59–115 

114TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–9 

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 

JULY 13, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CORKER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 114–10] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the 

Dominican Republic, signed at Santo Domingo on January 12, 2015 

(Treaty Doc. 114–10), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with one declaration and recommends that the Senate 

give its advice and consent to the ratification thereof as set forth 

in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent to ratification. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1 

II. Summary and Discussion of Key Provisions ............................................... 1 

III. Entry Into Force and Termination ............................................................... 3 

IV. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 3 

V. Committee Comments ................................................................................... 3 

VI. Explanation of Extradition Treaty with the Dominican Republic ............. 3 

VII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 10 

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Extradition Treaty with the Dominican Republic (hereafter ‘‘the Treaty’’) is to impose mutual obligations to 

extradite fugitives at the request of a party subject to conditions 

set forth in the Treaty. 

II. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF KEY PROVISIONS

The United States is currently a party to over 100 bilateral extradition treaties, including a treaty with the Dominican Republic 

which was signed on June 19, 1909 (hereafter the ‘‘1909 Treaty’’). 

The treaty before the Senate is designed to replace, and thereby 

modernize, the century-old extradition treaty with the Dominican 

Republic. It was signed on January 12, 2015 and submitted to the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

Senate on February 10, 2016. In general, the Treaty follows a form 

used in several other bilateral extradition treaties approved by the 

Senate in recent years. It contains two important features which 

are not in the 1909 treaty. First, the Treaty contains a ‘‘dual criminality’’ clause which requires a party to extradite a fugitive whenever the offense is punishable under the laws of both parties by 

deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of more than one year. 

This provision replaces the list of offenses specifically identified in 

the 1909 treaty. This more flexible provision ensures that newlyenacted criminal offenses are covered by the Treaty, thereby obviating the need to amend it as offenses are criminalized by the Parties. 

Second, the Treaty provides for extradition of nationals. Specifically, Article 3 states that extradition ‘‘shall not be refused based 

on the nationality of the person sought.’’ This contrasts with Article 

VIII of the 1909 treaty, which excepts the obligation by a party to 

extradite its nationals. Many countries of Latin America have, historically, refused to extradite nationals. The United States, by contrast, does extradite its nationals, and has long attempted to convince extradition partners to do likewise. 

The Treaty contains several other provisions worth noting. Consistent with U.S. policy and practice in recent years, the Treaty 

narrows the political offense exception. The political offense exception (an exception of long-standing in U.S. extradition practice) 

under Article III of the 1909 Treaty bars extradition of an individual for offenses of a ‘‘political’’ nature and ‘‘acts connected with 

such crimes or offenses’’. The new Treaty with the Dominican Republic retains the political offense exception in Article 4, but provides that certain crimes shall not be considered political offenses, 

including violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, inflicting 

grievous bodily harm, or crimes of sexual assault, crimes such as 

kidnapping or hostage taking, crimes related to explosives or the 

use of radiological or chemical agents capable of endangering life 

or causing substantial bodily harm or property damage or offenses 

for which both parties have an obligation to extradite under a multilateral agreement. Nevertheless, the Executive Authority of each 

Party retains discretion under Article 4 to refuse extradition upon 

a determination that the extradition request is politically motivated. The Executive Authority may also refuse extradition for offenses under military law that are not offenses under criminal law. 

The Treaty contains a provision related to the death penalty. 

Under Article 6, when extradition is sought for an offense punishable by death in the Requesting State and is not punishable by 

death in the Requested State, the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that 

the person sought for extradition will not be executed. This provision is found in many U.S. extradition treaties, as many treaty 

partners do not impose the death penalty under their laws, and object to its application to fugitives whom they extradite to the 

United States. 

Finally, the Treaty, under Article 15(2) ‘‘Rule of Specialty’’, provides that a person extradited under this Treaty may not be the 

subject of onward extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to extradition unless the competent authority of the 

Requested Party consents. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

III. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATION

Under Article 21, the Treaty enters into force upon the exchange 

of the instruments of ratification, replacing the 1909 Treaty which 

‘‘shall cease to have any effect as between the Parties’’ with the exception of pending requests under the 1909 Treaty. Either party 

may terminate the treaty on written notice; termination will be effective six months after the date of such notice. 

