U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–118 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

TREATY DOC. 

2016

114–11 

TREATY WITH KAZAKHSTAN ON MUTUAL LEGAL 

ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE 

REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN 

CRIMINAL MATTERS, SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON FEBRUARY 

20, 2015 

MARCH 17, 2016.—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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 17, 2016. 

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 Treaty between the United 

States of America and the Republic of Kazakhstan on Mutual Legal 

Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Washington on February 

20, 2015. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. 

The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance 

treaties negotiated by the United States to more effectively counter 

criminal activities. The Treaty should enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a wide variety of crimes. 

The Treaty provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal 

matters. Under the Treaty, the Parties agree to assist each other 

by, among other things: producing evidence (such as testimony, 

documents, or items) obtained voluntarily or, where necessary, by 

compulsion; arranging for persons, including persons in custody, to 

travel to another country to provide evidence; serving documents; 

executing searches and seizures; locating and identifying persons or 

items; and freezing and forfeiting assets or property that may be 

the proceeds or instrumentalities of crime. 

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

BARACK OBAMA. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Washington, October 7, 2015. 

The PRESIDENT, 

The White House. 

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of 

Kazakhstan on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, 

signed at Washington on February 20, 2015 (the ‘‘Treaty’’). I recommend the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and 

consent to ratification. 

The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. 

In recent years, the United States has entered into similar bilateral treaties with a number of countries. The Treaty contains all 

of the essential provisions of such treaties sought by the United 

States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a 

wide variety of offenses. The Treaty is self-executing and will not 

require further implementing legislation. 

An overview of the Treaty, including a detailed, article-by-article 

analysis, is enclosed with this report. The Department of Justice 

joins the Department of State in favoring approval of the Treaty by 

the Senate at the earliest possible date. 

Respectfully submitted. 

JOHN F. KERRY. 

Enclosures: As stated. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
VI

U.S.-KAZAKHSTAN MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY

OVERVIEW

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Kazakhstan on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the ‘‘Treaty’’) creates, for the first time, a treaty-based relationship of mutual legal assistance between the United States and 

the Republic of Kazakhstan. The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and contains many provisions similar to 

those in treaties of its kind with other nations. It also includes all 

of the essential provisions sought by the United States. 

ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE ANALYSIS

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

of the Treaty. 

Article 1 sets out the scope of assistance available under the 

Treaty. Article 1(1) creates an international obligation on each 

Party to provide mutual legal assistance to the other Party in connection with the investigation, prosecution and prevention of criminal offenses and in proceedings related to criminal matters, such 

as civil forfeiture proceedings. This ensures that the Parties can afford each other legal assistance in a broad range of criminal matters, from violent crimes to fraud, from tax matters to racketeering, 

from computer crime to environmental crime, and so on. Pursuant 

to Article 1(2), assistance also may be sought for investigations and 

proceedings by authorities involved in implementing governmental 

regulations relating to violations that may be referred for criminal 

prosecution under the laws of the Requesting State. Thus, where 

the conditions of the Treaty are otherwise met, assistance would be 

available, for example, for proceedings of the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission when those proceedings are incidental to, or 

connected with pending criminal investigations or prosecutions, or 

may be referred for criminal prosecution. Article 1(3) contains a 

non-exhaustive list of the major types of assistance to be provided 

under the Treaty, including producing evidence (such as testimony, 

documents, or items) obtained voluntarily or, where necessary, by 

compulsion; arranging for persons, including persons in custody, to 

travel to another country to provide evidence; serving documents; 

conducting searches and seizures; locating or identifying persons or 

items; and identifying, tracing, immobilizing, seizing and forfeiting 

assets or property that may be the proceeds or instrumentalities of 

crime. Each of these types of assistance is described in detail in 

subsequent articles in the Treaty. 

The Treaty also authorizes provision of any other assistance not 

prohibited by the laws of the Party receiving the request (referred 

to in the Treaty as the ‘‘Requested State,’’ while the Party making 

the request is the ‘‘Requesting State’’). As long as there is no specific legal restriction under the laws of the Requested State barring 

the type of assistance requested, it may be provided pursuant to 

the Treaty. 

Consistent with most U.S. mutual legal assistance treaties 

(MLATs), Article 1(4) 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. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
VII

Thus, unless otherwise provided by the laws of the Requested 

State, assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the 

conduct at issue would constitute an offense under the laws of the 

Requested State. The Treaty does require ‘‘dual criminality’’ in certain circumstances. For example, under Article 14, a Requested 

State is obligated to execute a search and seizure request only if 

the request includes sufficient information justifying the action 

under its law and the offense at issue would also constitute an offense under its law. 

