, /42,-34/

.Ar 5/3 KANCAR STATV IIN!1/Pc`cbori mOltpis.

SI/ OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO

903 STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO REVIEW FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 1966, THROUGH

NOVEMBER 30, 1967, THE OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII OF

THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE NORTH

ATLANTIC TREATY, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE

WORLD

OCTOBER 1, 1968 ,

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

20-677 WASHINGTON: 1968
0

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

DANIEL K. INOUYE. Hawaii

THOMAS J. McINTYRE, New Hampshire

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

HARRY F. BYRD, JR., Virginia

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

JACK MILLER, Iowa

JOHN G. TOWER, Texas

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado

WILLIAM H. DARDEN, Chief of Staff

CHARLES B. EIRBOW, Chief Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REVIEW OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII OF THE NATO STATUS OF

FORCES

SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina, Chairman

THOMAS J. McINTYRE, New Hampshire STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

T. EDWARD BRASWELL, Professional Staff
CONTENTS

Statements of—

Benjamin Forman, Assistant General Counsel, International Affairs,

Department of Defense 

Brig. Gen. Harold E. Parker, Assistant Judge Advocate General for

Military Law, U.S. Army 

Page

1

5

OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES

TREATY

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee, composed of Senators Ervin (chairman), McIntyre, and Thurmond, appointed to maintain familiarity with the

operation of article VII of the NATO Status of Forces Treaty to the

extent that it relates to criminal jurisdiction not waived by host countries in which U.S. forces are stationed, met, pursuant to notice, at

9:35 a.m., in room 212, Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Ervin (presiding) and McIntyre.

Also present: T. Edward Braswell, Jr., professional staff member

of the committee staff.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee meets today to receive from the

Department of Defense the annual report on article VII of the NATO

Status of Forces Treaty and other criminal• jurisdictional arrangements throughout the world regarding our troops stationed overseas.

This report will cover the year ending November 30, 1967.

As in the past, the subcommittee will first hear from the Department

of Defense officials in open 

session, 

to be followed by a closed session

for any executive matters they wish to discuss.

We will first hear from Mr. Benjamin Forman, Assistant General

Counsel for International Affairs for the Department of Defense to

be followed by Brig. Gen. Harold E. Parker, Assistant Judge Advocate General for Military Law, U.S. Army.

Mr. Forman, we will be delighted to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN FORMAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL 'COUNSEL FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;

ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. HAROLD E. PARKER, ASSISTANT

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR MILITARY LAW, AND COL.

EDWARD W. HAUGHNEY, CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, OFFICE, JUDGE ADVOCATE 'GENERAL -

Mr. FORMAN. Mr. Chairman, this presentation, the 15th of an annual

series, reviews the operation of our criminal jurisdiction arrangements in NATO countries and throughout the world for the period

December 1, 1966, through November 30, 1967. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you for this purpose.

(1)
2

The operation of our criminal jurisdiction arrangements continues

to be generally satisfactory, and our commanders in the field advise that the accomplishment of their missions during the reporting period have not been adversely affected.

With the exception of the same two countries referred to last year, the commanders also report that morale has not been adversely af- fected. In one of these two countries, the Air Force commander again expressed the opinion that the susceptibility of our personnel to nui-

, sance suits and delays in processing charges have an adverse impact

on morale. The Navy commander in that country, however, again stated in his annual report that the local jurisdictional arrangements have no adverse effect on morale.

Similarly, in the second country, the Army commander reported this year also that while the local jurisdictional arrangements have had no effect on discipline or the accomplishment of his mission, the continued refusal of the local authorities to grant waivers and the subjection of U.S. personnel to unfamiliar and lengthy trial pro- cedures for minor vehicle accidents, personal insult, and other offenses unique to that country have undoubtedly adversely affected morale.

The Navy and Air Force commanders in this second country, however, reported that the local jurisdictional arrangements had no sig- nificant impact on disciple in and the accomplishment of their mission.

The rate at which foreign authorities granted waivers of their primary right to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel re- mained high. The waiver rate worldwide for the reporting period was

84.4 percent as compared to 82.7 percent for the prior reporting period. The waiver rate of the NATO countries was 93.4 percent as compared

to 90.9 percent for the preceding period.

Status of forces arrangement negotiations with the Kingdom of Thailand, and with the Commonwealth of Australia for a reciprocal

SOFA, which were initiated two reporting periods earlier, continued during the reporting period and are still in progress as of the dtte of this hearing.

During our last appearance before this committee, the committee

was informed of our decision to exercise court-martial jurisdiction

over civilians in Vietnam pursuant to article 2(10) of the Uniform

Code of Military Justice. The relevant statement of policy, military regulations, and legal memorandums were put into the record at that time.

The issue of the constitutionality of article 2(10) has since been litigated by Mr. James H. Latney. Mr. Latney, a merchant seaman

on the SS Amtank which delivered military petroleum products to the U.S. Armed Forces at Da Nang, was charged with the premeditated murder of a fellow crewmember in a bar in Da Nang. In an effort

to prevent his trial by court-martial in Vietnam, Mr. Latney peti- tioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus.

That court denied the writ on January 16, 1968, holding that article 2(10) is constitutional, that a "time of war" existed in Vietnam and its offshore waters, and that Mr. Latney was a person serving with or accompanying the forces within the meaning of article 2(10). He was then tried by court-martial and sentenced to 15 years' confinement.
3

Mr. Latney appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which heard argument on_

June 14,1968. The appeal is still under advisement.

Another lawsuit of interest to this committee was brought in May

1968 by Sp4 H. K. Smallwood, Jr., who had been indicated in April

1968 by the Korean authorities for the alleged murder of a female

Korean national and for arson. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and

also sought an order enjoining the Secretary of Defense, and all subordinate commanders, from releasing him to the Korean authorities

for trial.

In essence, Specialist Smallwood contended that the United StatesRepublic of Korea status of forces agreement is unconstitutional and

that a trial by the Korean authorities would deny him due process of

law. On June 25, the district court denied the petition, and Specialist

Smallwood appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia.

The court of appeals heard arguments on July 3, and the appeal is

now under advisement.

On July 2, 1968, Specialist Smallwood was convicted of murder and

arson by the Korean authorities and sentenced to 15 years' confinement. He has filed an appeal and remains in U.S. custody pending

disposition of that appeal.

Brig. Gen. Harold E. Parker will now present a more detailed

account for the reporting period. _

Senator ERVIN. I am very much interested in these two cases. I just

wonder exactly what the reason of the district court in the Latney

case was.

Of course we had some decisions—I am sort of rusty in my memory

on them—by Chief Justice Stone during the Second World War, with

respect to the jurisdiction of the military courts and military tribunals set up by occupying authorities right after the World War, which

would tend to sustain the jurisdiction, and then we had the decision

by Justice Black in the case of the wife of the Army officer who was

serving a term at Alderson prison in West Virginia, holding that a

civilian accompanying the Armed Forces was entitled—I believe that

was in Japan—to a trial by jury and indictment of the grand jury as

guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

That is the reason I am sort of interested in this case.

Did they lay great stress on the fact that a state of war existed in

Vietnam?

Mr. FORMAN. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the decision of the

Supreme Court holding that we could not try civilians in time of peace

related to article 2(11) of the Uniform Code, and did not reach the

constitutionality or the applicability of article 2 (10).

Article 2(10) relates to persons serving with or accompanying the

Armed Forces in the field in time of war, so you have three issues.

Is the individual serving with or accompanying, is there a time of

war, and is he in the field.

The district court held that all three elements were satisfied in this

case. The earlier decisions with regard to article 2(11) were not

regarded by the district court to be a precedent.
4

Senator ERVIN. They related to dependents accompanying the Armed

Forces.

General PARKER. That is 2(11).

Mr. FORMAN. Article 2(11) also involved civilian employees as

well as dependents. But as I recall Mr. Justice Black's opinion he

noted that the precedents of early courts martial by our own authorities, going back to the Revolutionary War, were limited to cases in

time of war, an actual occurrence in the field, and that if it were constitutional to try civilians, it could only be done in those circumstances.

So there is the clear implication in his opinion that article 2(10)

is constitutional.

I might add as an aside that Mr. Wiener, who was the attorney

for several of the civilian employees and dependents in those cases,

arguing that 2(11) was unconstitutional, wrote an article for the

American Bar Association Journal after this case arose, contending

that article 2(10) is constitutional.

Senator ERVIN. It is your judgment as a lawyer, I take it, that there

is a valid distinction between the situation where the person is actually

assisting the Armed Forces in time of war, and where a person is

merely accompanying the Armed Forces as a dependent or as a civilian,

where no war is actually in progress.

General PARKER. It goes back historically, 2(10) evolves from the

traditional jurisdiction of the military over camp followers

'

which

was in existence during the Revolutionary War and before the Constitution was framed.

You remember, of course, we used to have sutlers, for example, along

with the Army, civilians that supplied the Army, and they were always

held to be within the jurisdiction of the military, and as Mr. Forman

said, that this is a rather limited jurisdiction, because it requires those

three elements that he named.

Senator ERVIN. And for that reason these decisions, the Laney

decision will not have any reference, or have any application rather,

to offenses committed by civilian employees or dependents that accompany the Armed Forces in Europe at this time?

General PARKER. That is right.

Mr. FORMAN. That is correct.

Senator ERVIN. The Smallwood case presents a right interesting

point in that connection.

Let me say the question of whether we are at war in Korea, despite

these border skirmishes at times and despite the fact the Pueblo was

seized over there, is going to make this a right interesting case, that is

the court decision in the court of appeals.

Thank you.

Do you have questions?

Senator MCINTYRE. Mr Chairman, I would like to ask a question

here.

The men that ship out on these tankers, SSM tanker, I presume that

they are all given some sort of notice that in pursuing this calling and

going to Vietnam, they may very well be under certain conditions subject to military law?

I do not suppose it has any great legal effect in the final 'analysis, but

I just wondered if they are given any sort of a warning.
5

Colonel HAUGHNEY. Yes, sir; the Seamen's Union has been notified

to that effect, and they have informed their membership that when they

go into the war zone, and they receive the additional pay for the war

risks, that they are also subject under certain circumstances to U.S.

military jurisdiction.

Senator MCINTYRE. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. General Parker, we will be delighted to hear from

you at this time.

General PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I have submitted to the committee

a lengthy complete statement, and I would merely like to give an oral

summary of this if I may.

Senator ERVIN. That will be entirely satisfactory to the committee,

and the complete statement will be printed in the record.

STATEMENT BY BRIG. GEN. HAROLD E. PARKER, ASSISTANT JUDGE

ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR MILITARY LAW, U.S. ARMY

General PARKER. I will summarize my report by briefly reviewing the

statistical data contained in the various charts and tables we have submitted today.

Chart A provides you a quick overall picture of the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over U.S. defense personnel and their

dependents during the current reporting period December 1, 1966

through November 30, 1967. The chart contains worldwide figures, and

parallel figures for NATO-SOFA-countries.

Senator MCINTYRE. What is SOFA?

General PARKER. Status of Forces Agreement, NATO.

It shows that during the current period 33,401 U.S. military and

civilian personnel and their dependents were charged with offenses

subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of foreign tribunals;

31,466, or 94 percent, of these offenses were charged against military

personnel; 21,305 of the charges against military personnel were concurrent jurisdiction offenses over which the host country had the

primary right to exercise jurisdiction.

U.S. military authorities obtained a waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 17,988 of these incidents, for a waiver rate of 84.4 percent.

Senator ERVIN. General, if you will pardon the interruption, is that

not about the highest waiver rate we have had in any one year?

General PARKER. I am not sure whether it is the highest. It is up

from last year. Last year it was 82.7, so it went up a little bit more,

84.4.

I think it is primarily due to the continuing excellent work of our

liaison personnel in the field.

The balance of the figures shown in chart A reflect final dispositions by foreign authorities of offenses charged against military and

civilian personnel during the current period. There were 11,066 final

results of trials; 213, or nearly 2 percent of the final results were

acquittals.

The vast majority of U.S. personnel who were convicted, 10,527 of

them, or 95 percent of the total final results of trial, received only a

sentence to fine or reprimand. There were 165 suspended sentences to

confinement and 161 unsuspended sentences to confinement.

20-577--68 2
6

Chart B depicts the number and types of offenses subject to foreign

jurisdiction during the current and immediately previous reporting

periods.

The number of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction decreased by

2 percent from 34,039 to 33,401.

Chart C shows the number and length of unsuspended sentences to

confinement during the current and immediately previous reporting

period. Although unsuspended sentences to confinement increased from

105 to 161, 75 or nearly half of them were less than 1 year in length.

The longest sentence was 10 years, and was imposed by German courts

on three occasions, once for murder and twice for robbery.

Chart D, which is an appendix or enclosure to the full report, provides more detailed information concerning the unsuspended sentences to confinement. Analysis of this chart will disclose that two offenses, rape and robbery, accounted for a substantial portion of the

increase in such sentences, and that most of the increase occurred in

four countries, Japan, Germany, France, and Canada.

Considering the seriousness of most of the offenses for which confinement was imposed, however, there is no indication that the sentences were unduly severe.

Chart E illustrates the number of U.S. personnel confined in foreign

prisons as of November 30 of the past 11 years. One hundred and one

individuals were in confinement as of November 30, 1967, an increase of

20 over the previous year.

I might point out there that this figure tends to have a cumulative

effect.

Military personnel are generally entitled to have counsel fees, bail,

court costs, and other expenses incident to their defense before foreign

courts paid by the U.S. Government.

During the current reporting period, $136,298.27 was expended on

behalf of 477 military personnel prosecuted in foreign courts. The

average expenditure per accused was $285.74.

No. U.S. commander has reported that jurisdictional arrangements

have had a significant impact on the accomplishment of his mission.

The Department of Defense considers present status of forces arrangements to be quite workable and satisfactory.

Senator ERVIN. This expenditure is made for counsel fees in defense

of servicemen tried in foreign courts, is compensation which is given

to the counsel, the practicing lawyeyers in the host countries?

General PARKER. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. And what observation or comment do you have on

the question as to whether or not our servicemen are receiving adequate services from these local counsel?

General PARKER. This is one of the points that is covered in the

trial observer's reports, which we have in all these cases, and we have

excellent reports on the performance of the counsel who have been

hired.

Senator ERVIN. I assume that the great majority of these offenses

are traffic offenses, are they not?

General PARKER. The great majority of the total number of offenses.

Senator ERVIN. I mean of the total number.

General PARKER. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. I do not mean of the ones that counsel represent.

Mr. FORMAN. Seventy-seven percent.
7

Senator ERVIN. Seventy-seven percent?

Mr. FORMAN. Of the offenses which the foreign authorities reserved

for their disposition.

Senator ERVIN. It would seem to me that we have made over the

years a constant increase in the number of waivers of primary jurisdiction by the host countries, which to me is a very encouraging sign

in respect to our relationship between our forces and the host countries. It gives cause for much gratification in that respect.

Do you have any questions, Senator?

Senator MCINTYRE. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Is there a significant problem with Americans participating in black

market activities in Vietnam, and is this problem under the jurisdiction of the South Vietnamese courts?

Senator ERVIN. I do not know whether that is one you prefer to

take up in executive session or not?

Mr. FORMAN. I think we would prefer to take that up in executive

session.

Senator ERVIN. Yes; we will have an executive session.

Senator MCINTYRE. How about drugs? Do you want to take that up

in executive session too?

General PARKER. I would think so yes, sir.

Senator MCINTYRE. No further questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. HAROLD E. PARKER

Mr. Chairman: I will begin my report by giving you a statistical analysis of

the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over United States defense personnel and their dependents during the period 1 December 1966-30

November 1967.

WORLD

Chart A—Exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over United

States personnel, 1 December 1966-30 November 1967

To assist you in keeping track of the flood of figures that follows, we have prepared several charts and tables. Chart A is designed to give you a quick over-all

picture of the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during the reporting

period. The NATO Status of Forces figures shown in the right-hand columns

are also included in the world-wide figures shown to the left. For the time being

I would like to direct your attention to the world-wide figures. These figures do

not include cases from Vietnam, which are treated separately later in this report.

You will note that, during the current reporting period, a total of 33,401 United

States personnel, military and civilian, were charged with offenses subject to the

primary or exclusive jurisdiction of foreign tribunals. 31,466 of these offenses, or

94% of the total, were charged against military personnel. 10,161 of the charges

against military personnel were subject to exclusive foreign jurisdiction because

they involved only violations of foreign law. Nonetheless, foreign authorities released 2,640 or 26% of the exclusive foreign jurisdiction offenses to United States

military authorities for administrative or other appropriate disposition.

The bulk of the military offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction, 21,305 of them,

were concurrent jurisdiction offenses involving alleged violations of both United

States military law and foreign law, over which the foreign country had the

primary right to exercise jurisdiction. I am happy to report that United States

military authorities obtained a waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 17,988

of these incidents, for a waiver rate of 84.4%. This represents an improvement

over last year's waiver rate of 82.7%, and is primarily due to the continuing

excellent work of our liaison personnel in the various foreign countries.

Thus, during the current reporting period foreign authorities reserved for

their disposition a total of 10,838 offenses allegedly committed by military personnel. Nearly 70% of these offenses were relatively minor charges which were

not punishable under United ,States miiltary law, and were therefore subject to

the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign authorities. 77% of the military offenses

reserved for disposition by foreign authorities involved traffic violations.
8

Before continuing with an explanation of the balance of Chart A, I will briefly

summarize the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over our civilian employees and dependents during the reporting period.

