[Senate Executive Report 117-4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress     }                               {      Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                               {           117-4

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



 
   TREATIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF 
           CROATIA ON EXTRADITION AND MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

                                _______
                                

                  June 23, 2022.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                    [To accompany Treaty Doc. 116-2]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the Agreement between the Government of the United States of 
America and the Government of the Republic of Croatia 
comprising the Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of 
the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of 
America and the European Union, signed June 25, 2003, as to the 
Application of the Treaty on Extradition signed 25 October 1901 
(the ``U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement''), and the Agreement 
between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Republic of Croatia comprising the Instrument 
as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the Agreement on Mutual 
Legal Assistance between the United States of America and the 
European Union signed at Washington on June 25, 2003 (the 
``U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement''), both 
signed at Washington on December 10, 2019 (Treaty Doc. 116-2), 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with one 
declaration with respect to each, as indicated in the 
resolutions of advice and consent, and recommends that the 
Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as 
set forth in this report and the accompanying resolutions of 
advice and consent.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................2
 II. Background.......................................................2
     (A) The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement.......................2
     (B) The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement...........3
III. Entry into Force and Termination.................................4
 IV. Committee Action.................................................4
  V. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................4
 VI. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement............4
VII. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement9
VIII.Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification........14

     (A) The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement......................14
     (B) The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement..........14

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement is to 
modernize in important respects the Treaty between the United 
States of America and the Kingdom of Serbia for the Extradition 
of Fugitives from Justice, signed October 25, 1901, which is 
currently in force between the United States of America and the 
Republic of Croatia. The purpose of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual 
Legal Assistance Agreement is to formalize and strengthen the 
institutional framework for legal assistance between the United 
States of America and the Republic of Croatia in criminal 
matters.

                            II.  Background


                 A. U.S.-CROATIA EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

    The United States is currently party to more than 100 
bilateral extradition treaties, including a treaty with the 
Kingdom of Serbia for the Extradition of Fugitives from 
Justice, which was signed on October 25, 1901, and entered into 
force on June 12, 1901 (hereafter the ``1901 treaty''). The 
1901 treaty applies to the Republic of Croatia as a successor 
state to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
    The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement serves to implement, 
as between the two Parties, the Agreement on Extradition 
between the United States of America and the European Union 
(``the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement''), which was signed on 
June 25, 2003 and entered into force on February 1, 2010. 
Application of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement to the 1901 
treaty, as reflected in the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement, 
meaningfully updates both the procedural and substantive 
aspects of the extradition relationship between the United 
States and the Republic of Croatia.
    The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement is designed to 
modernize the 1901 treaty. Most significantly, it replaces the 
outdated list of extraditable offenses with the modern ``dual 
criminality'' approach, thereby enabling coverage of newer 
offenses, such as cyber-related crimes, environmental offenses, 
and money laundering. In addition, it includes several 
provisions updating and streamlining procedural requirements 
for preparing and transmitting extradition documents.

         (B) THE U.S.-CROATIA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

    Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (``MLATs'') are 
international agreements that establish a formal, streamlined 
process by which governments may gather information and 
evidence in other countries for use in criminal investigations 
and prosecutions. The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement is designed to strengthen the institutional framework 
for legal assistance between the United States of America and 
the Republic of Croatia in criminal matters. In order for the 
United States to successfully prosecute criminal activity that 
is transnational in scope, it is often necessary to obtain 
evidence or testimony from a witness in another country. While 
U.S. federal courts may issue subpoenas to U.S. nationals 
overseas, they lack the authority to subpoena foreign nationals 
found in other countries or the authority to subpoena evidence 
in a foreign country. Additionally, effectuating service of a 
subpoena to U.S. persons abroad may be difficult.
    In the absence of an applicable international agreement, 
the customary method for obtaining evidence or testimony in 
another country is via a ``letter rogatory,'' which tends to be 
an unreliable and time-consuming process. It generally involves 
a court in one country sending a formal communication to a 
government authority in another country, requesting certain 
evidence or the testimony of a person within the latter's 
jurisdiction, for use in a pending action. The State Department 
advises that the ``letter-rogatory'' process can often take a 
year or more and, unless undertaken pursuant to an 
international agreement, compliance is a matter of judicial 
discretion. Furthermore, the scope of foreign judicial 
assistance might also be limited by domestic information-
sharing laws, such as bank and business secrecy laws, or be 
confined to evidence relating to pending cases rather than 
preliminary, administrative, or grand jury investigations 
conducted prior to the filing of formal charges. Execution of 
``letters rogatory'' is usually carried out under the judicial 
norms of the responding country. However, responding country 
norms may be insufficiently compatible with U.S. law such that 
the resulting evidence is rendered inadmissible in a U.S. 
court. MLATs are designed to overcome these and similar 
problems.
    In view of the Republic of Croatia's accession to the EU on 
July 1, 2013, the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement serves to implement, as between the two Parties, the 
Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States 
of America and the European Union, signed on June 25, 2003 
(``the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement''), and which 
entered into force on February 1, 2010. Consistent with the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, the U.S.-Croatia 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement addresses identification of 
bank information, joint investigative teams, video-
conferencing, expedited transmission of requests, assistance to 
administrative authorities, use limitations, confidentiality, 
and grounds for refusal. This approach is consistent with that 
taken with respect to other EU Member States, e.g., Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Slovak Republic, and 
Slovenia.

