U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–118

" SENATE ! 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

TREATY DOC. 

2002

107–18

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TERRORISM 

(‘‘CONVENTION’’) ADOPTED AT THE THIRTY-SECOND REGULAR 

SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ORGANIZATION 

OF AMERICAN STATES (‘‘OAS’’) MEETING IN BRIDGETOWN, BARBADOS, AND SIGNED BY THIRTY COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE 

UNITED STATES, ON JUNE 3, 2002

NOVEMBER 12, 2002.—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


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 12, 2002. 

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 Inter-American Convention 

Against Terrorism, adopted at the Thirty-Second Regular Session 

of the OAS General Assembly meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados, on 

June 3, 2002, and opened for signature on that date. At that time 

it was signed by 30 of the 33 members attending the meeting, including the United States. It has subsequently been signed by another two member states, leaving only two states that have not yet 

signed. In addition, I transmit herewith, for the information of the 

Senate, the report of the Department of State. 

The negotiation of the Interior-American Convention Against 

Terrorism (the ‘‘Convention’’) was a direct response to the terrorist 

attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. At that time, 

the OAS was meeting in Lima, Peru, to adopt a Democratic Charter uniting all 34 democracies in the hemisphere. The OAS member 

states expressed their strong commitment to assist the United 

States in preventing such incidents from occurring again anywhere 

in our hemisphere. Within 10 days, the foreign ministers of the 

OAS member states, meeting in Washington, D.C., endorsed the 

idea of drafting a regional convention against terrorism. Argentina, 

Peru, Chile, and Mexico played particularly important roles in the 

development and negotiation of the Convention. 

The Convention will advance important United States Government interests and enhance hemispheric security by improving regional cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The forms of enhanced cooperation include exchanges of information, exchanges of 

experience and training, technical cooperation, and mutual legal 

assistance. The convention is consistent with, and builds upon previous counterterrorism instruments and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which mandates certain measures to combat terrorism. 

The Convention provides for regional use of a variety of legal 

tools that have proven effective against terrorism and 

transnational organized crime in recent years. Since fighting terrorist financing has been identified as an essential part of the fight 

against terrorism, the Convention addresses crucial financial regulatory, as well as criminal law, aspects. Existing Federal authority 

is sufficient to discharge the obligations of the united States under 

this Convention, and therefore no implementing legislation will be 

required. 

In particular, the Convention mandates the establishment of financial intelligence units for the collection, analysis, and dissemiVerDate 0ct 31 2002 04:01 Nov 14, 2002 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\TD018.XXX TD018
IV

nation of terrorist financing information and the establishment and 

enhancement of channels of communication between law enforcement authorities for secure and rapid exchange of information concerning all aspects of terrorist offenses; the exchange of information 

to improve border and customs control measures to detect and prevent movement of terrorists and terrorist-related materials; and 

technical cooperation and training programs. 

The Convention also provides measures relating to the denial of 

refugee or asylum status. In addition, the Convention provides that 

terrorist acts may not be considered ‘‘political’’ offenses for which 

extradition or mutual legal assistance requests can be denied, and 

provides for other mechanisms to facilitate mutual legal assistance 

in criminal matters. 

In sum, the Convention is in the interests of the United States 

and represents an important step in the fight against terrorism. I 

therefore recommend that the Senate give prompt and favorable 

consideration to the Convention, subject to the understanding that 

are described in the accompanying report of the Department of 

State, and give its advice and consent to ratification.

GEORGE W. BUSH.

(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 7, 2002. 

The PRESIDENT, The White House. 

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the InterAmerican Convention Against Terrorism (‘‘Convention’’) adopted at 

the Thirty-Second Regular Session of the General Assembly of the 

Organization of American States (‘‘OAS’’) meeting in Bridgetown, 

Barbados, and signed by thirty countries, including the United 

States, on June 3, 2002. It has been signed by two additional countries since that date. The Convention will enter into force on the 

thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the sixth instrument 

of ratification. 

Introduction 

The Convention reflects the rapid response of the Western Hemisphere to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, as 

well as the outstanding solidarity among the other member states 

of the Hemisphere with the United States and the global coalition 

against terrorism. 

The purpose of the Convention is to promote the prevention, punishment, and elimination of terrorism. The States Parties agree to 

adopt specified measures and to strengthen cooperation among 

themselves in furtherance of that purpose. The Convention will advance important U.S. Government interests and enhance hemispheric security by improving regional cooperation in the fight 

against terrorism. The forms of enhanced cooperation include exchanges of information, exchanges of experience and training, technical cooperation, and mutual legal assistance. Existing federal authority is sufficient to discharge the obligations of the United 

States under this Convention, and therefore no implementing legislation will be required. 

Background Information 

The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism was negotiated pursuant to a mandate adopted at the Organization of American States (OAS) Foreign Ministers’ meeting of consultation of 

September 21, 2001. The negotiations were a direct response to the 

attacks on the United States of September 11. 

The OAS, which was meeting in Lima, Peru, on September 11, 

2001, to adopt the Inter-American Democratic Charter, was the 

first international organization to condemn the terrorist attacks on 

the United States. The organization expressed its strong commitment to assist the United States in preventing such incidents from 

VI

occurring again anywhere in the Hemisphere. This was followed by 

many expressions of support from leaders of the OAS member 

states. 

Immediately upon returning to Washington, the OAS Permanent 

Council began to discuss ways to demonstrate regional solidarity, 

to enhance cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and to take 

concrete steps to assist the United States. This led to the September 21 meeting of OAS Foreign Ministers, who instructed the 

OAS to take a number of additional measure, including drafting 

the Convention and revitalizing the work of the Inter-American 

Committee Against Terrorism (CICTE) to develop practical measures that could be implemented on an urgent basis. 

Prior to the beginning of the negotiations, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001), which calls upon 

states to ‘‘work together urgently to prevent and suppress terrorist 

acts, including through increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international conventions relating to terrorism,’’ and ‘‘complement international cooperation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories 

through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any 

acts of terrorism.’’

Three negotiating rounds were held, all at the OAS Headquarters in Washington: November 26–28, 2001; January 22–25, 

2002; and March 18–21, 2002. Almost all of the thirty-four member 

states of the OAS participated in one or more of these rounds and 

in the inter-sessional discussions.

Essential Elements of the Convention 

The Convention is designed to build upon the multilateral and 

bilateral instruments already in force and to which the United 

States is a Party by enhancing cooperation in preventing, punishing, and eradicating terrorism. It does so by elaborating for regional use a variety of legal tools that have proven effective against 

terrorism and transnational organized crime in recent years. 

Following the model of the 1999 International Convention for the 

Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the Convention incorporates by reference the offenses set forth in ten counterterrorism 

instruments listed in paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Convention. 

Negotiators chose this approach because of the breadth of converge 

already provided by these prior instruments (all crimes ordinarily 

recognized as terrorism-related offenses are covered, including hijackings, bombings, attacks on diplomats, and the financing of terrorism and the OAS’s desire to respond rapidly to the events of 

September 11 and the continuing threat of terrorism in the region. 

All Parties are required under the Convention to ‘‘endeavor to become a party’’ to the ten prior instruments (the United States is 

already a Party to all of the instruments). In addition to facilitating 

implementation of the Convention, this obligation also advances 

implementation of UNSCR 1373, which ‘‘calls upon’’ states to become Parties to these same instruments ‘‘as soon as possible.’’

Thus, we would hope that all Parties to the Convention will have 

become Parties to those instruments by the time they deposit their 

instruments of ratification for this Convention. 

VII

However, so as not to delay a state from becoming a Party to this 

Convention, and in order to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative bodies in becoming Parties to the instruments listed in the 

Convention, the Convention provides that a state may declare that 

the obligations contained in the Convention do not apply to the offenses set forth in any one of the counterterorism instruments listed in Article 2 if it is not yet a Party to that instrument or if it 

ceases to be a Party. This procedure provides a high degree of flexibility for states that are considering becoming Parties to this Convention, without undermining the U.S. interest in having all states 

become Parties to all of the other international instruments relating to terrorism. 

In addition to incorporating the offenses from prior 

counterterrorism instruments, the Convention adopts elements 

from prior conventions and initiatives, in some cases expanding the 

scope of these elements and in other cases converting voluntary 

measures into legally binding ones. For example, Article 11 of the 

Convention prohibits Parties from denying extradition or mutual 

legal assistance requests on the sole ground that an offense covered 

by the Convention is or concerns a political offense. This provision 

appears in the more recent counterterrorism instruments and, by 

incorporating it into the Convention, its scope will be expanded to 

include offenses set forth in prior conventions and protocols as well. 

Another example is the Convention’s requirement in paragraph 

1 of Article 4 that Parties institute a legal and regulatory regime 

to prevent, combat, and eradicate the financing of terrorism. A 

similar requirement can be found in UNSCR 1373, but the Convention goes further by requiring that the regime include specific elements drawn from the forty recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), an inter-governmental body whose purpose is to develop and promote policies to 

combat money laundering. In fulfillment of one of its requirements, 

the United States will notify the OAS Secretary General, upon the 

deposit of its instruments of ratification, the national authority 

designated to be its financial intelligence unit. 

In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Convention mandates 

that, when establishing their legal and regulatory regimes, Parties 

must use as ‘‘guidelines’’ the recommendations developed by specialized international and regional entities, in particular the FATF 

and, as appropriate, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, and the South 

American Financial Action Task Force, which are likewise intergovernmental bodies that develop policies relating to money laundering within their respective areas. Because the recommendations 

of these entities can change over time, the Convention requires 

that Parties use the recommendations of FATF, as well as the recommendations of the other entities, as ‘‘guidelines’’ in implementing paragraph 1 of Article 4, rather than requiring that the 

Parties implement all of those recommendations in full. 

Other measures incorporated into the Convention include: expanding the basis for seizure and forfeiture of funds and other assets; expansion of predicate offenses for money laundering; enhancing cooperation on border controls and among law enforcement authorities; establishment of a mechanism for transferring persons in 

VIII

custody for identification, testimony or other types of assistance; 

and denial of refugee status in cases where there are serious reasons for considering that the person has committed an offense covered by the Convention. 

The Convention facilitates the implementation of many of the 

mandatory measures called for in UNSCR 1373 by establishing 

mechanisms for cooperation in the region, and by mandating that 

Parties take specific, concrete steps that will advance their implementation of the more general measures set forth in that resolution. Those measures include: freezing funds or assets that are 

used in or form the proceeds of terrorist offenses; measures relating 

to the denial of refugee or asylum status; affording other Parties 

the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to terrorist acts; and 

detecting and preventing the movement of terrorists and terrorist 

groups by effective border controls and controls on the issuance of 

travel and identity documents. 

Article 10 establishes a procedure whereby persons in custody 

may be transferred to another party for the purpose of providing 

assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation or prosecution of any of the listed offenses. Under this Article, the transfer 

would take place with the persons’ consent and the agreement of 

the states sending and receiving the person. This provision is found 

in most modern U.S. mutual legal assistance treaties and in prior 

conventions relating to terrorism, in particular the 1997 International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and 

the 1999 International Convention on the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. As in those other legal instruments, it is not 

meant to be the exclusive means of transferring persons in custody 

but rather creates one possible modality for such transfers. While 

implicit, it may be useful in the context of the Convention to underscore this point, and I therefore recommend that the following understanding be included in the United States instrument of ratification:

The United States of America understands that, as in 

other treaties with such provisions, nothing in Article 10 

or in this Convention precludes the involuntary transfer of 

persons pursuant to applicable domestic or international 

law.

Article 15 confirms that the Convention’s implementation will 

take place with full respect for the rule of law, human rights, and 

fundamental freedoms. In addition, ‘‘international humanitarian 

law’’ is included among the other rights and obligations of states 

and individuals under international law that are not affected by 

this Convention. In this respect, the term ‘‘international humanitarian law’’ is used in this Convention in the same context as it is 

used in the 1999 International Convention on the Suppression of 

the Financing of Terrorism and the 1997 International Convention 

on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. This term is not used 

by United States armed forces and could be subject to varied interpretations.

As was the case for those two earlier instruments, it is the 

United States’ intention, in the context of this Convention, to interVerDate 0ct 31 2002 04:01 Nov 14, 2002 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD018.XXX TD018
IX

pret the term consistently with our understanding of the term ‘‘law 

of war.’’ To confirm the U.S. understanding on this point. I recommend that the following understanding to Article 15, paragraph 

2, be included in the United States instrument of ratification:

The United States of America understands that the term ‘‘international humanitarian law’’ in paragraph 2 of Article 

15 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as 

the term ‘‘law of war.’’