A total of 1935 civilian employees and dependents were charged with offenses

subject .to foreign jurisdiction. Since civilians are not subject to trial by courtmartial in peacetime, the United States had no effective jurisdiction over these

offenses. Nonetheless, foreign authorities released 395 of these offenses, or 20%

of the total, to United States military authorities for administrative or other

appropriate disposition. Foreign authorities reserved for their disposition the

remaining 1540 offenses charged against civilian employees and dependents.

Returning now to Chart A, the balance of the figures shown there include both

military and civilian offenders. First, you will see that during the current reporting period there were 11,066 final results of trials (i.e., final acquittals and final

convictions). 213 or nearly 2% of the final results were acquittals. The vast

majority of United States personnel who were convicted-10,527 of them or 95%

of the total final results of trials—received only a sentence to fine or reprimand.

The remaining 3% of the final results of trials were split almost evenly between

suspended sentences to confinement (165), and unsuspended sentences to confinement (161).

Chart B—Types of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction

Chart B depicts the number and types of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction

during the current and immediately previous reporting periods. As used here,

"subject to foreign jurisdiction" means only that foreign authorities had the

right to exercise jurisdiction over the offenses shown. It does not mean that they

actually exercised jurisdiction over all of these offenses.

The total number of such offenses decreased from 34,039 last year to 33,401

for the current period. As to specific offenses, decreases occurred in manslaughter,

aggravated assault, traffic offenses, and other offenses. Rather substantial increases occurred in robbery, simple assault, economic control law violations, and

disorderly conduct.

Chart C—Unsuspended sentences to confinement imposed on United States personnel by foreign courts

Chart C shows the number and lengths of unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current and immediately previous reporting periods. As I mentioned before, there were 161 unsuspended sentences to confinement during the

current reporting period. This represents a substantial increase over the 105 such

sentences reported for the previous period. 75 of the unsuspended sentences to

confinement during the current period, or nearly half of the total, were less than

one year in length. The longest sentence was ten years, and was imposed by

German courts on three occasions, once for murder and twice for robbery. The

longest sentence to confinement adjudged against a civilian was one year, which

was imposed by a German court against a dependent convicted of rape.

Chart D—Country, offense and length of sentence breakdown for United States

personnel receiving unsuspended sentences to confinement

Chart D provides for each country a breakdown by offense and length of sentence for all unsuspended sentences to confinement adjudged by foreign courts

against United States personnel. Analysis of this chart discloses that two offenses—rape and robbery—accounted for a substantial portion of the increase in

unsuspended sentences to confinement. Such sentences for rape increased from

15 for the previous reporting period to 29 for the current period. In the case of

robbery, the increase was from 29 last year to 46 for the current period.

Four countries—Japan, Germany, France, and Canada—accounted for most

of the increase in unsuspended sentences to confinement.

In Japan such sentences increased from 15 for the previous reporting period

to 33 for the current period. Considering the seriousness of most of the offenses

for which confinement was imposed by Japanese courts, however (10 rape, 11

manslaughter, 7 robbery, 2 murder, I aggravated assault), there is no indication

that the sentences were unduly severe.

German courts imposed 57 unsuspended sentences to confinement against

United States personnel during the current period, an increase of 10 over the 47

such sentences adjudged in Germany last year. This increase is attributable to

a rise in robbery offenses in Germany. There were 25 unsuspended sentences to

confinement for robbery in Germany during the current period, as compared to

13 such sentences for robbery last year. Many of the robbery offenses in Germany
9

involved attacks on taxi drivers or other motorists, which is an aggravated form

of robbery under German law.

In France unsuspended sentences to confinement increased from 8 for the

previous reporting period to 17 for the current period. 14 of these 17 sentences,

however, were less than one year in length.

In Canada there were 9 unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current period, whereas there were none last year. 6 of the 9 sentences to confinement were less than one year in length.

Chart E—United States personnel in post-trial confinement in foreign penal

institutions as of 30 November stated year

Chart E illustrates the number of United States personnel confined in foreign

prisons as of 30 November of the past eleven years. The 101 individuals in confinement at the end of the current reporting period represents an increase of 20

over the number confined at the close of the previous period, and is the largest

figure ever reported.

Table II summarizes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals

over United States personnel during the period 1 December 1953-30 November

1967. It shows for each of the years during that period the total cases subject to

foreign jurisdiction, the total cases tried, and the number of unsuspended sentences to confinement.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN NATO-SOFA COUNTRIES

I will now give you a statistical analysis of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over United States defense personnel and their dependents by the thirteen

countries party to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

Returning to Chart A, you will note that during the current reporting period,

a total of 27,248 United States personnel, military and civilian, were charged

with offenses subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of NATO-SOFA

countries. 25,809 of these offenses were charged against military personnel.

16,195 of the charges against military personnel were concurrent jurisdiction

offenses over which the NATO-SOFA country had the primary right to exercise

jurisdiction. United States military authorities obtained a waiver of primary

foreign jurisdiction in 15,129 of these incidents, fora waiver rate of 93.4%. This

is a significant improvement over last year's NATO-SOFA waiver rate of 90.9%.

The balance of the figures shown on Chart A include both military and civilian

offenders. They show that during the current reporting period there were 8,518

final results of trials in NATO-SOFA countries. 165 of these final results were

acquittals, for an acquittal rate of approximately 2%. Most of the United States

personnel who were convicted in NATO-SOFA countries-8,150 of them or 96%

of the total final results of trials—received only a sentence to fine or reprimand.

The remaining 2% of the final results of trials were split about evenly between

suspended sentences to confinement (101), and unsuspended sentences to confinement (102).

Table I summarizes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by NATO-SOFA

countries over United States personnel during the period 1953-1967. It shows

for each year the NATO Status of Forces Agreement has been in effect in each

country the total cases subject to foreign jurisdiction, the total cases tried, and

the number of unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Table III shows statistical highlights for each NATO-SOFA country during

the current reporting period. Comparisons are made with figures from the previous reporting period. This table discloses that Germany accounted for 24,033

or 88% of the 27,248 total offenses subject to the jurisdiction of NATO-SOFA

countries. I will now discuss Germany and some of the other NATO-SOFA countries in more detail.

Germany

Our jurisdictional arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany provide for advance waiver to the United States of all concurrent jurisdiction

offenses over which Germany has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.

This waiver is subject to recall if German authorities, within three weeks after

notification of an offense falling within the waiver, decide that, because of special

circumstances in the case, "major interests of German administration of justice

make imperative the exercise of German jurisdiction."

During the current reporting period, 14,432 of the 24,033 offenses subject to

German jurisdiction were concurrent jurisdiction offenses allegedly committed
10

by United States military personnel over which Germany had the primary right

to exercise jurisdiction. These offenses were subject to the advance waiver to the

United States discussed above. German authorities recalled their waiver of jurisdiction over only 66 of those 14,432 offenses, for a waiver rate of 99.5%. German

authorities also reserved for their disposition 6131 minor offenses allegedly committed by United States military personnel which were punishable only under

German law, and were therefore subject to exclusive German jurisdiction. German

authorities reserved for their disposition 1255 offenses allegedly committed by

civilian employees and dependents.

There were 6611 final results of trials in Germany, consisting of 50 acquittals,

6475 sentences to fine or reprimand, 29 suspended sentences to confinement, and

,57 unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Greece and the Netherlands

In Greece and in The Netherlands the United States operates under supplemental agreements to the NATO ,Status of Forces Agreement whereby each

country has agreed to waive its primary right to exercise jurisdiction upon request, except in eases of particular importance. During the current reporting

period The Netherlands waived its jurisdiction over all 370 offenses allegedly

committed by United States military personnel. The Netherlands has tried only

three United States military personnel in over 2300 cases that have arisen since

NATO-SOFA became effective. During the current period Dutch authorities retained jurisdiction over one civilian.

Greek authorities retained jurisdiction over 21 of 56 offenses allegedly committed by United States personnel. 19 of these 21 offenses involved military personnel. Greek courts adjudged unsuspended sentences to confinement in seven

cases. Six of these sentences were less than one year in length.

Turkey

In NATO-SOFA countries other than Germany, Greece and The Netherlands,

waivers of jurisdiction are governed by a provision under which requests for

waiver are to be given "sympathetic consideration." Operating under this provision, Turkey seldom grants requests for waivers. During the current reporting

period, 129 eases involving military personnel were reserved for disposition by

Turkish authorities. Final dispositions, however, were comparatively lenient.

Charges against 16 military personnel were dropped. Of the 96 completed trials,

35 resulted in acquittal. Among the 61 convictions, there were only two unsuspended sentences to confinement. Both of these sentences were for very brief

terms—one for ten days and the other for thirty days.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN NON-NATO COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED

STATES HAS A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT

Table IV illustrates the experience of the Armed Services in each of the nonNATO countries where the United States has a jurisdictional agreement. Comparisons are made with figures from the previous reporting period. Japan and

Korea accounted for 76% of the total offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the

countries listed in Table IV.

Japan

Our jurisdictional arrangements with Japan continue to operate effectively.

Japanese authorities waived their primary right to exercise jurisdiction over

1398 or 85% of the 1649 offenses allegedly committed by United States military

personnel. Japan retained jurisdiction over only 39 of 348 offenses charged against

United States civilian employees and dependents. There were 309 final results of

trials, consisting of one acquittal, 228 sentences to a fine only, 47 suspended sentences to confinement, and 33 unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Korea

The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Korea entered

into force on 9 February 1967. Between that date and the close of the current reporting period (30 November 1967), United States military personnel were

charged with 1169 offenses subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Republic

of Korea. Korean authorities waived their primary right to exercise jurisdiction
11

over 1159 of these offenses, for a waiver rate of 99%. Moreover, Korea retained

jurisdiction over only one of the 38 offenses charged against United States civilian

employees and dependents. Charges were dropped in three of the ten military

cases reserved for disposition by Korea. There were two final results of trials

during the current period—one acquittal and one sentence to a fine only.

Vietnam

In Vietnam the United States retains jurisdiction over its military personnel

in all cases. Also, pursuant to Article 2(10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civilians serving with or accompanying our military forces in the field in time

of war are subject to United States military law and may be tried by courtmartial. Current United States policy limits the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians in Vietnam to United States nationals. These civilians may also

be subject to the jurisdiction of Vietnam. During the current reporting period,

five employees of United States defense contractors were charged with offenses

subject to the primary jurisdiction of Vietnam. Vietnamese authorities waived

their jurisdiction over two of the offenses, and reserved for their disposition the

remaining three offenses. Two of the latter offenses have been tried in Vietnamese

courts and the other is pending trial. One trial resulted in a final conviction of

assault and suspended sentence to confinement. In the other trial, the court found

the accused guilty of negligent homicide and sentenced him to 15 days confinement

and a fine of approximately $7267.00. This accused has filed an appeal.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED STATES

DOES NOT HAVE A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT

Table V summarizes the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction in countries

where the United States does not have a jurisdictional agreement. Comparisons

are made with figures from the previous reporting period.

Mexico and Panama

Mexico and Panama accounted for 99% of the offenses charged against United

States personnel in countries where no jurisdictional agreement is in force. In

Mexico there were no offenses charged against civilian employees or dependents.

Mexican authorities charged United States military personnel with 1436 offenses,

90 less than were charged during the previous reporting period. Over 76% of

these offenses were disorderly conduct. Charges against 35 military personnel

were dropped. There were 1392 sentences to a fine or reprimand, one suspended

sentence to confinement, and 10 unsuspended sentences to confinement. The

longest unsuspended sentence to confinement was 7 months. The other 9 sentences

to confinement were for 30 days or less.

Panamanian authorities charged United States military personnel with 486

offenses. Civilian employees and dependents were involved in 15 alleged offenses.

Dispositions of these offenses were generally lenient. Charges against 63 United

States personnel were dropped. There were 18 acquitals, 381 sentences to a fine

or reprimand, and only two final unsuspended sentences to confinement (one

for 6 months and the other for 3 months and 10 days).

EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1037

Under the provisions of 10 United States Code 1037, United States military

personnel are generally entitled to have counsel fees, bail, court costs and other

expenses incident to their defense before foreign courts paid by the United States

Government. Table VI itemizes expenditures under this statute in the various

countries during the current reporting period. A total of $136,298.27 was expended

on behalf of 477 military personnel prosecuted in foreign courts. The average

expenditure per accused was $285.74.

CONCLUSION

No United States commander has reported that jurisdictional arrangements

have had significant impact on the accomplishment of his mission. The Department of Defense considers present status of forces arrangements to be quite

workable and satisfactory.
12

Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction by Foreign Tribunals\

over U.S. Personnel 1 Dec 1966 - 30 Nov 1967 33,401

27,248

k‘.

TOTAL CASES

31,466 CI A R

25,809

21,305 17,986 84% 16,195 15,129 \ 93%

q

k• 

kkk 11,066

\ 8,..5:11 

10,527 957. 8,150 '96,

\

k\., \ 213 165 \ 165

\

1 k 6 

',‘ i 

2% 

a 

2% h _ 1% 1.5% T% 1.5% 101 161 10Z

iii M: I. M TOTAL MILITARY WAIVERS FINAL ACQUITTED IN CONFINE CONFINE MILITARY CASES OBTAINED RESULTS FORE CONCUR SUSPENDED NOT JURIS OF TRIALS REPRIMAND SUSPENDED

SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION NOTE: FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE 5 CASES FROM VIETNAM INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF U.S. CONTRACTORS.

Types of Offenses Subject to Foreign Jurisdiction\

MURDER

RAPE

MANSLAUGHTER

ARSON ROBBERY LARCENY

BURGLARY

FORGERY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT SIMPLE ASSAULT ECONOMIC CONTROL LAW TRAFFIC OFFENSES DISORDLY CONDUCT

OTHERS

1423 270 276 194 147 2023

105

30123

671 643 //

1,686

2,,142 /A 2,540

\

LAST REPORT CURRENT REPORT A

Ilig,

,//5,508 4.1119,7011911111

.0,ZZarea. 6,516

NOTE: FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE 5 CASES FROM VIETNAM INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF U.S. COI:TRACTORS.

22,034
13

./risuspended , Sentences to Confinement

Imposed on U.S. Personnel by Foreign Courts

LESS THAN

1 YEAR

1 TO 2.

YEARS

2 TO A

YEARS

\ TOTALS

105

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWill161

INDEFINITE SENTENCE SHOWN

AS MINIMUM SENTENCE

3 TO 4

YEARS

4 TO 5

YEARS

5 YEARS

t OVER
COUNTRY, OFFENSE AND LENGTH OF SENTENCE BREAKDOWN FOR U.S. PERSONNEL RECEIVING UNSUSPENDED SENTENCES TO CONFINEMENT

DURING THE PERIOD 1 DECEMBER 1966 - 30 NOVEMBER 1967 (Chart D)

*OFFENSES LENGTH OF SENTENCES IN YEARS

Murder Rape Mans Arson Robbery Burg Forg

Aggr

Aslt

Simp

Aslt

Eco

Off

Traf

Off

Disord

Conduct Other -1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5+

M R MS A RB B F AA SA E T D 0

AUSTRIA

1 1 1 AA

RB

0

BERMUDA 1 1 T AA

CANADA 6 1 2 RB6 B 02

DENMARK 1 R

FRANCE

1 1 5 5 2 1 2 R

AA5

RB3

T2

MS RB2

GERMANY

3 10

3_ 32_ 223_ 1 5_ 1_ 4 R21„--i2

MS2

53

RB3

D_

1 `14 .17,, 1 R2RB 02MRB4 R m2RRB9

GREECE

1 1 2 1

1— 1

0

AA

E2

T

T_ MS

ICELAND 4 1 R2

T

R2

ITALY 1 2 RB E2

Note: Underscored numbers and offense 'symbols represent civilian offenders.
COUNTRY, OFFENSE AND LENGTH OF SENTENCE BREAKDOWN FOR U.S. PERSONNEL RECEIVING UNSUSPENDED SENTENCES TO CONFINEMENT

DURING THE PERIOD 1 DECEMBER 1966 - 30 NOVEMBER 1967 (Chart 0)

OFFENSES LENGTH OF SENTENCES IN YEARS

Murder Rape Mans Arson Robbery Burg Forg

Aggr

Aslt

Simp

Aslt

Eco

Off

Traf

Off

Disord

Conduct Other -1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 f- M R MS A RB B F AA SA E T D 0

JAPAN

2 10 11 7 1 1 1 MS2

T

MS9

0

R3

RB

R5

RB3

R2

RB2

m2

RB

AA

LUXEMBOURG 1 T

MEXICO

-.,

1 7 2 All

NORWAY 2 T2

PANAMA 2 All

PHILIPPINES 3

r

R2 F

SPAIN 1 F

TURKEY 1 1 T

D

UNITED

KINGDOM

1 M1 1 0

T

AA

SUB

TOTAL 5,0 26,3 16,2 0,0 43,3 1,0 4,0 11,0 0,0 4,0 11,6 10,1 15,0 61,14 33,1 11,0 15,0 7,0 19,0

TOTAL 5 29 18 0 46 1 4 11 0 4 17 11 15 75 34 11 15 7

,

19

TOTALS

LAST

REPORT

2,0 15,0 17,0 0,0 18,11 0,0 1,0 7,2 1,0 3,0 7,9 6,0 5,1 35,21 27,1 7,0 4,0 6,0 4,0

2 15 17 0 29 0 1 9 1 3 16 6 6 56 28 7 4 6 4

C.71
U.S. Personnel in Post-Trial Confinement in

Foreign Penal Institutions as of 30 Nov stated year

82 79

73 (HART)

67

63 63

56

50

Ii I 

81

101

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967
TABLE I.-EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BY TRIBUNALS OF NATO COUNTRIES SINCE THE VARIOUS EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE NATO STATUS-OF-FORCES AGREEMENT

(THROUGH NOV. 30, 1967)

Cases subject to foreign jurisdiction

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 1 20 7 16 24 127 129 42 18 42 56 57 58 49 21 667

Canada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) 2 312 505 528 477 493 312 358 327 415 401 797 663 391 222 6,203

Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 2 5 1 5 9 0 29

France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 267 2,600 3, 172 3,981 3,829 4,323 4,236 4,133 3,936 4,454 4,625 4,244 4,217 3,054 707 51, 778

Germany (effective July 1, 1963) 6, 188 17, 658 21, 767 23, 655 24, 033 93; 301

Greece (effective July 26, 1954) 0 0 0 22 36 30 34 30 36 45 86 52 44 56 471

Italy (effective Jan. 21, 1956) 86 374 586 432 235 216 305 271 274 296 241 247 3,563

Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) 0 27 34 36 31 71 38 18 26 43 14 26 54 25 443

Netherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 2 5 11 69 104 129 111 171 188 119 247 274 277 247 390 2,344

Norway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 1 2 5 1 6 6 7 3 1 4 0 1 3 3 43

Portugal (effective Dec. 22, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turkey (effective June 17, 1954) 12 18 36 54 55 53 50 103 95 116 105 112 127 157 1,093

United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) 492 1,235 2,735 2,783 2,410 2,365 1,946 1,966 2,037 1,640 1,304 937 1, 131 1,387 24, 368

Total 272 3,442 4,977 7,490 7,704 8,197 7,745 7,015 6,810 7,532 13, 641 24, 814 12, 411 29, 005 27, 248 184, 303

Cases tried

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 1 0 2 2 1 0 4 7 2 2 7 3 4 6 3 44

Canada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) 0 249 426 406 372 453 293 329 307 397 382 787 648 382 206 5,637

Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 14

France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 21 283 439 471 445 479 423 539 556 617 733 678 701 518 172 7, 075

Germany (effective July 1, 1965) 349 3,731 5,505 5,751 6,611 21, 947

Greece (effective July 26, 1954) 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 3 5 15 11 10 18 70

Italy (effective Jan. 21, 1956) 64 126 138 86 101 86 124 103 123 136 155 124 1,366

Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) 0 6 17 27 11 46 43 14 14 41 20 28 47 25 339

Netherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

Norway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 0 1 3 1 6 4 6 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 35

Portugal (effective Dec. 22, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Turkey (effective June 17, 1954) 8 12 22 43 38 39 41 64 96 87 84 86 83 117 820

United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) 271 1,225 2,208 2, 124 1,961 1,843 1,668 1,658 1,672 1,519 1,236 885 942 1,233 20, 445

Total 22 812 2,111 3, 194 3, 139 3,089 2,740 2,736 2,691 2,929 3,230 6,681 8,006 7,902 8,513 57, 795

See footnote at end of table, p. 18.
TABLE I.—EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BY TRIBUNALS OF NATO COUNTRIES SINCE THE VARIOUS EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE NATO STATUS-OF-FORCES AGREEMENT

(THROUGH NOV. 30, 1967)—Continued

Confinement not suspended

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 Canada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) 0 6 0 0 5 1 2 3 6 1 4 6 2 0 9 45 Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 15 31 28 42 28 30 14 26 35 40 33 17 19 8 17 383 Germany (effective July 1, 1963) 8 11 31 47 57 154 Greece (effective July 26, 1954) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 7 16 Italy (effective Jan. 21, 1956) 9 3 2 4 2 6 6 5 6 1 2 3 49 Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 5 1 15 Netherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Norway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 3 2 2 0 1 2 20 Portugal (effective Dec. 22, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turkey (effective June 17, 1954) 0 1 2 2 5 7 2 6 7 8 7 0 4 2 53 United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) 6 31 35 34 12 21 18 5 10 6 11 4 4 3 200

Total 15 44 60 89 75 55 51 57 59 71 68 62 59 76 102 943

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the yearly statistics cover Dec. 1 of the preceding year through Nov. 30 of the stated year.

00
19

TABLE II.-SUMMARY OF EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BY FOREIGN TRIBUNALS OVER U.S. PERSONNEL

WORLDWIDE, DEC. 1, 1953, THROUGH NOV. 30, 1967

CASES SUBJECT TO FOREIGN JURISDICTION

1954 1955 1956

14, 394

1957

13, 971

1958

13,659

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total

7,416 10,249 12,909 11,516 11,707 12,291 19,017 28,762 32,311 34,039 33,401 255,642

CASES TRIED

1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961

4,254

1962

4,375

1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total

1,475 3,142 4,437 4,980 4,263 4,070 4,163 4,652 8, 459 9,646 10,413 11,045 79,374

CONFINEMENT NOT SUSPENDED

1954 1955 1956 1957 1958

96

1959

100

1960

117

1961

114

1962 1963 1964 1965

103

1966

105

1967 Total

77 120 108 124 98 107 87 161 1,517

1 Figures do not include 5 cases from Vietnam involving employees of U.S. contractors.

TABLE III.-STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NATO-SOFA COUNTRIES

[Figures in parentheses are for previous period]

Country

Cases subject

to local

jurisdiction

Concurrent

jurisdiction

cases

Cases waived,

released,

or dropped

Cases

pending

from

previous

period

Cases tried Acquittals

Belgium 21 (49) 21 22 (48) 5 (10) 3 (6) 1 (2)

Canada 222 (391) 217 9 (9) 0 (0) 206 (382) 1 (1)

Denmark 0 (9) 0 0 (2) 1 (0) 1 (6) 0 (0)

France 707 (3,054) 247 575 (2,585) 50 (99) 172 (518) 9 (21)

Germany 24, 033 (23, 655) 14,432 17,313 (17, 842) 228 (166) 6, 661 (5, 751) 50 (18)

Greece 56 (44) 51 39 (34) 3 3 18 10 5 (2)

Italy 247 (241) 210 123 (195) 151 (260) 124 (155) 28 (45)

Luxembourg 25 (54) 17 4 (2) 5 (0) 25 (47) 2 (2)

Netherlands 390 (247) 370 389 (247) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Norway 3 (3) 3 0 (1) 0 (0) 3 (2) 0 (0)

Portugal 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Turkey 157 (127) 128 16 (47) 23 (26) 117 (36) 40 (24)

United Kingdom 1,387 (1,131) 499 166 (154) 69 (34) 1,233 (942) 29 (32)

TABLE IV.-STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NON-NATO COUNTRIES WHERE A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT IS

IN FORCE

[Figures in parentheses are for previous period]

Country

Cases subject

to local

jurisdiction

Concurrent

jurisdiction

cases

Cases waived,

released, or

dropped

Cases pending from

previous

period

Cases tried Acquittals

Australia 15 (2) 15 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0) 12 (1) 2 (0)

Azores 66 (97) 61 (88) 61 (97) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Bahamas 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0)

Be'muda 235 (166) 116 (34) 11 (3) 0 (3) 224(166) 3 (0)

Brazil 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)

China (Taiwan) 7 (3) 5 (3) 0 (1) 1 (0) 5 (1) 0 (0)

Costa Rica 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Greenland 2 (3) 2 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)

Iceland' 116 (155) 3 (7) 2 (15) 16 (14) 122 (138) 0 (0)

Japan 1,997 (1,983) 1,649 (1,591) 1,708 (1,686) 42 (44) 297 (299) 1 (0)

Korea 1,207 1,169 1,119 0 2 1

Morocco 8 (8) 7 (5) 0 (1) 1 (1) 9 (7) 8 (1)

New Zealand 18 (7) 8 (7) 17 (7) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)

Pakistan 4 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Philippines 311 (401) 230 (266) 96 (319) 130 (56) 25 (8) 12 (1)

Spain 207 (202) 180 (80) 211 (197) 30 (33) 12 (8) 2 (0)

Vietnam 2 5 (0) 2 5 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0)

I While Iceland is signatory to NATO-SOFA, the effective agreement governing the status of U.S. forces in Iceland is

TIAS 2295.

2 Civilian contractor employees.
20

.

TABLE V.—STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS FOR COUNTRIES WHERE NO JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT IS IN FORCE

[Figures in parentheses are for previous report]

Country

Cases subject Concurrent Cases waived, Cases pendto local juris- jurisdiction released, or ing from Cases tried Acquittals

diction cases dropped previous

period

Austria 4 (10) 3 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) 0 (0) Bulgaria 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)

Hong Kong 8 (14) 0 (14) 2 (0) 0 (0) 6 (7) 0 (0)

Mexico 1,436 (1,526) 1,406 (1,399) 35 (33) 1 (2) 1,400 (1,494) 0 (0)

Panama 501 (449) 245 (141) 97(60) 39 (14) 402 (364) 18 (13) Switzerland 5 (5) 5 (5) 0 (2) 0 (0) 5 (3) 0 (0)

TABLE VI.—EXPENDITURES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 10 U.S.C. 1037, DEC. 1, 1966, TO NOV. 30, 1967

Country

Number

of cases Counsel fees Bail

Court costs

and other

expenses

Net total paid

during period

Austria: Army 8 $1, 283. 04 1($6, 220. 83) $145. 10 $1,428. 14

Brazil: Navy 1 250. 00 250. 00

Bulgaria: Air Force 1 200.00 200.00

Canada:

Navy 4 566.60 566.60

Air Force 3 1, 441. 50 1(7, 440, 00) 1, 441. 50

Costa Rica: Army 1 500.00 500.00

France:

Army 49 5, 475. 37 333.03 5, 808. 40

Navy 1 200.00 200.00

Air Force 5 648. 50 648. 50

Germany:

Army 114 20, 613. 76 10, 512. 59 31,126. 35

Air Force 2 643.39 643.39

Greece:

Army 3 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00

Navy 3 1, 200. 00 1, 200. 00

Air Force 10 3, 616. 68 3, 616. 68

Hong Kong:

Army 1 87. 50 87. 50

Navy 2 1, 300. 00 1, 300. 00

Iceland: Navy 9 7, 101. 98 934.57 8, 036. 55

Italy: Army 25 6, 117. 28 6, 117. 28

Japan:

Army 21 6, 500. 00 245.95 6, 745. 95

Navy 71 19, 666. 67 2, 235. 21 21, 901. 88

Air Force 18 8, 300. 00 242.51 8, 542. 51

Korea:

Army 5 1,657. 12 1,657.12

Air Force 1 500. 00 500. 00

Mexico: Army 7 285.00 2 $1, 631. 20 1, 916. 20

Panama:

Army 11 4, 300. 00 1 (6, 500. 00) 19.60 4, 319. 60

Navy 3 1, 500. 00 1, 500. 00

Air Force 2 1, 000. 00 1 (500. 00) 1, 600. 00

Philippines:

Navy 6 72.98 72.98

Air Force 9 2,876. 00 2,876. 00

Spain: Army 8 511.57 162.96 674.53

Switzerland: Army 5 1, 050. 00 1, 116. 74 2, 166. 74

Taiwan (China):

Army 1 104.00 104.00

Navy 2 1, 300. 00 1, 300. 00

Air Force 3 1, 175. 00 1, 175. 00

Turkey:

Army 3 1, 388. 88 1,388. 88

Navy 3 333.33 1 (56. 00) 333.33

Air Force 46 8, 944. 34 2 611.65 477.77 10, 033. 76

1 (1, 832. 78)

United Kingdom:

Army 1 491.98 491.98

Navy 1 861.90 861.90

Air Force 8 2, 565.02 2, 565. 02

Total 477 114, 680. 41 2 2,242. 85 19, 375. 01 136, 298. 27

1 (22, 549. 61)

Bail posted but not forfeited.

2 Forfeited; agreement to reimburse but no recovery from individuals concerned as of reporting date.
21

Senator ERvIN. I would invite all those who are not authorized to

remain in executive session to retire at this point.

(Whereupon, at 10 a.m., the committee went into closed session.)

0