                 III. Entry into Force and Termination

    Article 5, in both the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement 
and the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, 
contains final clauses addressing entry into force and 
termination. Under Article 5(1), each Agreement is subject to 
the completion of the countries' respective, applicable, 
internal procedures for entry into force, and will enter into 
force upon the completion of an exchange of notifications, upon 
the date of receipt of the latter notification. Under Article 
5(2), each Agreement is terminated in the event of the 
respective termination of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement or 
the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. It further notes 
that the Parties may alternatively agree to continue to apply 
the provisions of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement and 
the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, in whole or 
in part.

                          IV. Committee Action

    The Committee on Foreign Relations reviewed both the U.S.-
Croatia Extradition Agreement and the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement (together, the ``Treaties'') at a hearing 
on April 6, 2022, at which representatives of the Departments 
of State and Justice testified. On May 4, 2022, the committee 
considered the Treaties and ordered them favorably by voice 
vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its advice 
and consent to the ratification of the Treaties subject to the 
declaration that they are self-executing.

                V. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The committee recommends favorably the Treaties with the 
Republic of Croatia. The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement 
modernizes a treaty that is over a century old and provides a 
more flexible ``dual criminality'' provision that will 
incorporate a broader range of criminal offenses than is 
currently covered. In addition, the U.S.-Croatia Extradition 
Agreement will facilitate the ability of the United States to 
prosecute more effectively, through new provisions related to 
requests from more than one State, simplified extradition, and 
temporary surrender.
    The committee believes the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, which would enhance law enforcement 
cooperation between the United States and the Republic of 
Croatia, would further U.S. efforts in fighting terrorism and 
transnational crime, while still comporting with existing U.S. 
legal requirements and practice.

       VI. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement

    What follows is an article-by-article description of the 
provisions of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement, including 
the Annex, prepared by the Departments of State and Justice.
    Article 1 of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement 
acknowledges that the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement is applied 
in relation to the 1901 Extradition Treaty and specifies the 
articles of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement applicable 
between the United States and Croatia. The specified articles 
of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement are:


         (a) Article 4, governing the scope of the extraditable 
        offenses;

         (b) Articles 5(1) and 7(1), governing the mode of 
        transmission of the extradition request and supporting 
        documents, and providing for an alternative method for 
        transmission of the request for extradition and 
        supporting documents following provisional arrest;

         (c) Article 5(2), governing the requirements 
        concerning certification, authentication or 
        legalization of the extradition request and supporting 
        documents;

         (d) Article 6, authorizing an alternative channel of 
        transmission of requests for provisional arrest;

         (e) Article 8, governing the channel to be used for 
        submitting supplementary information;

         (f) Article 9, governing the temporary surrender of a 
        person being proceeded against or serving a sentence in 
        the requested state;

         (g) Article 10, governing the decision on requests 
        made by several states for the extradition or surrender 
        of the same person;

         (h) Article 11, governing the use of simplified 
        extradition procedures;

         (i) Article 12, governing requests for transit of 
        persons in custody;

         (j) Article 13, governing extradition with respect to 
        conduct punishable by death in the requesting State; 
        and,

         (k) Article 14, governing consultations where the 
        requesting state contemplates the submission of 
        particularly sensitive information in support of a 
        request for extradition.


    Article 2 establishes that the Annex reflects the 
integrated text of the 1901 Extradition Treaty and the 
provisions of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement that apply 
between the two countries, and confirms that the Annex is an 
integral part of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement that 
applies upon the Agreement's entry into force. Article 2 
further provides for minor numbering and terminological 
modifications in the Annex outside the scope of the provisions 
identified in Article 1, none of which reflect substantive 
changes to the 1901 Extradition Treaty, and defines ``high 
contracting parties,'' as used in the 1901 Extradition Treaty, 
to mean the Governments of the United States of America and the 
Republic of Croatia.
    Article 3 specifies that the U.S.-Croatia Extradition 
Agreement applies to offenses committed prior to and following 
entry into force.
    Article 4 provides that the U.S.-Croatia Extradition 
Agreement does not apply to requests for extradition made prior 
to its entry into force, except for certain enumerated 
provisions. In accordance with Article 16 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, certain articles of the Annex, including 
the object and purpose (Article I), extraditable offenses 
(Article II), and temporary surrender (Article X bis) 
provisions shall apply to extradition requests predating the 
U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement's entry into force.
    Article 5 contains final clauses addressing the U.S.-
Croatia Extradition Agreement's entry into force and 
termination. Article 5(1) provides that the U.S.-Croatia 
Extradition Agreement is subject to the completion of the 
countries' respective, applicable, internal procedures for 
entry into force, and will enter into force upon the completion 
of an exchange of notifications, upon the date of receipt of 
the latter notification. Article 5(2) provides that the U.S.-
Croatia Extradition Agreement shall be terminated in the event 
that the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement is terminated, in which 
case the 1901 Extradition Treaty would be applied. It further 
notes that the Parties may in the alternative agree to continue 
to apply the provisions of the U.S. Croatia Extradition 
Agreement, in whole or in part.
    Pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S.-Croatia 
Extradition Agreement, the Annex reflects the integrated text 
of the 1901 Extradition Treaty and the provisions derived from 
the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement that are to be applied to the 
1901 Extradition Treaty (``the Integrated Treaty Text''). The 
following is an article-by-article description of the 
provisions reflected in the Annex. In addition to the 
modifications required by the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement, 
the Integrated Treaty Text is updated throughout to refer 
directly to the Republic of Croatia, refer to ``State'' or 
``States'' rather than ``country'' or ``countries,'' 
respectively, and add captions and enumerated paragraphs for 
ease of reference.
    Article I is modified, consistent with Article 4 of the 
U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement, to reflect--together with 
Article II(1)--the basic obligation for each Party to extradite 
to the other persons who are sought for prosecution or for 
imposition or service of a sentence with respect to an 
extraditable offense, provided there is sufficient evidence 
under the laws of the requested State.
    Article II, which is taken from Article 4 of the U.S.-EU 
Agreement, provides for a ``dual criminality'' approach to 
extraditable offenses. Article II(1) defines an offense as 
extraditable if the conduct on which the offense is based is 
punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of 
liberty for a period of more than one year or by a more severe 
penalty. The approach taken in the Integrated Treaty Text with 
respect to extraditable offenses is consistent with the modern 
``dual criminality'' approach, rather than the old ``list'' 
approach, and is one of the key benefits of integrating the 
texts. Use of a ``dual criminality'' clause, rather than the 
categories of offenses listed in the 1901 Extradition Treaty, 
obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the 1901 
Extradition Treaty as additional offenses become punishable 
under the laws of both States. Use of the dual criminality 
standard also ensures a comprehensive coverage of criminal 
conduct for which extradition might be sought. Article II(1) 
further defines an extraditable offense to include an attempt 
or a conspiracy to commit, or participation in the commission 
of, an extraditable offense. The Parties intended to include, 
under the broad description of ``participation,'' the offenses 
of aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of 
an offense, as well as being an accessory to a request.
    Article II(2) directs that if extradition is granted for an 
extraditable offense, it must also be granted for any other 
offense specified in the request that is punishable by one 
year's deprivation of liberty or less, provided that all other 
requirements for extradition are met.
    Article II(3) establishes that an offense is an 
extraditable offense regardless of whether: (a) the laws in the 
requesting and requested State place the offense in the same 
category or use the same terminology in defining the offense; 
(b) the offense is one for which U.S. federal law requires the 
showing of such matters as interstate transportation, or use of 
the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate or 
foreign commerce, such matters being merely for the purpose of 
asserting federal jurisdiction; or, (c) the laws of the 
requesting and requested States provide for the same kinds of 
taxes, customs duties, or controls on currency or on the import 
or export of the same kinds of commodities, in criminal cases 
related to such matters.
    Article II(4) provides that, with regard to offenses 
committed outside the territory of the requesting State, 
extradition shall be granted if the laws of the requested State 
provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside 
its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws of the 
requested State do not so provide, the executive authority of 
the requested State may, at its discretion, grant extradition 
provided that all other applicable requirements for extradition 
are met.
    Article III expands and updates the procedures and required 
documents for extradition Article III(1), taken from Articles 
5(1) and 7(1) of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement, requires 
transmission of extradition requests through the diplomatic 