Recent precedents exist for the conclusion of law enforcement-related treaties within the OAS framework. For example, the InterAmerican Convention Against Corruption done at Caracas on 

March 29, 1996, was signed by the United States on June 2, 1996, 

and that Convention entered into force for the United States on October 29, 2000. The United States also signed the Inter-American 

Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters done at Nassau on May 23, 1992, and a related Optional Protocol done at Managua on June 11, 1993, on January 10, 1995, and that Convention 

and its Optional Protocol entered into force for the United States 

on June 24, 2001. 

Conclusion 

Accompanying this Report is an article-by-article analysis of the 

Convention. 

I believe that this Convention, by enhancing regional cooperation 

in the fight against terrorism, will enhance the security of the 

Western Hemisphere and the national security of the United 

States. I therefore recommend that the Convention be submitted to 

the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification subject to the 

understandings described herein at the earliest possible date. The 

Departments of Justice and Treasury join me in urging rapid ratification of the Convention. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COLIN L. POWELL. 

Enclosure: As stated.

ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE ANALYSIS OF THE CONVENTION TEXT SUMMARY

OF PROVISIONS

The Convention consists of a Preamble and twenty-three articles. 

Among the substantive articles are three articles on international 

cooperation against the financing of terrorism, seven articles on 

other types of international cooperation, three articles relating to 

denial of safe haven for suspected terrorists, an article on non-discrimination, and an article on protection of human rights. 

Object and Purposes: Article 1 defines the purposes of the Convention as the prevention, punishment, and elimination of terrorism. The Parties commit to adopt the necessary measures and 

to strengthen cooperation among themselves, in accordance with 

the terms of the Convention. 

Applicable International Instruments: The term ‘‘offenses’’ is 

used in a number of articles (Articles 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13). 

Under Article 2, the term is defined to mean the offenses described 

in one or more of the ten international instruments relating to terrorism listed in paragraph 1 of that Article (hereinafter ‘‘listed ofVerDate 0ct 31 2002 04:01 Nov 14, 2002 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD018.XXX TD018
X

1There are 12 UN conventions and protocols on terrorism. Following the practice adopted in 

the 1999 Terrorism Financing Convention, only 10 of the instruments are listed in this Convention. The 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft was omitted as being unnecessary in view of the more recent 1970 Hague Convention and 

1971 Montreal Convention on terrorism related to aircraft. The 1991 Convention on the Marking 

of Plastic Explosives was omitted because it does not set forth a criminal offense. 

fenses’’).1 Since it was anticipated that not all states would be 

Party to all ten instruments at the time of becoming Party to the 

Convention, Article 2 contains a mechanism for a State Party to 

this Convention that is not a Party to one or more of the listed 

international instruments to declare that the obligations contained 

in the Convention do not apply to the offenses set forth in any of 

the listed instruments if it is not yet a Party to that instrument. 

These provisions follow the model of the International Convention 

for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism done at New York 

on December 9, 1999 (‘‘Terrorism Financing Convention’’). 

Domestic Measures: Article 3 calls upon all Parties to ‘‘endeavor’’ to become Parties to all ten of the instruments listed in paragraph 

1 of Article 2 and to adopt the necessary measures to implement 

them effectively. Some delegations proposed during the negotiations to make this provision mandatory but a number of states responded that such an obligation could be read by legislatures as 

taking away or diminishing their involvement or prerogative in the 

process of becoming Parties to the ten listed instruments. A similar 

provision appears in paragraph 3(d) of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) (‘‘UNSCR 1373’’). 

Measures To Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate Financing of Terrorism: Article 4 commits each Party, to the extent that it has not 

already done so, to institute a legal and regulatory regime to prevent, combat, and eradicate the financing of terrorism and for effective international cooperation in that area, which includes: —A comprehensive domestic regulatory and supervisory regime for banks and other financial institutions and other entities deemed to be susceptible to being used for the financing 

of terrorist activities; 

—Measures to detect and monitor the movement across borders of cash, bearer negotiable instruments, and other appropriate movements of value; and 

—Measures to ensure that the competent authorities have the 

ability to cooperate and exchange information at the national 

and international levels, including the establishment and 

maintenance of a financial intelligence unit. 

