U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–595 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER, IS MEXICO A

SAFE HAVEN FOR KILLERS?: THE DEL TORO

CASE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 23, 1999

Serial No. 106–105

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

SHARON PINKERTON, Deputy Staff Director

GIL MACKLIN, Professional Staff Member

SEAN LITTLEFIELD, Professional Staff Member

ANDREW GREELEY, Clerk

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 23, 1999 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Bellush, James, husband of Sheila Bellush ................................................... 12

Borek, Jamison S., Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State; Mary

Lee Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; and Earl Moreland, district attorney, Sarasota, FL, accompanied

by Charlie Roberts, assistant STATE attorney .......................................... 23

Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 7

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

Bellush, James, husband of Sheila Bellush, prepared statement of ............ 16

Borek, Jamison S., Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of State:

Letter dated July 29, 1999 ....................................................................... 61

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 9

Moreland, Earl, district attorney, Sarasota, FL, prepared statement of ..... 51

Warren, Mary Lee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of

Justice, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 38

(1)

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER, IS MEXICO A

SAFE HAVEN FOR KILLERS?: THE DEL TORO

CASE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY,

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Gilman, Ros-Lehtinen, Souder,

Hutchinson, Ose, Mink, Cummings, Kucinich, and Blagojevich.

Also present: Representative Brady from Texas.

Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, deputy staff director; Steve

Dillingham, special counsel; Gil Macklin and Sean Littlefield, professional staff members; Andy Greeley, clerk; Cherri Branson, minority counsel; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting of the

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources to order. We will begin the hearing with my opening statement then I’ll defer to other Members, and we’ll proceed with our

two panels today.

Today, this subcommittee will address an issue that lies at the

very root of many difficulties we, in the United States, have encountered with Mexico. And that is, the question of getting U.S.

citizens who have committed capital crimes extradited back to the

United States to face justice.

The issue is a question of extradition. And it is at the heart of

cooperating with law abiding nations in our world community. I believe it is the key to international law enforcement and respect for

law and order.

Unfortunately, international extradition, especially with our

neighbor to the south, Mexico, is seldom publicly examined. That

is why this issue is a subject of our oversight hearing today. A critical part of returning a United States citizen to face prosecution is

the adherence to the current United States-Mexican extradition

treaty, which dates from 1980.

The treaty is still in effect. It has never lapsed. It binds both governments to an agreed upon standard. It is about the very rule of

law in our civilized societies, one that serves as the basis of both

of our democracies. There is no doubt that the United States-MexiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:16 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63595.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

can extradition treaty of 1980 has been taken for granted on numerous occasions. It is taken for granted in trade and commercial

matters, and unfortunately, it is also taken for granted on matters

of immigration.

Today, this subcommittee will examine extradition problems the

United States has had with the Government of Mexico. In particular, we are going to address the case of the State of Florida v. Jose

Luis Del Toro. We will not take anything for granted in this hearing. I want to provide background on the depth of this particular

case which I believe may be useful for the subcommittee.

The U.S. Government has requested the extradition of Jose Luis

Del Toro to Florida where he is wanted for the brutal murder of

Sheila Bellush, a resident of Sarasota, FL. The U.S. Government

has waited more than 18 months for action on this matter.

The Government of Mexico has refused to turn over Jose Luis

Del Toro, despite our complete cooperation and agreement to every

demand.

The U.S. Government has moved to extradite Jose Luis Del Toro

under treaty agreements that are plain and clear. There is no argument concerning issues of law in this case. The United States Government is seeking the return of a United States citizen, not a

Mexican national.

Jose Luis Del Toro was born in the United States to American

parents. His entry into Mexico was, in fact, illegal. When he was

apprehended by Mexican authorities, he should have been sent

back immediately to the United States. This did not happen, and

we would have to ask ourselves why not.

This hearing will examine the answers given to the United

States Government about why the Government of Mexico has failed

to cooperate on this and numerous other cases of extradition.

The witnesses we will call include a bereaved husband and father of five and a decorated U.S. Marine, a State prosecutor from

Florida, and a Member of Congress. We will hear, in our second

panel from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. State Department officials.

These witnesses will tell a story, and it isn’t a pretty one. It is

a story that we all must take into account because it tells a larger

story of who our friends and allies are.

In addition to the Del Toro case, Mexico has repeatedly failed to

respect over 275 extradition requests in the last 10 years. These

cases include murder and illegal narcotics trafficking. In fact, Mexico has failed to extradite a single major Mexican drug kingpin.

I’m certain that Mexico has become, unfortunately, a haven for

murderers and drug lords. And personally, I hold great contempt

for their inaction with respect to international law.

Our hearing today will focus on one of the most serious cases, the

Del Toro case. We’ll highlight through this process, the Government of Mexico’s lack of respect for international justice. That concludes my opening statement.

Mrs. Mink, if I may——

Mrs. MINK. I will yield to my colleague.

Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, for an

opening statement.

3

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,

Chairman Mica for holding this important hearing. I want to welcome Congressman Miller, who has been doing an outstanding job

of keeping this issue before the Congress, and Mr. Bellush for his

untiring efforts in coming before our panel this morning.

Our hearing is about a simple search for justice that is why we

are here today. We want extradition from Mexico of an American

citizen who has been charged with the heinous crime of premeditated murder. We and the family of the victim, Sheila Bellush,

want and deserve straight answers as to why Mexico and our government are not doing all that we can in the infamous Del Toro

case.

There can be no safe havens for anyone charged with murder

and fleeing accountability within our system of justice. Whether

those criminals flee to Thailand, Europe, Mexico or elsewhere

around the globe, they must be held accountable to our institutions

and the laws that they violate. Our nations must work together in

helping us obtain that accountability. We also have a mutual obligation to do the same on our end as well.

Today’s hearing is not about extradition of high-level drug kingpins from Mexico and the numerous problems in the Mexican legal

system when our government asks for extradition of Mexican nationalists involved in the illicit drug trade.

We have had hearings on that vital question of Mexican drug

kingpins and extradition to the United States. We are all too familiar with those problems and the endless delays and procedural maneuvering that continues south of the border.

The United States-Mexico extradition treaty establishes that the

Mexican Government may refuse to extradite persons for crimes

punishable by the death penalty. The words extradition may be refused in article 8 of the treaty. Those mandatory words suggest

that Mexican Government could have returned Mr. Del Toro without delay.

Although the State of Florida clearly, for good reason, wished to

seek the death penalty, the prosecutors in that case agreed to

waive the death penalty at the Mexican Government’s insistence.

Now, Mr. Del Toro still sits in Mexico, appealing the extradition

ruling while Sheila Bellush’s family is grieving, deprived of the justice they truly deserve.

I’ll be raising these extradition concerns and problems at an

interparliamentary meeting with the Mexican Congress later this

week which I believe the chairman will attend as well. The case

before us today involves a treaty between our Nation and Mexico

in effect since 1980. It is a treaty that we both have an obligation

to honor and to implement. If it is inadequate or can be changed,

then let’s move forward on that front. If it is being misused or misinterpreted, then let’s raise our voices in concern.

Our hearing today will highlight the need for more accountability

in our legal system in a tragic case of injustice that’s before us

today, and we look forward to reviewing today’s testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. MICA. I thank the Chair of our International Relations Committee and a member of our subcommittee for his opening stateVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:16 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63595.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
4

ment. I now yield to our ranking member, the gentlelady from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. I thank the chairman of our subcommittee for yielding and for convening this very, very important meeting. I especially want to commend the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Miller, for

his tenacious commitment to the search for justice in this case and

to express my personal compassion and sympathy to Mr. Bellush

and his entire family for the ordeal they have had to endure.

While we may have some differences with respect to the performance of Mexico on other matters, it seems clear to me, in this case

where our families have been especially aggrieved and the accused

perpetrator of this crime is an American citizen, that any evasion

of the responsibilities of the Government of Mexico ought to be put

to task.

I appreciate the opportunity to have the hearing point this out

again, as you have so consistently, Mr. Miller, on previous occasions. I look forward to your testimony. I only regret that the Subcommittee on Education and Workforce has scheduled a conflicting

markup on several bills which convenes in about 10 minutes. I will

have to absent myself until those markup votes are taken, hopefully I’ll have a chance to return but I will certainly read the

record. Again, welcome to both of you. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentlelady. I would like to yield now, if I

may. We have another member of this subcommittee who’s joined

us, Mr. Cummings from Maryland, who failed to debate me this

morning on Fox because he was tied up in traffic, but I’m delighted

to see that he’s made it this morning for our hearing.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I’m so happy that you made it

clear I was tied up in traffic. I was ready for the battle but traffic

stopped me. Mr. Chairman, extradition agreements enable countries to enforce their laws and pursue criminals after they have

fled the country where they have committed a crime. Without

strong extradition treaties in place, we face the possibility of creating a home base for criminals in the way of neighboring countries

where they may be immune from punishment for the crimes they

committed.

Extradition treaties are important for us to examine, considering

that with Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, the United

States is bordered by two countries that criminals can travel to

with virtual ease in hopes of escaping United States law.

In keeping with this, we need to maintain an agreement and understanding with neighboring nations and those abroad so that fugitives of other countries do not feel as though the United States

is a safe haven to avoid penalties or break the laws in their homeland.

The case of Jose Luis Del Toro illustrates the need for examination of our country’s extradition treaties with other nations. It

seems that, as extradition appeals are subject to the review and

judgment of the respective nation, there is a potentially dangerous

level of subjectivity from case to case that could create loopholes for

criminals in the future.

The implication of the Del Toro case should prompt a thorough

examination of both the extradition process and our extradition

treaties with other nations to ensure that the laws of our Nation

5

and others remain upheld even when fugitives attempt to escape

to freedom.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for

being here today. As I have said many times to our witnesses, you

make it possible for us to be informed so that we can appropriately

uplift the lives of all Americans and people around the world.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman. I would like to recognize another member of our panel who has joined us, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

from Florida.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want

to congratulate our other Florida colleague, Congressman Dan Miller, for the leadership he has shown on this outrageous case. It has

not only galvanized the community he so proudly represents in

Sarasota, but has touched the hearts and the conscience of all Floridians; and it should for all the citizens in the United States who

hear about this outrageous act and the efforts the United States

has undertaken to bring this devil to justice.

It is incredible that, in spite of all our best efforts, no progress

has really been made on the case. I also want to point out the great

work that our colleague Kevin Brady has done on the issue of extradition in general.

Through Congressman Brady’s efforts, he was able to pass in the

State Department authorization a bill, an amendment, to our committee that says the State Department must give us a full report

of the status of all extradition cases. What are the obstacles? What

are the countries’ cooperation levels? He will be filing a separate

bill on this that has the support of both chairman Gilman of the

International Relations Committee and Chairman Hyde of the Judiciary Committee. So we will either pass it as a stand-alone bill

or through the State Department authorization bill.

I know in our community not only are we outraged about the

Jose Luis Del Toro case but also about the growing number of fugitives who have sought refuge in Cuba, 80 fugitives and counting.

There is no extradition that will be forthcoming through Fidel Castro. But it seems that in countries where we do have friendly relations—and Mexico is one of those countries—that in spite all of the

trade agreements we have signed with Mexico, we have not been

successful in mandating that cooperation and extradition cases be

part of those deals.

So I congratulate all of the Members who have been working so

hard on this and many other cases of extradition. Congressman

Franks of New Jersey has also been very instrumental in trying to

call attention to a New Jersey case that has not been resolved in

the correct way either. So I congratulate Congressman Miller and

Congressman Brady for their leadership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. We’ve already had an introduction of a gentleman who’s not a member of our panel, but we’re

pleased to have him join us today and make an opening statement

at our hearing. Mr. Brady, the gentleman from Texas, you’re recognized sir.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, thank you very

much for shining a light, a very bright light on a very terrible situVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:16 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63595.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
6

ation, one that many citizens are not aware of but one that goes

to the heart of justice here in America. Thank you for being a leader on this issue. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is also

on the International Relations Committee, has been a strong supporter of our efforts to make changes and update our extradition

laws, for which I am grateful.

And Mr. Bellush, I am sorry that you must be here today. I truly

appreciate you helping us try to resolve this, not just for your own

sake, but for a lot of people whose names we don’t know and whose

faces we’ll never see. People who will find themselves in a similar

situation and will need that justice; you are going to help us create

that for those families. While I have not met you personally, I had

the opportunity earlier this year in Mexico to plead your case, at

the request of Mr. Miller, directly to the attorney general’s office

in Mexico. To talk about how strongly we want the extradition to

occur and how much we want justice in Florida.

You have a very good person fighting hard for you sitting next

to you, and I appreciate Mr. Miller’s leadership. You know, I wish

I could say you were the exception rather than the rule, but you’re

not.

If we look at ‘‘Spooky’’ Davis Alvarez, the serial killer who fled

California for Mexico; Charles Ng who raped and tortured young

people in a cabin in California who fled justice for 11 years in Canada; Samuel Sheinbein who fled to Israel; Ira Einhorn who brutally

killed a young Texas girl, stuffed her in a trunk and then left the

country and today is still, despite heroic attempts by the State of

Pennsylvania, free in the south of France. It goes on and on, these

cases.

A hundred years ago, criminals would flee to the county line or

the State line to escape justice. Now, they flee the country and the

continent. It’s up to us to update our laws to make sure we close

these safe havens for criminals because they are trying to escape

American justice by seeking safe harbor. I think it’s time, just as

countries have updated their human rights laws, their trade laws,

the environmental laws, it’s time for the international community

to update their extradition laws.

Here in America, with half of our extradition treaties predating

World War II, you can tell why criminals that are smart enough,

and their attorneys, find those loopholes. It’s our responsibility to

close them. I think America has a responsibility to lead the international community in closing these safe havens. Congress,

through this hearing and through legislation, is going to send a

strong signal to the world that we are serious about closing these

safe havens. Working with the State Department and the Justice

Department together, we have responsibility to close these safe havens. I appreciate you being here and your leadership.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your statement and your participation

and leadership on this issue.

Now, I would like to turn to our first panel. Our first panel, by

way of introduction, the Honorable Dan Miller, a Member of Congress representing Florida’s 13th District; and Mr. James Bellush,

husband of Sheila Bellush. Gentlemen, Mr. Miller, our panel is an

investigations and oversight subcommittee of Congress. We do not

7

swear in Members of Congress, but you are a witness, sir. And we

are going to swear you in. If you would stand, sir, and raise your

right hand.

[Witness sworn]

Mr. MICA. Thank you. The witness answered in the affirmative.

Welcome, Mr. Miller and Mr. Bellush. Mr. Miller, you’re recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank you

very much for holding this hearing and the members of the committee and the staff that made it possible.

This Del Toro case shocked our community 19 months ago. The

community continues to grieve for the Bellush family and for the

fact that we can’t bring this case to a close. It is one of the most

frustrating things I have ever had to deal with. And for someone

who has never had to deal with the criminal justice system before,

I have learned a great deal. It’s so frustrating, you don’t know

where to turn.

There was great police work on this case. Mr. Del Toro drove

from San Antonio to Sarasota and committed the murder as accused and then drove back to San Antonio. The local, State, Federal, and international law enforcement officials acted very quickly.

This was a murder-for-hire case, a conspiracy with several other

people involved. They quickly identified those people and arrested

them. Mr. Del Toro was arrested in Mexico in November 1997. We

are pleased he was apprehended but the frustration is our inability

to bring this gentleman to trial.

I first became involved in this case when Earl Moreland, who is

our State Attorney, contacted me to help bring Del Toto back to the

United States. We didn’t think there was going to be a big deal because it should have been a clear-cut case. We quickly discovered

the complexity and really the helplessness of this situation. The

anger and frustration that we all share has just outraged our entire community of Sarasota, especially since they followed it so

closely.

The extradition treaty that has been referred to in this case was

the United States-Mexico Treaty of 1978. It gives Mexico the right

to refuse extradition in cases where the death penalty may potentially be applied. If there was ever a case where the death penalty

would be considered, it would be when a person drives from San

Antonio to Sarasota with the intent to brutally murder a young

mother of six children.

But this case is not just a case for Florida. Mexico shares a very

large border with the United States. As we began to research the

case, we came across other cases. Two months before the Bellush

murder, there was David ‘‘Spooky’’ Alvarez who murdered his

girlfriend and three other members of her family in California.

The district attorney there is Gil Garcetti. Mr. Garcetti decided

he was not going to waive the death penalty. He said, ‘‘To allow

a vicious killer to avoid the most severe punishment for these murders by merely crossing the border into Mexico would encourage

other murderers to seek refuge there.’’

8

That’s the frustration law enforcement has in making those decisions. I know Mr. Moreland, and I know it was not an easy decision

for him to make either. But we want to bring Mr. Del Toro to serve

justice—justice delayed, they say, is justice denied. To allow this

escape from our justice system by crossing the border into Mexico,

is an escape that we need to find a way to block, to stop.

Last year, as Mr. Gilman pointed out, his committee approved—

and Mr. Brady was helpful as were other Members and it was supported on the floor of the House—a resolution that we renegotiate

that treaty with Mexico.

Much to my dismay, the administration is in opposition to that,

and I hope we’ll hear this morning from the State Department why

they’re opposed to the renegotiation of that part of the extradition

treaty.

As I said, we share a large border with Mexico, and there are

millions of people living along that border. It is so easy to cross

over. But we also have these problems with other countries. We

also share a large border with Canada, but Canada is much more

agreeable in their handling of some of these cases. For example,

the case you mentioned, Mr. Charles Ng, a convicted serial killer,

was brought back without assurances of the death penalty. Canada

is moving in a more cooperative attitude on this issue than Mexico

appears to be.

Mexico said they had no choice but to extradite. Well, he should

have been deported. We were expecting his deportation days after

he was arrested, and then at the last minute they decided to go

through the extradition process. But Mexico has the ability to deport.

In December of this past year, James Edward Tillis was accused

of killing two people in Arkansas, crossed over to Mexico; and was

arrested and deported within the next day or so.

This is one case and there are many more. Our concern is to get

Mr. Del Toro back and the second part of our concern is to prevent

future Del Toro cases. We need to close this loophole and make justice a priority. I mean, what would have happened if Timothy

McVeigh had crossed into Mexico? Would we still be waiting for

Timothy McVeigh to stand trial?

I hope this is an important step in getting justice served in this

country, and I thank you once again for having this hearing, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]

9

10

11

12

Mr. MICA. Did you want to introduce Mr. Bellush?

Mr. MILLER. With me today is a very brave individual who has

suffered the most in this case because it was his wife, Sheila

Bellush, who was murdered on that morning of November 1997. He

was actually a short-term resident of Sarasota. He moved from San

Antonio and now has gone back home with his parents so they can

help to raise his six children. As you know, he’s a father of children

that were 2-year-old quadruplets at that time and he feels so

strongly about bringing this to conclusion that he is willing to testify today.

I personally would have a very difficult time doing what Jamie

is doing today. So I’m glad that he’s able to be with us today to

personalize the concern, the suffering that he has experienced, and

why we need to make these changes.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Bellush you’re recognized.

STATEMENT OF JAMES BELLUSH, HUSBAND OF SHEILA

BELLUSH

Mr. BELLUSH. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, members of

the committee, I want to thank you today from the bottom of my

heart for giving me the opportunity to come before you today and

express the frustration and pain my family and I continue to experience from the Mexican Government’s delay in the extradition of

the suspected murderer of my wife, Jose Luis Del Toro, Jr.

My name is Jamie Bellush, and 19 months ago I moved back to

northwest New Jersey into the home where I grew up. I’m a widowed father of five including 31⁄2-year-old quadruplets. Yes, you

heard me. That’s three boys and one girl; you can see their picture

over there on the monitor. That’s a current picture. And a 15-yearold daughter. For the past 10 years, I have been a pharmaceutical

representative with Pfizer Inc., working in Florida, Texas, and New

Jersey.

I’m a decorated former Marine Corps officer who served with the

2nd Marine Division in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a reservist

during Operation Desert Storm.

On November 7, 1997, my wife was at our home in Sarasota, FL,

with our then 23-month-old quadruplets, Timmy, Joey, Frankie,

and Courtney. I left for my job at about 7:30 a.m. Sheila had

dropped off my daughter Stevie at school and I’m sure stopped at

McDonald’s to get breakfast for the quadruplets.

At approximately 10 a.m., Jose Luis Del Toro, Jr., entered our

home through the garage. He confronted Sheila in the laundry

room of our home. He aimed a .45 caliber pistol at her face and

fired a single bullet. The bullet entered her cheek and exited out

the back of her neck. I don’t know how familiar you are with handguns, but the .45 caliber handgun is probably the most powerful

handgun in the world.

The concussion and shock of the bullet dropped her to her knees.

The pathologist found bruises on her knees. She was still alive,

though, and despite unimaginable pain, struggled to make it to the

phone, I’m sure to call 911.

Not wanting this to happen, Jose Del Toro opened one drawer in

the kitchen and then another. He found a sharp knife with approximately an 8-inch blade. He used the knife to slice Sheila’s throat

13

first on one side and then the other. At one point while she struggled to ward off Del Toro; he stabbed her right through her hand.

Losing blood, she fell to the floor in the kitchen. She was only 5

foot 3 in stature and a mere 107 pounds, no match for her attacker,

a muscular, agile former high school football player.

You can only imagine the sight as she lay on the floor of the

kitchen taking in her last gasps of air through the pools of her own

blood. Imagine the confusion and horror of Courtney, Timmy, Joey,

and Frankie wondering why Mommy can’t get up. At about 4 p.m.

that afternoon, my stepdaughter Stevie got off the bus. Her mother

was her hero and best friend. She would share all of her school girl

crushes with her mom. And on that day, she was especially excited

because a cute new guy had asked her out.

She bounded into the front door of the house never suspecting

what she was about to find. She saw her quadruplet baby brothers

and sister huddled together crying without diapers on and I’m sure

starving for not having been fed since the morning. She then

looked into the red-stained kitchen to see her mother’s bloody body,

a horrific scene that will be branded on her memory for eternity.

At this time, Mr. Del Toro was well on his way back to San Antonio, TX. Del Toro, as you may know, was a trigger man in an elaborate murder-for-hire conspiracy. Mr. Del Toro thought he had gotten away. But in his mission to destroy the life of my beloved wife,

he left in his wake a cesspool of evidence. This evidence includes,

but is not certainly limited to, an eye witness seeing a man matching his description walking through the neighborhood; a lawn

maintenance man who copied down the license plate number of the

car in which Del Toro was the only driver; a perfect fingerprint on

the dryer of our home that matched De Toro’s; a copy of the Texas

driver’s license of Del Toro, who had checked into the Hampton Inn

in Sarasota, FL.

After driving back to Austin, TX, Del Toro changed out of his

clothes at his friend’s house. The police later collected the clothing

he was wearing at the time of the murder, spattered with Sheila’s

blood. He left his car in Austin, which was later recovered by police. In the car they found the gun used to murder Sheila, a hotel

room key, and towel from the Hampton Inn in Sarasota as well as

the address to our home in Sarasota.

But the best evidence of all, Del Toro’s own cousin, Sammy Gonzalez who himself was involved in the conspiracy, has pled guilty

to solicitation of capital murder and agreed to testify against his

own cousin and his involvement in the crime.

So why are we here today? And why isn’t Del Toro sitting on

death row in a Florida prison? And why has my family been subjected to continued anguish and been denied justice? Because Mr.

Del Toro, who is an American citizen, and who murdered another

American citizen on American soil, crossed the border into Mexico.

The Mexican Government has decided to interfere with the

American justice system and allowed Del Toro to appeal his extradition all the way to the Mexican supreme court and harbor this

criminal in a Mexican jail. This is not an isolated incident, as

you’re well aware. Mexico has time and time again delayed the extradition of wanted violent criminals.

14

It would have been simple, legal, and reasonable for the Mexican

Government to simply deport Del Toro and turn him over to Texas

Rangers. And when was Del Toro arrested? On November 20, 1997,

the day we buried Sheila on a cold, windy hillside in New Jersey.

So here we are 19 months later, and the Mexican Government

still cannot even give us a broad estimate of when he will be returned to the United States to stand trial. As another infringement

to our national sovereignty, the Mexican Government has forced

the State of Florida to agree not to impose the death penalty when

Del Toro is convicted. So Mr. Del Toro will spend the rest of his

life in prison for slaughtering, no, butchering my wife in cold blood

in front of our children.

Let me briefly touch on who Sheila was. Sheila’s father, Francis

Anthony Walsh, Jr.’s name is listed on a black granite wall near

the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, when she was 10, his plane was shot

down over Laos. She was a wonderful, warm woman who had Jesus

Christ in her heart. Everyone who ever met her loved her. She was

a devoted mother. She was bright and funny. She was one of the

most beautiful women I have ever met. And it was an honor and

a privilege to have been her husband.

She was my biggest fan and I hers. She was my support. She

was the only mother my children will ever have. I loved her very

much, and to this day there is a hole in my heart. Not 10 minutes

go by without me thinking of her. I grieved at first because I lost

my beloved wife who had so much life left to live. Now I grief because I will not have Sheila—I’m sorry. I then grieved because our

children—for my children because they no longer had a mother.

Now I grieve because I will not have Sheila to share those special

memories and prideful moments as our children grow up, the graduations, the recitals, the little league games, and the rest.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please do not

allow Sheila to die in vain.

Please change the extradition treaty with Mexico and prevent the

delay of justice and the pain for other victims of crime whose perpetrators run to Mexico. Please decertify and withhold financial aid

from Mexico and other countries that do not cooperate and interfere with our criminal justice system. It is time we stop playing

patsy politics with Mexico.

I just want to thank a couple of people. I want to thank Mr.

Moreland, Mr. Roberts, and the rest of the State prosecutor’s office

in Sarasota, the county district attorneys, the Sarasota County

sheriff’s, and the Texas rangers who have done a phenomenal job

in this case.

I want to thank Mr. Dan Miller from Florida and you, Mr. Chairman, for the courage to stand and voice outrage at the delay of the

Mexican Government in extraditing Jose Luis Del Toro. Additionally, I want to thank Mr. Gilman for moving House Resolution 381

through the International Relations Committee to a full House vote

on the floor.

And last, I want to thank Senator Bob Torricelli who has done

more for me than just writing letters and making phone calls, but

became a fervent advocate for one of his constituents and getting

personally involved in helping me and my family.

15

And finally, I want to leave you with an image. And that’s why

we don’t keep helium balloons in our house for long. I tell Timmy,

Joey, Frankie, and Courtney that Mommy is in Heaven with Jesus.

They ask me if she’s still bleeding. Yes, they remember what they

saw. They walk outside and they let their helium balloons go. We

asked them why they do this. And they tell me they’re sending

them up to Mommy in heaven. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bellush follows:]

16

17

18

19

Mr. MICA. Mr. Bellush, you have to be one of the most compelling

witnesses I think I’ve ever heard in my short tenure, 7 years in

Congress. I’m sure the other members of the panel join me in commending you for your courage in coming forward. I know it has to

be difficult. If there is any sense to be made out of the whole horror

of all of this, hopefully your testimony and your statement today

will get people’s attention.

Sometimes it takes incredible tragedy in our country to get the

people’s attention to what needs to be done and what’s right. So

again, I just—you’re one of the most courageous men I have ever

met. I thank you.

I thank Mr. Miller, too, for bringing this to our attention. He’s

represented you very well, been an untiring advocate, brought this

before the House and Mr. Brady and others. I’m just a small bitplayer in the congressional process in taking over the responsibility

of drug policy. I really am appalled that Mexico, as a neighbor and

ally, could allow this injustice, not just in your case, but dozens

and dozens of cases.

I said in my opening statement we have 275 requests for extradition, some 40 major drug kingpins who have inflicted death and

destruction on our young people and similar unbelievable stories.

The hardest thing I have to do is talk to people like you and then

to parents who have lost a young person to the horrors of Mexican

heroin or cocaine that has come through our now open commercial

borders.

Sir, I heard in your testimony, you said we should use whatever

tools we have at our disposal including decertification. We do provide Mexico with very substantial trade benefits; NAFTA has given

them great advantages and an open commercial border. We bailed

out Mexico when they were at their financial wits’ end.

You feel that, again, we should use whatever means possible to

get some attention to this extradition item. Is that correct?

Mr. BELLUSH. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. MICA. In your struggle——

Mr. BELLUSH. If I could just say one other thing.

Mr. MICA. Yes, go ahead.

Mr. BELLUSH. I’m continually appalled at how our government

continues to sit back and hand out money to foreign governments

when they have absolute disregard and contempt for our criminal

procedure and our laws.

You look at the case—I mean, I’m fervently pro-Israeli, but I’m

appalled that the Israeli Government has failed to extradite—I

can’t recall the gentleman’s name right now—but Sheinbein, this

man, he mutilated somebody. And Mr. Mica, I don’t understand. I

mean, I know I’m just a private citizen, but it just blows me away

that we just stand there and let people trample all over our judicial

system and still hand out the money.

Mr. MICA. Not only stand there, but at great benefit—trade and

finance benefits. We get very little respect in return. In fact, I consider this an affront to the American people.

In your quest for justice, can you tell me about your cooperation

from our State Department in this matter?

Mr. BELLUSH. Sir, I’ve had absolutely no contact with the State

Department at all. All my contact with—I have spoken to someone

20

in the Justice Department a couple of times, but most of my contact has come through Mr. Miller’s office or Senator Torricelli’s office. Quite frankly, that’s sort of sad when you think about it

that—I mean, Charlie Roberts’ office down in Sarasota, the State

prosecutor’s office, has continual communications with the victims.

I’ve got no communications from the State Department or the

Justice Department on a regular basis. And quite frankly, that

should—those should happen. I shouldn’t have to go to Mr.

Torricelli and Mr. Miller or Ms. Roukema, who is my local representative in New Jersey, to find out what the status of the extradition is.

Mr. MICA. You don’t feel that in your particular case in trying

to pursue this extradition that either State nor Justice has been responsive?

Mr. BELLUSH. Yes, sir. And I don’t know exactly what goes on.

I’m sure there are wonderful people that work in those departments but there has been very little communication. There have

been a couple of times I spoke to somebody at the Justice Department and no communications with the State Department at all.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I will yield at this time to the gentleman

from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you, Mr. Miller, for your efforts. I think this is very, very important. And I appreciate it. And to you, Mr. Bellush, I want to

thank you. I can only echo the words of our chairman, you have

a lot more courage than I do. I think it would be very difficult for

me to do what you just did. And I do appreciate it.

One of the things, I’m glad you raised the issue of the Sheinbein

case because that comes out of my State. And I agree with you. I

think this country needs to take another look at what we do with

regard to these types of issues. The chairman said he’s just a small

player—and I guess to a degree we all are small players here—but

we also represent, this Congress does, some 270 million people.

And certainly, we represent you.

I think whenever we have a policy that allows anyone to escape

the laws of this country when they commit crimes in this country,

no matter what they are, I think we have a major, major problem.

So I just want you to know that we will do everything in our

power, working with your Congressman and others, to try to make

sure we do not let your wife die in vain.

The role that you played here this morning, is more important

than you may ever know, because so often I think what happens

in the Congress is that we fail to put a face on the policies and put

feelings on the policies and see behind them. You have given us

that opportunity to peer in a window of your house, on a very painful day.

So I really don’t have any questions of you. I’m just curious as

to the next panel, what they will have to say. I am so interested

to hear this. I just thank you very much.

Mr. BELLUSH. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Miller, a quick question. You were responsible for

introducing House Resolution 381, in which you recommended the

President of the United States should renegotiate the current extradition treaty with Mexico. Were you given any explanation from

21

the administration about its opposition to this resolution? Maybe

you would like to comment about your efforts in trying to pass this

resolution.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like

to submit a prepared statement for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection the entire statement will be made

part of the record.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. It was last fall, in October, that House Resolution 381 was passed by voice vote on the floor of the House to ask

for renegotiation of the extradition treaty. The administration, and

specifically the State Department, said they were basically opposed, and we’ll hear in the next panel more details of that. They

say it is because the death penalty is the objection.

However, Mexico apparently may not recognize the life sentence

either. There is a case of a drug dealer that Mexico refused to extradite because they don’t support life sentences. So I don’t know

where we can draw the line. Especially when you have U.S. citizens accused of a crime in the United States. Mexico should have

nothing to do with the case. That’s true whether it’s in Israel or

Canada. That’s certainly true in the United States. If we have a

Mexican citizen in the United States, that person should be sent

back as fast as possible.

It’s one of the many frustrations in this case, and that’s the reason, 19 months later, we’re still waiting for a person to stand trial

in Sarasota.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield now, if I may, to the

gentleman from Texas for questions, Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Chairman Mica.

You’ve served your country in peacetime and war as a U.S. Marine. The Marines are known for taking on the toughest assignments, doing the hardest jobs. You were called upon by the United

States Government to do everything possible to liberate Kuwait,

and you served with the 2nd Marine Division.

It’s one thing to demand that Mexico deport this United States

citizen—and I’m from Texas. And this Jose Del Toro is a Texan, an

American citizen. He doesn’t deserve any protection from Mexico on

this issue. But there’s also the question, are we doing all that we

can to help you see justice in this case? And from your perspective

do you feel that everything humanly possible has been done by the

U.S. Government to return Jose Del Toro to America for justice?

Mr. BELLUSH. Mr. Brady, no, sir. I don’t think it has been. I hate

to think that, but I think my wife’s murder deserves the attention

of Mr. Clinton. I know he has taken trips down to Mexico and I

just—I can’t believe that this isn’t a priority, to address this issue

of extradition.

The other area where I think there’s significant room for improvement, not—aside from renegotiating the extradition treaty,

are the communications channels from the State and Justice Departments.

Mr. BRADY. Tell me about that.

Mr. BELLUSH. As I stated earlier, I think there must be some

way that the State and or Justice Departments could communicate

on a more regular basis with victims to tell them what the status

of extradition is. Even if somebody drops a letter in the mail to me

22

every month and said, ‘‘Mr. Bellush, we’re sorry to tell you there’s

no further progress in the case.’’ That would be appreciated.

As I stated earlier, anytime there’s any development in a criminal matter in the State of Florida, I get a letter from the Florida

State attorney’s office trial dates, hearing dates, those kind of

things. As a victim, I think you deserve to know these things. And

I certainly think that with an international issue like extradition

you should certainly know about these things.

Mr. BRADY. How often do you talk to the State Department? How

often do they contact you?

Mr. BELLUSH. I have never spoken to anybody in the State Department. I believe I spoke to somebody in the Justice Department

once or twice. But all those phone calls were originated from me.

They weren’t phone calls made to you or communication made to

me. They were all phone calls that were originated by me. Again,

I’m not here to bash the State or Justice Departments, but certainly this is an area where we need improvement.

Mr. BRADY. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I want to thank you, Mr. Bellush. As I said, you have

been an incredible witness. We salute you for serving your country.

Today, you serve very well the memory of your wife, and you’ve

also served this country, I think, and your children with your testimony today. Because it is so important that we bring this killer to

justice and that we, as representatives of you and the American

people, see that extradition is carried through and that there is justice and particularly in this case, international justice.

I have no further questions at this point for you or Mr. Miller.

There is a vote in progress, so we’re going to excuse you. Again,

from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for your courage in coming forward and for what you’ve done today to shed light on this

important issue. I know that your being here is going to make a

big difference. So I thank you, sir. And thank you, Mr. Miller.

I’ll excuse both of our witnesses. We will recess for 15 minutes.

And reconvene at 11:15, after this vote. At that time, we’ll hear

from our second panel. This meeting stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call this meeting of the subcommittee

back to order. Our order of business is to hear from the second

panel on the topic ‘‘Is Mexico a Safe Haven for Murderers?’’ and in

particular today, we’re looking at the Del Toro case.

The second panel consists of Mr. Earl Moreland, district attorney

from Sarasota, FL. I believe he’s also accompanied by Mr. Charlie

Roberts, assistant State attorney, who will be available for questions. Our second panelist is Ms. Mary Lee Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General with the Department of Justice. Our fourth

witness is Ms. Jamison S. Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor to the Department of State.

As I explained to our earlier panelists, this is an investigations

and oversight subcommittee of Congress. So if you would stand,

please, and be sworn.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Witnesses answered in the affirmative. We ask that

you limit your opening statement to 5 minutes, your oral presentation before the subcommittee. If you have lengthy statements or

23

additional information you would like submitted for the record, we

will do that by unanimous consent request.

With those comments, I would like to recognize first Ms. Jamison

S. Borek, Deputy Legal Advisor to the Department of State. You’re

recognized.

STATEMENTS OF JAMISON S. BOREK, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARY LEE WARREN, DEPUTY

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND EARL MORELAND, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SARASOTA, FL, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLIE ROBERTS, ASSISTANT

STATE ATTORNEY

Ms. BOREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify before you today. I will give

a little overview of the extradition relationship with Mexico, and I

understand that the other witnesses will speak more specifically

about the Del Toro case.

As you have noted, the extradition relationship with Mexico is

based on our fairly modern 1980 treaty, which replaced a badly

outdated bilateral treaty that had been in force since 1899.

There are a number of issues in the extradition relationship

which have been noted so far in this hearing. One of them is certainly the question of the extradition of nationals. The treaty provides, as do a number of treaties, that the extradition of nationals

is discretionary. Many countries are prohibited by their constitution or other domestic law or as a matter of policy do not extradite

their own nationals. This includes a number of countries in Europe

such as France, Germany, Austria, and Belgium, as well as many

in this hemisphere, such as Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela.

The U.S. Government does not consider it appropriate, for the

reasons that have been noted in this hearing, to create a situation

in which nationals can never be extradited for prosecution in the

United States or in any other country. And it has been a very high

priority to try to convince all countries to agree to extradite their

nationals.

This is a particular problem, I might note, with civil law countries. Common law countries, which share a comparable legal tradition with the United States, do tend to extradite nationals. It is the

civil law countries, the countries with European based or Spanish

based legal systems, which tend not to do so.

They also tend to have laws that permit them to prosecute their

own nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the world. And so,

historically, the view has been ‘‘we will prosecute them here rather

than in other countries.’’ There are a number of problems with this

and as I say, it’s been a strong policy of the Justice and State Departments and the U.S. Government as a whole to try to negotiate

treaties that provide for extradition of nationals on a mandatory

basis in all cases.

We have made some notable advances in the hemisphere, for example, in recent treaties with Bolivia and Argentina; but it is still

obviously an issue that we’re grappling with.

Turning specifically to Mexico, as I noted, it is discretionary in

the treaty whether or not to extradite nationals; and for many

24

years the Government of Mexico did not extradite nationals at all,

citing limitations under domestic law. In 1996, there was a breakthrough of sorts in that the Government of Mexico determined that

they could apply language in domestic extradition law to extradite

nationals in exceptional cases.

Since then, they have been extraditing a number of nationals,

not by any means at all. There are still, in many cases, a decision

to prosecute domestically. And there have been difficulties with

challenges in courts in Mexico concerning the extradition of nationals.

There have been problems, in particular over the last—basically,

since late last year, with the interpretation of article 4 of the Mexican Penal Code. A number of court decisions in which the courts

ruled that because it was possible to prosecute the nationals in

Mexico, it was necessary to prosecute them and they could not be

extradited.

The Government of Mexico has been working with us very closely

in an effort to litigate this issue successfully in courts, to take the

question to the Supreme Court of Mexico where hopefully there

would be a reversal of this decision. So far, however, this is still

in process. There has to be a split of decisions in order for the supreme court to take the case, and they are looking for the split of

decisions to be able to do so.

Another issue which is particularly relevant to the Del Toro case

is the question of the amparo process. The amparo process is essentially a constitutional bill of rights-type equivalent in the Mexican

legal system, whereby individual citizens can challenge the constitutionality of an action of the government as applied to them.

I have to note that in general, the U.S. Government wants American citizens to benefit from legal guarantees in foreign countries.

As a general principle, we believe Americans should enjoy equal

rights and equal treatment in foreign courts and in foreign criminal justice systems. So there is no objection in principle to American citizens being able to take advantage of this remedy; however,

there are problems with the remedy itself.

The difficulty is that, unlike the United States system where you

must raise problems at certain times, you can only raise them so

often, and if you fail to raise them you are precluded from raising

them, in Mexico you can bring an amparo challenge at many different points in time in different courts and over and over again.

And therefore there is a much more undisciplined and lengthy delaying process than the comparable process in the United States.

Nonetheless, the amparo is widely regarded in Mexico as one of

the sort of constitutional bulwarks of their rights and guarantees.

Although they recognize there are certainly abuses, there’s also a

strong feeling, a sort of popular feeling, as I understand it, in favor

of the process.

Another area of concern which has been mentioned is life imprisonment. This is not something which is provided for in the treaty,

and it is not something which the Government of Mexico itself has

created problems with. But there have been a number of court decisions holding that for constitutional reasons, life imprisonment is

cruel and unusual punishment. I think the terminology is a little

25

different—it’s ‘‘cruel and extreme.’’ And that someone could not be

extradited to face life imprisonment.

The Government of Mexico is again litigating these cases. It’s too

soon, I think, to say how the litigation is going. These are fairly

recent developments, and they are still being litigated.

Finally, there is also the problem of the death penalty. I have to

say, this is a different sort of problem in a way than the nationality

problem and in some ways a larger problem.

As I noted, there are a number of countries which have a practice of not extraditing without assurances that the death penalty

will not be imposed. This includes a number of countries in Europe

and other parts of the world. This reflects, from their point of view,

a human rights concern. I think you must be aware there are a

number of countries which do not believe in the death penalty.

There are a lot of extradition treaties in which the other party has

insisted that in death penalty cases extradition be discretionary

and they have asked for assurances in practice.

We are very much against this and certainly we have spent a lot

of time defending the death penalty, not only in the extradition

context but also in the human rights context. For example, in the

Human Rights Commission where there are regularly resolutions

against the death penalty, it is a different kind of problem and one

that we were struggling with without, perhaps, some of the prospects of progress that we have seen in the nationality area.

Thus, as I say, these are problems which, to a certain extent, are

not unique; however, with Mexico there is a special relationship

geographically. Because of the possibility of people going back and

forth across the border, obviously the impact of these problems is

very severe, and the concern that we have about them is equally

very severe. The extradition relationship has been, for a very long

time, at the top of our United States-Mexico bilateral agenda, as

has law enforcement generally.

I think it’s fair to say that with the development of these additional problems, particularly in recent years, there is an even more

intensified awareness and commitment to grappling with these

issues in the U.S. Government at the State Department and I

think I can say also the Department of Justice. I thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I ask that the full statement be accepted for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection the full statement will be made part

of the record. We’ll withhold questions until we’ve heard from the

other witnesses in this panel.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Borek follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. MICA. I recognize next Mary Lee Warren, Deputy Assistant

Attorney General, the Department of Justice. Welcome.

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss with

you the history and status of the Jose Luis Del Toro case and to

provide you with continuing information about our overall extradition relationship with the Government of Mexico.

In the second regard, I will offer an update on events that have

transpired over the last month since my prior testimony before this

subcommittee. I request that my full written statement be included

in the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection so ordered.

Ms. WARREN. Clearly the case of Jose Luis Del Toro is a matter

of extraordinary significance to all. Mr. Bellush has provided a

moving personal account of the crime, its devastating impact, and

the frustration that is felt with the process of bringing Del Toro

back to Florida to face justice.

We too at the Department of Justice have voiced our concern

about the crime and the delay, and we offer our sympathies once

more to the family who has suffered this horror. Today I will limit

my testimony to a description of the actions taken by the two governments to effect his return to this country.

In the 10-day period from November 11, 1997, 4 days after the

murder, to November 21, 1997, first, the Florida authorities notified the Department of Justice that they believed Del Toro was in

Mexico. Mexican officials and our Embassy were officially notified;

the United States requested his deportation or, in the alternative,

provisional arrest for extradition. The authorities located Del Toro

in Monterrey, Mexico; and he was arrested for extradition pursuant

to the treaty by the Mexican authorities.

It has been asked why Del Toro, a United States citizen, was not

simply and summarily deported from Mexico rather than being

brought within the more lengthy and complicated extradition process. Clearly, the U.S. Government would have preferred the use of

deportation mechanisms in this case. Indeed, our INS agents at our

Embassy in Mexico City worked hard pursuing this course when

they were first informed that Del Toro might very well be in Mexico.

It appears, however, due to the extreme brutality of the crime

charged, the threat posed by Del Toro to others, the real risk that

he might succeed in his flight from justice, and the perceived difficulties in obtaining nearly immediate assurances that the fugitive

would not receive the death penalty if surrendered to the United

States, the office of the Mexican attorney general believed that the

wiser, safer course of action was to obtain a provisional arrest warrant for extradition under the treaty so that they could guarantee

their legal authority to arrest and detain Del Toro as soon as he

could be found.

In retrospect, all of us including the Mexican Government, wish

that Del Toro had simply been deported; but during the fast-breaking events in late November 1997, the immediate and primary goal

was to ensure that he did not get away. Both governments have

now learned from this experience that when necessary and mutually acceptable, death penalty assurances can be provided promptly

35

in deportation cases as they must be provided in extradition cases

under the treaty.

But in those last minutes in the hunt for Del Toro, arresting and

holding him seemed far more important than the particular avenue

for his return.

Continuing with the chronology, by early January 1998, well

within the limitations period, Florida authorities compiled an impressive package of proof which was then formally submitted to the

Government of Mexico. By the end of March 1998, both the court

that initially provides an opinion on extraditability and the foreign

ministry had decided in favor of our request. This is a very speedy

handling of the request.

Immediately following the entry of the court, an Executive order

authorizing extradition, Del Toro, using the Mexican amparo process, began his legal challenges to his surrender back to the United

States. In the extradition context, the amparo process is something

akin to habeas corpus, as Ms. Borek has mentioned.

Our best understanding of the nature and status of Del Toro’s

amparo is that first he sought relief from two district courts challenging the constitutionality of our extradition treaty. His challenge was rejected by both district courts and thereafter found by

the Mexican supreme court to be ineligible for immediate review.

He then sought relief in the same two district courts challenging

the legality of the Mexican Government’s actions in complying with

the treaty and holding him for extradition. Again, his challenge

was rejected by those two district courts and found procedurally deficient by the supreme court. Del Toro’s case as it relates to the legality of the extradition order issued by the foreign ministry in

Mexico is now before an appellate or circuit court in Mexico.

The ability of a fugitive like Del Toro to file claims on various

issues in different district courts, neither of which was the original

extradition court, is unlike anything we have in our common law

tradition. It is painfully slow and from our perspective prone to corruptive influences.

We need to appreciate, however, that the amparo process in Mexico, like the writ of habeas corpus in the United States is one that

embodies a fundamental right, as Ms. Borek mentioned. There

came a time in our recent history that the dilatory and practiced

abuses of the habeas corpus writ by some defendants so delayed

the progress of their cases and so clogged our courts that these

abuses began to threaten the full and fair administration of justice

to all—other defendants, the prosecution, and the public.

Congress then enacted landmark habeas corpus reforms. In my

humble opinion, Mexico’s amparo process would be well served by

taking analogous reforms.

A final thought on the Del Toro case: it should be emphasized

that we have prevailed in Mexico before the courts and in the foreign ministry at every turn. Lengthy as the process has been, Del

Toro has lost at every effort.

Let me give you a brief update on where we are in our fugitive

and consultative relationship with Mexico. There have been no dramatic changes in our fugitive relationship since last month’s hearing before the subcommittee.

36

Nevertheless, we note that after 31⁄2 years of fighting his extradition, William Brian Martin, a U.S. citizen accused of major narcotics offenses in the district of Arizona, was returned to the U.S.

authorities. A second United States citizen was recently returned

through the United States-Mexican prisoner transfer treaty process

to the eastern district of Virginia on narcotics charges.

In my May 13 testimony before this subcommittee, I detailed the

recent trends of adverse decisions on extradition in the Mexican

courts; and, as Ms. Borek mentioned, the Mexicans have been looking for a conflicting decision on the article 4 issue. They may very

well have found one now that will create a split of decisions within

the circuits that then will be resolved finally by the Mexican supreme court. We remain cautious but optimistic.

As I testified last month, deportations had been the especially

bright light last year for returning criminal fugitives, those criminal fugitives who were United States citizens and had violated

Mexico’s immigration laws. However, we must now advise in the

area of deportation, just as with extraditions, we have been experiencing a noticeable decrease in the numbers of surrenders from

Mexico, a situation we had not anticipated after last year’s successes.

On a more positive note, however, as has been made clear, it is

important to advise this subcommittee of the actions that have

been and will be pursued at the highest levels of both the United

States and Mexican Governments to improve the bilateral fugitive

relationship.

Early this month, Attorney General Reno led the United States

delegation of several Cabinet members, agency heads, and departmental representatives at the binational commission meetings in

Mexico City and had an opportunity to meet with all the Mexican

officials responsible for extradition, for article 4 prosecutions, and

for deportations.

The fugitive and extradition issue was the primary topic for discussion at the meeting of the Legal Affairs and Antinarcotics Cooperation Working Group chaired by the Attorney General and

ONDCP Director McCaffrey and was also the first agenda item for

the meeting of the high-level contact group.

Attorney General Reno addressed fugitive matters at length in

her personal meetings with Mexican Attorney General Madrazo

and Foreign Secretary Rosario Green. She stressed the need to continue progress on deportations with their interior secretary, Mr.

Carrasco. And she voiced her concerns over the status of the fugitive relationship directly with President Zedillo in their brief meeting during the binational commission.

As a result, there is some renewed attitude of cooperation at the

highest levels of both governments to pursue immediate and intensive consultations to address these issues as efficiently and effectively as possible.

We recognize that the members of this subcommittee have set as

a priority and commitment that this administration press the Government of Mexico to take affirmative steps to eliminate the notion

and reality of safe haven and impunity for many fugitives in Mexico.

37

I can state once again that the improvement of the fugitive relationship with Mexico has been and remains one of the Attorney

General’s and the Justice Department’s highest priorities and that

we will use all resources and measures at our disposal to make

progress and achieve the type of positive results that this subcommittee desires and that are deserved by the public we serve. I

thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Warren follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mr. MICA. I would now like to recognize Mr. Earl Moreland, district attorney for Sarasota County, FL.

Mr. MORELAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you for the invitation to appear today. The murder of Sheila

Bellush in Sarasota, FL, was one of the most heinous crimes ever

committed in my jurisdiction. Tragically, the shock of this brutal

crime has really been compounded over the last 18 months by

Mexico’s refusal to turn over to us the man charged with the murder, despite our complete cooperation and agreement with every demand.

Mr. Bellush told you many of the facts earlier. There are some

pictures on the monitor to help you realize the impact this crime

has had, not only on the Bellush family but on our community.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Moreland, are you requesting that we put those

up? They are pretty gruesome. Did you want those on the monitors?

Mr. MORELAND. I will leave that up to the subcommittee staff,

who I gave those to.

Mr. MICA. Well, we have them, but I want it to be your request.

Mr. MORELAND. Yes, we would request that.

Mr. MICA. OK. We’ll go ahead and put those up then.

Do you have some concerns? Wait a second. It is OK?

Mr. BELLUSH. I want them shown, sir.

Mr. MICA. The husband wants them shown. So I didn’t want to

put those up unless I had——

Mr. MORELAND. I understand, sir.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. A request from you and the consent of the

victim’s husband. All right. Thank you. You may proceed.

[Slides.]

Mr. MORELAND. As Mr. Bellush has previously told the committee, Sheila was home with her 23-month-old quadruplets when she

was shot in the face by an intruder. After he shot her and while

Sheila was still alive, the intruder slit her throat on both sides of

her neck. She bled to death. Her four children remained alone in

her house for 6 hours until their 13-year-old sister arrived home

from school and discovered her mother’s body. The four babies were

alone with their dead mother during this time, crawling in her

blood.

The Sarasota sheriff’s deputy launched a superb and massive investigation that within days, as Congressman Miller has told you,

identified Jose Luis Del Toro, Jr., as the killer. Also, as Mr. Bellush

told you—and I think one of the things that makes this case even

more frustrating—is the evidence was really overwhelming in this

case. Witnesses had identified Del Toro and Del Toro’s car in the

area. A copy of his identification was recovered from a local motel.

Other evidence included Del Toro’s fingerprint at the scene and a

fingerprint on the murder weapon, the gun which was found in Del

Toro’s car, and Del Toro’s clothing spotted with Sheila’s blood.

It should also be noted the two accomplices were also identified

and they were taken into custody. The Texas rangers missed Del

Toro by about an hour when Del Toro fled to Mexico after he

learned the police were looking for him. As you have also been told,

Del Toro was an American citizen. He was born in the United

States of America to American parents. He murdered an American

49

citizen on U.S. soil. We believe that Del Toro’s entry into Mexico

was illegal under Mexican law and upon apprehension that he

could have and should have been deported back to the United

States.

In fact, that’s what we were told would originally happen. As a

result of some more excellent police work with the Texas rangers

and the Sarasota sheriff’s department, Del Toro was apprehended

in Monterrey Mexico within weeks of the murder.

Promptly, Mexican officials announced the decision to deport Del

Toro to the United States. I received a call in my office that afternoon that Del Toro, in fact, was en route to the Mexican-Texas border and would be delivered to United States officials that evening.

I waited for the call informing us that Del Toro was in custody.

Finally around midnight I was notified that for no officially stated

reason, Mexican officials had rescinded the deportation order, Del

Toro had been transported to Mexico City, and Mexico was demanding that the United States seek formal extradition of Jose Del

Toro. Shortly thereafter, the United States Department of Justice

informed us that the Mexican Government would not extradite Del

Toro unless I would give assurance that Del Toro would not receive

the death penalty if extradited. Jose Luis Del Toro was a hard killer. He murdered Sheila Bellush in a cold, calculated manner traveling from Texas, hiding in Sheila’s home. The death occurred in

a heinous, atrocious, and cruel manner including a gun shot wound

to the face and a slit throat.

With the six surviving children, including the quadruplets who

were present during the murder, it is hard to imagine a case with

more victim impact than the Bellush family suffered. This was undoubtedly a case where the death penalty was appropriate. But unfortunately, the people of Florida will never have the chance to

hold Del Toro fully accountable for this heinous crime.

We were told unless the death penalty was waived, Del Toro

would be released. And after talking to the Bellush family, we felt

we had no choice. We agreed to waive the death penalty. We filed

the necessary extradition papers with the Justice Department.

Despite making that concession a year and a half ago, Del Toro

has still not been returned. A Mexican judge and the Mexican foreign ministry have approved the extradition. The case is now

stalled in the Mexican supreme court of justice. The Mexican Government refuses to provide satisfactory answers to our questions

about the status of the extradition. No one can tell us when to expect a resolution or even if that resolution necessarily ends Del

Toro’s appeal possibilities.

My office is in almost weekly contact with the Justice Department, the American Embassy in Mexico City, and the Mexican Embassy here in Washington. I have spoken with Attorney General

Reno, whom I worked with as a prosecutor in Florida, about this

case.

Even now, the Justice Department and U.S. officials have tried

to be helpful. I know their hands have been tied by Mexico’s complete lack of information and misinformation. We were originally

told by Mexican officials that this whole process would take 3 to

4 months. That was 18 months ago.

50

Mr. Chairman, we thank your committee for seriously considering this matter and urge you to take some action in this case. We

have not been able to accomplish anything through other channels.

The citizens in our community do not believe that justice is being

done and feel outraged at being held hostage by Mexico. We hope

that you will hold Mexico accountable for their actions in this case

and that Jose Luis Del Toro will be returned to Florida to face justice.

I’ll be happy to answer any of your questions. Mr. Charlie Roberts is the lead prosecutor in this case. He prosecuted the codefendants. He’s also here to answer your questions and we thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moreland follows:]

51

52

53

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Moreland. I have

some questions. First of all, Ms. Warren with the Department of

Justice, I’m a little bit concerned, in your statement you said

there’s a renewed attitude of cooperation at the highest levels of

both governments to pursue immediate and intense consultations

on how to address common problems in this area and bring these

fugitives to justice. But you also testified that we have actually lost

ground on the deportation matter. Can you tell us where we really

are? These seem to be contradictory. You’re saying one thing and

doing something else.

Ms. WARREN. The deportation issue and that we were losing

ground was just brought to the Mexican authority’s attention and

really just came to our attention in the past month.

It was brought to the Mexican authority’s attention by Attorney

General Reno when she was down there earlier this month. She

spoke directly to their interior minister who oversees their immigration department.

Mr. MICA. Is that Green?

Ms. WARREN. No, Rosario Green is their secretary of state, their

foreign minister. The interior minister new to that position, his

name is Carrasco. She met with him personally and brought this

to his attention. He said he would look into it. We have also sent

a list of target deportations to them, individuals that we believe

are U.S. citizens that can be located and are sought on charges

here. He promised at that time that he would look into it and try

to act.

Mr. MICA. So we’re actually losing ground, you testified, on the

deportation question.

Ms. WARREN. So far this year and I wanted to bring that to this

subcommittee’s attention.

Mr. MICA. That’s very frustrating. I have been down there personally, met with Green and met with the attorney general and

others. You also testified you thought this would be the subject of

immediate and intensive consultations. Can you elaborate on that?

What is planned? Where are we taking this from here?

Ms. WARREN. Just that the highest levels have agreed that we

will need to treat this at the highest levels.

Mr. MICA. Are there planned meetings? Are there——

Ms. WARREN. There will be meetings within the next month.

Mr. MICA. And you said at the highest levels. Is that——

Ms. WARREN. Any problems that cannot be immediately resolved,

any misunderstandings or disagreements as to what the process is,

what the level of proof that’s necessary in an extradition request

is, those kinds of issues. If they cannot be resolved, they will be referred to cabinet level officers for review.

Mr. MICA. Do you know if the Department of Justice or the Attorney General has any recommendations to Congress, any legislative changes or changes in policy that we determine—we certainly

give them tremendous trade and financial benefits. Is there anything that you’re recommending that we can do to give you better

leverage or positioning to deal with the situation in Mexico in particular?

Ms. WARREN. Well, there are several recommendations in the

anticrime bill for the 21st century that would be helpful here. For

54

example, one of the recommendations is that defendants not be

given credit for the time abroad fighting extradition. He should not

get credit on his later sentence, once tried in the United States, for

that time served in delaying the process.

We’ve offered that as a suggestion. Another: to create a fund for

district attorney offices and local prosecutors to compile these enormously expensive extradition documents and translation. Sometimes it is back-breaking to a local prosecutor’s budget.

We would also like to strengthen our immigration laws so that

we can refuse entry to someone fleeing from justice from another

country; have that as a grounds for denying them entry.

Mr. MICA. Well, if you have any additional recommendations we

would certainly like to hear about them, either in this as part of

this record or submitted to the subcommittee. You also testified

that the Mexican judicial system, I think you said, is prone to corrupt practices. Obviously, to pursue this in Mexico, Mr. Del Toro

has to have some finances. Do we know where he—how he’s financing these appeals and how this process is moving forward? He’s

gaming the system. Do you have any direct knowledge or do we

have any knowledge that corruption has played a part in his delaying this process and us getting justice served?

Ms. WARREN. We have no knowledge or information about corruption in this particular case. Just within Mexico, they recently

suspended a magistrate for what they believed was corruption in

a decision in the Adon Amezcua case. However, we are concerned

about who is financing Del Toro’s challenges. This is a costly affair

to go on and on. And we have formally requested an investigation

by the Mexican authorities into the source of funds for these innumerable appeals.

Mr. MICA. You mentioned the Amezcua case—that’s the one who

had the charges dropped and he was released or was that—there

are two brothers who were the methamphetamine kings who I believe had charges also dropped that are still kept. One was——

Ms. WARREN. This is Adon, not the two brothers. We had no

charges on Adon, only Mexican charges. And that’s the one.

Mr. MICA. I have an incredible array of mug shots. These are

Mexican nationals, not United States nationals, who we have requested extradition and, in fact, part of the work of this subcommittee is to seek their extradition.

I think they’re putting up a couple of the particular suspects

here.

We’re having the same problem with our drug kingpins in addition to murderers. I asked the question about how Del Toro is financing these appeals. Is the Department of Justice looking into

that or anyone? State? Anyone?

Ms. WARREN. We have not had any information in the United

States about that, but we believe there might be some information

in Mexico. Therefore, we have filed a formal request for an investigation of who is paying his attorney’s fees.

Mr. MICA. The other thing that came to mind today in hearing

this very compelling testimony is that we have systems in place

that notify folks of progress in the investigation where there’s an

airline crash. We have all kinds of other things that Congress has

required that have been instituted.

55

It seems to me that the Department of Justice or State ought to

have some mechanism to at least keep the victim’s family informed

in these cases, particularly these heinous murders and crimes

where these folks are using extradition as a cover. Is the department planning to put in place any procedures or some system of

notification?

Ms. WARREN. That I don’t know. I can tell you in this particular

case, on a biweekly basis we have contacted Mr. Moreland’s office

to keep them up to date. We have also provided some advice to Mr.

Miller’s office from time to time. We have tried to keep in contact,

in regular contact with the prosecutor whom we feel in many ways

we represent in these extradition proceedings.

Mr. MICA. Finally, you said you felt a little bit boxed in, that a

mistake was made at the beginning about whether to request deportation. But then, I’m even more dismayed when I hear that now

deportation is falling apart.

Ms. WARREN. I also need to be clear on that. The same amparo

process is available in deportation cases from Mexico. So it’s only

speculation that he would have been returned more swiftly through

deportation than extradition. It’s our understanding the reason

why the Mexican authorities chose extradition over our first alternative, which was deportation, was that they believed they had better standing and clearer authority to arrest and detain such a violent person that they did not want out on the streets or to escape

justice.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Moreland, first of all I hope that you will extend our compliments to the police department for doing what appears to be an outstanding job. I mean, having practiced criminal

law for 20 years, I know these cases—I mean, you can have some

real difficulty. But, as I look at the time line and what you all were

able to accomplish, it is phenomenal.

Mr. MORELAND. Yes, sir. I will thank you. They did do an outstanding job.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m kind of confused about a number of things.

I just want to try to figure out where we are here.

Ms. Warren, does Mexico have something comparable to our life

imprisonment sentence? Do they sentence people to life?

Ms. WARREN. They sentence them to a term of years. For example, in the Alvarez case that has been mentioned here several

times, the defendant up for murder sought out of Los Angeles, was

sentenced to 90 years.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do they have a comparable thing to what we

have here, time off for good behavior and that kind of thing?

Ms. WARREN. As I understand it, they do have a good time, some

credit there that’s given; but with the term of years like that, I believe it is expected to be actual life in the end. But they don’t have

a penalty ‘‘life’’ as we do.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So a basis for this, for these appeals, I mean,

for—like a defense I guess here would be—and I can’t remember

exactly what you said that life, the life, possible life sentence might

be, something that might be raised? Or has been.

56

Ms. WARREN. That has been a problem in some other cases; it

has not been raised here. And it is not recognizable under our treaty and should not prevail. Those cases remain on appeal.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Moreland, I don’t know whether you can answer this or not, but we’re talking about the financing of this—of

what’s going on in Mexico. Do you all have any theories on whether

there’s still money flowing any kind of way? I mean with regard

to the—and it might be information you can’t disclose but I was

just curious.

Mr. MORELAND. It is difficult to speak to that, but that’s certainly one of the frustrating things, the unanswered questions. We

were really unable to find out despite inquiries that were made.

We’re very glad to hear that recently the Justice Department has

made official inquiries with the Mexican Government to try to find

those answers.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Two defendants have been convicted. Is that

right?

Mr. MORELAND. Yes, sir, two have been convicted.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You don’t think anything is happening there

money-wise?

Mr. MORELAND. No. Those two have been convicted. They’re both

in jail at this time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. This amparo, is that how you pronounce it?

Ms. WARREN. Amparo.

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. Process. A person can just go to any

court anywhere?

Ms. WARREN. It appears to be, the amparos were not filed in the

extradition court but in two other district courts. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So that can be raised at any time.

Ms. WARREN. I would like to think there are some limitations on

how many times they can raise them. They certainly have not been

able to raise the same issue twice, but they’re not required, as our

defendants are, to accumulate in one application all their claims.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, one of you ladies mentioned that we have

had cases where, out of Mexico—and I think it was based upon

these—where drugs were involved, where folks were extradited. Is

that right?

Ms. WARREN. We have had many extraditions from Mexico.

There were 12 last year. Many on narcotics charges. We have not

had a Mexican national drug kingpin ever extradited, but we have

had other narcotics traffickers extradited including a Mexican national return to serve his drug sentence here in the United States

from which he had escaped, for example.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you get the impression—and I’m just trying

to put this puzzle together—do you get the impression that when

you look at this crime, this is a horrendous crime.

Ms. WARREN. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I’m just wondering do you get the impression that the Mexican authorities say when you compare this to a

drug case—what we do is we have been able to get people extradited. Here we have a horrendous crime, a murder, which is far

more serious. And I’m just wondering do you get the impression

that the Mexican Government looks at this from the stand point,

well, this is something where we know that this person may get

57

a life sentence, is far more serious, so we want to do more to be

protective of them? I’m just curious.

Ms. WARREN. I can tell you that within the past few years there

have been seven extraditions from Mexico on murder-homicide

charges to the United States. That includes a Mexican national for

killing a border patrol agent, for example. So they do extradite on

homicide and where they’re facing certainly up to life in prison.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is there something that was done in that case

that is much different than this case, the one you just mentioned?

In other words, do we have all of these filings?

Ms. WARREN. In those other cases, not as many amparos were

filed. Sometimes—they sometimes took up to 2 years to resolve.

But we didn’t have the same array of filings, as far as I recall.

There have been some terrible offenders. They’re charged with

terrible crimes anyway in the United States, sexual abuse and

murder of minors, and we have sought their extradition and they

have been extradited.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I recognize now the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr.

Moreland, first, for whatever it’s worth, on the waiver of the death

penalty, I think you did absolutely the right thing. I know that

wasn’t an easy decision to make at all. Our families had an experience with violent crimes ourselves. I’m a strong advocate of the

death penalty. As tough as that decision was, I just want you to

know I think you did the right thing.

Second—and I’ll direct this to Ms. Borek and Ms. Warren—isn’t

this problem growing, the problem of people seeking safe havens in

other countries? Seems to me, as they flee the country, as their

crimes become more sophisticated as drug traffickers, money

launderers, exploit loopholes—it seems to me this problem is not

going away.

In fact, it’s only going to get worse, which leads to the next question. Half of our extradition treaties are pre-World War II. The last

round of updated treaties that was brought to the Senate, the majority of those treaties were a quarter of a century old.

We seem to have a patchwork of mutual legal agreements in

country prosecutions, provisional arrests, and just a whole patchwork of issues that we’re trying to—the patchwork of solutions. But

we have serious issues on the death penalty, now on life in prison,

which scares me because the question is, where do we draw the

line on whether the countries tell us our justice system can bring

about?

Haven’t you made a very strong argument for renegotiating our

treaties with Mexico as well as with other countries? And finally,

why hasn’t the State Department and Justice Department communicated with Mr. Bellush? I mean, at the local level prosecutors like

Mr. Moreland and others understand that it is not only, in some

cases, the rights of victims to know the status of those cases but

just basic human decency tells you that is something you must do.

When the responsibility shifts from the local prosecutor to the

Federal level to bring justice about, it seems to me it’s our responsibility at the Federal level, State and Justice, to communicate on

58

a regular basis. To set up a system whether it’s a toll-free line or

liaison or victims’ rights advocates. We’re doing it at the local level

all the time because we know that is the right thing to do.

I don’t understand why we don’t have that in place. Maybe we

do and I’m wrong. But if we don’t, it’s way past time to do that.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll let them answer all those questions.

Ms. BOREK. All right. Well, I’ll start. And I think then Ms. Warren will have to fill in. Although Justice is in a better position to

give a professional opinion, I think it’s true there are more problems. There is more crime; it is more sophisticated. Therefore, you

have—in a certain sense you have more quantity of difficulty.

I think also in the area of the death penalty, that is potentially

a growing problem because of the attitudes about the death penalty. For example, as you know, Amnesty International, I believe,

has a big campaign against the death penalty. This is a particular

kind of problem.

On the extradition of nationals, on the other hand, we like to believe that this is a problem which we are managing to begin to resolve, because countries must see that this is not a viable approach

given the modern realities of transnational crime.

We have a very aggressive program of renegotiating treaties. We

had a hearing last fall where I think we had some 30 mutual legal

assistance treaties and extradition treaties. The mutual legal assistance treaty program is completely new. And there we don’t even

have old treaties to go by. We have to start from scratch. The problem in the area of death penalty and nationality is not the renegotiation of treaties. It’s that the other countries have to agree to it.

And sometimes they don’t.

And so we have even recent treaties, for example with France,

that do not provide for the extradition of nationals and that do not

have clear provisions on death penalty cases.

I do hope that we can draw the line at death penalties; we have

been very, I think, staunch in our reaction to life imprisonment

issues, which are not provided for generally in treaties, and we

don’t want to start providing for them.

As far as contact, I think I have to defer really to the Justice Department. We play a very secondary role in connection with the actual management of individual U.S. requests. They grow out of

prosecutorial activity. We become involved in the areas of the State

Department expertise.

I have to say, we have eight lawyers and three paralegals who

handle not only 3,000 extradition requests outgoing and incoming,

but all of our multilateral treaty negotiations on crime and terrorism, all of the work on terrorism, all of the bilateral agreements,

a growing number of multilateral initiatives in the G–8 and EU,

for example, in addition to providing all the domestic legal support

for the international crime and drug activities of the State Department, plus certainly a lot of the intelligence activity.

Mr. BRADY. If I may interrupt. That case load isn’t an excuse. We

have counties with more than 3,000 cases, active, that they are

dealing with, and they know that it is critical that they communicate with the victims in those crimes, especially the violent

crimes. And they have set up the systems to do that, not flawlessly

59

certainly, but it is now recognized as a basic right and service of

prosecution. And for whatever it is worth, if you need the resources, ask for the resources. There are a number of us who I

think would go to bat for you on that.

Ms. BOREK. As I say, I don’t think we’re the best people to do

that because the real detailed understanding and expertise on the

case-management side is at the Justice Department. But I do think

that it is a question that’s been raised about how much contact

there really is at the Federal level as opposed to the State and local

levels. I note there’s been a tremendous amount of contact with the

State and local prosecutors in the course of these activities. Thank

you.

Ms. WARREN. Maybe just quickly, to agree that I think crime is

growing, certainly transnational crime, so that we have—now we’re

seeking the extradition of so many defendants who have, in fact,

never physically come into our country but caused crimes here,

through narcotics trafficking and other ways.

But I think that I agree with Ms. Borek that there is a growing

realization in the international community that international crime

threatens everyone and that this is a matter of trust between nations. There is a change, a real trend toward extraditing nationals

that before it was unspeakable. For instance, in the western hemisphere in Latin America, now Bolivia, Argentina, and Mexico have

extradited nationals and we have four requests before Colombia at

the moment.

So crime is getting worse, but I think there’s a better understanding about the transnationality of that crime.

In terms of communicating with victims, as I said before, we

tried to meet what clearly are our obligations by keeping the local

prosecutor informed. Perhaps we need to work a lot harder on that

in speaking with the local prosecutor about ensuring that, who

takes the responsibility in notifying and keeping up to date the victim’s family, something clearly we can work on and discuss how

best to handle it. It is helpful to have it brought to our attention

in such a powerful way.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Souder, did you have any questions?

Mr. SOUDER. No, other than as Mr. Miller has brought this case

to my attention as we’ve brought forth, it’s hard to understand how

we got in this situation. Other than continuing to express our outrage, which we ought to do regularly whenever we have a chance,

to the Mexican Government. And if we weren’t such a decent country, why, we ought to snap somebody up and force an exchange.

Because it’s outrageous. There is no reason that there should be

an extradition process. We have enough trouble getting drug traffickers who are responsible for deaths in this country who are citizens of Mexico back. Why in the world an American of—I mean,

I don’t understand the process. I have read your testimony. I’m

sure like others I’m outraged.

This is a matter of keeping the pressure on and working with

Mr. Miller to do everything we can and the chairman of this subcommittee and the other committees. So I thank you for holding

the hearing, for continuing to go forth. Because while this looks

like a case that directly relates to a tragic murder in Florida, this

60

could affect any of us in any of our States, and we need to look at

the international policy between the United States and Mexico and

elsewhere. And you may at least be helping save other people from

similar pressures because of your persistence. Thank you very

much.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. I have just a couple of closing

questions. First of all, Ms. Borek, are there written communications between the Secretary of State and her counterpart relating

to the Del Toro case?

[The information referred to follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

Ms. BOREK. I don’t believe so, sir.

Mr. MICA. Can you check the files? And if there are, I’d like to

request—and I’ll ask staff to make a formal request to the Department of State for any written communications.

Now, there was a high-level working group just a couple of weeks

ago. I know the Attorney General was there. Is that correct? I

think the Secretary of State was scheduled to go, but she got waylaid to go into the Balkans region and the conflict there. Who represented the Department of State at those high-level groups, Ms.

Borek?

Ms. BOREK. We had the Acting Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs and also the Assistant Secretary for International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement.

Mr. MICA. And was this case in particular——

Ms. BOREK. An Ambassador.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Raised by those representatives?

Ms. BOREK. Sir, I believe Ms. Warren was actually present at all

of the meetings.

Mr. MICA. I’m not asking about Ms. Warren. She’s already testified. I’m asking about the Department of State, which is responsible to deal with these other countries. Was that raised by either

of these individuals, this case?

Ms. BOREK. Not as a case. They raised the extradition——

Mr. MICA. Have either of those individuals transmitted any communications with any officials in the Mexican Government relating

to this case? Can you also check that.

Ms. BOREK. I’ll check that.

Mr. MICA. And provide the subcommittee with a copy.

Do you know if the Secretary of State plans to raise this as an

issue now, this particular case?

Ms. BOREK. There is not a present plan to raise it. If there is

usefulness in doing so, I’m sure we would.

Mr. MICA. We have had the Department of Justice testify today

that this is going to be the subject of immediate and intensive consultation. As the Department of State, this whole issue of extradition and the problems we’re having with deportation, who’s going

to participate in that or who is participating? Is that going to be

the Secretary of State or some of the individuals you just mentioned?

Ms. BOREK. The plan is not final, but as I understand it would

be high-level individuals, at the level that we’ve been discussing,

short of the Secretary of State, and then if there were remaining

issues, they would be raised to higher levels.

Mr. MICA. I would like staff to prepare a letter from the committee asking that this be raised, and we’ll get the members to sign

that both by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State’s representatives, and to the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and their representatives.

Now, you’ve been here before, Ms. Moreland on this issue; and

you’re back again, and I understand that you’ve testified that this

is going to be the subject of immediate and intensive consultation.

I will tell them, the minority and the other members of the panel,

and we’ll notify them that we will have another hearing on this

issue. I don’t know if we’ll be able to do that the first week in AuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:16 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63595.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
67

gust or when we return in September, but if necessary, we will request the presence or subpoena both the attorney general and the

Secretary of State to testify on the progress of this.

We believe this is a very, very important issue. I don’t know how

we’re going to get attention from those—and our job is only as representatives of the people to try to make the executive branch respond to our request and what our citizens are requesting. Certainly, the Bellush family deserves justice in this case, not to mention the dozens and dozens of drug kingpins who still are at bay.

Ms. Moreland, do we have any hope on the extradition of any—

I’m sorry, Ms. Moreland. Ms. Warren. I’m sorry. I’ll get it straight.

If I’m going to pick on you, I need to at least get your name right.

I should know you very well after having you back again. Ms. Warren, is there any hope on any of the fronts in any of the cases involving Mexican nationals for extradition?

Ms. WARREN. There are many of those cases moving through

their courts.

Mr. MICA. Can you tell me one? Is there one? Can we ever see

one Mexican national extradited to the United States?

Ms. WARREN. Well, we have had Mexican nationals

extradited——

Mr. MICA. I’m talking about major drug kingpins. I have a photographic gallery, and we can provide you with the names. Last night

I submitted the names in the Congressional Record and will supply

you with that. Is there any hope of getting any of those specific——

Ms. WARREN. Looking at your array here of photographs, as I understand it, through their deputy attorney general in Mexico, the

courts have recently decided in favor of the extradition of Arturo

Paez-Martinez. That is the case that may very well be the conflict

of law case that will go to their supreme court, along with the adverse decisions that we’ve had. But that case is moving more swiftly now.

Mr. MICA. That may be our only hope.

Ms. Borek, one question I forgot to ask and request, the President of the United States met with the President of Mexico in the

Yucatan peninsula earlier this year. Do you know if the President

of the United States brought, in particular, the Del Toro case to the

attention of President Zedillo then or since? And I would imagine

that the Department of State would have copies of any of his communications. If so, could you provide the subcommittee with a copy

of any of the above?

Ms. BOREK. Sir, I did check because you asked before and I’m informed that the President didn’t raise this case in Merida. As for

subsequent communications, I would have to consult with the NSC.

Mr. MICA. Would you also do that. And could we also have the

staff prepare a letter to the President requesting his attention to

this case.

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, if I may note that both the head of

the Department of Justice, the Attorney General and the Secretary

of State, Madeleine Albright, were also present at that trip in

Merida. And may we ask if either of those raised this issue directly

with the key people?

Mr. MICA. If they raised it is one question, and then any written

communications I would like to have as part of the record. If you

68

would comply with that request, we would be most appreciative. I

will leave the record open for 30 days without objection to provide

that information. The gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just

wanted to have a few comments before we close. I think that one

of the things that has frustrated me in being in Congress is a lot

of times we have motion, commotion, and emotion, and no results.

And that doesn’t serve anybody very well.

I’m glad to hear you say what you just said, Mr. Chairman. I

mean, when you were the ranking member of the civil service—

chairman. I’m sorry, chairman. Next year I will be able to call you

ranking member but——

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to continue to dream on.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But when you were the chairman, one of the

things that I think we shared—and I was the ranking member of

that subcommittee—is that we tried to make sure that we acted so

that things got done, so that we didn’t come back a month, 2, 3

months later or a year later and have the same discussions over

and over again. And so I was very pleased to hear you say what

you just said. And I would only echo what you have said. Some

kind of way we have to try within our power to address these

issues and make them No. 1 issues.

When you hear the kind of testimony that we heard today and

you see those pictures, those pictures—and this will forever be

imbedded in the DNA of every cell in my brain. When you have

that kind of testimony, if you can’t do it under these circumstances,

I don’t know how we’re going to do it.

I’m constantly reminded that this is the most powerful country

in the world and that if we can accomplish all the things that we

are able to accomplish, certainly we ought to be able to pull this

one off. And so I just wanted to say that. I want to thank you, Mr.

Bellush, for being with us. I wish you and your family well. And

you will all be in my prayers. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. I had one more question, really, to ask Mr. Earl Moreland. And you don’t have to submit your

answer now. But I would like to have you submit, if you can—you

have dealt with this situation and with the whole extradition process. I asked Ms. Warren and I ask you, if you could provide the

subcommittee with any recommendations for changes in laws or

procedures at the Federal level that we may be able to institute.

Some we may not be able to make changes in. We’re dealing in an

international arena here. But any recommendations you might

have and could think about and submit to the subcommittee, we

would like to make as part of the record. If you would be so kind

to provide that based on your experience.

Mr. MORELAND. Yes, sir I will. Thank you for that opportunity.

Mr. MICA. Well, the purpose of this hearing, again, was to find

out if Mexico is a safe haven for murderers and drug traffickers.

Unfortunately that question has to be answered today in the affirmative. I didn’t hold this hearing just to pick on Mexico, but to

try to hopefully bring justice at the request of one of my members

who I respect very deeply, Mr. Miller, the gentleman from Florida,

and for his constituent, Mr. Bellush, who has given, again, some

69

of the most compelling and riveting testimony I think that’s ever

been presented before a congressional panel, one man and one family seeking justice for their loved one.

Hopefully we can bring this to national, international attention;

and as Mr. Cummings said, whatever it takes, working together,

to see that justice is served. Again, we are most grateful to you,

sir, for testifying, for having the courage to come forward and,

again, seek justice for your wife and for your family.

And there being now, I’ll—excuse me. We do have the unanimous

request consent, the unanimous consent request by Mr. Souder

that statement by Mrs. Mink and other Members be submitted to

the record. We have another statement by Mr. Kucinich to be considered by unanimous consent. And any others? There being no objection, so ordered. There being no further business to come before

this subcommittee of Congress, this meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

Æ