[Senate Executive Report 106-22]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                              Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                      106-22

======================================================================



 
  TREATIES WITH BELIZE, COSTA RICA, THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, GUATEMALA 
        AND PANAMA ON THE RETURN OF STOLEN VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT

                                _______
                                

               September 29, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

  [To accompany Treaty Docs. 105-54, 106-40, 106-7, 105-58 and 106-44]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred 
the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of 
America and the Government of Belize for the Return of Stolen 
Vehicles, with Annexes and Protocol, signed at Belmopan on 
October 3, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-54), the Treaty Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government 
of the Republic of Costa Rica for the Return of Stolen, 
Embezzled or Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes 
and a related exchange of notes, signed at San Jose on July 2, 
1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-40), the Treaty Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the 
Dominican Republic for Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles, 
with Annexes, signed at Santo Domingo on April 30, 1996 (Treaty 
Doc. 106-7), the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Guatemala for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, Embezzled or 
Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related 
exchange of notes, signed at Guatemala City on October 6, 1997 
(Treaty Doc. 105-58) and the Treaty Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the Republic 
of Panama for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Converted 
Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes, signed at Panama on June 
6, 2000, and a related exchange of notes of July 25, 2000 
(Treaty Doc. 106-44), having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with the declarations and provisos indicated 
in Section VII, and recommends that the Senate give its advice 
and consent to the ratification thereof as set forth in this 
report and the accompanying resolutions of ratification.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................2
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................2
 IV. Entry Into Force and Termination.................................6
  V. Committee Action.................................................6
 VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................6
VII. Text of Resolutions of Ratification..............................6

                               I. Purpose

    These treaties obligate the Parties to recover and return 
vehicles and, in some cases aircraft, that are documented in 
the territory of one Party, stolen within its territory or from 
one of its nationals, and found in the territory of the other 
Party.

                             II. Background

    These bilateral treaties share the goals of eliminating the 
difficulties faced by owners of vehicles, and in some cases, 
aircraft, stolen or otherwise misappropriated in one country, 
when they try to secure the return of such vehicles, or 
aircraft, from another country to which the vehicles or 
aircraft have been taken; and of establishing procedures 
facilitating the location and return of the vehicles or 
aircraft. The need for such agreements arises due to the 
increase in transnational theft of such vehicles and aircraft.

                              III. Summary


                               A. GENERAL

    The treaties covered in this report are modeled on the 
single such bilateral treaty in force, the Convention between 
the United States of America and the United Mexican States for 
the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles and 
Aircraft (Jan. 15, 1981, T.I.A.S. No. 10653, entry into force 
June 28, 1983). The latter Convention itself superseded a 1936 
Convention for the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled 
Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Airplanes, or Component Parts of Any 
of Them between the United States and Mexico, which, while it 
established the principle of mutual assistance in the recovery 
of stolen vehicles and aircraft, was framed in very general 
terms.
    The 1981 Convention clarified and established procedures 
for the return of stolen vehicles and aircraft. The treaties 
covered in this report would together establish similar 
procedures while incorporating one major improvement--
establishing more concrete and restrictive deadlines for action 
by the party providing notification of a seized vehicle or 
aircraft or receiving a request for the return of a vehicle or 
aircraft.
    The five treaties summarized here follow the basic 
components of the Convention with Mexico, and are very similar 
to each other. Some have unique clauses, and two do not cover 
aircraft. As with the Convention with Mexico, no implementing 
legislation is necessary.

                           B. KEY PROVISIONS

    For details about each treaty, please refer to individual 
treaty documents. What follows is a general description of the 
format of the proposed treaties.

Preamble

    In general, the treaty preambles note the growing problem 
of international vehicle theft, and express the purposes of the 
treaty as elimination of the difficulties faced by owners of 
vehicles stolen in one country in obtaining the return of 
vehicles from the country to which they have been taken.

Definitions

    The treaties define covered conveyances using the generally 
accepted understandings of what constitutes a ``vehicle'' or, 
where applicable, an ``aircraft.'' Each treaty also provides 
guidance on what constitutes stolen, robbed, embezzled, 
appropriated or misappropriated vehicles or aircraft for 
purposes of the treaties. Some of the treaties also define 
terms associated with timing of requests, and seizures of 
vehicles. Some identify competent authorities for purposes of 
treaty activity.

Party Obligations

    In general, Article 2 of each of the treaties contains the 
key obligations, namely, to return vehicles or aircraft, as 
applicable, from one party's territory to the other's upon 
request.
    In one of the treaties, with regard to a vehicle or 
aircraft that was stolen outside the territory of a requesting 
party from one of its nationals, there is no obligation to 
return if a prior request for return has been made by a third 
party. This provision expressly addresses the possibility of 
requests from both a country in whose territory the vehicle or 
aircraft was actually stolen and a country from whose national 
but outside of whose territory the same item was stolen.

Central Authorities

    Some of the treaties require each party to designate a 
Central Authority for treaty activity. For the United States, 
the Central Authority shall be the Secretary of State, the 
Department of State, or the American Embassy, depending on the 
treaty. One of the treaties also sets out how Central 
Authorities are to communicate with one another.

Obligation to Notify

    The treaties also impose upon the party where a covered 
vehicle or aircraft is seized an obligation to notify the other 
party of the discovery within a certain period following the 
seizure. The notice is to include identifying data described in 
the annexes. In one treaty, where a vehicle or aircraft has 
been seized because it may have been involved in the 
commission, or represent the proceeds, of a crime, the first 
party shall notify the other party within 60 days of seizure of 
this circumstance, so the owner has the opportunity for 
appropriate recourse under the laws of the seizing party.

Storage and Disposition

    The treaties also govern and provide for storage and 
disposition of the vehicle by the seizing party pending 
possible return to the other party. Generally, the seizing 
party may not operate, auction, dismantle, or otherwise alter 
or dispose of the conveyance unless no request for the 
vehicle's return is received within a certain period following 
receipt of notification, or in other specified circumstances. 
In general, the treaties obligate the true owner to take action 
to retrieve the vehicle within a certain period following 
notification by the seizing state.

Form of Requests for Return

    The treaties also state the form to be used by requesting 
countries when preparing and sending return requests to seizing 
states. Some of the treaties permit the despatch and receipt of 
requests between Central Authorities, without the need for 
additional authentications in the requesting country by 
consular representatives of the requested state. In general, 
ownership documents and reports of the vehicle's theft or 
misappropriation must also be included with the request. The 
treaties also set out translation requirements where 
applicable. The treaties also set forth procedures to be 
employed when the requesting party has discovered the presence 
of a vehicle in the requested state through means other than 
notification from the requested state.

Obligation to Respond

    The treaties provide that requested parties are under an 
obligation to respond to requests from treaty partners, and 
sets out time limits, under varying circumstances, for the 
responses. There are also provisions to ensure that the seized 
vehicle remains available for a sufficient period to allow 
treaty procedures to be initiated.

Exceptions to Obligation to Return Vehicles or Aircraft

    In general, when a vehicle or aircraft whose return is 
requested is evidence in a criminal investigation or 
prosecution, it may be retained in the requested state until 
the end of the investigation or prosecution. Under most of the 
treaties, Parties are obliged, however, to take all practical 
measures to ensure that, where available, alternative evidence 
is used. In addition, there is no obligation to return if a 
judicial action results in a decision awarding the vehicle to 
someone other than the person identified in the request for 
return as the owner or owner's representative. One treaty 
specifies that such a decision may include that of an 
administrative panel where the panel is designated to review 
the issue of ownership or custody of the vehicle, as long as 
the requesting party is given adequate notice of the proceeding 
and the administrative decision may be appealed to a court of 
law. Where applicable, these provisions are intended to allow 
for the possibility of criminal forfeiture, but most expressly 
provide the claimant with due process protections.
    In addition, unless the owner and requesting state timely 
reply to notification of seizure from the requested state, the 
obligation to return may be extinguished. Likewise, the 
obligation to return may be postponed if the return of a 
vehicle whose return is requested is not possible owing to the 
pendency of criminal or civil proceedings. In such cases, 
however, the requested state is obliged to send written notice 
of such delay to the requesting state.
    Finally, in some treaties the obligation to return the 
vehicle may be extinguished by the passage of time where no 
request for return is received, or where the owner fails to 
take possession of the stolen vehicle or aircraft after it is 
made available.

Conditions of Return

    Generally, the treaties forbid the assessment of duties, 
taxes, fines, or other monetary penalties or charges as 
conditions of return. However, in some cases, ``reasonable 
expenses'' incurred by the requested state for return of the 
vehicle or aircraft, including towing, maintenance, storage, 
transport, and document translation, may be assessed to the 
claimant and must be paid prior to return. In one treaty, 
``actual expenses'' incurred for return of the vehicle, 
including towing, maintenance, storage, transport, and document 
translation, shall be borne and paid by the claimant prior to 
return. However, in that case, the requested parties are under 
a duty to make efforts to keep expenses down. In certain cases, 
expenses of return may include expenses of repair necessary to 
transport, store and maintain the vehicle in the condition in 
which it was found, but the person requesting return shall not 
be obligated to cover the costs of any other work on the 
vehicle or aircraft done while it was in the custody of the 
requested party.