These provisions are similar to provisions in the Terrorism Financing Convention and UNSCR 1373. When establishing and implementing these financial control measures, the Parties agree to 

use as guidelines the recommendations developed by specialized 

international and regional entities, in particular the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and, as appropriate, 

other regional entities. However, because the recommendations of 

these entities can change over time, the requirement is that the 

Parties use the recommendations of these entities as ‘‘guidelines’’ rather than that the Parties implement all of those recommendations in full. 

Seizure and Confiscation of Funds or Other Assets; Predicate Offenses to Money Laundering: Under Article 5, each Party commits, 

XI

in accordance with the procedures established in its domestic law, 

to take necessary measures to identify, freeze or seize, and confiscate funds or assets used or intended to be used to finance terrorist acts or the proceeds resulting from, regardless of whether the 

offenses were committed within or outside the jurisdiction of the 

State Party. This obligation extends the requirement that such 

funds be frozen pursuant to UNSCR 1373. Under Article 6 each 

Party must take the necessary measures to ensure that its domestic penal money laundering legislation includes as predicate offenses the listed offenses, regardless of whether the offenses were 

committed within or outside the jurisdiction of the State Party. 

Cooperation on Border Controls: Article 7 requires that each 

Party, consistent with its respective domestic legal and administrative regimes, promote cooperation and information exchange in 

order to improve border and customs control measures to detect 

and prevent intentional movement of terrorists and trafficking in 

arms or other materials intended to support terrorist activities. Article 7 also obligates Parties to promote cooperation and information exchange to improve controls on issuance of travel and identity 

documents and to prevent counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use. 

Article 7 will facilitate implementation of paragraph 2(g) of 

UNSCR 1373 and takes into account the recommendations of the 

Subcommittee on Border Controls of the Inter-American Committee 

Against Terrorism (CICTE) that were adopted while the Convention was under negotiation. 

Cooperation Among Law Enforcement Authorities: Under Article 

8, the Parties commit to work closely with each other, consistent 

with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems, to 

enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement actions to combat the 

listed offenses. This Article directs Parties to establish and enhance, where necessary, channels of communication to facilitate the 

secure and rapid exchange of information concerning all aspects of 

the listed offenses. 

Mutual Legal Assistance: Article 9 provides that the Parties commit to afford each other the greatest measure of expeditious mutual 

legal assistance with respect to the prevention, investigation, and 

prosecution of the listed offenses and related proceedings in accordance with existing treaties or, in the absence of a treaty, in accordance with domestic law. In terms of existing treaties, the InterAmerican Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 

done at Nassau on May 23, 1992, entered into force on April 14, 

1996, and for the United States, on June 24, 2001, has only seven 

Parties—the United States, Canada, Ecuador, Grenada, Panama, 

Peru, and Venezuela. Another ten states have signed that instrument (The Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Suriname, and Uruguay). 

The United States has bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties 

in force with sixteen OAS member states: Antigua and Barbuda, 

Argentina, The Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Dominica, 

Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay. In the absence of a treaty, assistance would be provided pursuant to the U.S. judicial assistance statute, 28 U.S.C. 1782. 

XII

Transfer of Persons in Custody: Article 10 establishes a procedure whereby persons in custody in the territory of one Party may, 

with that person’s consent and the agreement of both the sending 

and receiving states, be transferred to another for the purposes of 

providing assistance in obtaining evidence for the investigation or 

prosecution of any of the listed offenses. The Article is consistent 

with Article 13 of the International Convention on the Suppression 

of Terrorist Bombings, done at New York on December 15, 1997 

(‘‘Terrorist Bombings Convention’’) and Article 16 of the Terrorism 

Financing Convention. Although such provisions appear in most 

modern U.S. mutual legal assistance treaties, in the area of multilateral treaties designed to counter terrorism they are a recent innovation, and this Convention enables the mechanism to be applied 

among the Parties with respect to the offenses established in the 

eight earlier UN instruments relating to terrorism, in addition to 

the two most recent conventions referred to above. 