channel, allowing that if the person sought is held under 
provisional arrest this requirement may be met by submitting 
the request to the embassy of the requested State located in 
the requesting State. It further specifies that in such cases, 
the date of delivery to the embassy is the date of receipt for 
purposes of satisfying the time limit established in Article 
IV.
    Article III(2) preserves original language from the 1901 
Extradition Treaty.
    Article III(3), taken from Article 5(2) of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, provides that documents bearing the seal 
of the ministry of justice or ministry or department 
responsible for foreign affairs of the requesting State shall 
be admissible in extradition proceedings in the requested State 
without further certification, authentication, or legalization. 
The article also defines ``ministry of justice'' as the 
Department of Justice for the United States and as the Ministry 
of Justice for the Republic of Croatia, respectively.
    Article III(4) preserves original language from the 1901 
Extradition Treaty.
    Article III bis, taken from Article 8 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, allows the requested State to require 
from the requesting State supplementary information within a 
reasonable period of time if the requested State considers the 
original request not to include sufficient information. It 
further provides that such requests may be made and satisfied 
directly between the respective ministries of justice.
    Article III ter, taken from Article 14 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, provides for consultations between the 
Parties in cases where the requesting State is considering 
submitting sensitive information as part of an extradition 
request, to determine to what extent the information can be 
protected by the requested State. If the requested State cannot 
protect the information as sought, the requesting State may 
nevertheless determine to include the information in the 
request.
    Article IV(1), taken from Article 6 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, allows for provisional arrest requests 
to be made directly between the respective ministries of 
justice, or by using the facilities of the International 
Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), as an alternative to 
using the diplomatic channel.
    Articles IV(2), V, VI, VI, and VIII preserve original 
language from the 1901 Extradition Treaty.
    Article VIII bis, taken from Article 13 of the U.S,-EU 
Extradition Agreement, provides that where extradition is 
sought for an offense that is punishable by death under the 
laws of the requesting State but not under the laws of the 
requested State, the requested State may grant extradition 
subject to the condition that the death penalty, if imposed, 
shall not be carried out. If the requesting State does not 
accept such conditions, the request for extradition may be 
denied
    Article IX preserves original language from the 1901 
Extradition Treaty.
    Article X, taken from Article 10 of the U.S.-EU Extradition 
Agreement, regards decisions on multiple requests for the 
surrender of the same person. Article X(1) establishes that, 
where the requested State receives requests from the requesting 
State and one or more additional States for the extradition of 
the same person, the executive authority of the requested State 
shall determine to which State, if any, the person will be 
surrendered. Article X(2) elaborates that if the Republic of 
Croatia receives an extradition request from the United States 
and a surrender request pursuant to a European arrest warrant 
for the same person, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of 
Croatia shall determine to which State, if any, the person will 
be surrendered. Article X(3) sets forth a non-exhaustive list 
of factors that the requested State will consider in 
determining to which State a person will be surrendered, 
according to the provisions of Article X(1) and (2).
    Article X bis, taken from Article 9 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, allows for temporary surrender for 
purposes of prosecution in the requesting State, of a person 
who is being proceeded against or serving a sentence in the 
requested State. Its second paragraph provides further that a 
person so surrendered will be kept in custody by the requesting 
State and returned to the requested State following the 
completion of proceedings in the requesting State, according to 
conditions mutually agreed between the Parties. It also allows 
that time spent in custody of the requesting State may be 
deducted from the time remaining to be served in the requested 
State.
    Article X ter, taken from Article 11 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, allows for simplified extradition, 
consistent with the principles and procedures of the legal 
system of the requested State, in cases where the person sought 
has consented to surrender, which consent may also include 
waiver of protection of the rule of specialty. In such 
situations, the requested State shall surrender the person to 
the requesting State as expeditiously as possible.
    Article X quater, taken from Article 12 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, concerns requests for transit of persons 
in custody. Article X quater(1) provides that the Parties may 
authorize transit through their respective territory of a 
person surrendered to the other Party by a third state, or by 
the other Party to a third state. Article X quater(2) specifies 
that transit requests shall be made through the diplomatic 
channel, or directly between the United States Department of 
Justice and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. 
It further allows that INTERPOL facilities may be used. 
Finally, it specifies the substantive content of a transit 
request, and that a person in transit must be detained during 
the transit period.
    Article X quater(3) provides that a transit request is not 
required for air transit where no landing is scheduled in the 
territory of the transited State. It allows for the transited 
state to require a transit request in the case of an 
unscheduled landing, and provides that all necessary measures 
will be taken to prevent the person in custody from absconding 
until transit is effected, so long as the transit request is 
received within 96 hours of the unscheduled landing.
    Article XI preserves original language from the 1901 
Extradition Treaty, with minor revisions to the punctuation of 
the first sentence.
    Article XII provides for the 1901 Extradition Treaty to 
remain in force for six months following notice of termination 
from either Party.

 VII. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

    What follows is an article-by-article description of the 
provisions of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 
prepared by the Departments of State and Justice.
    Article 1 acknowledges that the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement is applied between the United States of 
America and Croatia, and identifies those articles of the U.S.-
EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement establishing the 
substantive terms of the agreement. The identified articles of 
the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement are:


         (a) Article 4, governing the identification of 
        financial accounts and transactions;

         (b) Article 5, governing the formation and activities 
        of joint investigative teams;

         (c) Article 6, governing the taking of testimony of a 
        person located in the requested State by use of video 
        transmission technology between the requesting and 
        requested States;

         (d)  Article 7, governing the use of expedited means 
        of communication;

         (e) Article 8, governing the providing of mutual legal 
        assistance to administrative authorities:

         (f) Article 9, governing the limitation on use of 
        information or evidence provided to the requesting 
        State, and the conditioning or refusal of assistance on 
        data protection grounds;

         (g) Article 10, governing the circumstances under 
        which a requesting State may seek the confidentiality 
        of its request; and

         (h) Article 13, governing the invocation by the 
        requested State of grounds for refusal.


    Article 2 establishes that the Annex is an integral part of 
the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement and reflects 
the provisions of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement 
applied between the United States of America and the Republic 
of Croatia upon the entry into force of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual 
Legal Assistance Agreement.
    Article 3 specifies that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement applies to offenses committed prior to and 
following entry into force.
    Article 4 provides that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement does not apply to requests made prior to 
its entry into force, save for certain limited exceptions. In 
accordance with Article 12 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, provisions related to video conferencing 
(Annex, Article 3) and the expedited transmission of requests 
(Annex, Article 4) shall apply to requests made prior to the 
U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement's entry into 
force.
    Article 5 contains final clauses addressing the U.S.-
Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement's entry into force 
and termination. Article 5(1) provides that the U.S.-Croatia 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement is subject to the completion 
of the countries' respective, applicable, internal procedures 
for entry into force and will enter into force upon the 
completion of an exchange of notifications, upon the date of 
receipt of the latter notification. Article 5(2) provides that 
the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement shall be 
terminated in the event that the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement is terminated, provided however that, in 
the alternative, the Parties may agree to continue to apply the 
provisions of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement, in whole or in part.
    As provided in Article 2, the Annex reflects the provisions 
of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty applied between 
the United States of America and the Republic of Croatia. The 
following is an article-by-article description of these 
provisions.
    Article 1, taken from Article 4 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, regards the identification of bank 
information. Article 1(1) provides that, upon request, the 
requested State shall promptly ascertain whether banks in its 
territory possess information on whether an identified natural 
or legal person suspected of or charged with a criminal offense 
is the holder of one or more bank accounts. The requested State 
must also promptly communicate its findings to the requesting 
State. Article 1(1) goes on to extend the same obligations to 
identification of information regarding persons convicted or 
otherwise involved in a criminal offense, information in the 
possession of non-bank financial institutions, or financial 
transactions unrelated to accounts.
    Article 1(2) describes the information that must be 
contained in requests for such information as may be requested 
under the preceding paragraph. Article 1(3) identifies for each 
Party the channels of transmission for requests under this 
Article, which may be modified only by exchange of diplomatic 
notes between the United States and the European Union. For the 
United States, requests shall be transmitted by the attache 
responsible for the Republic of Croatia of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, for matters under their respective jurisdictions, 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for all other matters. 
For the Republic of Croatia, requests shall be transmitted by 
the Ministry of Justice.
    Article 1(4) limits the scope of criminal activity in 
relation to which the Parties will provide assistance under 
this Article to money laundering or terrorist activity 
punishable under the laws of both the requesting and requested 
