U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

69–118

" ! SENATE 106TH CONGRESS

1st Session

TREATY DOC.

1999

106–4

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH PARAGUAY

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON NOVEMBER 9, 1998

JULY 13, 1999.—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

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 13, 1999.

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 Extradition Treaty between

the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Paraguay, signed at Washington on November 9, 1998.

In addition, I transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. As the

report states, the Treaty will not require implementing legislation.

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.

Upon entry into force, this Treaty would enhance cooperation between the law enforcement authorities of both countries, and thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement

efforts. The Treaty would supersede the Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Paraguay

signed at Asuncion on May 24, 1973.

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

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 24, 1999.

The PRESIDENT,

The White House.

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

America and the Government of the Republic of Paraguay (the

‘‘Treaty’’), signed at Washington on November 9, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice

and consent to ratification.

The Treaty follows closely the form and content of extradition

treaties recently concluded by the United States. It represents part

of a concerted effort by the Department of State and the Department of Justice to develop modern extradition relationships to enhance the ability of the United States to prosecute serious offenders, including, especially, narcotics traffickers and terrorists.

The Treaty marks a significant step in bilateral cooperation between the United States and Paraguay. Upon entry into force, it

would supersede the extradition treaty currently in force between

the two countries, signed at Asuncion on May 24, 1973. The current treaty has become outmoded, and the new treaty will provide

significant improvements. The new treaty can be implemented

without new legislation.

Article I obligates each Party to extradite to the other, pursuant

to the provisions of the Treaty, any person sought in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for an extraditable offense.

Article II(1) defines an extraditable offense as one punishable

under the laws in both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of more than one year, or by a more severe penalty.

Use of such a ‘‘dual criminality’’ clause rather than a list of offenses covered by the Treaty obviates the need to renegotiate or

supplement the Treaty as additional offenses become punishable

under the laws of both Parties.

Article II(3) defines an extraditable offense to include also an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, or the participation in the commission of, an extraditable offense.

Additional flexibility is provided by Article II(4), which provides

that an offense shall be considered an extraditable offense whether

or not the laws of the Parties place the offense within the same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same terminology;

and whether or not the offense is one for which the Requesting

State’s law requires the showing of such matters as interstate

transportation or use of the mails or of other facilities affecting
VI

interstate or foreign commerce, such matters being merely for the

purpose of establishing jurisdiction in the appropriate court.

With regard to an offense committed outside the territory of the

Requesting State, Article II(5) provides that such an offense shall

be an extraditable offense if it has effects in the territory of the Requesting State, or if the laws in the Requested State provide for

punishment of an offense committed outside its territory in similar

circumstances.

Article III provides that extradition shall not be refused on the

ground that the person sought is a national of the Requested State.

Neither Party, in other words, may invoke nationality as a basis

for denying an extradition.

As is customary in extradition treaties, Article IV incorporates a

political offense exception to the obligation to extradite. Article

IV(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted for a political offense. The article expressly excludes from the reach of the

political offense exception several categories of offenses:

(a) a murder or other willful crime against the physical integrity of the Head of State of one of the Parties, or of a member of the Head of State’s family;

(b) an offense for which both Parties are obliged pursuant to

a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person

sought or submit the case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution; and

(c) a conspiracy or attempt to commit the offenses described

above, or participation in the commission of such offenses.

Article IV(2) provides that extradition shall not be granted if the

competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.

Article IV(3) provides that the Requested State may refuse extradition for offenses under military law that are not offenses under

ordinary criminal law (for example, desertion).

Article V bars extradition when the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested State for the same offense, but

does not bar extradition if the competent authorities in the Requested State have declined to prosecute for the acts for which extradition has been requested. In addition, extradition shall not be

precluded by the fact that the authorities in the Requested State,

after initiating criminal proceedings, have decided to discontinue

them, so long as the Requested State’s laws regarding double jeopardy would permit the future reinstitution of such criminal proceedings.

Under Article VI(1), when an offense is punishable by death in

the Requesting State, but not in the Requested State, the latter

may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed,

will not be carried out. In cases where the Requesting State has

provided such assurances, Article VI(2) states that the death penalty, if imposed by the courts of the Requesting State, will not be

carried out.

Articles VII–IX address matters related to the presentation and

processing of extradition requests. Article VII describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. Article VIII provides that all documents submitted by the Requesting
VII

State shall be translated into the language of the Requested State.

Article IX states the criteria under which documents submitted

pursuant to Article VII shall be received and admitted into evidence in the Requested State.

Article X sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest and detention of a person sought, in case of urgency, pending presentation

of the formal request for extradition. Article X(4) provides that if

the Requested State’s diplomatic authority has not received the request for extradition and supporting documentation within sixty

(60) days after the provisional arrest, the person may be discharged

from custody. Article X(5) provides explicitly that discharge from

custody pursuant to Article X(4) shall not prevent subsequent rearrest and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition request

and supporting documents.

Article XI specifies the procedures governing the surrender and

return of persons sought. The Requested State is required to notify

promptly the Requesting State of its decision on extradition and,

if the request is denied in whole or in part, to provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial of the request. If the request

is granted, the Parties shall agree on the time and place for the

surrender of the person sought. Such person must be removed from

the territory of the Requested State within two months from the

date of the judicial extradition order. Otherwise, that person may

be discharged from custody, and the Requested State may refuse

a subsequent extradition request from the Requesting State for

that person for the same offense.

Article XII concerns temporary and deferred surrender. If a person whose extradition is sought is being prosecuted or is serving

a sentence in the Requested State, that State may temporarily surrender the person to the Requesting State solely for the purpose of

prosecution. Alternatively, the Requested State may postpone the

extradition proceedings until the domestic prosecution has been

concluded and any sentence imposed has been served.

Article XIII sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the Requested State in determining to which State to surrender a person sought by more than one State.

Article XIV provides for the seizure and surrender to the Requesting State of property connected with the offense for which extradition is granted, to the extent permitted under the law of the

Requested State. Such property may be surrendered even when extradition cannot be effected due to the death, disappearance, or escape of the person sought. Surrender of property may be deferred

if it is needed as evidence in the Requested State and may be conditioned upon satisfactory assurances that it will be returned. Article XIV(3) imposes an obligation to respect the rights of third Parties in affected property.

Article XV sets forth the rule of speciality. It provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State for an offense other than that for

which extradition has been granted, or a lesser included or differently denominated offense based on the same facts on which extradition has been granted. However, the article sets forth a number of exceptions, including the consent of the competent authority

of the Requested State. Similarly, the Requesting State may not
VIII

extradite the person to a third state for an offense committed prior

to the original surrender unless the surrendering State consents.

These restrictions do not apply if the extradited person leaves the

Requesting State after extradition and voluntarily returns to it or

fails to leave the Requesting State within thirty (30) days of being

free to do so.

Article XVI permits surrender to the Requesting State without

further proceedings if the person sought directly and expressly consents.

Article XVII governs the transit through the territory of one

Party of a person being surrendered to the other Party by a third

State.

Article XVIII contains provisions on representation and expenses.

Specifically, the Requested State is obligated, to the fullest extent

permitted by its law, to represent the Requesting State in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. The Requesting

State shall bear the expenses related to the translation of documents and the transportation of the person surrendered. Article

XVIII(3) provides that neither Party shall make any pecuniary

claim against the other Party related to the arrest, detention, custody, examination, or surrender of persons sought under the Treaty.

Article XIX provides that, for the United States of America, the

term ‘‘competent authority,’’ as used in the Treaty, means the appropriate executive authorities.

Article XX states that the Parties may consult with each other

in connection with the processing of cases and in furtherance of

maintaining and improving procedures for the implementation of

the Treaty.

Article XXI, like the parallel provision in almost all recent

United States extradition treaties, states that the Treaty shall

apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date the

Treaty enters into force. The conduct in question must have been

an offense under the laws of both Parties when it occurred.

Article XXII contains final clauses dealing with the Treaty’s ratification and entry into force. Paragraph 1 states that the Treaty

shall be subject to ratification, and the instruments of ratification

shall be exchanged at Asuncion as soon as possible. Paragraph 2

states the Treaty shall enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Paragraph 3 provides that, upon entry

into force of this Treaty, the Treaty on Extradition between the

United States of America and the Republic of Paraguay, signed at

Asuncion on May 24, 1973, shall cease to have any effect, with certain specified exceptions.

Article XXIII provides that either Party may terminate the Treaty at any time by giving written notice to the other Party, and the

termination shall be effective six months after the date of such notice.

A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of the

Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating delegation and will be submitted separately to the Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations.
IX

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,

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT.
(1)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15