Limitation of Requested Party's Liability

    The treaties explicitly limit the liability of requested 
parties for damage to recovered vehicles and aircraft while the 
conveyance is in that party's hands, provided that the 
requested party complies with the treaty provisions concerning 
recovery, storage, safekeeping and return of a vehicle.

Treaty Not Exclusive Remedy

    The treaties generally provide that their remedies are not 
exclusive, and do not replace or extinguish remedies or 
procedures which may be available under the domestic laws of 
parties.

Mechanism for Consultations

    The treaties provide that differences or disputes regarding 
the interpretation or application of the treaty shall be 
settled by consultation between the parties.

Final Clauses

    Generally, the treaties are subject to ratification and 
shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments 
of ratification. The annexes and protocols are considered to be 
integral parts of the treaty. The treaties may be terminated by 
either party with a minimum 90 days written notice.

Treaty Annexes

    Each of the treaties has annexes. In general, the annexes 
establish the format and identifying information needed for the 
notification of a stolen vehicle or aircraft, where applicable 
and request for return. A protocol to the Belize treaty 
establishes that there shall be no presumption that a vehicle 
has been stolen if proper U.S. customs documents indicating 
legal exportation are presented. Exchanges of notes, included 
with certain of the treaties, express understandings as to the 
meaning of the term ``appropriate translation,'' to the effect 
that appropriate translations will include generic printed 
forms in English and Spanish, with the blanks filled in with 
standard vehicle or aircraft identification information. In 
some cases, the notes explicitly state that the understanding 
is to be treated as an integral part of the treaty. Under 
international law, an exchange of notes can constitute a 
legally binding agreement.

                  IV. Entry Into Force and Termination


                          A. ENTRY INTO FORCE

    In general, each treaty would enter into force on the date 
of the exchange of instruments of ratification.

                             B. TERMINATION

    The treaties generally provide that either party may 
terminate the agreement with a minimum of 90 days' notice.

                          V. Committee Action

    The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on 
the proposed treaties on September 12, 2000 (a transcript of 
the hearing and questions for the record can be found in Senate 
hearing 106-660 entitled ``Consideration of Pending 
Treaties''). The Committee considered the proposed Treaties on 
September 27, 2000, and ordered them favorably reported by 
voice vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its 
advice and consent to the ratification of the proposed Treaties 
subject to the declarations and provisos noted below.

               VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations recommends favorably the 
proposed treaties. On balance, the Committee believes that the 
proposed treaties are in the interest of the United States and 
urges the Senate to act promptly to give its advice and consent 
to ratification.

              VII. Text of the Resolutions of Ratification


Treaty with Belize

      Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of Belize for the Return 
of Stolen Vehicles, with Annexes and Protocol, signed at 
Belmopan on October 3, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-54), subject to 
the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of subsection 
(b).
      (a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding 
upon the President:
            Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
      (b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject 
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification:
          Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

Treaty with Guatemala

      Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Guatemala for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, Embezzled or 
Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related 
exchange of notes, signed at Guatemala City on October 6, 1997 
(Treaty Doc. 105-58), subject to the declaration of subsection 
(a) and the proviso of subsection (b).
      (a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding 
upon the President:
            Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
      (b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject 
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification:
            Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

Treaty with the Dominican Republic

      Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of the Dominican Republic 
for the Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles, with Annexes, 
signed at Santo Domingo on April 30, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 106-7), 
subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of 
subsection (b).
      (a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding 
upon the President:
            Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
      (b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject 
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification:
            Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

Treaty with Costa Rica

      Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of the Republic of Costa 
Rica for the Return of Stolen, Embezzled or Appropriated 
Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related exchange of 
notes, signed at San Jose on July 2, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-40), 
subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of 
subsection (b).
      (a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding 
upon the President:
            Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
      (b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject 
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification:
            Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

Treaty with Panama

      Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United 
States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama 
for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Converted Vehicles and 
Aircraft, with Annexes, signed at Panama on June 6, 2000, and a 
related exchange of notes of July 25, 2000 (Treaty Doc. 106-
44), subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the 
proviso of subsection (b).
      (a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding 
upon the President:
            Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.
      (b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject 
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the 
instrument of ratification:
            Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.

                                  