States, as well as any additional criminal activity as one 
Party may subsequently notify to the other Party. U.S. 
negotiators verified that under Croatian law assistance will be 
available for a wide range of conduct associated with terrorism 
(which includes the conduct criminalized in international 
counterterrorism conventions to which they are party) and money 
laundering with respect to an extremely broad range of 
predicate offenses. Article 1(5) provides that requests under 
this Article may not be denied on the grounds of bank secrecy. 
Article 1(6) provides that the requested State shall respond to 
a request for production of the records concerning the accounts 
or transactions identified pursuant to this Article in 
accordance with the requirements of its domestic law.
    Article 2, taken from Article 5 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, regards the establishment and operation 
of joint investigative teams. Article 2(1) allows for joint 
investigative teams to be established and operated in the 
respective territories of the United States of America and the 
Republic of Croatia to facilitate criminal investigations or 
prosecutions involving the United States and at least one 
Member State of the European Union. Article 2(2) provides that 
the operational procedures for the joint investigative team 
will be agreed between the competent authorities of the 
respective States concerned, as determined by those States. 
Article 2(3) provides for direct communication among the 
identified competent authorities, except where otherwise agreed 
among the concerned States in light of a need for more central 
coordination. This approach facilitates speed, efficiency and 
clarity by providing in most cases for direct communications 
among the affected law enforcement components, rather than 
through a mutual legal assistance request transmitted through a 
central authority, as would otherwise generally take place.
    Article 2(4) establishes that where a joint investigative 
team needs investigative measures to be taken in one of the 
constituent States, a team member from that State may request 
such measures from its own competent authorities without 
requiring a mutual legal assistance request from the other 
constituent States. The legal standard for obtaining the 
measure is the applicable domestic standard in the state where 
the measure is to be carried out. Thus, where an investigative 
measure is to be carried out in the United States, for example, 
a U.S. team member could do so by invoking existing domestic 
investigative authority, and would share resulting information 
or evidence seized pursuant to such an action with the foreign 
authorities. A formal mutual legal assistance request would not 
be required. In a case in which there is no domestic U.S. 
jurisdiction and consequently a compulsory measure cannot be 
carried out based on domestic authority, the provisions of 18 
U.S.C. Section 3512 may furnish a separate legal basis for 
carrying out such a measure.
    Article 3, taken from Article 6 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, concerns the use of video conferencing. 
Article 3(1) establishes that video transmission technology 
shall be available between the United States of America and the 
Republic of Croatia for the testimony of a witness or expert 
located in the requested State, for use in a proceeding for 
which mutual legal assistance is available. It further provides 
that unless modified by this article, the procedure for taking 
such testimony will follow the laws of the requested State. 
Article 3(2) provides that the requesting State will bear the 
cost of establishing and operating the video transmission, 
unless otherwise agreed, and that other costs will be assigned 
as agreed by the Parties. Article 3(3) allows for consultations 
between the Parties to resolve legal, technical, or logistical 
issues.
    Article 3(4) provides that, without prejudice to 
jurisdiction under the laws of the requesting State, the making 
an intentionally false statement or other misconduct by the 
witness or expert in the course of the video testimony is 
punishable in the requested State in the same manner as if it 
occurred in the course of its domestic proceedings. This is 
already the case where the United States has been requested to 
facilitate the taking of video testimony from a witness or 
expert located in the United States on behalf of a foreign 
State, since the proceeding to execute the request is a U.S. 
proceeding and therefore penalties under U.S. law for perjury, 
obstruction of justice, or contempt of court are applicable. 
Article 3(5) notes that this Article is without prejudice to 
other available legal means for obtaining testimony in the 
requested State. Article 3(6) allows that the requested State 
may make video conferencing available for purposes other than 
those specified in Article 3(1), including for purposes of 
identification of persons or objects, and taking of 
investigative statements.
    Article 4, taken from Article 7 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, allows requests and related 
communications to be made by expedited means, with subsequent 
formal confirmation if required by the requested State. The 
requested State may also respond using expedited means.
    Article 5, taken from Article 8 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, regards assistance to administrative 
authorities. Article 5(1) provides that mutual legal assistance 
will be afforded to national administrative authorities 
investigating conduct pursuant to a specific administrative or 
regulatory authority and with a view to a criminal prosecution 
or referral for criminal prosecution or investigation. If the 
administrative authority anticipates that no prosecution or 
referral will take place, assistance is not available. It also 
allows for, but does not require, assistance to be afforded to 
other administrative authorities under similar circumstances 
Article 5(2) provides that requests for assistance under this 
Article will be transmitted between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia, 
unless otherwise agreed
    Article 6, taken from Article 9 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement, regards limitations on use to protect 
personal and other data. Article 6(1) permits the requesting 
State to use evidence or information it has obtained from the 
requested State for its criminal investigations and 
proceedings, for preventing an immediate and serious threat to 
its public security, for non-criminal judicial or 
administrative proceedings directly related to its criminal 
investigations, for non-criminal judicial or administrative 
proceedings directly related to criminal investigation or 
proceedings or for which assistance was provided under Article 
5, and for any other purpose if the information or evidence was 
made public within the framework of the proceedings for which 
it was transmitted or pursuant to the above permissible uses. 
Other uses of the evidence or information require the prior 
consent of the requested State.
    Article 6(2)(a) specifies that the article does not 
preclude the requested State from imposing additional 
conditions where the particular request for assistance could 
not be granted in the absence of such conditions. Where such 
additional conditions are imposed, the requested State may 
require the requesting State to give information on the use 
made of the evidence or information. Article 6(2)(b) provides 
that generic restrictions with respect to the legal standards 
in the requesting State for processing personal data may not be 
imposed by the requested State as a condition under paragraph 
2(a) to providing evidence or information. This provision is 
further elaborated upon in the explanatory note to the U.S.-EU 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement(regarding Article 9(2)(b) of 
that Agreement), which specifies that the fact that the 
requesting and requested States have different systems of 
protecting the privacy of data does not give rise to a ground 
for refusal of assistance and may not as such give rise to 
additional conditions under Article 6(2)(a). Such refusal of 
assistance could only arise in exceptional cases in which, upon 
balancing the important interests involved in the particular 
case, furnishing the specific data sought by the requesting 
State would raise difficulties so fundamental as to be 
considered by the requested State to fall within the 
``'essential interests'' grounds for refusal contained in 
Article 8. Article 6(3) provides that where, following 
disclosure to the requesting State, the requested State becomes 
aware of circumstances that may cause it to seek additional 
conditions in a particular case, it may consult with the 
requesting State to determine the extent to which the evidence 
or information can be protected.
    Article 7, taken from Article 10 of the U.S.-EU Mutual 
Legal Assistance Agreement, requires the requested State, if 
asked, to use its best efforts to keep confidential a request 
and its contents, and to inform the requesting State if the 
request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality.
    Article 8, taken from Article 13 of the U.S.-EU Mutual 
Legal Assistance Agreement confirms that the U.S.-Croatia 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement's provisions do not preclude 
the assertion of a ground for refusal based on applicable, 
legal principles, such as sovereignty, security, ordre public 
or other essential interests, except where such ground for 
refusal is precluded by Articles 1(5) (bank secrecy) and 
6(2)(b) (generic restrictions relating to personal data) of the 
U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement.

     VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification


               (A) THE U.S.-CROATIA EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARATION

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
Agreement between the Government of the United States of 
America and the Government of the Republic of Croatia 
comprising the instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of 
the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of 
America and the European Union, signed June 25, 2003, as to the 
Application of the Treaty on Extradition signed on October 25, 
1901 (the ``U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement''), signed at 
Washington on December 10, 2019, (Treaty Doc. 116-2), subject 
to the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration: The U.S.-Croatia 
Extradition Agreement is self-executing.

         (B) THE U.S.-CROATIA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARATION

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
Agreement between the Government of the United States of 
America and the Government of the Republic of Croatia 
comprising the instrument as contemplated by Article 3(3) of 
the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United 
States of America and the European Union signed at Washington 
on June 25, 2003 (the ``U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement''), signed at Washington on December 10, 2019, 
(Treaty Doc. 116-2), subject to the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration: The U.S.-Croatia Mutual 
Legal Assistance Agreement is self-executing.

                                  [all]