U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–118 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

TREATY DOC. 

2005

109–3 

PROTOCOL AMENDING EXTRADITION CONVENTION 

WITH ISRAEL 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

PROTOCOL BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL AMENDING 

THE CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION, SIGNED AT JERUSALEM 

ON JULY 6, 2005 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2005.—The Protocol was read the first time, and together 

with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations and order to be printed for the use of the Senate 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 13, 2005. 

To the Senate of the United States: 

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to 

ratification, I transmit herewith the Protocol between the Government of the United States and the Government of the State of 

Israel, signed at Jerusalem on July 6, 2005. 

In addition, I transmit for the information of the Senate the report of the Department of State with respect to the Protocol. As the 

report explains, the Protocol will not require implementing legislation. 

The Protocol amends the Convention Relating to Extradition (the 

‘‘1962 Convention’’), signed at Washington on December 10, 1962. 

The Protocol updates the 1962 Convention in a manner consistent 

with our modern extradition treaties. The Protocol will, upon entry 

into force, enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of both nations and make a significant contribution to 

international law enforcement efforts. 

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

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 15, 2005. 

The PRESIDENT, The White House. 

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Protocol 

between the Government of the United States and the Government 

of the State of Israel Amending the Convention on Extradition 

(‘‘Protocol’’), signed at Jerusalem on July 6, 2005. Upon its entry 

into force, the Protocol would amend the Convention Relating to 

Extradition signed at Washington on December 10, 1962 (‘‘1962 

Convention’’). I recommend that the Protocol be transmitted to the 

Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. 

The Protocol updates the existing Convention in a manner consistent with our modern extradition treaties. The Protocol will enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of 

both nations and make a significant contribution to international 

law enforcement efforts. 

The Protocol is designed to be self-executing and will not require 

implementing legislation. 

Article 1 of the Protocol amends the 1962 Convention, by deleting 

the pre-existing Article II and replacing it with New Article II. 

New Article II(1) replaces the current list of extraditable offenses 

in Article II of the 1962 Convention with a modern dual criminality 

provision that requires that the offense for which a fugitive is requested be punishable under laws of both states for a period of one 

year or by a more severe penalty. 

New Article II(2) defines an extraditable offense to include also 

any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense, participation in an 

offense, aiding and abetting, counseling, causing or procuring the 

commission of an offense, or being an accessory before or after the 

fact, provided that such attempt, conspiracy, participation, aiding 

and abetting, counseling, causing or procuring, or being an accessory is punishable under the laws of both Parties by deprivation of 

liberty for a period of one year or by a more severe penalty. 

Additional flexibility is provided by New Article II(3), which provides that an offense shall be considered an extraditable offense: 

(1) whether or not the laws of the parties place the offense within 

the same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same 

terminology; (2) whether or not the offense is one for which United 

States federal law requires the showing of such matters as interstate transportation or use of the mails or of other facilities affecting interstate or foreign commerce, such matters being merely for 

the purpose of establishing jurisdiction in a United States federal 

court. 

VI

New Article II(4) provides that if extradition has been granted 

for an extraditable offense, it shall also be granted for any other 

offense specified in the request, even if the other offenses are punishable by less than one year’s deprivation of liberty, provided that 

all other requirements for extradition have been met. 

Article 2 of the Protocol amends the 1962 Convention, by replacing the pre-existing Article IV with New Article IV. New Article 

IV(1), provides that, except as provided in the New Article IV, extradition shall not be refused on the ground that the person sought 

is a national of the Requested Party. 

New Article IV(2) states that if domestic law so requires, a Party 

may condition the extradition of a national and resident upon an 

assurance that, if the person sought is sentenced to a term of imprisonment after extradition, the person shall be returned to the 

Requested Party to serve the sentence imposed in the Requesting 

Party. This would allow an Israeli citizen to be extradited to the 

United States with assurances that the fugitive may return to 

Israel to serve any sentence imposed in the United States. 

New Article IV(3) sets out the procedures with respect to assurances made pursuant to New Article IV(2). New Article IV(3)(a) 

states that an assurance shall cease to have effect if the person 

agrees to serve any sentence imposed in the Requesting Party or 

refuses to consent or withdraws a prior consent to serve the sentence in the Requested Party. 

New Article IV(3)(b) requires that the Requesting Party shall 

promptly inform the Requested Party of the results of the trial or 

sentencing and of appeal or other judicial review of the judgment, 

if any. 