IV. COMMITTEE ACTION

The Committee reviewed the Treaty at a briefing on May 23, 

2016, at which representatives of the Departments of State and 

Justice were present. The Committee considered the Treaty on 

June 23, 2016 and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with 

the recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to 

the ratification of the Treaty subject to the declaration set forth in 

the resolution of advice and consent to ratification. 

V. COMMITTEE COMMENTS

The Committee recommends favorably the Treaty with the Dominican Republic. It modernizes a treaty that is over a century old, 

and provides a more flexible ‘‘dual criminality’’ provision which will 

incorporate a broader range of criminal offenses than is covered 

under the current treaty with the Dominican Republic. 

Following negotiation of the Rome Statute on the International 

Criminal Court in 1998, the Committee has recommended, in the 

consideration of extradition treaties, that the Senate include in its 

resolutions of advice and consent an understanding stating that the 

Rule of Specialty would bar the retransfer of a fugitive to the International Criminal Court without the consent of the United States 

as the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute. 

As noted above, the terms of Article 15 Rule of Specialty under 

Dominican Republic Treaty clearly bars onward extradition unless 

the Requested state consents to the onward extradition or surrender. Furthermore, in his transmittal message of the Treaty to 

the Senate, the President reinforces this important protection by 

stating: 

Similarly, the Article 15(2) provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be the subject of onward 

extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to 

extradition, unless the competent authority of the Requested Party consents. This provision would preclude the 

Dominican Republic from transferring to a third State or 

an international tribunal a fugitive that the United States 

surrendered to the Dominican Republic, unless the United 

States consents. 

VI. EXPLANATION OF EXTRADITION TREATY WITH

THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

What follows is a technical analysis of the Treaty prepared by 

the Departments of State and Justice. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

Technical Analysis of the Extradition Treaty Between the 

Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Dominican Republic 

The Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United 

States and the Government of the Dominican Republican (‘‘Treaty’’) 

replaces an outdated extradition treaty between the countries 

signed in 1909. 

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

of the Treaty: 

ARTICLE 1—OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE

Article 1 obligates each Party to extradite to the other persons 

sought by the Requesting Party for prosecution or for imposition or 

service of a sentence for an extraditable offense 

ARTICLE 2—EXTRADITABLE OFFENSES

Article 2 defines extraditable offenses. Under Article 2(1), an offense is extraditable if it is punishable under the laws of both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or 

by a more severe penalty. This formulation is consistent with the 

modern ‘‘dual criminality’’ approach. The new Treaty eliminates 

the requirement, found in the 1909 Extradition Treaty, that the offense be among those listed in the treaty. The dual criminality formulation obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty 

as additional offenses become punishable under the laws of both 

Parties and ensures a comprehensive coverage of criminal conduct 

for which extradition may be sought. 

Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense to include an 

attempt or a conspiracy to commit, or participation in the commission of, an extraditable offense, if the offense of attempt, conspiracy, or participation is punishable under the laws of both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year or 

by a more severe penalty. Under the broad term of ‘‘participation,’’ 

the Treaty covers such offenses as aiding, abetting, counseling, or 

procuring the commission of an offense, as well as being an accessory to an offense, at whatever stage of development of the criminal 

conduct and regardless of the alleged offender’s degree of involvement. 

Additionally, Article 2(3) identifies a number of situations in 

which an offense will be extraditable despite potential differences 

in the criminal laws of both Parties. For instance, an offense shall 

be extraditable whether or not the laws of the Requesting and Requested Parties place the acts constituting the offense within the 

same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same terminology. In addition, an offense involving tax fraud or tax evasion, 

custom duties, or import/export controls shall be extraditable regardless of whether the Requested Party provides for the same sort 

of taxes, duties, or controls. This provision also makes explicit that 

an offense is extraditable where United States federal law requires 

the showing of certain matters merely for the purpose of establishing U.S. federal jurisdiction, including interstate transportation, or use of the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate 

or foreign commerce; this clarifies an important issue for the 

United States in requesting extradition for certain federal crimes. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

Article 2(4) addresses issues of territorial jurisdiction and specifies that an offense shall be extraditable regardless of where the 

act or acts constituting the offense was committed. 

Article 2(5) prescribes that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it shall be granted for any other offense specified 

in the request even if the latter offense is punishable by a maximum of one year’s deprivation of liberty or less, provided that all 

other requirements for extradition are met. Article 2(6) provides 

that, where the extradition request is for service of a sentence of 

imprisonment, extradition may be denied if, at the time of the request, the remainder of the sentence to be served is less than six 

months. 

ARTICLE 3—NATIONALITY

Article 3 establishes that extradition shall not be refused based 

on the nationality of the person sought. 

ARTICLE 4—POLITICAL AND MILITARY OFFENSES

As is customary in extradition treaties, Article 4 governs political 

and military offenses as a basis for the denial of extradition. Article 

4(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense. 

Article 4(2) describes five categories of offenses that shall not be 

considered to be political offenses. This list of exceptions were included in the extradition treaty between the United States and 

Chile (signed 2013) and is slightly broader than similar lists that 

appear in other, modern treaties, including those with Hungary 

(signed 1994), Poland (signed 1997), the United Kingdom (signed 

2003), Bulgaria (signed 2007) and Romania (signed 2007). In addition to offenses that involve the possession, placement, use or 

threatened use of an explosive, incendiary or destructive device, the 

exception at Article 4(2)(d) also includes biological, chemical or radiological agents when such agent is capable of endangering life or 

causing substantial bodily harm or substantial property damage. 

Further, Article 4(2)(e) makes clear that aiding or abetting another 

person to commit, attempt to commit or participate in the commission of such offenses also is excluded from the political offense exception. This slight expansion of the political offense exception is 

in keeping with a major priority of the United States to ensure that 

an overbroad definition of political offense not impede the ability 

to extradite terrorists. 

Notwithstanding Article 4(2), Article 4(3) provides that extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested Party determines that the request was politically motivated. 

Under Article 4(4) the executive authority of the Requested Party 

may refuse extradition for offenses under military law that are not 

offenses under ordinary criminal law. Desertion would be an example of such an offense. 

ARTICLE 5—PRIOR PROSECUTION AND LAPSE OF TIME

Article 5 addresses denial of extradition in instances in which an 

individual has previously been prosecuted for the offense for which 

extradition is requested, as well as denial for lapse of time. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 

Article 5(1) precludes extradition of a person who has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested Party for the offense for which 

extradition is requested. Under Article 5(2), a person shall not be 

considered to have been convicted or acquitted when the authorities of the Requested Party: (a) have decided not to proceed against 

the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested; 

(b) have decided to discontinue any criminal proceedings against 

the person for those acts; or (c) are still investigating or proceeding 

against the person sought for those acts. Article 5(3) provides that 

only the laws of the Requesting Party regarding lapse of time shall 

be considered for purposes of deciding whether or not to grant extradition. In this regard, the Requested Party is bound by the 

statement of the Requesting Party that the statute of limitations 

has not run. 

ARTICLE 6—PUNISHMENT

Article 6 addresses punishment. When an offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the Requesting Party but not under the laws of the Requested Party, 

under Article 6(1) the Requested Party may refuse extradition of 

the person sought unless the Requesting Party provides assurances 

that the death penalty shall not be imposed or, if for procedural 

reasons the Requesting Party cannot provide that assurance, if imposed, the death penalty shall not be carried out. If the Requesting 

Party provides such an assurance, the Requested Party shall grant 

extradition and the Requesting Party shall comply with the assurance. Except in instances in which the death penalty applies, Article 6(2) precludes the Parties from refusing extradition on the basis 

that the term of imprisonment for the offense is greater in the Requesting Party than in the Requested Party. This provision was included to ensure that extradition was not limited in cases in which 

the offense was eligible for life imprisonment as a maximum offense in one Party but not the other. 

ARTICLE 7—EXTRADITION PROCEDURES AND REQUIRED DOCUMENTS

Article 7 specifies the procedures and documents required to support a request for extradition. Article 7(1) prescribes that all extradition requests be submitted through the diplomatic channel. 

Among several other requirements, Article 7(3)(c) establishes that 

extradition requests must be supported by such information as 

would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought 

committed the offense(s) for which extradition is requested. Notably, this language mirrors the probable cause standard applied in 

U.S. criminal law. Article 7(6) permits the submission of additional 

information to enable the Requested Party to decide on the extradition request. 

ARTICLE 8—ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS

Article 8 sets out the procedures for the certification and admissibility of documents in extradition proceedings. 

ARTICLE 9—TRANSLATION

Article 9 requires that all documents that the Requesting Party 

submits pursuant to the Treaty be accompanied by an official 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
7 

translation into the language of the Requested Party, unless otherwise agreed in exceptional circumstances. 

ARTICLE 10—PROVISIONAL ARREST

Article 10 provides that the Requesting Party may request the 

provisional arrest of fugitives and sets forth the procedures for 

making such a request pending presentation of the formal extradition request. Article 10(2) specifies the information that must accompany a provisional arrest request. Article 10(3) provides that 

the Requesting Party shall be notified without delay of the date of 

a provisional arrest or the reasons why the Requested Party cannot 

proceed with the request. Article 10(4) permits the release of the 

person provisionally arrested if the executive authority of the Requested Party does not receive the extradition request and supporting documents within 60 days of the date on which the person 

was provisionally arrested. This paragraph also specifies that receipt of the extradition request and supporting documents by the 

embassy of the Requested Party in the territory of the Requesting 

Party constitutes receipt by the executive authority of the Requested Party. Thus, such receipt by the embassy of the Requested 

Party constitutes timely receipt for purposes of complying with the 

time limitation for submission of the extradition request and supporting documents. Article 10(5) makes clear that the release of a 

person pursuant to Article 10(4) does not impede the person’s rearrest and extradition if the Requested Party receives the extradition request and supporting documents at a later date. 

ARTICLE 11—DECISION AND SURRENDER

Article 11 requires the Requested Party to promptly notify the 

Requesting Party of its decision on an extradition request. Under 

Article 11(2), if the Requested Party denies extradition, it must 

provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial. Article 11(3) 

provides for the person’s surrender, while Article 11(4) addresses 

the person’s discharge from custody if the person is not removed 

from the territory of the Requested Party within 60 days from the 

time that the person is made available for surrender or within the 

time prescribed by the law of that Party, whichever is longer. If the 

person is discharged from custody, the Requested Party retains the 

discretion to subsequently refuse extradition for the same offense. 

ARTICLE 12—DEFERRAL OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS AND

DEFERRED OR TEMPORARY SURRENDER

Article 12 addresses deferred and temporary surrender of the 

person sought. Under Article 12(1), if the person sought is being 

proceeded against in the Requested Party, the Requested Party 

may defer the extradition proceedings until its own proceedings 

have been concluded. Under Article 12(2) when extradition proceedings have been concluded and extradition has been authorized, 

but the person sought is being criminally proceeded against or is 

serving a sentence in the Requested Party, the Requested Party 

may either defer the surrender of the person sought or temporarily 

surrender the person to the Requesting Party for the purpose of 

prosecution. Article 12(3) provides that the person may be detained 

until the surrender, while Article 12(4) requires the Requesting 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

Party to keep the person temporarily surrendered in custody while 

in the territory of the Requesting Party and to return the person 

to the Requested Party at the conclusion of the proceedings. The 

person’s return to the Requested Party shall not require any further extradition request or proceedings. 

ARTICLE 13—REQUESTS FOR EXTRADITION MADE BY SEVERAL STATES

Pursuant to Article 13, if the Requested Party receives extradition requests for the same person from the Requesting Party and 

from any other States or State, either for the same offense or for 

different offenses, the executive authority of the Requested Party 

shall determine to which State, if any, it will surrender that person. Additionally, this Article sets forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the Requested Party in making its decision. 

ARTICLE 14—SEIZURE AND SURRENDER OF ITEMS

Article 14 provides that, subject to certain conditions, the Requested Party may seize and surrender to the Requesting Party all 

items that are connected with the offense for which extradition is 

sought or that may be required as evidence in the Requesting 

Party. 

ARTICLE 15—RULE OF SPECIALTY

Article 15 sets forth the rule of specialty, which prohibits a person extradited under the Treaty from being detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting Party, except for any offense for which extradition was granted, or for a differently denominated offense carrying the same or lesser penalty that is based on the same acts or 

omissions as the offense for which extradition was granted, provided such offense is extraditable or is a lesser included offense. 

The rule of specialty does not bar detention, trial or punishment 

of the extradited person if the offense is committed after the extradition of the person, or if the competent authority of the Requested 

Party consents. Similarly, Article 15(2) provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be the subject of onward extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to extradition, 

unless the competent authority of the Requested Party consents. 

This provision would preclude the Dominican Republic from transferring to a third State or an international tribunal a fugitive that 

the United States surrendered to the Dominican Republic, unless 

the United States consents. The competent authority for the United 

States for purposes of the article is the executive authority. Article 

15(4) provides that the rule of specialty provisions in this article 

do not apply if the person sought waives extradition under Article 

16(a). 

ARTICLE 16—WAIVER AND SIMPLIFIED EXTRADITION

Article 16 allows the Parties to expedite the transfer of the person whose extradition is sought to the Requesting Party. If the person waives extradition, a judicial officer may direct the person’s 

transfer to the Requesting Party without further proceedings. If the 

person consents to extradition or to a simplified extradition proVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:14 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 059115 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER009.XXX ER009

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
9 

ceeding, the Requested Party may surrender the person as expeditiously as possible. 

ARTICLE 17—TRANSIT

Article 17 governs the transportation through the territory of one 

Party of a person being extradited between the other Party and a 

third State. It also specifies the procedures for requesting such 

transit and makes clear that a person who is being transported 

pursuant to this article may be detained during the period of transit. 

ARTICLE 18—REPRESENTATION AND EXPENSES

Article 18 requires the Requested Party to advise, assist, appear 

in court on behalf of, and represent the interests of the Requesting 

Party in any proceedings arising out of an extradition request. Additionally, the Requested Party must bear all expenses incurred in 

that State in connection with the extradition proceedings, except 

for expenses related to translation and transportation of the person 

surrendered. 

ARTICLE 19—CONSULTATION

Article 19 provides that the U.S. Department of Justice and the 

Dominican Office of the General Prosecutor may consult with each 

other directly in connection with individual cases and in furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty 

ARTICLE 20—APPLICATION

Article 20, like its counterpart in many other United States extradition treaties, establishes that the Treaty shall apply to requests submitted after the Treaty’s entry into force even if the offenses for which extradition is requested were committed before the 

Treaty’s entry into force, so long as the conduct on which the extradition request is based constituted an offense under the laws in 

both Parties at the time it occurred. 

ARTICLE 21—RATIFICATION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE

Article 21 notes that the Treaty is subject to ratification and 

shall enter into force upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification. Article 21(3) provides that, upon entry into force, the 1909 

Extradition Treaty will cease to have any effect between the Parties, except that the requests pending upon entry into force shall 

continue under the procedures of the 1909 Extradition Treaty supplemented by Article 6 of the Treaty. 

ARTICLE 22—TERMINATION

Under Article 22, either Party may terminate the Treaty by giving written notice to the other Party through the diplomatic channel. The termination shall be effective six months after the date of 

such notice. Nevertheless, extradition requests made before the termination becomes effective shall be governed by the Treaty until 

final resolution of the request. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
10 

VII. TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION OF ADVICE AND

CONSENT TO RATIFICATION

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

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARATION. 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Treaty 

Between the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Dominican Republic, signed at Santo Domingo 

on January 12, 2015 (Treaty Doc. 114–10), subject to the declaration of section 2. 

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration: 

The Treaty is self-executing. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING