79–115 

115TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–5 

EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO 

JUNE 7, 2018.—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. 115–2] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the 

Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States 

of America and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, signed 

at Pristina on March 29, 2016 (Treaty Doc. 115–2), 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 ............................................................... 2 

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

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

VI. Explanation of Extradition Treaty with Kosovo .......................................... 3 

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

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of the Extradition Treaty with the Republic of 

Kosovo (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 Kingdom of Servia 

which was signed on October 25, 1901, and entered into force on 

June 12, 1902 (hereafter the ‘‘1901 treaty’’). The 1901 treaty apFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

2 

plies to the Republic of Kosovo as a successor state to the former 

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 

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

modernize, the century-old extradition treaty with the Kingdom of 

Servia. It was signed in March 2016 and submitted to the Senate 

on January 17, 2017. 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 1901 treaty. First, the Treaty contains a ‘‘dual criminality’’ 

provision, 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 

1901 treaty. This more flexible provision ensures that newly-enacted 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 the extradition of nationals. Specifically, Article 1 states that the extradition obligations under the 

treaty ‘‘shall apply regardless of nationality, including with respect 

to the extradition of nationals of the Requested State.’’ This contrasts with Article V of the 1901 treaty, which does not obligate a 

party to extradite its own citizens or subjects. Many countries 

have, historically, refused to extradite nationals. 

The Treaty contains another provision worth noting. Consistent 

with U.S. policy and practice in recent years, the Treaty narrows 

the political offense exception. The political offense exception (a 

long-standing exception in U.S. extradition practice) bars extradition of an individual for offenses of a ‘‘political’’ nature. The Treaty with Kosovo retains the political offense exception in Article 3, 

but provides that certain crimes shall not be considered political offenses, including murder, serious sexual assault, kidnapping, and 

offenses for which both parties have an obligation to extradite 

under a multilateral agreement. 

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 terms of Article 15 Rule of Specialty clearly bar onward extradition unless the Requested State consents to the onward extradition or surrender. 

III. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATION

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

of the instruments of ratification. Under Article 22, either party 

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

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

3 

IV. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee reviewed the Treaty at a hearing on December 

13, 2017, at which representatives of the Departments of State and 

Justice testified. The committee considered the Treaty on March 

20, 2018, 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 Republic of Kosovo. 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 in place with the Republic of Kosovo. 

VI. EXPLANATION OF EXTRADITION TREATY WITH KOSOVO

What follows is a technical analysis of the Treaty prepared by 

the Departments of State and Justice. 

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVO

The Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United 

States and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo (‘‘Treaty’’) replaces an outdated extradition treaty between the United States of 

America and the Kingdom of Servia signed in 1901. 

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

of the Treaty: 

Article 1—Obligation To Extradite 

Article 1 obligates each State to extradite to the other State persons sought by the Requesting State for prosecution or for imposition or service of a sentence for an extraditable offense. Article 1(2) 

establishes that extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought. 

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 

States 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 of the 1901 Treaty that the offense be 

among those listed in the Treaty. The dual criminality formulation 

also obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as 

additional offenses become punishable under the laws of both 

States. It ensures comprehensive coverage of criminal conduct for 

which extradition may be sought. 

Article 2(2) is designed to include within the realm of extraditable offenses an attempt or conspiracy to commit, or participation in the commission of, offenses described in Article 2(1). By 

using the broad term ‘‘participation,’’ the Treaty covers such ofFOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

4 

fenses 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 States. For instance, an offense shall 

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

same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same terminology. This provision also makes explicit that an offense is extraditable even where the evidence provided does not support the 

existence of certain facts that are merely necessary to establish 

U.S. federal jurisdiction, such as evidence of 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. 

In addition, an offense involving tax fraud or tax evasion, customs 

duties, or import/export controls shall be extraditable regardless of 

whether the Requested State provides for the same sort of taxes, 

duties, or controls. 

Article 2(4) addresses issues of territorial jurisdiction. It specifies 

that where the Requesting State seeks extradition for an offense 

that occurred outside its territory, the Requested State shall grant 

extradition if the laws of the Requested State would provide for 

punishment of the extraterritorial offense in similar circumstances. 

If the Requested State’s laws would not provide for punishment of 

the extraterritorial offense in similar circumstances, the Requested 

State nonetheless retains discretion to grant extradition provided 

the other requirements of the Treaty are met. 

Article 2(5) prohibits the Requested State from refusing extradition for the sole reason that the offense was committed on its 

own territory. The U.S. negotiating team proposed this provision in 

order to satisfy a provision of Kosovo’s domestic law that permits 

extradition for offenses committed on Kosovo’s territory only when 

expressly required by an extradition treaty or other binding international agreement. Kosovo has previously refused to grant extradition to the United States on this basis under the existing treaty. 

