U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–118 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

TREATY DOC. 

2015

114–4 

TREATY WITH JORDAN ON MUTUAL LEGAL 

ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HASHEMITE 

KINGDOM OF JORDAN ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN 

CRIMINAL MATTERS, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON OCTOBER 1, 

2013 

DECEMBER 8, 2015.—Treaty was read the first time, and together with 

the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

THE WHITE HOUSE, December 8, 2015. 

To the Senate of the United States: 

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to 

ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Mutual Legal Assistance in 

Criminal Matters, signed at Washington on October 1, 2013. I also 

transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. 

The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance 

treaties negotiated by the United States to more effectively counter 

criminal activities. The Treaty should enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a wide variety of crimes. 

The Treaty provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal 

matters. Under the Treaty, the Parties agree to assist each other 

by, among other things: producing evidence (such as testimony, 

documents, or items) obtained voluntarily or, where necessary, by 

compulsion; arranging for persons, including persons in custody, to 

travel to another country to provide evidence; serving documents; 

executing searches and seizures; locating and identifying persons or 

items; and freezing and forfeiting assets or property that may be 

the proceeds or instrumentalities of crime. 

I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty, and give its advice and consent to ratification. 

BARACK OBAMA. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Washington, August 31, 2015. 

The PRESIDENT, 

The White House. 

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Mutual Legal 

Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Washington on October 

1, 2013. I recommend the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for 

its advice and consent to ratification. 

The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. 

In recent years, the United States has entered into similar bilateral treaties with a number of countries. The Treaty contains all 

of the essential provisions of such treaties sought by the United 

States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a 

wide variety of offenses. The Treaty is self-executing and will not 

require further implementing legislation. 

An overview of the Treaty, including a detailed, article-by-article 

analysis, is enclosed with this report. The Department of Justice 

joins the Department of State in favoring approval of this Treaty 

by the Senate at the earliest possible date. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOHN F. KERRY. 

Enclosures: As stated. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
(VII)

U.S.-JORDAN MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY

OVERVIEW

The Treaty between the Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 

on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the ‘‘Treaty’’) creates for the first time a treaty-based relationship of mutual legal 

assistance between the United States and Jordan. The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and contains many 

provisions similar to those in other treaties of its kind and all of 

the essential provisions sought by the United States. 

The following is an article-by-article description of the provisions 

of the Treaty. Article 1 sets out the scope of assistance available 

under the Treaty. Article 1(1) creates an international obligation on 

each Party to provide mutual legal assistance to the other Party in 

connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of 

offenses and in proceedings related to criminal matters. This ensures that the Parties can afford each other legal assistance in a 

broad range of criminal matters, from violent crimes to fraud, from 

tax matters to racketeering, from computer crime to environmental 

crime, and so on. Assistance may also be sought for proceedings related to criminal matters, such as civil forfeiture proceedings, and 

for investigations and proceedings by authorities involved in implementing governmental regulations relating to violations that may 

be referred for criminal prosecution under the laws of the Requesting Party. Thus, where the conditions of the Treaty are otherwise 

met, assistance would be available, for example, for proceedings of 

the Securities and Exchange Commission when those proceedings 

are incidental to, or connected with pending criminal investigations 

or prosecutions, or may be referred for criminal prosecution. Article 

1(2) contains a non-exhaustive list of the major types of assistance 

to be provided under the Treaty, including producing evidence 

(such as testimony, documents, or items) obtained voluntarily or, 

where necessary, by compulsion; arranging for persons, including 

persons in custody, to travel to another country to provide evidence; serving documents; executing searches and seizures; locating 

and identifying persons or items; and identifying, tracing, freezing, 

seizing and forfeiting assets or property that may be the proceeds 

or instrumentalities of crime. Each of these types of assistance is 

described in detail in subsequent articles in the Treaty. 

The Treaty also authorizes provision of any other assistance not 

prohibited by the laws of the Party receiving the request (referred 

to in the Treaty, as in other such treaties, as the ‘‘Requested 

Party,’’ while the Party making the request is the ‘‘Requesting 

Party’’). As long as there is no specific legal restriction under the 

laws of the Requested Party barring the type of assistance requested, it may be provided pursuant to the Treaty. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
VIII

Consistent with most U.S. mutual legal assistance treaties 

(MLATs), Article 1(3) provides that, with the exception of where it 

is specifically required by the laws of the Requested Party, ‘‘dual 

criminality’’ is not a prerequisite for assistance under the Treaty. 

Thus, unless otherwise provided under the laws of the Requested 

Party, assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the 

conduct at issue would constitute an offense under the laws of the 

Requested Party. The Treaty does require ‘‘dual criminality’’ in certain circumstances. For example, under Article 14, a Requested 

Party is obligated to execute a search and seizure request if the request includes sufficient information justifying such action under 

its law and the offense at issue would also constitute an offense 

under its law. 

Article 1(4), a standard provision in U.S. MLATs, provides that 

the Treaty is intended solely for government-to-government mutual 

legal assistance. The Treaty is not intended to provide to persons 

other than the Parties a means of evidence gathering, nor is it intended to extend generally to civil matters. Private persons in the 

United States may continue to obtain evidence from Jordan by letters rogatory, an avenue of international assistance that the Treaty 

leaves undisturbed. Similarly, the paragraph provides that the 

Treaty is not intended to create any right in any private person to 

suppress or exclude evidence provided pursuant to the Treaty, or 

to impede the execution of a request. 

Article 2 requires that each Party designate a ‘‘Central Authority’’ to make and receive Treaty requests. The Central Authority of 

the United States would make all requests to Jordan on behalf of 

federal and state agencies and local law enforcement authorities in 

the United States. The Central Authority of Jordan would make all 

requests emanating from similar officials in Jordan. The Central 

Authorities are, pursuant to Article 2(3), to communicate directly 

with one another. 

For the United States, the Central Authority is the Attorney 

General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Jordan, the Central Authority is the Minister of Justice or a person 

designated by the Minister of Justice. In the United States, the authority to handle the duties of the Central Authority under MLATs 

has been delegated to the Office of International Affairs in the 

Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. 

The Central Authority of the Requesting Party exercises discretion, consistent with the provisions of the Treaty, as to the form of 

requests, as well as the number and priority of requests. The Central Authority of the Requested Party is responsible for receiving 

and evaluating each incoming request; transmitting it to the proper 

agency, court, or other authority for execution; and providing a 

timely response. 

Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which the Requested 

Party’s Central Authority may deny assistance under the Treaty. 

Refusal under this Article is discretionary with the Central Authority of the Requested Party. Several of the grounds for refusal are 

common to most U.S. MLATs. For example, a request may be denied if it relates to a military offense, if it does not conform to the 

requirements of the Treaty, or if its execution would prejudice the 

‘‘security, sovereign or other essential interests of the Requested 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
IX

Party.’’ During the negotiations, the Parties agreed that the essential interest clause would allow a Party to deny a request for assistance in connection with a political offense. In keeping with the 

overall intent of the Treaty to facilitate assistance, the Parties also 

included in Article 3 a provision designed to limit the use of 

grounds for refusal. Under Article 3(2), a Central Authority, before 

refusing assistance under Article 3(1), is to consult with its counterpart in the Requesting Party to consider whether assistance can 

be given subject to such conditions as the Central Authority of the 

Requested Party deems necessary. If the Requesting Party accepts 

assistance subject to these conditions, it is required to comply with 

them. 

Article 3(3) gives the Requested Party discretion to deny a request if the offense is punishable by less than one year of imprisonment under the law of the Requesting Party or the crime is financial in nature but does not involve a significant financial loss, and 

the Requested Party determines that the resources required to execute the request are not justified in light of the nature of the offense. This treaty is one of the first MLATs the United States has 

negotiated that includes such a de minimis clause. The inclusion of 

such clauses has become a priority for the United States in order 

to avoid the obligation to execute large numbers of MLAT requests 

relating to minor crimes, which can create significant burdens on 

the resources of the Department of Justice. 

In addition, if the Central Authority of the Requested Party refuses assistance, it is required under Article 3(4) to inform the Central Authority of the Requesting Party of the reasons for the refusal. 

Article 4 prescribes the form and contents of requests under the 

Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request. It also permits the Central Authority of the Requested Party 

to request additional information, if necessary to execute the request 

Article 5 concerns the execution of requests. Article 5(1) includes 

three important concepts: the obligation of the Central Authority of 

the Requested Party to execute requests promptly (or to refer them 

to the competent authorities who have jurisdiction to execute the 

requests); the requirement that competent authorities do ‘‘everything in their power’’ to execute requests; and the granting of authority to courts, or, as provided by the law of the Requested Party, 

the investigative authorities, in the territory of the Requested 

Party to issue subpoenas, search warrants, or other orders necessary to execute requests. Article 5(2) builds on this by requiring 

the Requested Party to make all necessary arrangements to represent the Requesting Party in any proceedings arising out of a request for assistance. It is understood that such proceedings may include proceedings before a judicial authority or administrative 

agency. Taken together, these provisions reflect an understanding 

that the Parties intend to provide each other with a wide measure 

of assistance from judicial and executive branches of government in 

the execution of mutual legal assistance requests. These provisions 

also specifically authorize United States courts to use all of their 

powers to issue whatever process is necessary to satisfy a request 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
X

under the Treaty, whether the authority for such process comes 

from the Treaty itself or from existing statutes. 

Article 5(3) specifies that requests are to be executed in accordance with the laws of the Requested Party unless the Treaty provides otherwise. The requests themselves may specify a particular 

procedure to be followed, and such specified procedure is to be followed unless prohibited by the law of the Requested Party. Following the procedure specified can be important to ensure evidence 

collected in one State satisfies the requirements for admissibility at 

trial in the other. It is understood that if neither the Treaty nor 

the request specifies procedures to be followed, the Requested 

Party is to execute the request in accordance with its domestic 

criminal procedure laws. The intent of this provision, like similar 

provisions in other U.S.MLATs, is to allow the Requested Party to 

use its established procedures for obtaining evidence where procedures are not otherwise specified, so long as those procedures do 

not undermine the obligation in the Treaty to provide assistance. 

Article 5(4) allows the Central Authority of the Requested Party 

to postpone the execution of a request, or make execution subject 

to specified terms, if it determines that execution of the request 

would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution 

or proceeding in that state. If the Requesting Party accepts assistance subject to terms, it must comply with such terms. 

Confidentiality of requests is addressed in Article 5(5). The Requesting Party may ask that the request, its contents, and the outcome of the execution of the request be kept confidential. The Requested Party must use its best efforts to comply with such a request, but if assistance cannot be granted without breaching the 

confidentiality requirements, the decision whether to proceed is left 

to the Requesting Party. 

The remaining provisions in Article 5 address some of the types 

of communications between Central Authorities essential to a good 

working mutual legal assistance relationship. For example, Central 

Authorities must respond to requests for progress reports, and inform each other of the outcome of execution of requests, including 

any reasons for refusal of a request. 

Article 6 addresses the costs associated with providing assistance. As is standard in U.S. MLATs, Article 6 provides that the Requested Party must pay all costs relating to the execution of a request, including representation costs, except for the following items 

to be paid by the Requesting Party: fees of expert witnesses; costs 

of translation, interpretation and transcription; and allowances and 

expenses related to travel of persons pursuant to Articles 10 and 

11 (relating to travel for the purpose of providing assistance and 

transfer of persons in custody). The article also provides that, in 

the event that fulfilling a request would require extraordinary expenses, the Central Authorities will consult order to determine how 

those costs shall be borne. 

Article 7 addresses limitations on use of information and evidence provided under the Treaty. Under Article 7(1), the Central 

Authority of the Requested Party may request that information or 

evidence produced in response to a request under the Treaty not 

be used for any investigation, prosecution or proceeding other than 

that described in the request without the consent of the Central 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
XI

Authority of the Requested Party. In such cases, the Requesting 

Party must comply with the request for limitations on use. 

Under Article 7(2), the Central Authority of the Requested Party 

may also request that the information or evidence produced under 

the Treaty be kept confidential or be used subject to specified 

terms. If the Requesting Party accepts the requested terms, it must 

use its best efforts to comply with those terms. The default rule, 

however, is that such information or evidence is not confidential, 

and Article 7(4) also provides that once such information or evidence has been made public in the territory of Requesting Party in 

accordance with Article 7(1) and (2), it may be used for any purpose. Moreover, the Treaty explicitly permits the disclosure of information or evidence to the extent that there is an obligation to 

disclose it under the Constitution of the Requesting Party in a 

criminal proceeding. This contingency, found in Article 7(3), was included to ensure that the United States would be able to satisfy 

any obligations to disclose information under its Constitution, such 

as those set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

As with other provisions of the Treaty, the confidentiality protections and use limitation provisions of Article 7 are for the benefit 

of the two governments that are Parties to the Treaty, and invocation and enforcement of these provisions is entirely a matter for 

the Parties. 

Article 8 is the first of a series of articles that spell out in detail 

the procedures to be employed in the case of specific types of requests for assistance outlined in Article 1(2). Article 8 addresses 

production of evidence, whether it is a statement or testimony, documents, records, or particular items. A person from whom evidence 

is sought under the Treaty may appear voluntarily to provide such 

evidence, or, if necessary, the Treaty authorizes the Parties to compel production of evidence. This compulsion may be accomplished 

by subpoena or any other means available under the laws of the 

Requested Party (see Article 5(3)). 

Article 8(2) calls on the Requested Party, upon request, to inform 

the Requesting Party in advance of the date, time, and place of the 

taking of testimony or evidence. In addition, Article 8(2) requires 

the Requested Party to permit persons specified in the request to 

be present during execution of the request and to allow such persons either to question the person giving testimony or evidence, or 

to pose questions to the competent authority, which then asks them 

of the person giving testimony or evidence. As the Jordanian negotiators explained, under Jordanian law, representatives of the U.S. 

Government would likely not be permitted to question a witness directly but would have to use the second option provided for by this 

Article and present such questions to the Jordanian competent authority, which would then pose them to the witness. 

Article 8(3) provides that if a person from whom the request 

seeks testimony or evidence asserts a right to decline to provide 

such evidence by claiming an immunity, incapacity or privilege 

under the laws of the Requesting Party, the evidence shall nonetheless be taken and the claim made known to authorities of the 

Requesting State so that they may resolve it. The Treaty does not 

specifically address the resolution of claims of privilege under the 

Requested Party’s law, but by implication those are to be resolved 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
XII

by that state’s authorities. This formulation allows each Party to 

resolve claims of privilege made under its own laws. 

Article 8(4) contains the first of several provisions in the Treaty 

addressing the authentication of evidence produced pursuant to the 

Treaty. Similar provisions are found at Articles 9(3) and 14(2). Evidence produced under the Treaty may be authenticated by an attestation including, with respect to business records, official 

records, or evidence that has been seized pursuant to the Treaty, 

by use of one of the forms appended to the Treaty. The appended 

forms are an integral part of the Treaty. The Treaty provides that 

evidence produced and authenticated according to the procedure set 

forth in the Treaty shall be admissible in evidence in the tenitory, 

of the Requesting Party. 

Article 9 addresses provision of documents or other records in the 

possession of government agencies. The Parties are obligated to 

provide to each other copies of publicly available records in any 

form in the possession of governmental departments and entities 

upon request. The Treaty authorizes the Requested Party, in its 

discretion, to provide to the Requesting Party any records that are 

not publicly available to the same extent, and under the same conditions, as they would be available to the Requested Party’s own 

law enforcement or judicial authorities. 

The Treaty will constitute a ‘‘convention relating to the exchange 

of tax information’’ for purposes of Title 26, United States Code, 

Section 6103(k)(4), and the United States would have the discretion 

to provide tax return information to Jordan under this article in 

appropriate cases. 

Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting Party to ask 

for the voluntary attendance in its territory, or in the territory of 

a third state, of a person located in the territory of the Requested 

Party for the purpose of assistance under the Treaty, such as to 

serve as a witness or expert in proceedings or to assist in an investigation. The Requesting Party must indicate the extent to which 

the person’s expenses will be paid. The Requested Party is required 

to inform the person of the request for the person’s appearance and 

notify the Requesting Party of the person’s response. 

When persons agree to travel to appear in the territory of the Requesting Party, Article 10(2) provides that the Requesting Party 

may grant such persons safe conduct, thus ensuring that the person appearing in the territory of the Requesting Party will not be 

subject to service of process or be detained or subjected to any restriction on personal liberty for acts or convictions that preceded 

the person’s departure from the territory of the Requested Party. 

The grant of safe conduct pursuant to this provision applies only 

to past offenses and would not prevent the Requesting Party from 

prosecuting the person for perjury or any other crime committed 

while present, pursuant to Article 10, in the territory of the Requesting Party. Under Article 10(3), any safe conduct so provided 

would cease fifteen days after the Central Authority of the Requested Party is notified that the person’s presence is no longer required, or when the person has left the territory of the Requesting 

Party and voluntarily returns. In its discretion, the Central Authority of the Requesting Party may, for good cause, extend the period of safe conduct for up to seven additional days. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
XIII

Article 11 provides a similar mechanism for persons in custody. 

A need sometimes arises for the testimony in one country of a person who is incarcerated in another country. For example, a witness 

incarcerated in one country—whether the Requesting or Requested 

Party—may have to give testimony in the presence of an incarcerated defendant in the other country. Attendance of the detained 

person is still voluntary, but is also subject to the agreement of the 

Central Authorities. In addition, the Treaty imposes certain conditions on such transfers: the person must be held in custody by the 

receiving Party, unless otherwise authorized by the sending Party; 

the receiving Party must return the person in custody to the territory of the sending Party as soon as circumstances permit or as 

otherwise agreed; the return of the person shall not require extradition proceedings; the period that the person is in custody in the 

territory of the receiving Party shall be credited against the person’s sentence in the sending Party; and the safe conduct protections provided for by Article 10(2) and (3) apply to persons transferred pursuant to Article 11. 

Article 12 provides for determining the whereabouts or identity 

in the territory of the Requested Party of persons (such as witnesses, potential defendants, or experts) or items when such information is requested. The Treaty requires only that the Requested 

Party use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of the 

persons or items sought. The extent of such efforts will vary, of 

course, depending on the quality and extent of the information provided by the Requesting Party concerning the suspected or last 

known location. 

Article 13 relates to service of documents. It creates an obligation 

on the Parties to use their best efforts to serve documents relating 

to a request for assistance, such as summonses, complaints, subpoenas, or notices. Under Article 13(2), when the document pertains to an appearance in the territory of the Requesting Party, the 

request for service of the document must be transmitted a reasonable time before the scheduled appearance. The Parties chose not 

to set a fixed period of time for this obligation, as circumstances 

may vary. Article 13(3) requires the Requested Party to return 

proof of service in the manner specified in the request. If service 

cannot be effectuated, the Requested Party must inform the Requesting Party promptly of the reasons for not effecting service. 

Article 14 obligates the Requested Party to execute a request for 

the search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the Requesting 

Party if the request includes the information justifying such action 

under the laws of the Requested Party and the offense at issue 

would also constitute an offense under the law of the Requested 

Party. For requests from Jordan to the United States, this means 

that a request would have to be supported by a showing of probable 

cause for the search. The Requested Party may require that the 

Requesting Party agree to terms deemed necessary to protect interests of third parties, such as victims and legitimate owners. 

Article 15 allows the Requested Party to require that the Requesting Party return any items provided to it in execution of a request under the Treaty. 

Assistance in forfeiture proceedings is the subject of Article 16. 

The types of actions that could be undertaken under this Article inVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:15 Dec 09, 2015 Jkt 059118 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD004.XXX TD004

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
XIV

clude actions to restrain, seize, and forfeit property. The Article applies both to conviction-based forfeiture proceedings and to non-conviction based forfeitures proceedings premised on criminal conduct 

regardless of whether the offender is prosecuted for that conduct. 

Article 16(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of assistance that a Party is required to provide pursuant to this Article. 

Article 16(3) requires the Requested Party to consult with the 

Requesting Party before disposing of property frozen, restrained, 

seized, or forfeited pursuant to Article 16. Article 16(4) permits the 

Party in control of the property to transfer all or part of it to the 

other Party or, after consultation between the Parties, to any other 

State that assisted in forfeiture of property in a manner proportionate to the other Party’s or other State’s assistance. United 

States law permits the government to transfer a share of certain 

forfeited property to other countries that participate directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property when, among 

other requirements, such transfer is authorized by an international 

agreement. This Article provides such authorization for asset sharing with Jordan or another country. Article 16(4) also provides 

that, where appropriate and upon request, priority should be given 

to returning property to the Requesting Party so that victims of an 

offense may be compensated or the property may be returned to its 

legitimate owners. Article 16(5) requires the Parties to assist each 

other, to the extent permitted by their respective domestic laws, in 

proceedings relating to restitution to victims of crime. Article 16(6) 

gives the Parties discretion to deny assistance requested pursuant 

to Article 16 if the value of the property in question does not substantially exceed the resources that would be expended in providing the assistance. 

Article 17 states that this Treaty is not intended to be the sole 

mechanism for the Parties to provide assistance to each other and 

thus shall not prevent the Parties from providing assistance to 

each other through the provisions of other agreements, arrangements, or practices that may be applicable, or through the provisions of their national laws. Thus, for example, the Treaty would 

leave the provisions of U.S. and Jordanian law on letters rogatory 

completely undisturbed, and would not alter any practices or arrangements concerning investigative assistance or prohibit the Parties from developing other such practices or arrangements. Article 

17(2) makes clear that no request for assistance is necessary when 

a Party wishes spontaneously to share information or evidence 

with the other Party. 

The final clauses are contained in Article 18. The Treaty is subject to ratification by each Party according to procedures required 

by its Constitution. For the United States, this means ratification 

after the advice and consent of the Senate. The Treaty will enter 

into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Article 

18 also provides procedures for termination of the Treaty. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOC
(1) 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 15 here TD4.001
2 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 16 here TD4.002
3 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 17 here TD4.003
4 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 18 here TD4.004
5 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 19 here TD4.005
6 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 20 here TD4.006
7 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 21 here TD4.007
8 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 22 here TD4.008
9 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 23 here TD4.009
10 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 24 here TD4.010
11 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 25 here TD4.011
12 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with TREATY-DOCInsert graphic folio 26 here TD4.012