59–115 

114TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2nd Session 114–14 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY WITH THE 

HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN 

SEPTEMBER 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. 114–4] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Treaty between the Government of the United States of America 

and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Washington 

on October 1, 2013 (Treaty Doc. 114–4), having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with one declaration, as indicated 

in the resolution of advice and consent, and recommends that the 

Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as set 

forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and 

consent. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Major Provisions ............................................................................................ 3 

IV. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 5 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 5 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 5 

VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments .............................................. 5 

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 6 

I. PURPOSE

The Treaty between the Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 

on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the ‘‘MLAT with 

Jordan’’ or ‘‘Treaty’’) is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties that have been negotiated by the United States 

and is designed to provide a formal basis for mutual cooperation 

between the Government of the United States and the Government 

of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on law enforcement matters 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

2 

11AA subpoena duces tecum is a specific form of subpoena, also called a ‘‘subpoena for the 

production of evidence.’’ It is a subpoena issued by a court ordering the parties named to appear 

and to produce tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. 

so as to enhance the ability of the United States to investigate and 

prosecute crimes. 

II. BACKGROUND

In order for the United States to successfully prosecute criminal 

activity that is transnational in scope, it is often necessary to obtain evidence or testimony from a witness in another country. 

While U.S. federal courts may issue subpoenas to U.S. nationals 

overseas, they lack the authority to subpoena foreign nationals 

found in other countries or the authority to subpoena evidence in 

a foreign country. In addition, effectuating service of a subpoena to 

U.S. persons abroad may prove difficult. 

In the absence of an applicable international agreement, the customary method for obtaining evidence or testimony in another 

country is via a ‘‘letter rogatory,’’ which tends to be an unreliable 

and time-consuming process. The term ‘‘letter rogatory’’ is generally used to refer to a formal communication in writing that is 

sent by a court in which an action is pending to a court in a foreign 

country, requesting that certain evidence or the testimony of a person within the latter’s jurisdiction be formally obtained for use in 

the requesting court’s pending action. The State Department advises that the letter-rogatory process can often take a year or more 

and, unless undertaken pursuant to an international agreement, 

compliance is a matter of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the 

scope of foreign judicial assistance might also be limited by domestic information-sharing laws, such as bank and business secrecy 

laws, or be confined to evidence relating to pending cases rather 

than preliminary, administrative, or grand jury investigations conducted prior to the filing of formal charges. Execution of letters rogatory is usually carried out under the judicial norms of the responding country. However, responding country norms may be insufficiently compatible with U.S. law such that the resulting evidence is rendered inadmissible in a U.S. court. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (‘‘MLATs’’) are designed to overcome these and 

similar problems. 

MLATs are international agreements that establish a formal, 

streamlined process by which governments may gather information 

and evidence in other countries for use in criminal investigations 

and prosecutions. The U.S. is currently a party to several dozen 

MLATs. While the specific provisions of MLATs vary, they generally obligate treaty partners to take steps on behalf of a requesting treaty partner when certain conditions are met. MLATs typically contain provisions concerning the sharing of collected information between parties, the location and identification of persons and 

potential witnesses within the parties’ territories, the taking of 

depositions and witness testimony, and the serving of subpoenas 

duces tecum on behalf of a requesting treaty party.1 Such provisions provide for the easier acquisition of evidence and testimony 

than via letters rogatory and do so in a manner designed to be 

compatible with the admissibility requirements of the requesting 

State’s courts. MLATs also typically contain provisions concerning 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

3 

the allocation of costs between parties, the form and content of requests for legal assistance, the designation of national law enforcement agencies or officials responsible for treaty administration, and 

the grounds for which a treaty party may refuse to provide legal 

assistance. Increasingly, MLATs have been used as a tool to combat terrorism. 

The Jordanian MLAT is the first such treaty between the United 

States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and thus this Treaty 

would substantially enhance the ability of the United States to investigate and prosecute crimes for which such assistance is necessary. A detailed paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of this treaty 

may be found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of 

State to the President on this instrument, which is reprinted in full 

in Treaty Document 114–4. What follows is a brief summary of 

some key provisions. 

III. MAJOR PROVISIONS

As with most MLATs, the MLAT with Jordan generally obligates 

the parties to assist each other in criminal investigations, prosecutions, and related law enforcement proceedings, as well as civil or 

administrative proceedings such as forfeiture proceedings that may 

be related to criminal matters. Article 1(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of assistance to be rendered by each Party, which includes 

the taking of evidence, such as testimony, documents, records and 

items or things, on a requesting Party’s behalf by way of judicial 

process; executing searches and seizures; effecting service of judicial documents; sharing certain obtained information or evidence 

with a requesting State; freezing and forfeiting assets or property; 

permitting the temporary transfer of persons in custody to the requesting Party; and other agreed-upon forms of assistance. 

Article 1(3) provides that, with the exception of where it is specifically required by the laws of the Requested State, ‘‘dual criminality’’ is not a prerequisite for assistance under the Treaty. 

Article 3 sets forth a short list of circumstances under which a 

requested State may deny legal assistance to the requesting State. 

Some of the grounds listed are commonly found in MLATs to which 

the United States is a Party, such as the ground in Article 3(1)(b) 

permitting the denial of a request when it would prejudice the requested State’s sovereignty, security, public order, or other essential interest. In accordance with Article 3(3), a request for assistance under the MLAT with Jordan may be refused when it relates 

to an offense punishable by a deprivation of liberty for less than 

one year or does not give rise to a significant material loss compared to the resources deemed required to provide the assistance. 

Article 4 prescribes the form and contents of requests under the 

Treaty. Article 5 generally obligates both Parties’ competent authorities to promptly execute requests; and to promptly inform the 

competent authority of the requesting state of the outcome of the 

execution of a request. Article 6, which addresses the allocation of 

costs associated with providing assistance, provides that the requested State must pay all costs relating to the execution of a request, unless it is a case where extraordinary expenses arise, in 

which event the Parties will consult with each other to determine 

which Party should pay the cost. This allocation of costs is common 

in MLATs to which the United States is a Party. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

4 

Article 7 sets forth limitations on the usage or disclosure of information acquired pursuant to MLAT requests. The Central Authority of the requested State may ask that the requesting party refrain from using or disclosing information or evidence acquired 

under the MLAT for purposes other than the proceedings stated in 

the request; if such a request is made, compliance with the request 

is mandatory. However, nothing in Article 7 precludes, to the extent required under the constitution of the requesting party, the 

disclosure or use of information or evidence in a criminal proceeding. 

Articles 8–16 set forth in detail the procedures to be employed 

in the case of specific types of requests for legal assistance. In Article 10, the Central Authority of the requesting Party may, at its 

discretion, determine that a person whose appearance within its 

territory is requested shall not be subject to service of process, detention, or other restriction of liberty on account of acts or convictions preceding the person’s departure from the requested Party. 

This safe conduct ceases 15 days after the requesting Party notifies 

the requested Party that the person’s presence is no longer required or if the person leaves the requesting Party and voluntarily 

returns afterwards. The Central Authority of the requesting Party 

may extend the period an additional 7 days beyond the initial 15- 

day limit. 

Article 11 provides that, in the case of a transfer of someone in 

custody, the receiving Party has the authority and obligation to 

keep the transferred person in custody, unless permitted by the 

sending Party to do otherwise. Further, it must return the person 

back to the custody of the sending Party as soon as circumstances 

permit, unless otherwise agreed between the parties. The Jordan 

MLAT provides the same safe conduct requirements in Article 10 

for temporarily transferred prisoners under Article 11. 

Article 13 provides that the requested Party shall use its best efforts to effect service of any document relevant to a request under 

the MLAT. The requesting Party must transmit any request for the 

service of a document requiring the appearance of a person before 

an authority in the requesting Party within a reasonable period before the scheduled appearance. The requested Party is to return 

proof of service in a manner mutually agreed by the parties, and 

if it fails to effect service, must provide a prompt explanation. 

Article 14 requires the requested Party to execute a request for 

the search, seizure, and transfer of any item to the requesting 

Party if the request includes information justifying such action 

under the laws of the requested Party and the request is executed 

in accordance with the requested Party’s laws. A search warrant 

issued by a U.S. court to execute a request pursuant to the MLAT 

would require a showing of probable cause, in accordance with the 

Fourth Amendment. Article 14(2) makes provision for maintaining 

a chain of custody for seized evidence, certification of relevant officials removing the need for further authentication. 

Article 16 requires the requested State to assist the requesting 

State with measures to freeze or cause the forfeiture of assets that 

constitute or are derived from proceeds of a crime, whether directly 

or indirectly; are instrumentalities or intended to be used in the 

commission of a crime; or is equivalent in value to such property. 

The requirement to provide assistance arises with respect to both 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

5 

2Treaty Doc. 114–4, letter from the Secretary of State to the President (stating that ‘‘The 

[MLAT with Jordan] is self-executing and will not require further implementing legislation.’’). 3The committee has consistently expressed the view that mutual legal assistance treaties are 

self-executing. See, e.g., Exec. Rept. 107–15 at p. 6 (stating that ‘‘[i]it is anticipated that, for 

the United States, the [Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Belize] will be ‘‘self-executing.’’); 

and Exec. Rept. 109–14 at p. 6 (stating that ‘‘[t]he committee notes that the provisions of the 

[Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with Germany and Japan] are self-executing.’’). 

criminal conviction-based forfeitures and non-criminal forfeitures 

and other restraints of assets premised on underlying criminal conduct. 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE

In accordance with Article 18, this Treaty shall enter into force 

upon the exchange of instruments of ratification between the Government of the United States and the Government of the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Either party may terminate by 

means of a written notice communicated through diplomatic channels, with termination taking effect six months thereafter. 

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

This treaty, which is self-executing, will be implemented by the 

United States in conjunction with applicable federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1782. No additional legislation is needed for 

the United States to fulfill its obligations under this Treaty. 

VI. 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. On June 23, 2016, the committee considered 

this treaty and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a 

quorum present and without objection. 

VII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the MLAT 

with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which would enhance law 

enforcement cooperation between the United States and Jordan, 

would further U.S. efforts in fighting terrorism and transnational 

crime. Accordingly, the committee urges the Senate to act promptly 

to give advice and consent to ratification of this Treaty, as set forth 

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

The committee has included in its resolution of advice and consent one declaration, which is discussed below. 

Declaration 

The committee has included a proposed declaration in the resolution of advice and consent, which states that the MLAT with the 

Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is self-executing. This declaration is 

consistent with statements made in the Letter of Submittal from 

the Secretary of State to the President on this instrument2 and 

with the historical practice of the committee in approving mutual 

legal assistance treaties.3 The Senate has rarely included statements regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions 

of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court deFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

6 

cision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the committee has 

determined that a clear statement in the resolution is warranted. 

A further discussion of the committee’s views on this matter can 

be found in Section VIII of Executive Report 110–12. 

VIII. 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 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, signed at Washington on October 1, 2013 (Treaty Doc. 114–4), 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 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER