79–115

106TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT.

2d Session " ! SENATE 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

REPORT

[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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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 proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Oct 02, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 10622 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
5

ceedings. 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

6

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:

7

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).

8

(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

9

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.

Æ