New Article IV(3)(c) states that when a prison sentence imposed 

following an Article IV(2) extradition has become final, the Parties 

shall thereafter make best efforts to transfer the person as expeditiously as possible. New Article IV(3)(d) states that if a person extradited under an Article IV(2) assurance is given a prison sentence and is also ordered to pay a fine or restitution, the Requested 

Party shall take steps to collect the fine or restitution to the extent 

possible. 

New Article IV(3)(e) provides that the return of a person following an Article IV(2) assurance, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with Article IV, shall be in accord with other treaties and 

agreement regarding the transfer of sentenced persons in force between the Parties, unless the Parties agree otherwise. Notably, 

both the United States and Israel are parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. 

New Article IV(4) and (5) provide for imposition of the Requesting Party’s sentence even if that sentence exceeds the maximum 

penalty for such offense in the Requested Party. Paragraph (4) covers situations where the fugitive is extradited, tried and sentenced, 

and returned to serve that sentence pursuant to an assurance 

under paragraph (2). Paragraph (5) covers situations where the fugitive has fled after having been sentenced and is not extradited 

because he or she is a national of the Requested State and the Requested State will not extradite its nationals in such circumstances. 

VII

New Article IV(6) provides that if extradition of a national and 

resident is refused because an assurance as set forth in New Article IV(2) has not been provided, the Requested Party shall, at the 

request of the Requesting Party, submit the case to its authorities 

for a decision as to prosecution. 

Article 3 of the Protocol replaces pre-existing Article VI with 

New Articles VI and VI bis. As is customary in extradition treaties, 

New Article VI incorporates a political offense exception to the obligation to extradite. New Article VI(1) states generally that extradition shall not be granted for political offenses. 

New Article VI(2) specifies six categories of offenses that shall 

not be considered to be political offenses: (a) a murder or other violent crime against the Head of State of a Contracting Party, or of 

a member of the Head of State’s family; (b) an offense for which 

both Parties are obliged pursuant to a multilateral international 

agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to 

their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution; (c) murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, or inflicting grievous bodily harm; (d) an offense involving kidnapping, abduction, or any 

form of unlawful detention, including the taking of a hostage; (e) 

an offense involving the making, use or possession of a bomb, grenade, rocket or any other explosive, incendiary or destructive device with the intention to endanger life or cause serious damage to 

property; and (f) a conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses, or aiding and abetting, counseling or participating as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such offenses. 

New Article VI(3) provides that the executive authority of the Requested Party may refuse extradition for offenses under military 

law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law (e.g. desertion). 

New Article VI(4) provides that extradition shall not be granted 

if the executive authority of the Requested Party (for the United 

States, the Secretary of State) determines that the request was primarily politically motivated or made for the primary purpose of 

prosecuting or punishing someone on account of his race or religion. 

New Article VI bis (1) bars extradition when the person sought 

has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested Party or another 

country for the same offense. New Article VI bis (2) provides that 

extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that competent authorities in the Requested Party have declined to prosecute or have 

decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against the person 

sought. 

Article 4 of the Protocol replaces pre-existing Article VIII with 

New Articles VIII and VIII bis. New Article VIII concerns temporary and deferred surrender. New Article VIII(1) states that if a 

person whose extradition is sought is being investigated or prosecuted in the Requested Party, that State may postpone extradition 

proceedings until its prosecution has been concluded. According to 

New Article VIII(2), if extradition is granted in the case of a person 

who is being proceeded against or is serving a sentence in the Requested Party, that State may still postpone surrender until the 

VIII

person has served any sentence imposed or may temporarily surrender the person sought. 

New Article VIII bis introduces a more flexible statute of limitations provision. The 1962 Convention provides that if an offense is 

time-barred in the Requested Party, extradition shall not be granted. New Article VIII bis would limit this exception to only those situations where the Requested Party’s laws required the denial of extradition. 

Article 5 deletes Article IX of the 1962 Convention. The pre-existing Article IX provided that extradition determinations shall be 

made in accordance with the domestic law of the Requested Party 

and that the person whose extradition is sought shall have the 

right to use such remedies and recourses as are provided by such 

law. This provision has been removed as unnecessary and confusing. 

Article 6 of the Protocol replaces pre-existing Article X with New 

Articles X, X bis and X ter. New Article X establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a 

request for extradition. It requires that all requests be submitted 

through the diplomatic channel. New Article X bis establishes the 

procedures under which documents submitted pursuant to the Protocol shall be received and admitted into evidence. It streamlines 

the authentication provisions by eliminating the need for diplomatic or consular authentication of Israeli requests. Instead, Israeli 

requests would be authenticated by the official seal of the Israeli 

Ministry of Justice. 