Article 2(6) prescribes that if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it shall also 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(7) provides that where the extradition request is for 

service of a sentence of imprisonment for an extraditable offense, 

the Requested State may only grant extradition if at least four 

months imprisonment remains to be served. 

Article 3—Political and Military Offenses 

Article 3 establishes an exception for political and military offenses. Article 3(1) states generally that extradition shall not be 

granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense. 

Article 3(2), however, describes five categories of offenses that 

shall not be considered political offenses. A near identical list of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

5 

these limitations was included in the extradition treaties between 

the United States and Chile (signed 2013) and the United States 

and the Dominican Republic (signed 2015). The list of limitations 

in each of these most recent treaties 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 

when such device is capable of endangering life or causing substantial bodily harm or substantial property damage, Article 3(2)(d) 

now also establishes that political offenses cannot include offenses 

involving similarly serious biological, chemical or radiological 

agents. Further, Article 3(2)(e) makes clear that conspiracy or attempt to commit non-political offenses, or aiding or abetting another person who commits or attempts to commit such offenses, 

also shall not be considered political offenses. This slight narrowing 

of extraditable offenses to exclude political offenses aligns with a 

major priority of the United States to ensure that an overbroad definition of ‘‘political offense’’ does not impede the extradition of terrorists. 

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

Under Article 3(4), the executive authority of the Requested 

State 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 4—Prior Prosecution 

Article 4(1) prohibits extradition in instances where a person 

sought has been previously convicted or acquitted by the Requested 

State for the offense for which extradition is requested. Under Article 4(2), however, a person shall not be considered to have been 

convicted or acquitted in the Requested State when the authorities 

of the Requested State: (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 4(3) applies to circumstances where the Requested State 

has not convicted or acquitted the person sought, but has an international agreement with a third state for reciprocal recognition and 

enforcement of criminal judgements. In such cases, the Requested 

State may deny an extradition request if the person sought has 

been convicted or acquitted in that third state for the same crime 

for which extradition was requested. 

Article 5—Lapse of Time 

Article 5 provides that only the laws of the Requesting State regarding lapse of time shall be considered for purposes of deciding 

whether or not to grant extradition. In this regard, the Requested 

State is bound by the statement of the Requesting State that the 

statute of limitations has not expired. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

6 

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 State but not under the laws of the Requested State, the 

Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting 

State provides assurances that: (a) the death penalty shall not be 

imposed on the person sought, or (b) the death penalty, if imposed, 

shall not be carried out against the person sought. If either condition is satisfied, the Requested State must comply with the extradition request, and the Requesting State must abide by its assurances. 

Article 7—Extradition Procedures and Required Documents 

Article 7 specifies the procedures and documents required to support a request for extradition. Article 7(1) requires all extradition 

requests to 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 is understood as equivalent to the probable cause 

standard applied in U.S. criminal law and applied by U.S. courts 

in determining whether to certify to the Secretary of State that a 

fugitive’s extradition would be lawful under the applicable treaty 

and U.S. law. Article 7(6) permits the submission of additional information to enable the Requested State to decide on the extradition request. Article 7(7) deals with circumstances where the Requesting State is considering submitting particularly sensitive information to support its request for extradition. In such a case, if 

the Requesting State is not satisfied that the Requested State can 

adequately protect the sensitive information, the Requesting State 

must determine whether the sensitive information should be submitted nonetheless. 

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 all documents submitted by the Requesting 

State under the Treaty to be accompanied by an official translation 

into a language of the Requested State, unless otherwise agreed. 

Article 10—Provisional Arrest 

Article 10 provides that, in cases of urgency, the Requesting 

State 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 State shall be notified without 

delay of the date of a provisional arrest or the reasons why the Requested State cannot proceed with the request. Article 10(4) permits the release of the person provisionally arrested if the executive authority of the Requested State does not receive the formal 

extradition request and supporting documents within 60 days of 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

7 

the date on which the person was provisionally arrested. Article 

10(5) specifies that for the purposes of applying the 60-day time 

limitation in Article 10(4), receipt of the formal extradition request 

and supporting documents by the embassy of the Requested State 

located in the Requesting State constitutes receipt by the executive 

authority of the Requested State. Article 10(6) makes clear that the 

release of a person pursuant to Article 10(4) does not prevent the 

person’s re-arrest and extradition if the Requested State receives 

the formal extradition request and supporting documents at a later 

date. 

Article 11—Decision and Surrender 

Article 11 requires the Requested State to promptly notify the 

Requesting State of its decision regarding an extradition request. 

If the Requested State denies extradition, Article 11(2) requires the 

Requested State to explain the reasons for denial. If the Requested 

State agrees to grant extradition, Article 11(3) requires the Requested and Requesting States to coordinate the date and place for 

surrendering the person sought. Article 11(4) provides that if the 

person to be surrendered is not removed from the territory of the 

Requested State within the time prescribed by the Requested 

State’s laws, the Requested State may discharge the person sought 

from custody and subsequently refuse extradition for the same offense. 

