaty process to the eastern district of
Virginia on narcotics charges.
In my May 13 testimony before this subcommittee, I detailed
the recent trends of adverse decisions on extradition in the
Mexican courts; and, as Ms. Borek mentioned, the Mexicans have
been looking for a conflicting decision on the article 4 issue.
They may very well have found one now that will create a split
of decisions within the circuits that then will be resolved
finally by the Mexican supreme court. We remain cautious but
optimistic.
As I testified last month, deportations had been the
especially bright light last year for returning criminal
fugitives, those criminal fugitives who were United States
citizens and had violated Mexico's immigration laws. However,
we must now advise in the area of deportation, just as with
extraditions, we have been experiencing a noticeable decrease
in the numbers of surrenders from Mexico, a situation we had
not anticipated after last year's successes.
On a more positive note, however, as has been made clear,
it is important to advise this subcommittee of the actions that
have been and will be pursued at the highest levels of both the
United States and Mexican Governments to improve the bilateral
fugitive relationship.
Early this month, Attorney General Reno led the United
States delegation of several Cabinet members, agency heads, and
departmental representatives at the binational commission
meetings in Mexico City and had an opportunity to meet with all
the Mexican officials responsible for extradition, for article
4 prosecutions, and for deportations.
The fugitive and extradition issue was the primary topic
for discussion at the meeting of the Legal Affairs and
Antinarcotics Cooperation Working Group chaired by the Attorney
General and ONDCP Director McCaffrey and was also the first
agenda item for the meeting of the high-level contact group.
Attorney General Reno addressed fugitive matters at length
in her personal meetings with Mexican Attorney General Madrazo
and Foreign Secretary Rosario Green. She stressed the need to
continue progress on deportations with their interior
secretary, Mr. Carrasco. And she voiced her concerns over the
status of the fugitive relationship directly with President
Zedillo in their brief meeting during the binational
commission.
As a result, there is some renewed attitude of cooperation
at the highest levels of both governments to pursue immediate
and intensive consultations to address these issues as
efficiently and effectively as possible.
We recognize that the members of this subcommittee have set
as a priority and commitment that this administration press the
Government of Mexico to take affirmative steps to eliminate the
notion and reality of safe haven and impunity for many
fugitives in Mexico.
I can state once again that the improvement of the fugitive
relationship with Mexico has been and remains one of the
Attorney General's and the Justice Department's highest
priorities and that we will use all resources and measures at
our disposal to make progress and achieve the type of positive
results that this subcommittee desires and that are deserved by
the public we serve. I thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Warren follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.024
Mr. Mica. I would now like to recognize Mr. Earl Moreland,
district attorney for Sarasota County, FL.
Mr. Moreland. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for the invitation to appear today. The murder of
Sheila Bellush in Sarasota, FL, was one of the most heinous
crimes ever committed in my jurisdiction. Tragically, the shock
of this brutal crime has really been compounded over the last
18 months by Mexico's refusal to turn over to us the man
charged with the murder, despite our complete cooperation and
agreement with every demand.
Mr. Bellush told you many of the facts earlier. There are
some pictures on the monitor to help you realize the impact
this crime has had, not only on the Bellush family but on our
community.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Moreland, are you requesting that we put
those up? They are pretty gruesome. Did you want those on the
monitors?
Mr. Moreland. I will leave that up to the subcommittee
staff, who I gave those to.
Mr. Mica. Well, we have them, but I want it to be your
request.
Mr. Moreland. Yes, we would request that.
Mr. Mica. OK. We'll go ahead and put those up then.
Do you have some concerns? Wait a second. It is OK?
Mr. Bellush. I want them shown, sir.
Mr. Mica. The husband wants them shown. So I didn't want to
put those up unless I had----
Mr. Moreland. I understand, sir.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. A request from you and the consent
of the victim's husband. All right. Thank you. You may proceed.
[Slides.]
Mr. Moreland. As Mr. Bellush has previously told the
committee, Sheila was home with her 23-month-old quadruplets
when she was shot in the face by an intruder. After he shot her
and while Sheila was still alive, the intruder slit her throat
on both sides of her neck. She bled to death. Her four children
remained alone in her house for 6 hours until their 13-year-old
sister arrived home from school and discovered her mother's
body. The four babies were alone with their dead mother during
this time, crawling in her blood.
The Sarasota sheriff's deputy launched a superb and massive
investigation that within days, as Congressman Miller has told
you, identified Jose Luis Del Toro, Jr., as the killer. Also,
as Mr. Bellush told you--and I think one of the things that
makes this case even more frustrating--is the evidence was
really overwhelming in this case. Witnesses had identified Del
Toro and Del Toro's car in the area. A copy of his
identification was recovered from a local motel. Other evidence
included Del Toro's fingerprint at the scene and a fingerprint
on the murder weapon, the gun which was found in Del Toro's
car, and Del Toro's clothing spotted with Sheila's blood.
It should also be noted the two accomplices were also
identified and they were taken into custody. The Texas rangers
missed Del Toro by about an hour when Del Toro fled to Mexico
after he learned the police were looking for him. As you have
also been told, Del Toro was an American citizen. He was born
in the United States of America to American parents. He
murdered an American citizen on U.S. soil. We believe that Del
Toro's entry into Mexico was illegal under Mexican law and upon
apprehension that he could have and should have been deported
back to the United States.
In fact, that's what we were told would originally happen.
As a result of some more excellent police work with the Texas
rangers and the Sarasota sheriff's department, Del Toro was
apprehended in Monterrey Mexico within weeks of the murder.
Promptly, Mexican officials announced the decision to
deport Del Toro to the United States. I received a call in my
office that afternoon that Del Toro, in fact, was en route to
the Mexican-Texas border and would be delivered to United
States officials that evening.
I waited for the call informing us that Del Toro was in
custody. Finally around midnight I was notified that for no
officially stated reason, Mexican officials had rescinded the
deportation order, Del Toro had been transported to Mexico
City, and Mexico was demanding that the United States seek
formal extradition of Jose Del Toro. Shortly thereafter, the
United States Department of Justice informed us that the
Mexican Government would not extradite Del Toro unless I would
give assurance that Del Toro would not receive the death
penalty if extradited. Jose Luis Del Toro was a hard killer. He
murdered Sheila Bellush in a cold, calculated manner traveling
from Texas, hiding in Sheila's home. The death occurred in a
heinous, atrocious, and cruel manner including a gun shot wound
to the face and a slit throat.
With the six surviving children, including the quadruplets
who were present during the murder, it is hard to imagine a
case with more victim impact than the Bellush family suffered.
This was undoubtedly a case where the death penalty was
appropriate. But unfortunately, the people of Florida will
never have the chance to hold Del Toro fully accountable for
this heinous crime.
We were told unless the death penalty was waived, Del Toro
would be released. And after talking to the Bellush family, we
felt we had no choice. We agreed to waive the death penalty. We
filed the necessary extradition papers with the Justice
Department.
Despite making that concession a year and a half ago, Del
Toro has still not been returned. A Mexican judge and the
Mexican foreign ministry have approved the extradition. The
case is now stalled in the Mexican supreme court of justice.
The Mexican Government refuses to provide satisfactory answers
to our questions about the status of the extradition. No one
can tell us when to expect a resolution or even if that
resolution necessarily ends Del Toro's appeal possibilities.
My office is in almost weekly contact with the Justice
Department, the American Embassy in Mexico City, and the
Mexican Embassy here in Washington. I have spoken with Attorney
General Reno, whom I worked with as a prosecutor in Florida,
about this case.
Even now, the Justice Department and U.S. officials have
tried to be helpful. I know their hands have been tied by
Mexico's complete lack of information and misinformation. We
were originally told by Mexican officials that this whole
process would take 3 to 4 months. That was 18 months ago.
Mr. Chairman, we thank your committee for seriously
considering this matter and urge you to take some action in
this case. We have not been able to accomplish anything through
other channels. The citizens in our community do not believe
that justice is being done and feel outraged at being held
hostage by Mexico. We hope that you will hold Mexico
accountable for their actions in this case and that Jose Luis
Del Toro will be returned to Florida to face justice.
I'll be happy to answer any of your questions. Mr. Charlie
Roberts is the lead prosecutor in this case. He prosecuted the
codefendants. He's also here to answer your questions and we
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moreland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.026
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Moreland. I
have some questions. First of all, Ms. Warren with the
Department of Justice, I'm a little bit concerned, in your
statement you said there's a renewed attitude of cooperation at
the highest levels of both governments to pursue immediate and
intense consultations on how to address common problems in this
area and bring these fugitives to justice. But you also
testified that we have actually lost ground on the deportation
matter. Can you tell us where we really are? These seem to be
contradictory. You're saying one thing and doing something
else.
Ms. Warren. The deportation issue and that we were losing
ground was just brought to the Mexican authority's attention
and really just came to our attention in the past month.
It was brought to the Mexican authority's attention by
Attorney General Reno when she was down there earlier this
month. She spoke directly to their interior minister who
oversees their immigration department.
Mr. Mica. Is that Green?
Ms. Warren. No, Rosario Green is their secretary of state,
their foreign minister. The interior minister new to that
position, his name is Carrasco. She met with him personally and
brought this to his attention. He said he would look into it.
We have also sent a list of target deportations to them,
individuals that we believe are U.S. citizens that can be
located and are sought on charges here. He promised at that
time that he would look into it and try to act.
Mr. Mica. So we're actually losing ground, you testified,
on the deportation question.
Ms. Warren. So far this year and I wanted to bring that to
this subcommittee's attention.
Mr. Mica. That's very frustrating. I have been down there
personally, met with Green and met with the attorney general
and others. You also testified you thought this would be the
subject of immediate and intensive consultations. Can you
elaborate on that? What is planned? Where are we taking this
from here?
Ms. Warren. Just that the highest levels have agreed that
we will need to treat this at the highest levels.
Mr. Mica. Are there planned meetings? Are there----
Ms. Warren. There will be meetings within the next month.
Mr. Mica. And you said at the highest levels. Is that----
Ms. Warren. Any problems that cannot be immediately
resolved, any misunderstandings or disagreements as to what the
process is, what the level of proof that's necessary in an
extradition request is, those kinds of issues. If they cannot
be resolved, they will be referred to cabinet level officers
for review.
Mr. Mica. Do you know if the Department of Justice or the
Attorney General has any recommendations to Congress, any
legislative changes or changes in policy that we determine--we
certainly give them tremendous trade and financial benefits. Is
there anything that you're recommending that we can do to give
you better leverage or positioning to deal with the situation
in Mexico in particular?
Ms. Warren. Well, there are several recommendations in the
anticrime bill for the 21st century that would be helpful here.
For example, one of the recommendations is that defendants not
be given credit for the time abroad fighting extradition. He
should not get credit on his later sentence, once tried in the
United States, for that time served in delaying the process.
We've offered that as a suggestion. Another: to create a
fund for district attorney offices and local prosecutors to
compile these enormously expensive extradition documents and
translation. Sometimes it is back-breaking to a local
prosecutor's budget.
We would also like to strengthen our immigration laws so
that we can refuse entry to someone fleeing from justice from
another country; have that as a grounds for denying them entry.
Mr. Mica. Well, if you have any additional recommendations
we would certainly like to hear about them, either in this as
part of this record or submitted to the subcommittee. You also
testified that the Mexican judicial system, I think you said,
is prone to corrupt practices. Obviously, to pursue this in
Mexico, Mr. Del Toro has to have some finances. Do we know
where he--how he's financing these appeals and how this process
is moving forward? He's gaming the system. Do you have any
direct knowledge or do we have any knowledge that corruption
has played a part in his delaying this process and us getting
justice served?
Ms. Warren. We have no knowledge or information about
corruption in this particular case. Just within Mexico, they
recently suspended a magistrate for what they believed was
corruption in a decision in the Adon Amezcua case. However, we
are concerned about who is financing Del Toro's challenges.
This is a costly affair to go on and on. And we have formally
requested an investigation by the Mexican authorities into the
source of funds for these innumerable appeals.
Mr. Mica. You mentioned the Amezcua case--that's the one
who had the charges dropped and he was released or was that--
there are two brothers who were the methamphetamine kings who I
believe had charges also dropped that are still kept. One was--
--
Ms. Warren. This is Adon, not the two brothers. We had no
charges on Adon, only Mexican charges. And that's the one.
Mr. Mica. I have an incredible array of mug shots. These
are Mexican nationals, not United States nationals, who we have
requested extradition and, in fact, part of the work of this
subcommittee is to seek their extradition.
I think they're putting up a couple of the particular
suspects here.
We're having the same problem with our drug kingpins in
addition to murderers. I asked the question about how Del Toro
is financing these appeals. Is the Department of Justice
looking into that or anyone? State? Anyone?
Ms. Warren. We have not had any information in the United
States about that, but we believe there might be some
information in Mexico. Therefore, we have filed a formal
request for an investigation of who is paying his attorney's
fees.
Mr. Mica. The other thing that came to mind today in
hearing this very compelling testimony is that we have systems
in place that notify folks of progress in the investigation
where there's an airline crash. We have all kinds of other
things that Congress has required that have been instituted.
It seems to me that the Department of Justice or State
ought to have some mechanism to at least keep the victim's
family informed in these cases, particularly these heinous
murders and crimes where these folks are using extradition as a
cover. Is the department planning to put in place any
procedures or some system of notification?
Ms. Warren. That I don't know. I can tell you in this
particular case, on a biweekly basis we have contacted Mr.
Moreland's office to keep them up to date. We have also
provided some advice to Mr. Miller's office from time to time.
We have tried to keep in contact, in regular contact with the
prosecutor whom we feel in many ways we represent in these
extradition proceedings.
Mr. Mica. Finally, you said you felt a little bit boxed in,
that a mistake was made at the beginning about whether to
request deportation. But then, I'm even more dismayed when I
hear that now deportation is falling apart.
Ms. Warren. I also need to be clear on that. The same
amparo process is available in deportation cases from Mexico.
So it's only speculation that he would have been returned more
swiftly through deportation than extradition. It's our
understanding the reason why the Mexican authorities chose
extradition over our first alternative, which was deportation,
was that they believed they had better standing and clearer
authority to arrest and detain such a violent person that they
did not want out on the streets or to escape justice.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Moreland, first of all I hope that you
will extend our compliments to the police department for doing
what appears to be an outstanding job. I mean, having practiced
criminal law for 20 years, I know these cases--I mean, you can
have some real difficulty. But, as I look at the time line and
what you all were able to accomplish, it is phenomenal.
Mr. Moreland. Yes, sir. I will thank you. They did do an
outstanding job.
Mr. Cummings. I'm kind of confused about a number of
things. I just want to try to figure out where we are here.
Ms. Warren, does Mexico have something comparable to our
life imprisonment sentence? Do they sentence people to life?
Ms. Warren. They sentence them to a term of years. For
example, in the Alvarez case that has been mentioned here
several times, the defendant up for murder sought out of Los
Angeles, was sentenced to 90 years.
Mr. Cummings. Do they have a comparable thing to what we
have here, time off for good behavior and that kind of thing?
Ms. Warren. As I understand it, they do have a good time,
some credit there that's given; but with the term of years like
that, I believe it is expected to be actual life in the end.
But they don't have a penalty ``life'' as we do.
Mr. Cummings. So a basis for this, for these appeals, I
mean, for--like a defense I guess here would be--and I can't
remember exactly what you said that life, the life, possible
life sentence might be, something that might be raised? Or has
been.
Ms. Warren. That has been a problem in some other cases; it
has not been raised here. And it is not recognizable under our
treaty and should not prevail. Those cases remain on appeal.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Moreland, I don't know whether you can
answer this or not, but we're talking about the financing of
this--of what's going on in Mexico. Do you all have any
theories on whether there's still money flowing any kind of
way? I mean with regard to the--and it might be information you
can't disclose but I was just curious.
Mr. Moreland. It is difficult to speak to that, but that's
certainly one of the frustrating things, the unanswered
questions. We were really unable to find out despite inquiries
that were made. We're very glad to hear that recently the
Justice Department has made official inquiries with the Mexican
Government to try to find those answers.
Mr. Cummings. Two defendants have been convicted. Is that
right?
Mr. Moreland. Yes, sir, two have been convicted.
Mr. Cummings. You don't think anything is happening there
money-wise?
Mr. Moreland. No. Those two have been convicted. They're
both in jail at this time.
Mr. Cummings. This amparo, is that how you pronounce it?
Ms. Warren. Amparo.
Mr. Cummings [continuing]. Process. A person can just go to
any court anywhere?
Ms. Warren. It appears to be, the amparos were not filed in
the extradition court but in two other district courts. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. So that can be raised at any time.
Ms. Warren. I would like to think there are some
limitations on how many times they can raise them. They
certainly have not been able to raise the same issue twice, but
they're not required, as our defendants are, to accumulate in
one application all their claims.
Mr. Cummings. Now, one of you ladies mentioned that we have
had cases where, out of Mexico--and I think it was based upon
these--where drugs were involved, where folks were extradited.
Is that right?
Ms. Warren. We have had many extraditions from Mexico.
There were 12 last year. Many on narcotics charges. We have not
had a Mexican national drug kingpin ever extradited, but we
have had other narcotics traffickers extradited including a
Mexican national return to serve his drug sentence here in the
United States from which he had escaped, for example.
Mr. Cummings. Do you get the impression--and I'm just
trying to put this puzzle together--do you get the impression
that when you look at this crime, this is a horrendous crime.
Ms. Warren. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. And I'm just wondering do you get the
impression that the Mexican authorities say when you compare
this to a drug case--what we do is we have been able to get
people extradited. Here we have a horrendous crime, a murder,
which is far more serious. And I'm just wondering do you get
the impression that the Mexican Government looks at this from
the stand point, well, this is something where we know that
this person may get a life sentence, is far more serious, so we
want to do more to be protective of them? I'm just curious.
Ms. Warren. I can tell you that within the past few years
there have been seven extraditions from Mexico on murder-
homicide charges to the United States. That includes a Mexican
national for killing a border patrol agent, for example. So
they do extradite on homicide and where they're facing
certainly up to life in prison.
Mr. Cummings. Is there something that was done in that case
that is much different than this case, the one you just
mentioned? In other words, do we have all of these filings?
Ms. Warren. In those other cases, not as many amparos were
filed. Sometimes--they sometimes took up to 2 years to resolve.
But we didn't have the same array of filings, as far as I
recall.
There have been some terrible offenders. They're charged
with terrible crimes anyway in the United States, sexual abuse
and murder of minors, and we have sought their extradition and
they have been extradited.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I recognize now the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr.
Moreland, first, for whatever it's worth, on the waiver of the
death penalty, I think you did absolutely the right thing. I
know that wasn't an easy decision to make at all. Our families
had an experience with violent crimes ourselves. I'm a strong
advocate of the death penalty. As tough as that decision was, I
just want you to know I think you did the right thing.
Second--and I'll direct this to Ms. Borek and Ms. Warren--
isn't this problem growing, the problem of people seeking safe
havens in other countries? Seems to me, as they flee the
country, as their crimes become more sophisticated as drug
traffickers, money launderers, exploit loopholes--it seems to
me this problem is not going away.
In fact, it's only going to get worse, which leads to the
next question. Half of our extradition treaties are pre-World
War II. The last round of updated treaties that was brought to
the Senate, the majority of those treaties were a quarter of a
century old.
We seem to have a patchwork of mutual legal agreements in
country prosecutions, provisional arrests, and just a whole
patchwork of issues that we're trying to--the patchwork of
solutions. But we have serious issues on the death penalty, now
on life in prison, which scares me because the question is,
where do we draw the line on whether the countries tell us our
justice system can bring about?
Haven't you made a very strong argument for renegotiating
our treaties with Mexico as well as with other countries? And
finally, why hasn't the State Department and Justice Department
communicated with Mr. Bellush? I mean, at the local level
prosecutors like Mr. Moreland and others understand that it is
not only, in some cases, the rights of victims to know the
status of those cases but just basic human decency tells you
that is something you must do.
When the responsibility shifts from the local prosecutor to
the Federal level to bring justice about, it seems to me it's
our responsibility at the Federal level, State and Justice, to
communicate on a regular basis. To set up a system whether it's
a toll-free line or liaison or victims' rights advocates. We're
doing it at the local level all the time because we know that
is the right thing to do.
I don't understand why we don't have that in place. Maybe
we do and I'm wrong. But if we don't, it's way past time to do
that.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll let them answer all those
questions.
Ms. Borek. All right. Well, I'll start. And I think then
Ms. Warren will have to fill in. Although Justice is in a
better position to give a professional opinion, I think it's
true there are more problems. There is more crime; it is more
sophisticated. Therefore, you have--in a certain sense you have
more quantity of difficulty.
I think also in the area of the death penalty, that is
potentially a growing problem because of the attitudes about
the death penalty. For example, as you know, Amnesty
International, I believe, has a big campaign against the death
penalty. This is a particular kind of problem.
On the extradition of nationals, on the other hand, we like
to believe that this is a problem which we are managing to
begin to resolve, because countries must see that this is not a
viable approach given the modern realities of transnational
crime.
We have a very aggressive program of renegotiating
treaties. We had a hearing last fall where I think we had some
30 mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition treaties.
The mutual legal assistance treaty program is completely new.
And there we don't even have old treaties to go by. We have to
start from scratch. The problem in the area of death penalty
and nationality is not the renegotiation of treaties. It's that
the other countries have to agree to it. And sometimes they
don't.
And so we have even recent treaties, for example with
France, that do not provide for the extradition of nationals
and that do not have clear provisions on death penalty cases.
I do hope that we can draw the line at death penalties; we
have been very, I think, staunch in our reaction to life
imprisonment issues, which are not provided for generally in
treaties, and we don't want to start providing for them.
As far as contact, I think I have to defer really to the
Justice Department. We play a very secondary role in connection
with the actual management of individual U.S. requests. They
grow out of prosecutorial activity. We become involved in the
areas of the State Department expertise.
I have to say, we have eight lawyers and three paralegals
who handle not only 3,000 extradition requests outgoing and
incoming, but all of our multilateral treaty negotiations on
crime and terrorism, all of the work on terrorism, all of the
bilateral agreements, a growing number of multilateral
initiatives in the G-8 and EU, for example, in addition to
providing all the domestic legal support for the international
crime and drug activities of the State Department, plus
certainly a lot of the intelligence activity.
Mr. Brady. If I may interrupt. That case load isn't an
excuse. We have counties with more than 3,000 cases, active,
that they are dealing with, and they know that it is critical
that they communicate with the victims in those crimes,
especially the violent crimes. And they have set up the systems
to do that, not flawlessly certainly, but it is now recognized
as a basic right and service of prosecution. And for whatever
it is worth, if you need the resources, ask for the resources.
There are a number of us who I think would go to bat for you on
that.
Ms. Borek. As I say, I don't think we're the best people to
do that because the real detailed understanding and expertise
on the case-management side is at the Justice Department. But I
do think that it is a question that's been raised about how
much contact there really is at the Federal level as opposed to
the State and local levels. I note there's been a tremendous
amount of contact with the State and local prosecutors in the
course of these activities. Thank you.
Ms. Warren. Maybe just quickly, to agree that I think crime
is growing, certainly transnational crime, so that we have--now
we're seeking the extradition of so many defendants who have,
in fact, never physically come into our country but caused
crimes here, through narcotics trafficking and other ways.
But I think that I agree with Ms. Borek that there is a
growing realization in the international community that
international crime threatens everyone and that this is a
matter of trust between nations. There is a change, a real
trend toward extraditing nationals that before it was
unspeakable. For instance, in the western hemisphere in Latin
America, now Bolivia, Argentina, and Mexico have extradited
nationals and we have four requests before Colombia at the
moment.
So crime is getting worse, but I think there's a better
understanding about the transnationality of that crime.
In terms of communicating with victims, as I said before,
we tried to meet what clearly are our obligations by keeping
the local prosecutor informed. Perhaps we need to work a lot
harder on that in speaking with the local prosecutor about
ensuring that, who takes the responsibility in notifying and
keeping up to date the victim's family, something clearly we
can work on and discuss how best to handle it. It is helpful to
have it brought to our attention in such a powerful way.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Souder, did you have any questions?
Mr. Souder. No, other than as Mr. Miller has brought this
case to my attention as we've brought forth, it's hard to
understand how we got in this situation. Other than continuing
to express our outrage, which we ought to do regularly whenever
we have a chance, to the Mexican Government. And if we weren't
such a decent country, why, we ought to snap somebody up and
force an exchange.
Because it's outrageous. There is no reason that there
should be an extradition process. We have enough trouble
getting drug traffickers who are responsible for deaths in this
country who are citizens of Mexico back. Why in the world an
American of--I mean, I don't understand the process. I have
read your testimony. I'm sure like others I'm outraged.
This is a matter of keeping the pressure on and working
with Mr. Miller to do everything we can and the chairman of
this subcommittee and the other committees. So I thank you for
holding the hearing, for continuing to go forth. Because while
this looks like a case that directly relates to a tragic murder
in Florida, this could affect any of us in any of our States,
and we need to look at the international policy between the
United States and Mexico and elsewhere. And you may at least be
helping save other people from similar pressures because of
your persistence. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. I have just a couple of
closing questions. First of all, Ms. Borek, are there written
communications between the Secretary of State and her
counterpart relating to the Del Toro case?
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.031
Ms. Borek. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Mica. Can you check the files? And if there are, I'd
like to request--and I'll ask staff to make a formal request to
the Department of State for any written communications.
Now, there was a high-level working group just a couple of
weeks ago. I know the Attorney General was there. Is that
correct? I think the Secretary of State was scheduled to go,
but she got waylaid to go into the Balkans region and the
conflict there. Who represented the Department of State at
those high-level groups, Ms. Borek?
Ms. Borek. We had the Acting Secretary for Western
Hemisphere Affairs and also the Assistant Secretary for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement.
Mr. Mica. And was this case in particular----
Ms. Borek. An Ambassador.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Raised by those representatives?
Ms. Borek. Sir, I believe Ms. Warren was actually present
at all of the meetings.
Mr. Mica. I'm not asking about Ms. Warren. She's already
testified. I'm asking about the Department of State, which is
responsible to deal with these other countries. Was that raised
by either of these individuals, this case?
Ms. Borek. Not as a case. They raised the extradition----
Mr. Mica. Have either of those individuals transmitted any
communications with any officials in the Mexican Government
relating to this case? Can you also check that.
Ms. Borek. I'll check that.
Mr. Mica. And provide the subcommittee with a copy.
Do you know if the Secretary of State plans to raise this
as an issue now, this particular case?
Ms. Borek. There is not a present plan to raise it. If
there is usefulness in doing so, I'm sure we would.
Mr. Mica. We have had the Department of Justice testify
today that this is going to be the subject of immediate and
intensive consultation. As the Department of State, this whole
issue of extradition and the problems we're having with
deportation, who's going to participate in that or who is
participating? Is that going to be the Secretary of State or
some of the individuals you just mentioned?
Ms. Borek. The plan is not final, but as I understand it
would be high-level individuals, at the level that we've been
discussing, short of the Secretary of State, and then if there
were remaining issues, they would be raised to higher levels.
Mr. Mica. I would like staff to prepare a letter from the
committee asking that this be raised, and we'll get the members
to sign that both by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
State's representatives, and to the Department of Justice, the
Attorney General and their representatives.
Now, you've been here before, Ms. Moreland on this issue;
and you're back again, and I understand that you've testified
that this is going to be the subject of immediate and intensive
consultation. I will tell them, the minority and the other
members of the panel, and we'll notify them that we will have
another hearing on this issue. I don't know if we'll be able to
do that the first week in August or when we return in
September, but if necessary, we will request the presence or
subpoena both the attorney general and the Secretary of State
to testify on the progress of this.
We believe this is a very, very important issue. I don't
know how we're going to get attention from those--and our job
is only as representatives of the people to try to make the
executive branch respond to our request and what our citizens
are requesting. Certainly, the Bellush family deserves justice
in this case, not to mention the dozens and dozens of drug
kingpins who still are at bay.
Ms. Moreland, do we have any hope on the extradition of
any--I'm sorry, Ms. Moreland. Ms. Warren. I'm sorry. I'll get
it straight. If I'm going to pick on you, I need to at least
get your name right. I should know you very well after having
you back again. Ms. Warren, is there any hope on any of the
fronts in any of the cases involving Mexican nationals for
extradition?
Ms. Warren. There are many of those cases moving through
their courts.
Mr. Mica. Can you tell me one? Is there one? Can we ever
see one Mexican national extradited to the United States?
Ms. Warren. Well, we have had Mexican nationals
extradited----
Mr. Mica. I'm talking about major drug kingpins. I have a
photographic gallery, and we can provide you with the names.
Last night I submitted the names in the Congressional Record
and will supply you with that. Is there any hope of getting any
of those specific----
Ms. Warren. Looking at your array here of photographs, as I
understand it, through their deputy attorney general in Mexico,
the courts have recently decided in favor of the extradition of
Arturo Paez-Martinez. That is the case that may very well be
the conflict of law case that will go to their supreme court,
along with the adverse decisions that we've had. But that case
is moving more swiftly now.
Mr. Mica. That may be our only hope.
Ms. Borek, one question I forgot to ask and request, the
President of the United States met with the President of Mexico
in the Yucatan peninsula earlier this year. Do you know if the
President of the United States brought, in particular, the Del
Toro case to the attention of President Zedillo then or since?
And I would imagine that the Department of State would have
copies of any of his communications. If so, could you provide
the subcommittee with a copy of any of the above?
Ms. Borek. Sir, I did check because you asked before and
I'm informed that the President didn't raise this case in
Merida. As for subsequent communications, I would have to
consult with the NSC.
Mr. Mica. Would you also do that. And could we also have
the staff prepare a letter to the President requesting his
attention to this case.
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, if I may note that both the head
of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, were also present at
that trip in Merida. And may we ask if either of those raised
this issue directly with the key people?
Mr. Mica. If they raised it is one question, and then any
written communications I would like to have as part of the
record. If you would comply with that request, we would be most
appreciative. I will leave the record open for 30 days without
objection to provide that information. The gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
wanted to have a few comments before we close. I think that one
of the things that has frustrated me in being in Congress is a
lot of times we have motion, commotion, and emotion, and no
results. And that doesn't serve anybody very well.
I'm glad to hear you say what you just said, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, when you were the ranking member of the civil service--
chairman. I'm sorry, chairman. Next year I will be able to call
you ranking member but----
Mr. Mica. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to
continue to dream on.
Mr. Cummings. But when you were the chairman, one of the
things that I think we shared--and I was the ranking member of
that subcommittee--is that we tried to make sure that we acted
so that things got done, so that we didn't come back a month,
2, 3 months later or a year later and have the same discussions
over and over again. And so I was very pleased to hear you say
what you just said. And I would only echo what you have said.
Some kind of way we have to try within our power to address
these issues and make them No. 1 issues.
When you hear the kind of testimony that we heard today and
you see those pictures, those pictures--and this will forever
be imbedded in the DNA of every cell in my brain. When you have
that kind of testimony, if you can't do it under these
circumstances, I don't know how we're going to do it.
I'm constantly reminded that this is the most powerful
country in the world and that if we can accomplish all the
things that we are able to accomplish, certainly we ought to be
able to pull this one off. And so I just wanted to say that. I
want to thank you, Mr. Bellush, for being with us. I wish you
and your family well. And you will all be in my prayers. Thank
you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. I had one more question,
really, to ask Mr. Earl Moreland. And you don't have to submit
your answer now. But I would like to have you submit, if you
can--you have dealt with this situation and with the whole
extradition process. I asked Ms. Warren and I ask you, if you
could provide the subcommittee with any recommendations for
changes in laws or procedures at the Federal level that we may
be able to institute. Some we may not be able to make changes
in. We're dealing in an international arena here. But any
recommendations you might have and could think about and submit
to the subcommittee, we would like to make as part of the
record. If you would be so kind to provide that based on your
experience.
Mr. Moreland. Yes, sir I will. Thank you for that
opportunity.
Mr. Mica. Well, the purpose of this hearing, again, was to
find out if Mexico is a safe haven for murderers and drug
traffickers. Unfortunately that question has to be answered
today in the affirmative. I didn't hold this hearing just to
pick on Mexico, but to try to hopefully bring justice at the
request of one of my members who I respect very deeply, Mr.
Miller, the gentleman from Florida, and for his constituent,
Mr. Bellush, who has given, again, some of the most compelling
and riveting testimony I think that's ever been presented
before a congressional panel, one man and one family seeking
justice for their loved one.
Hopefully we can bring this to national, international
attention; and as Mr. Cummings said, whatever it takes, working
together, to see that justice is served. Again, we are most
grateful to you, sir, for testifying, for having the courage to
come forward and, again, seek justice for your wife and for
your family.
And there being now, I'll--excuse me. We do have the
unanimous request consent, the unanimous consent request by Mr.
Souder that statement by Mrs. Mink and other Members be
submitted to the record. We have another statement by Mr.
Kucinich to be considered by unanimous consent. And any others?
There being no objection, so ordered. There being no further
business to come before this subcommittee of Congress, this
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3595.039
-