New Article X ter stipulates that the request for extradition and 

all other documents submitted by the Requesting Party shall be 

translated into the language of the Requested Party, unless otherwise agreed. 

Article 7 of the Protocol replaces Article XI of the Convention. 

New Article XI sets forth procedures for the provisional arrest and 

detention, in case of urgency, of a person sought pending presentation of the formal request for extradition. New Article XI(1) provides that a request for provisional arrest may be transmitted 

through the diplomatic channel or directly between the United 

States Department of Justice and the Israeli Ministry of Justice. 

New Article XI(2) lists the components required for a proper provisional arrest request. 

New Article XI(3) requires that the Requesting Party shall be notified without delay of the disposition of its request for provisional 

arrest and the reasons for any inability to proceed with the request. 

New Article XI(4) provides that if the Requested Party’s executive authority has not received the request for extradition and supporting documentation required in Article X bis within 60 days 

after the provisional arrest, the person may be discharged from 

custody. New Article XI(5) states that discharge from custody pursuant to New Article XI(4) does not prejudice subsequent rearrest 

and extradition upon later delivery of the extradition request and 

supporting documents. 

Article 8 of the Protocol replaces Article XIII of the Convention. 

New Article XIII(1) sets forth the rule of speciality. It provides, 

subject to specific exceptions, that a person extradited under the 

IX

Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting 

Party for an offense other than that for which extradition has been 

granted. This prohibition applies, unless (a) the offense is based on 

the same facts as the offense for which extradition was granted; (b) 

the offense was committed after the extradition of the person; or 

(c) the offense is one for which the executive authority of the Requested Party consents to the person’s detention. 

New Article XIII(2) prohibits the Requesting Party from extraditing such person to a third State or surrendering such person to 

an international tribunal for an offense committed prior to the 

original surrender unless the Requested Party consents. 

New Article XIII(3) states that if a person leaves the territory of 

the Requesting Party after extradition and voluntarily returns to 

it or that person does not leave the territory of the Requesting 

Party within 30 days of when he is free to leave, then he may be 

detained, tried, punished, extradited to a third State or surrendered to an international tribunal. 

Article 9 replaces pre-existing Article XVII on the waiver of consent to extradition proceedings. New Article XVII specifies that if 

a fugitive consents to be surrendered, he will be extradited without 

further proceedings. 

Article 10 replaces pre-existing Article XVIII with New Articles 

XVIII, XVIII bis and XVIII ter. New Article XVIII provides that either Party may authorize transportation through its territory of a 

person surrendered to the other Party by a third State or from the 

other Party to a third State. Authorization is not required when air 

transportation is used by one Party and no landing is scheduled in 

the territory of the other Party. In the event of an unscheduled 

landing, New Article VIII(2) provides for a procedure by which the 

Party in which the landing occurs may require a request for transit. New Article VIII(3) provides that the Party requesting transit 

shall reimburse the Party through whose territory such person is 

transported for any expense incurred by the latter in connection 

with such transportation, unless otherwise agreed. 

New Article XVIII bis specifies that the Requested Party represents the Requesting Party in extradition proceedings and providing for the costs of such representation. 

New Article XVIII ter provides that the U.S. Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice of Israel may consult with each 

other in connection with the processing of individual cases and in 

furtherance of efficient implementation of the Convention. 

Article 11 of the Protocol provides that the Protocol applies to offenses committed before as well as after the date it enters into 

force. 

Article 12 of the Protocol provides that the Protocol, which is 

subject to ratification, shall enter into force on the date of the latter of the diplomatic notes by which the Parties notify each other 

that their internal legal requirements for the entering into force of 

the Protocol have been satisfied. 

The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate at the earliest possible 

date. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

CONDOLEEZZA RICE. 

(1) 


Insert graphic folio 215 here TD3.001
2 


Insert graphic folio 216 here TD3.002
3 


Insert graphic folio 217 here TD3.003
4 


Insert graphic folio 218 here TD3.004
5 


Insert graphic folio 219 here TD3.005
6 


Insert graphic folio 220 here TD3.006
7 


Insert graphic folio 221 here TD3.007
8 


Insert graphic folio 222 here TD3.008
9 


Insert graphic folio 223 here TD3.009
10 


Insert graphic folio 224 here TD3.010
11 


Insert graphic folio 225 here TD3.011
12 


Insert graphic folio 226/250 here TD3.012