Article 1(5), a standard provision in U.S. MLATs, provides that 

the Treaty is intended solely for government-to-government mutual 

legal assistance. The Treaty is not intended to provide to persons 

other than the Parties a means of evidence gathering, nor is it intended to extend generally to civil matters. Private persons in the 

United States may continue to obtain evidence from Kazakhstan by 

letters rogatory, an avenue of international assistance that the 

Treaty leaves undisturbed. Similarly, the paragraph provides that 

the Treaty does not give rise to any right in any private person to 

suppress or exclude evidence provided pursuant to the Treaty, or 

to impede the execution of a request. 

Article 2 requires each Party to designate a ‘‘Central Authority’’ 

to make and receive Treaty requests. The Central Authority of the 

United States would make requests to Kazakhstan on behalf of federal and state agencies and local law enforcement authorities in 

the United States. The Central Authority of Kazakhstan would 

make all requests emanating from analogous officials in 

Kazakhstan. Pursuant to Article 2(3), the Central Authorities are 

to communicate directly with one another. 

For the United States, the Central Authority is the Attorney 

General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For 

Kazakhstan, the Central Authority is the Prosecutor General’s Office. In the United States, the authority to handle duties of the 

Central Authority under MLATs has been delegated to the Office 

of International Affairs in the Criminal Division of the Department 

of Justice. 

The Central Authority of the Requesting State exercises discretion, consistent with the provisions of the Treaty, as to the form of 

requests, as well as the number and priority of requests. The Central Authority of the Requested State is responsible for receiving 

and evaluating each incoming request; transmitting it to the proper 

agency, court, or other authority for execution; and providing a 

timely response. 

Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which the Requested 

State’s Central Authority may deny assistance under the Treaty. 

Refusal under this Article is discretionary with the Central Authority of the Requested State. Several of the grounds for refusal are 

common to most U.S. MLATs. For example, a request may be denied if it relates to a military offense or does not conform to the 

requirements of the Treaty. A request may also be denied if its execution would prejudice the sovereignty, security, public order or 

other essential interests of the Requested State. This essential interests clause would allow the United States to deny requests for 

assistance in support of investigations or prosecutions that are politically motivated, infringe on freedom of expression or other U.S. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
VIII

constitutional protections, or are connected to a political offense. 

The Parties discussed the scope of the essential interests clause 

during negotiations and agreed that it would permit denial on 

these grounds. 

In keeping with the overall intent of the Treaty to facilitate assistance, the Parties also included in Article 3 a provision designed 

to limit the use of grounds for refusal. Under Article 3(2), a Central 

Authority, before denying assistance under Article 3(1), is to consult with its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider 

whether assistance can be provided subject to such conditions as 

the Central Authority of the Requested State deems necessary. If 

the Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, 

it is required to comply with them. 

Article 3(3) gives the Requested State discretion to deny a request if the offense is punishable by less than one year of imprisonment under the law of the Requesting State or the crime is financial in nature but does not involve a significant material loss, and 

the Central Authority of the Requested State determines that the 

resources required to execute the request are not justified in light 

of the less severe nature of the offense. The inclusion of such a de 

minimis clause is a priority for the United States in order to avoid 

the obligation to execute large numbers of MLAT requests relating 

to minor crimes, which can create significant burdens on the resources of the Department of Justice. 

In addition, if the Central Authority of the Requested State denies assistance, it is required under Article 3(4) to inform the Central Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial. 

Article 4 prescribes the form and contents of requests under the 

Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request. It also permits the Central Authority of the Requested State 

to request additional information, if necessary to execute the request. 

Article 5 concerns the execution of requests. Article 5(1) includes 

three important concepts: the obligation of the Central Authority of 

the Requested State to execute requests promptly (or to transmit 

them to the competent authorities who have jurisdiction to execute 

the requests); the requirement that competent authorities do ‘‘everything in their power’’ to execute requests; and the granting of 

authority to courts of the Requested State to issue subpoenas, 

search warrants, or other legal process necessary to execute requests. Article 5(2) builds on these concepts by requiring the Requested State to make all necessary arrangements to represent the 

Requesting State in any proceedings arising out of a request for assistance. It is understood that such proceeding may include proceedings before a judicial authority or administrative agency. 

Taken together, these provisions reflect an understanding that the 

Parties intend to provide each other with a wide measure of assistance from judicial and executive branches of government in the 

execution of mutual legal assistance requests. These provisions also 

specifically authorize U.S. courts to use all of their powers to issue 

whatever process is necessary to satisfy a request under the Treaty, whether the authority for such process comes from the Treaty 

itself or from existing statutes. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
IX

Article 5(3) specifies that requests are to be executed in accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the extent that 

the Treaty provides otherwise. The requests themselves may specify a particular procedure to be followed, and such specified procedure is to be followed unless prohibited by the law of the Requested 

State. Following the procedure specified can be important to ensure 

evidence collected in one State satisfies the requirements for admissibility at trial in the other. It is understood that, if neither the 

Treaty nor the request specifies procedures to be followed, the Requested State is to execute the request in accordance with its domestic laws applicable in criminal investigations and related proceedings. The intent of this provision, like similar provisions in 

other U.S. MLATs, is to allow the Requested State to use its established procedures for obtaining evidence where procedures are not 

otherwise specified, so long as those procedures do not undermine 

the obligation in the Treaty to provide assistance. See, e.g., In re 

Commissioner’s Subpoenas, 325 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Article 5(4) allows the Central Authority of the Requested State 

to postpone the execution of a request, or make execution subject 

to specified conditions, if it determines that execution of the request would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution or proceeding in that state. If the Requesting State accepts 

assistance subject to conditions, it must comply with such conditions. 

Confidentiality of requests is addressed in Article 5(5). The Requesting State may ask that the request, its contents and the outcome of the execution of the request be kept confidential. The Requested State must use its best efforts to comply with such a request, but if assistance cannot be granted without breaching the 

confidentiality requirements, the decision whether to proceed is left 

to the Requesting State. 

Articles 5(6) and (7) address some of the types of communications 

between Central Authorities essential to a good working mutual 

legal assistance relationship. For example, Central Authorities 

must respond to reasonable requests for progress reports, and inform each other of the outcome of execution of requests, including 

any reasons for denial of a request. Article 5(8) makes clear that 

the Requested State is not obligated to translate documents provided to the Requesting State in response to a request. 

Article 6 addresses the costs associated with providing assistance. As is standard in U.S. MLATs, Article 6 provides that the Requested State must pay all costs relating to the execution of the request, including representation costs, except for the following items 

to be paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses; costs 

of translation, interpretation and transcription; and allowances and 

expenses related to travel of persons pursuant to Articles 10 and 

11 (relating to travel for the purpose of providing assistance and 

transfer of persons in custody). The Kazakh delegation explained 

that, for its domestic law purposes, its treasury department would 

require that the treaty contain an explicit obligation that it pay the 

costs of executing requests; accordingly, this Article specifies that 

the State obligated to pay for a particular expense (as provided 

elsewhere in this Article) shall follow its own internal processes for 

making the payment. This article also provides that, in the event 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
X

that fulfilling a request would require extraordinary expenses, the 

Central Authorities will consult in order to determine how those 

costs shall be borne. 

Article 7 addresses limitations on use of information and evidence provided under the Treaty. Under Article 7(1), the Central 

Authority of the Requested State may request that information or 

evidence produced in response to a request under the Treaty not 

be used for any investigation, prosecution or proceeding other than 

that described in the request without the consent of the Central 

Authority of the Requested State. In such cases, the Requesting 

State must comply with the request for limitations on use. 

Under Article 7(2), the Central Authority of the Requested State 

may also request that information or evidence produced under the 

Treaty be kept confidential or be used subject to specified terms 

and conditions. If the Requesting State accepts the requested conditions, it must use its best efforts to comply with those conditions. 

The default rule, however, is that such information or evidence is 

not confidential, and Article 7(4) also provides that, once such information or evidence has been made public in the territory of the 

Requesting State in accordance with Article 7, it may be used for 

any purpose. Moreover, the Treaty explicitly permits the disclosure 

of information or evidence to the extent that there is an obligation 

to disclose under the Constitution of the Requesting State in a 

criminal proceeding. This contingency, found in Article 7(3), was included to ensure that the United States would be able to satisfy 

any obligations to disclose information under the Constitution, such 

as those set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

As with other provisions of the Treaty, the confidentiality protections and use limitation provisions of Article 7 are for the benefit 

of the two governments that are Parties to the Treaty, and invocation and enforcement of these provisions is entirely a matter for 

the Parties. 

Article 8 is the first in a series of articles that spell out in detail 

the procedures to be employed in the case of specific types of requests for assistance outlined in Article 1(3). Article 8 addresses 

production of evidence, whether it is a statement or testimony, documents, records, or particular items. A person from whom evidence 

is sought under the Treaty may appear voluntarily to provide such 

evidence, or, if necessary, the Treaty authorizes the Parties to compel production of evidence. This compulsion may be accomplished 

by subpoena or any other means available under the laws of the 

Requested State (see Article 5(3)). 

Article 8(2) calls on the Requested State, upon request, to inform 

the Requesting State in advance of the date and place of the taking 

of testimony or evidence. Article 8(3) requires the Requested State 

to permit persons specified in the request to be present during execution of the request and to allow such persons to question the person giving testimony or evidence. 

Article 8(4) provides that, if a person from whom the request 

seeks testimony or evidence asserts a right to decline to provide 

such evidence by claiming an immunity, incapacity or privilege 

under the laws of the Requesting State, the evidence shall nonetheless be taken and the claim made known to authorities of the Requesting State so that they may resolve it. The Treaty does not 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
XI

specifically address the resolution of claims of privilege under the 

Requested State’s law but, by implication, those are to be resolved 

by that State’s authorities. This formulation allows each Party to 

resolve claims of privilege made under its own laws. 

Article 8(5) contains the first of several provisions in the Treaty 

addressing the authentication of evidence produced pursuant to the 

Treaty. Similar provisions are found at Articles 9(3) and 14(2). Evidence produced under the Treaty may be authenticated by an attestation, including, with respect to business records, official 

records, and items that have been seized pursuant to the Treaty, 

by use of one of the forms appended to the Treaty. The appended 

forms are an integral part of the Treaty. The Treaty provides that 

evidence produced and authenticated according to the procedure set 

forth in the Treaty shall be admissible in evidence in the territory 

of the Requesting State. 

Article 9 addresses the provision of documents or other records 

in the possession of government agencies. The Parties are obligated 

to provide to each other copies of publicly available records in any 

form in the possession of governmental departments and agencies 

upon request. The Treaty authorizes the Requested State, in its 

discretion, to provide to the Requesting State any records that are 

not publicly available, to the same extent, and under the same conditions, as they would be available to the Requested State’s own 

law enforcement or judicial authorities. 

The Treaty will constitute a ‘‘convention relating to the exchange 

of tax information’’ for purposes of Title 26, United States Code, 

Section 6103(k)(4), and the United States would have the discretion 

to provide tax return information to Kazakhstan under this article 

in appropriate cases. 

Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to ask 

for the voluntary appearance in its territory, or in the territory of 

a third state, of a person located in the territory of the Requested 

State for the purpose of assistance under the Treaty, such as to 

serve as a witness or expert in proceedings or to assist in an investigation. The Requesting State must indicate the extent to which 

the person’s expenses will be paid. The Requested State is required 

to inform the person of the request for the person’s appearance and 

notify the Requesting State of the person’s response. 

When a person agrees to travel to appear in the territory of the 

Requesting State, Article 10(2) provides that the Requesting State 

shall grant the person safe conduct, thus ensuring that the person 

appearing in the territory of the Requesting State will not be subject to service of process or be detained or subjected to any restriction on personal liberty for acts or convictions that preceded the 

person’s departure from the territory of the Requested State. The 

grant of safe conduct pursuant to this provision applies only to past 

offenses and would not prevent the Requesting State from prosecuting the person for perjury or any other crime committed while 

present, pursuant to Article 10, in the territory of the Requesting 

State. Under Article 10(3), safe conduct shall cease seven days 

after the person is notified that his presence in the Requesting 

State is no longer required and he is physically able to depart but 

has not done so, or when the person has left the territory of the 

Requesting State and voluntarily returns. In its discretion, the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
XII

Central Authority of the Requesting State may, for good cause, extend the period of safe conduct. 

Article 11 provides a similar mechanism for persons in custody. 

A need sometimes arises for the testimony in one country of a person who is incarcerated in another country. For example, a person 

incarcerated in one country—whether the Requesting or Requested 

State—may need to be present for the purpose of assistance under 

the Treaty, such as when an incarcerated witness may have to give 

testimony in the presence of an incarcerated defendant in the other 

country. The appearance of the detained person is still voluntary, 

but is also subject to the agreement of the Central Authorities. In 

addition, the Treaty imposes certain conditions on such transfers: 

the person must be held in custody by the receiving State, unless 

otherwise authorized by the sending State; the receiving State 

must return the person in custody to the territory of the sending 

State as soon as circumstances permit or as otherwise agreed; the 

return of the person shall not require extradition proceedings; and 

the period that the person is in custody in the territory of the receiving State shall be credited against the person’s sentence in the 

sending State. 

Article 12 provides for determining the whereabouts or identity 

in the territory of the Requesting State of persons (such as witnesses, potential defendants, or experts) or items when such information is requested. The Treaty requires only that the Requested 

State use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of the 

person or items sought. The extent of such efforts will vary, of 

course, depending on the quality and extent of the information provided by the Requesting State concerning the suspected or last 

known location of the person or items. 

Article 13 relates to service of documents. It creates an obligation 

on the part of the Requested State to use its best efforts to serve 

documents relating to a request for assistance, such as summonses, 

complaints, subpoenas, or notices. Under Article 13(2), when the 

document pertains to an appearance in the territory of the Requesting State, the request for the service of the document must 

be transmitted a reasonable time before the scheduled appearance. 

Article 13(3) requires the Requested State to return proof of service 

in the manner specified in the request. 

Article 14 obligates the Requested State to execute a request for 

the search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the Requesting 

State if the request includes the information justifying such action 

under the laws of the Requested State and the offense at issue 

would also constitute an offense under the law of the Requested 

State. For requests from Kazakhstan to the United States, this 

means the request would have to be supported by a showing of 

probable cause for the search. The Requested State may require 

that the Requesting State agree to terms deemed necessary to protect interests of third parties, such as victims and legitimate owners. 

Article 15 allows the Requested State to require that the Requesting State return any items provided to it in execution of a request under the Treaty. 

Assistance in forfeiture proceedings is the subject of Article 16. 

The types of actions that could be undertaken under this Article inVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:57 Mar 18, 2016 Jkt 059118 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD011.XXX TD011

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
XIII

clude actions to restrain, seize and forfeit property. The Article applies both to conviction-based forfeiture proceedings and to non-conviction based forfeiture proceedings premised on criminal conduct. 

The Requested State is required to provide the assistance only if 

the request includes information sufficient under the laws of the 

Requested State to justify the action. Article 16(2) provides a nonexhaustive list of the types of assistance that a Party is required 

to provide pursuant to this Article. 

Article 16(3) requires the Requested State to consult with the Requesting State before disposing of property frozen, restrained, 

seized, or forfeited pursuant to Article 16. Article 16(4) permits the 

Party in control of the property to transfer all or part of it to the 

other Party or, after consultation between the Parties, to any other 

state that assisted in forfeiture of property in a manner proportionate to the other Party’s or other state’s assistance. United 

States law permits the government to transfer a share of certain 

forfeited property to other countries that participate directly or indirectly in the seizure or forfeiture of the property when, among 

other requirements, such transfer is authorized by an international 

agreement. This Article provides such authorization for asset sharing with Kazakhstan. Article 16(4) also provides that, where appropriate and upon request, priority must be given to returning property to the Requesting State so that victims of an offense may be 

compensated or the property may be returned to its legitimate owners. Article 16(5) requires the Parties to assist each other, to the 

extent permitted by their respective domestic laws, in proceedings 

relating to restitution to victims of crime. Article 16(6) gives the 

Requested State discretion to deny assistance requested pursuant 

to Article 16 if the value of the property in question does not substantially exceed the resources that would be expended in providing the assistance. Before denying assistance for this reason, 

however, the Central Authority of the Requested State must consult with the Central Authority of the Requesting State. 

Article 17 states that this Treaty is not intended to be the sole 

mechanism for the Parties to provide assistance to each other and 

the Parties may provide assistance to each other though other 

means, such as applicable agreements, the provisions of their national laws, and other arrangements or practices. Thus, for example, the Treaty would leave the provisions of U.S. and Kazakh law 

on letters rogatory completely undisturbed, and would not alter any 

practices or arrangements concerning investigative assistance or 

prohibit the Parties from developing other such practices or arrangements. Further, the article provides that a request for assistance is not necessary when one Party wishes spontaneously to 

share information or evidence with the other Party. 

Article 18 provides that the Parties will settle any disputes regarding interpretation or application of the Treaty through consultations. 

Article 19 states that the Parties may make amendments to the 

Treaty by mutual written agreement. Amendments will enter into 

force pursuant to the same procedures as the Treaty itself, which 

are set out in Article 20. 

Article 20 provides that the Treaty is subject to ratification by 

each Party. For the United States, this means ratification after the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
XIV

advice and consent of the Senate. The Treaty will enter into force 

upon the exchange of instruments of ratification, which will occur 

through diplomatic channels. Article 20 also provides procedures 

for termination of the Treaty. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 TD11.001
2 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 TD11.002
3 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 TD11.003
4 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 TD11.004
5 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 TD11.005
6 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 TD11.006
7 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 TD11.007
8 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 TD11.008
9 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 TD11.009
10 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 TD11.010
11 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 TD11.011
12 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 TD11.012
13 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 TD11.013
14 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 TD11.014
15 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 TD11.015
16 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 TD11.016