As in these other legal instruments, this procedure is not meant 

to be the exclusive means of transferring persons in custody but 

rather creates one possible modality for such transfers. While implicit, it is recommended that the following understanding be included in the United States instrument of ratification:

The United States of America understands that, as in 

other treaties with such provisions, nothing in Article 10 

or in this Convention precludes the involuntary transfer of 

persons pursuant to applicable domestic or international 

law.

Inapplicability of Political Offense Exception: Article 11 provides 

that the listed offenses shall not be considered political offenses or 

offenses connected with a political offense or offenses inspired by 

political motives, for purposes of extradition or mutual legal assistance. This provision is identical to Article 14 of the Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 11 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention. This provision thus requires that this principle be applied 

to the offenses established in the UN instruments relating to terrorism that preceded the Terrorist Bombings and Terrorism Financing Conventions. 

The specific consequence of the Convention’s narrowing of the political offense exception for the listed offenses will vary depending 

on the age of the relevant bilateral U.S. extradition treaty or mutual legal assistance treaty. Generally, under modern extradition 

treaties concluded by the United States, the political offense exception is already precluded for all crimes covered under ‘‘prosecute or 

extradite’’ conventions and protocols relating to terrorism to which 

the United States and its extradition treaty partner are Parties. 

Older treaties generally provide fugitives the right to claim political offense but do not expressly narrow the political offense exception by reference to the conventions and protocols relating to terrorism. As between the United States and any other Party to the 

Convention, the political offense provisions in these older treaties 

will be narrowed by virtue of Article 12, even in the absence of a 

provision similar to those in modern extradition treaties narrowing 

the political offense exception. 

XIII

Denial of Refugee Status and Denial of Asylum: Article 12 and 

13 facilitate implementation of paragraph 3(f) of UNSCR 1373, 

which calls upon all Member States to ‘‘take appropriate measures 

in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, 

before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the 

asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the 

commission of terrorist acts.’’

Article 12 requires each party to take appropriate measures, consistent with the relevant provisions of national and international 

law, to ensure that refugee status is not granted to any person 

about whom there are ‘‘serious reasons’’ for considering that such 

person has committed a listed offense. Article 13 requires each 

Party, along similar lines, to ensure that asylum is not granted to 

any person about whom there are ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ to believe 

that such person has committed a listed offense. Article 12 tracks 

the specific wording of Article 1.F. of the Convention relating to the 

Status of Refugees, done at New York on July 28, 1951, which was 

incorporated by reference into the Protocol relating to the Status 

of Refugees, done at New York on January 31, 1967, and which entered into force for the United States on November 1, 1968. Article 

1.F. states that ‘‘[t]he provisions of this Convention shall not apply 

to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for 

considering that: (a) he has committed a serious non-political crime 

against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision 

with respect of such crimes; (b) he has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside of the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; and (c) he has been guilty of acts 

contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’’ Article 13 uses different ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ language because of 

certain differences, particularly in Latin American systems, between refugee and asylum processes. 

Non-Discrimination: Article 14 states that nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as requiring a Party to provide mutual 

legal assistance if the requested Party has substantial grounds to 

believe that the request was made for the purpose of prosecuting 

or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion or that compliance with 

the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any 

of these reasons. This language is consistent with Article 15 of the 

Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 12 of the Terrorist 

Bombings Convention. 

Human Rights: Article 15 is the only article in the Convention 

that specifically addresses human rights matters. The Article represents a significant compromise between those states, including 

the United States, that believed that human rights issues were 

adequately addressed in other instruments and need not be mentioned in a law enforcement instrument, and those states that asserted that the history of human rights abuses in Latin America 

necessitated a provision addressing human rights concerns. 

The first paragraph of Article 15 states that the measures carried out by the Parties under this Convention must take place with 

XIV

full respect for the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental 

freedoms. 

The second paragraph of Article 15, which states that nothing in 

this Convention shall be interpreted as affecting other rights and 

obligations of states and individuals under international law, is 

consistent with Article 21 of the Terrorism Financing Convention 

and Article 19 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention. The listing 

of the sources of the rights and obligations is more comprehensive 

in the Convention than in the other two instruments at the request 

of many delegations that sought to have references to specific subsets of international law that they believed were relevant to the 

Convention. The subsets of international law that were eventually 

agreed to included international human rights law and international refugee law; international humanitarian law was also included, just as it was in the Terrorism Financing Convention and 

the Terrorist Bombing Convention. 

The term ‘‘international humanitarian law’’ is not used by United 

States armed forces and can be subject to varied interpretations. It 

is the United States’ intention, in the context of this Convention, 

to interpret the term consistently with its understanding of the 

term ‘‘law of war.’’ To confirm the U.S. understanding on this point, 

it is recommended that the following understanding to this paragraph be included in the United States instrument of ratification:

The United States of America understands that the term 

‘‘international humanitarian law’’ in paragraph 2 of Article 

15 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning as 

the law of war.

The third paragraph of Article 15 refers to persons taken into 

custody, or regarding whom other measures are taken pursuant to 

this Convention, and provides that they shall be guaranteed fair 

treatment. This language is consistent with Article 17 of the Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 14 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention. 

Training: Under paragraph 1 of Article 16, the Parties commit to 

promote technical cooperation and training at all levels and in the 

framework of the OAS. The United States is already providing 

training and other forms of assistance to a number of countries in 

the region and plans to encourage and facilitate such cooperation 

through CICTE. However, because U.S. provision of training and 

assistance is subject to the availability of funds, U.S negotiators 

were careful to limit the legal obligation in Article 16 to the promotion of training and assistance. 

Because negotiators recognized the global nature of the terrorist 

threat and the global response to that threat, paragraph 2 of Article 16 directs the parties to promote, where appropriate, technical 

cooperation and training programs with other regional and international organizations. This provision is designed to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that limited resources are used most 

effectively. 

Cooperation Through the OAS: Article 17 represents a compromise between those delegations that wanted no reference to 

CICTE at all in the Convention and those states that wanted 

CICTE to be established as the follow-up mechanism for the impleVerDate 0ct 31 2002 04:01 Nov 14, 2002 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD018.XXX TD018
XV

mentation of the Convention. The United States recognized the important role that CICTE could play in the implementation of the 

Convention and firmly supports its work. However, the United 

States was not prepared to establish CICTE as the permanent implementing body for the Convention due to financial and other concerns. In order to maintain maximum flexibility during implementation, Article 17 requires only that Parties ‘‘encourage’’ the broadest cooperation within the pertinent OAS bodies organs, including 

CICTE, on matters related to the object and purpose of the Convention. 

Consultation Among the Parties: Article 18 requires the parties 

to hold periodic meetings, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating 

full implementation of the Convention and the exchange of information and experiences on preventing, detecting, investigating, and 

punishing terrorism. It states that the OAS Secretary General 

shall convene a meeting of consultation after the tenth state becomes a Party to the Convention, and further states that the Parties may request the OAS, including CICTE, to facilitate the consultation and to provide other forms of assistance concerning the 

implementation of the Convention. 

Exercise of Jurisdiction: Article 19 states that nothing in this 

Convention entitles a Party to undertake, in the territory of another Party, the exercise of its jurisdiction or the performance of 

functions that are exclusively reserved to the authorities of the 

other state by its domestic law. This Article is similar to Article 22 

of the Terrorism Financing Convention and Article 18 of the Terrorist Bombings Convention. 

Final Clauses: Articles 20–23 contain the final clauses. The OAS 

shall serve as depositary for the Convention. Only OAS member 

states may become Parties to the Convention. The Convention will 

enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit 

of the sixth instrument of ratification. A Party may denounce the 

convention by written notification to the Secretary General of the 

OAS. Denunciation would take effect one year following the date 

the notification is received by the Secretary General. Requests for 

information or assistance made while the convention is in force for 

that denouncing state will not be affected by the denunciation. 

(1)


Insert offset folio 24 here TD18.001
2


Insert offset folio 25 here TD18.002
3


Insert offset folio 26 here TD18.003
4


Insert offset folio 27 here TD18.004
5


Insert offset folio 28 here TD18.005
6


Insert offset folio 29 here TD18.006
7


Insert offset folio 30 here TD18.007
8


Insert offset folio 31 here TD18.008
9


Insert offset folio 32/50 here TD18.009