Article 12—Deferral of Extradition Proceedings and Deferred or 

Temporary Surrender 

Article 12 addresses deferred extradition proceedings as well as 

deferred and temporary surrender of the person sought. Under Article 12(1), if the person sought is being proceeded against in the 

Requested State, the Requested State may defer the extradition 

proceedings until its own proceedings have been concluded. Article 

12(2) addresses circumstances where extradition proceedings have 

concluded and extradition has been authorized, but the person 

sought is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the 

Requested State. In such cases, the Requested State may either 

defer the surrender of the person sought or temporarily surrender 

the person to the Requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. 

Article 12(3) explains that if the Requested State elects to defer 

surrender, it may detain the person sought until surrender. Under 

Article 12(4), however, if the Requested State elects to temporarily 

surrender the person to the Requesting State, the Requesting State 

must detain the temporarily surrendered person during proceedings and return the person when proceedings conclude. The 

person’s return to the Requested State shall not require any further extradition request or proceedings. Moreover, upon return to 

the Requested State, the time a person served in the temporary 

custody of the Requesting State may be deducted from the remaining time to be served in the Requested State, according to the laws 

of the Requested State. 

Article 13—Requests for Extradition or Surrender Made by Several 

States 

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

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

8 

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

different offenses, the executive authority of the Requested State 

shall determine to which State, if any, it will surrender that person. Article 13 requires the Requested State to consider a list of 

non-exclusive factors when making its decision. 

Article 14—Seizure and Surrender of Items 

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

items that are connected with the offense for which extradition is 

sought or that may be required as evidence in the Requesting 

State. 

Article 15—Rule of Specialty 

Article 15(1) sets forth the rule of specialty, which prohibits a 

person extradited under the Treaty from being detained, tried, or 

punished in the Requesting State, except where the detention, 

trial, or punishment: (a) is for an offense for which extradition was 

granted, or for a differently denominated offense carrying the same 

or lesser penalty that is based on the same facts as the offense for 

which extradition was granted, provided such offense is extraditable or is a lesser included offense; (b) is for an offense committed after that person’s extradition to the Requesting State; or 

(c) occurs with the consent of the competent authority of the Requested State. If the Requested State consents to the person’s detention, trial or punishment for a different offense, the Requested 

State may require the Requesting State to submit the documentation required under Article 7. 

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 

Requested State consents. This provision would preclude the Republic of Kosovo from transferring to a third State or an international tribunal a fugitive that the United States surrendered to 

the Republic of Kosovo, unless the United States consents. Article 

15(3), however, permits the Requesting State to detain, try, punish, 

extradite, or surrender the same person if that person: (a) leaves 

and voluntarily returns to the Requesting State, or (b) chooses not 

to leave the Requesting State within 20 days of the day that person 

is free to leave. 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 Requested State to expedite the transfer of 

the person whose extradition is sought to the Requesting State. If 

the person waives extradition, a judicial officer may direct the person’s transfer to the Requesting State without further proceedings. 

If the person consents to extradition or to a simplified extradition 

proceeding, the Requested State may surrender the person as expeditiously as possible. 

Article 17—Transit 

Article 17 allows either State to authorize transportation through 

its territory of a person being extradited or otherwise transferred 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

9 

to the other State by a third State or from the other State to a 

third State for the purposes of prosecution, imposition of a sentence, or service of a sentence. It also specifies the procedures for 

requesting such transit and makes clear that a person who is being 

transported pursuant to this Article shall be detained during the 

period of transit. Under Article 17(2), authorization is not required 

when the other State only uses air transportation and no landing 

is scheduled on the State’s territory. Should an unscheduled landing occur, however, the State may require submission of a formal 

transit request within 96 hours; during that time, the State must 

take all measures necessary to prevent the person being transferred from absconding. 

Article 18—Representation and Expenses 

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

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

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

that State in connection with the extradition proceedings, except 

for expenses related to translation of documents and transportation 

of the person surrendered. 

Article 19—Consultation 

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

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kosovo 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 establishes that the Treaty applies to offenses committed both before and after the date it enters into force. 

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 Treaty will supersede the 1901 Treaty with respect to all requests submitted on or after the date of ratification. With respect to all pending requests made under the 1901 Treaty, subparagraphs (3) and 

(4) provide that the Treaty shall supersede the 1901 Treaty, except 

that the provisions of the 1901 Treaty relating to required documents and the admissibility and translation of documents shall 

apply if the extradition request and supporting documents have already been submitted to the Requested State at the time the Treaty enters into force. 

Article 22—Termination 

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

such notice. 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

10 

VII. TEXT OF 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 Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of 

America and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, signed at 

Pristina on March 29, 2016 (Treaty Doc. 115–2), subject to the declaration of section 2. 

SEC. 2. DECLARATION. 

The Senate’s advice and consent under section 1 is subject to the 

following declaration: The Treaty is self-executing. 

Æ 

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER