Y4

. Ar 513 *saz"-11 i

ca*ZN 811 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO

%to STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

GOVERNMENT

'7,11.tPxStorage

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

1- COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

00 EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

oSECOND SESSION r,

TO REVIEW FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 1964, THROUGH

NOVEMBER 30, 1965, 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

AUGUST 26, 1966

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1966
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

RICHARD B.

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

WILLIAM H. DARDEN, Chief of Staff

CHARLES B. EIRBOW, Chief Clerk

RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman

LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Massachusetts

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

JACK MILLER, Iowa

JOHN G. TOWER, Texas

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

Page

Statement of—

Ray W. Bronez, Director, Foreign Military Rights Affairs, Department of Defense 1

Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Hodson, Assistant Judge Advocate General

of the Army for Military Justice on Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction_ 2

OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF

FORCES TREATY

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATO

STATUS OF FORCES TREATY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee (composed of Senators Ervin (chairman),

NIcIntyre, 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 10:35 a.m., in room 212, Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Ervin and Thurmond.

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

the committee staff, and Herbert S. Atkinson, assistant chief clerk.

Senator ERVIN. The subcommittee will come to order.

The subcommittee meets today for the purpose of receiving the

annual report ending November 30, 1965, on the operation of article

VII of the NATO Status of Forces Treaty and the other criminal

jurisdictional arrangements throughout the world under which American servicemen may be subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

At the conclusion of the open testimony the subcommittee will go into

executive session for the purpose of receiving any additional information the Department of Defense may have.

We are glad to have with us today Mr. Ray W. Bronez, Director

of Foreign Military Rights Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense,

and Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Hodson, Assistant Judge Advocate General

of the Army.

Mr. Bronez, you may begin in your own way.

STATEMENT OF RAY W. BRONEZ, DIRECTOR, FOREIGN MILITARY

RIGHTS AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. BRONEZ. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, this presentation, the 13th of an annual series,

reviews the operation of our criminal jurisdiction arrangements in

NATO countries and throughout the world for the period December 1,

1964, through November 20, 1965. We appreciate this opportunity

to appear before you for this purpose.

I am happy to report that the operation of our criminal jurisdiction

arrangements continues to be generally satisfactory. In some situations morale has been adversely affected by trial delays and other

1
2 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

practices which we will discuss during the executive session. In most

respects, however, we have enjoyed a fine record of fairness and

cooperation.

Waiver of foreign jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel remained

at about the high rate reported last year. It was 65 percent for the

period in question as against 67 percent for the preceding reporting.

period. The rate among NATO countries was 67 percent as compared

to 70 percent for the preceding period. These figures, highly satis-

, factory in themselves, actually understate the rate at which foreign

authorities have been responsive to our, requests for waiver of their

jurisdiction. The figures include cases in which we could not request

a waiver because jurisdiction is not concurrent. General Hodson

will go into the changes we have made in our reporting techniques to

make our percentages more meaningful in this regard.

As we pointed out last year, the main reason for the substantial

increase in percentage of waivers in the past few years over that of

earlier reporting periods is the implementation of the German Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

This arrangement calls for an automatic waiver of jurisdiction in all

cases, subject to a recall only in cases where major interests of German

administration of justice make imperative the exercise of German

jurisdiction. This upward trend may be expected to continue

with the recent and prospective entry into force of new arrangements involving advance waiver of primary jurisdiction by the host

government.

There has as yet been no definitive resolution of the problem caused

by the fact that civilian employees and dependents overseas are no

longer amenable to trial by U.S. military courts for most offenses.

To a large extent our ability to impose administrative and disciplinary

sanctions upon civilians has been sufficient, as demonstrated by the

willingness of foreign authorities to refrain from exercising their

jurisdiction in many cases involving civilians.

I am happy to report that the new arrangement for the status of

our personnel in Iran mentioned to the committee last year, is working

very well. In addition, satisfactory criminal jurisdiction arrangements have now been concluded with the Republic of China, the

Republic of Korea, and the Philippines. The Philippine and Chinese

arrangements became effective August 10, 1965 and April 12, 1966,

respectively. Negotiation of the Korean SOFA was formally concluded on July 9, 1966. That agreement is currently before the

Korean Legislature for approval and implementation.

Brigadier General Hodson will now present a more detailed account

for the reporting period.

Senator ERVIN. You may proceed, General. We are delighted to

have you with us again.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. KENNETH J. HODSON, ASSISTANT

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR MILITARY JUSTICE ON FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

General HODSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I will briefly summarize my report through the use

of charts. I will begin with chart A, which includes worldwide figures

as well as a separate breakdown for NATO—SOFA countries.
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 3

During the period December 1, 1964, through November 30, 1965,

which I shall refer to as the current period, 32,311 U.S. military and

civilian personnel and their dependents were charged with offenses

subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts;

22,151, or nearly 70 percent of these cases were traffic offenses.

Of the 32,311 new cases, 30,489 (94 percent) involved military personnel. Foreign authorities waived their primary right to exercise

jurisdiction over military personnel in 19,749 of these cases. Last

year I reported to the subcommittee that the reporting format would

be revised. That revision has been accomplished and has been distributed to the field for use in the annual reporting period ending November 30, 1966. The purpose of the revision is to insure that the

waiver rate is based solely on concurrent jurisdiction offenses

Up to now the waiver rate has appeared unnecessarily low because

it was based in part on cases subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a

host state and thus, nonwaivable. For example, during the current

period there were 6,400 minor traffic offenses involving U.S. military

personnel in Germany, all of which were subject to the exclusive

jurisdiction of Germany and hence nonwaivable. If these cases are

excluded the current period's Waiver rate is increased from 65 to 82

percent.

In summary, the new procedure requires the reporting of all cases

involving U.S. personnel, but only those cases over which the United

States can request a waiver are included in determining the waiver

rate.

Note that the left-hand columns of chart A reflect worldwide

figures, while the right-hand columns reflect NATO figures.

Chart A reflects that of the 9,639 total final results of trials by

foreign tribunals, 189 or 2 percent resulted in acquittal; reprimands

only or fines only were imposed in 9,122 or 95 percent of final convictions. Sentences to confinement were suspended in 225 cases69 percent of the 328 cases in which confinement was adjudged.

Thus, confinement was carried out in only 103 cases. Appeals from

convictions were pending in 68 cases at the end of the current period.

I now turn to chart B. The number and types of offenses subject

to foreign jurisdiction for the current and previous period are depicted

on chart B. The upper bars are for last year. The lower bars are

for this year. The number of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction

increased from 28,762 to 32,311 (or 12 percent). Excluding offenses

committed in Germany, there was a 5-percent decrease in cases subject

to foreign jurisdiction.

Our consolidation of statistics from the field reveals that offenses

generally in Germany have increased 4,109, or 23 percent. Threequarters of this increase are traffic offenses. The commanding

general, U.S. Army Europe, has reported that the increases are

generally due to more effective reporting procedures in Germany.

Chart C discloses the number and lengths of the 103 suspended

sentences to confinement imposed by foreign courts, the longest of

which was a 12-year sentence adjudged against Specialist James T.

Buckner by a German court for murder. You will note that the

left-hand bars are last year's figures and the right-hand bars are

this year's. I note that Private Wagner, whose case (which involved

a sentence of 30 years for robbery-murder in Spain) has been reported

several times to this subcommittee, has received a further reduction
4 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

of his sentence to 15 years and may, with continued good behavior

and work credits, be released as early as 1971.

Chart D, consisting of four pages, provides a breakdown by country,

offense and length of sentence for all cases in which U.S. personnel

received unsuspended sentences to confinement by foreign courts.

I think you will note, Mr. Chairman, from an examination of those

four pages that, generally speaking, confinement is imposed for the

types of offenses that you would normally expect confinement to be

imposed.

Senator ERVIN. This is to indicate that the imprisonment imposed

for such serious crimes as murder, rape, manslaughter, arson, robbery,

burglary, forgery, would be classified in this country as felonies.

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Chart E illustrates the number of individuals confined in foreign

prisons. The report of 82 individuals in confinement at the close of

the current period represents an increase of 21 over the average

number confined at the close of the past 8 reporting periods.

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

bail, and related expenses incurred incident to their defense before

foreign courts paid with appropriated funds. During the current

period, $82,651.93 was expended in 291 cases as compared with

$66,517.87 in 284 cases during the previous period and with $59,266.84

in 296 cases for the period ending November 30, 1963. The average

expenditure per case has risen over these three reporting periods from

$200.22 to $284.02.

Table 6, which you will find under your blue tab, gives you a complete breakout of the expenditures that I have mentioned.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have a complete statement concerning these matters, together with the charts and tables which are before you, which

I would like to have incorporated in the record.

Senator ERVIN. These will be inserted in the record in full immediately after your remarks.

General HODSON. That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of General Hodson, above-referred to,

follows:)

Mr. Chairman essentially, my remarks today concerning the exercise of jurisdiction over United States personnel by foreign tribunals will consist of summaries

and analyses of the attached tables and charts as well as of the statistics which

we have compiled 1 from the data submitted by the reporting countries.

I should like to make one general observation at the outset. Of the 32,311

cases subject to disposition by foreign tribunals during the current reporting

period, only 1,719, or 5%, resulted in final convictions for other than traffic

offenses. This is primarily the result of our excellent local liaison which has

succeeding in obtaining a large number of waivers of jurisdiction.

1 Department of Defense statistics on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over U.S.

personnel, Dec. 1, 1964-Nov. 30, 1965.
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 5

311

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION—WORLD

Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction by Foreign Tribunals\

over U.S. Personnel 1 Dec 1964 — 30 Nov 1965

28,411

W'ta,

Qn`

•

TOTAL

CASES

30,489

27,053

km 19,749

:04 65%

, A

MILITARY

CASES

9,639

7,994

189 163

2% 2%

WAIVERS TOTAL FINAL ACQUITTED

OBTAINED RESULTS

MILITARY Of TRIALS

SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION

9,122

95%

225 191

27. 2%

'

103 60

1% 1%

FINE OR CONFINEMENT CONFINEMENT

REPRIMAND SUSPENDED NOT

SUSPENDED

Note that on Chart A the NATO—SOFA figures shown on the right-hand columns

are included in the world-wide figures shown to the left. During the period 1

December 1964 through 30 November 1965, for which I use the term "current

period," a total of 32,311 U.S. military and civilian personnel and their dependents

were charged with offenses subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of

foreign tribunals. Of this total, 22,151 or nearly 70% were traffic offenses.

30,489 cases, or 94% of the above total, involved military personnel. Foreign

authorities waived their right to exercise jurisdiction over military personnel in

19,749 of these cases. Last year I reported to the Subcommittee that the reporting format would be revised. That revision has been accomplished and has

been distributed to the field for use in the annual reporting period ending 30

November 1966. The purpose of the revision is to ensure that the waiver rate

is based solely on concurrent jurisdiction offenses. Up to now the waiver rate

has appeared unnecessarily low because it was based in part on cases subject to

the exclusive jurisdiction of a host State and thus, non-waivable. For example,

during the current period there were 6,400 minor traffic offenses involving U.S.

military personnel in Germany, all of which were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Germany and hence non-waivable. If these cases are excluded the current

period's waiver rate is increased from 65% to 82%.

In summary, the new procedure requires the reporting of all cases involving

U.S. personnel, but only those cases over which the U.S. can request a waiver are

included in determining the waiver rate.

Waivers are not normally requested for civilians and dependents; however, 929

of the 1822 military-connected civilians and dependents (hereinafter "civilian")

who were charged with local offenses were released to United States authorities

for appropriate disposition.

Thus, after waiver of 19,749 cases involving military personnel and after release

of 929 cases involving civilians, a total of 11,633 new cases involving U.S. personnel were reserved for disposition by foreign jurisdictions.

At the end of the 1963-1964, or previous, reporting period, 728 cases were

pending, bringing the total reserved and available for disposition by foreign

tribunals to 12,361. Charges were dropped in 1883 military and in 70 civilian

cases; trials were pending at the close of the current period in 645 military and in

117 civilian cases.

68-035-66 2
6 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

Chart A indicates that during the current period foreign tribunals completed disposition of 9639 cases involving U.S. personnel. The statistical compilation shows that 9646 trials were initiated in foreign tribunals during the current period, of which 7817, or 81%, concerned traffic offenses. Acquittals totaled 189 

Civilians 

for an overall 

were 

acquittal rate of 2%; the non-traffic case acquittal rate was 6%. defendants in 800 trials, which in addition to 11 cases from which an appeal was pending at the close of the previous period, resulted in 778 convic- tions and 24 acquittals; 9 cases were being appealed at the close of the current period. A fine only was imposed in 706 cases, while a reprimand only was imposed in 32 instances. Suspended sentences to confinement were given 23 civilian offenders and 17 received unsuspended sentences to confinement, the longest of which was two years for murder adjudged by a German court. Military personnel were brought to trail in 8846 cases, which in addition to 56 cases from which an appeal was pending at the close of the previous period, resulted in 8672 convictions and 165 acquittals; 65 appeals were pending on 30 November 1965, of which 60 were from convictions. Of those convicted, 8350

were fined-6939 for traffic offenses—and 34 received reprimands only. Sentences

were suspended in 202 or 70% of the 288 cases in which imprisonment was adjudged.

Types of Offenses Subject to Foreign Jurisdiction

MURDER

RAPE

MANSLAUGHTER

ARSON

ROBBERY

LARCENY

BURGLARY

FORGERY

AGGRAVATED

ASSAULT

SIMPLE

ASSAULT

ECONOMIC

CONTROL LAW

TRAFFIC

OFFENSES

DISORDERLY

CONDUCT

OTHERS

111;

26

191

2IMS 266

215

204

21

10

19,574

• • 7. ". (:;55; c7‘;;'S% ,, ;2;:e&O. ?):0; 1:422,151

2,981

J16:44/.;i'l:-;.V.C5274VA 4,092 1965

The number and types of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction for the current and previous periods are depicted on Chart B. The number of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction increased from 28,762 to 32,311 for the current period. Excluding offenses committed in Germany there was a 5% decrease in cases subject to foreign jurisdiction.

Our consolidation of statistics from the field reveals that offenses generally in Germany have increased 4,109, or 23%. Three-quarters of this increase are traffic offenses. The Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe, has reported that the increases are generally due to more effective reporting procedures in Germany.
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 7

c

\linsuspended Sentences to Confinement

Imposed on U.S. Personnel by Foreign Courts

58

LESS THAN

1 YEAR

9 1

II

YEARSR 2

7

2 TO 3

•YEARS

12

3 TO 4

YEARS

TC.TALS

11111111111.1=11 87

ESEMEEMZEMA 102

INDEFINITE SENTENCE SHOWN

AS MINIMUM SENTENCE

6

1 I

4 TO 5

YEARS

9

7

111\\

S YEARS

& OVER

Chart C discloses the number and lengths of the 103 unsuspended sentence to

confinement. There were 87 such cases reported for the previous period. The

longest sentence was 12 years imposed by a German Court for murder; the longest

sentence adjudged against a civilian was a two-year sentence for attempted murder

imposed by a German court o n a dependent.
CHART D.—Country, offense and length of sentence breakdown for U.S. personnel receiving unsuspended sentences to confinement during the period Dec. 1, 1964—Nov. 30, 1965

Offenses

1

Length of sentences in years

Murder 'R 

Rape F:1 

4

bI) kT,,,,, A

(MS)

g

(A)

Robbery 

Burglary 

Forgery 

Aggravated 

assault 

Simple "63 

assault P. 

Economic 

offense 

2

..

kcWf

E.

(T)

Disorderly •-• 

conduct 

Other 

1 than Less 

1 Cs1

0•.

1—i

.0

04..

CV

,

04..

CO

.O

0.4

,tt,

more or 5 

Ascension 

Australia 1 RB 

Austria 1 1 1 All 

Azores 1 D 

Bahamas 

Belgium 

Bermuda 1 1 1 1 All other It

Canada 1 1 All 

Costa Rica 

Denmark 1 E 

Ecuador 

France 2 2 1 5 4 1 1 3 All other MS AA

R2 

RIP

A

Germany 1 9 4 3 2 1 1 MS 

R2 M 

R2 M 

1 1 4 4 RB' MS'_. 

R MS 

R4 

T RB'

Ba RB' 

03 0 

0 

Greece 1 Ms. 

Greenland 

Hong Kong 4 RB' RB' 

Iceland 1 T. 

Iran 

Italy 1 MS.. 

Jamaica 

Japan 2 2 5 1 3 1 5 MS, MS2 02

R2 RB

A

8 MS'

0 RB'

M

T

M

OS

00

OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 
Luxembourg 

Mexico 1 0

Morocco 

Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Norway td

Panama 1 1 2 SA RB

02

Philippines 1 0

Spain 1

Thailand 

Turkey 

United Kingdom 

Venezuela 

1 2 1 1 All other MSAA 0hd

West Indies 

Subtotal_ 3, 1 14,0 14,4 2,0 18,4 1,2 1,0 8,0 2,0 1,0 5, / 2,0 15,5 39,13 21,3 4,1 12,0 1,0 9,0

Total 4 14 18 2 22 3 1 8 2 1 6 2 20 52 24 5 12 1 9 8'tq

Total Dec. 1, 1963-Nov.

30, 1964 2,2 5,0 14,2 0 14,3 6,0 1,0 12,0 1,0 3,0 11,2 2,0 6, / 51,7 8,1 5,0 2,0 6,0 5,2 .1

Total 4 5 16 0 17 6 1 12 1 3 13 2 7 58 9 5 2 6 7

NOTE.-Italic numbers and correlative offense designations represent civilian offenders.
10 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

Chart D provides a breakdown by country, offense and length of sentence

for all cases in which U.S. personnel received unsuspended sentences to confinement by foreign courts. There has been a very slight increase in the average

unsuspended sentence imposed.

U.S. Personnel in Post-Trial Confinement in

Foreign Penal Institutions as of 30 Nov stated year

79

73

82

67

I 

63

I 

50

I 

36

I 

56

I 

63

I 

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

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

prisons. The report of 82 individuals in confinement at the close of the current

period represents an increase of 21 over the average number confined at the close

of the past eight reporting periods.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN NATO STATUS OF FORCES COUNTRIES

I will now discuss certain statistics pertaining to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over United States personnel by the 13 countries signatory to the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement.

[Chart A—Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction by Foreign Tribunals over United

States Personnel, 1 December 1964-30 November 19651

The number of new cases subject to the jurisdiction of NATO-SOFA countries

increased by 3,597 to 28,411 (14%) from the previous period. However, excluding

Germany, there was a 512 case (7%) decrease in NATO countries.

NATO countries waived their right to exercise jurisdiction in 18,204 or 67%

of the military cases, compared with 71% for the previous two reporting periods.

(If the above mentioned (p. 2) 6400 minor traffic cases involving U.S. military

personnel in Germany are excluded again, the NATO-SOFA waiver rate is increased for the current period to 88%.) Furthermore, a total of 560 civilian cases

were released to the United States for disposition. Charges were dropped in

1627 cases and trial was pending in 593 at the close of the current reporting period.

Chart A reflects that NATO-country tribunals made final disposition of 7994

cases. The statistical compilation shows that 8006 trials of United States personnel were initiated, which in addition to 45 appeals pending from the previous

period, resulted in 163 acquittals, 7580 sentences to fines only or reprimands only,

191 suspended sentences to confinement, and 60 unsuspended sentences to confinement. There were 62 unsuspended confinement sentences during the previous

period. Appeals pending at the close of the current period totaled 57.

I would like to insert in the record at this point three tables relating to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in NATO countries and world-wide since 1953.
TABLE I.-Exercise of criminal jurisdiction by tribunals of N ATO cab ntries since the various effective dates of the NATO Status of Forces

Agreement (through Nov. 30, 1965)

CASES SUBJECT TO FOREIGN JURISDICTION

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

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 1 20 7 18 24 127 129 42 18 42 56 57 58 597 Canada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) 

2 312 505

0

528

0

477

0

493

1

312

0

358

1

327

5

415

2

401

5

797

1

663

5

5,590 20

France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Germany (effective July 1, 1963) 267 2,600 3,172 3,981 3,829 4,323 4,236 4,133 3,936 4,454 4,625 6,188 4,244 17,658 4,217 21,767 48,017 45,613 Greece (effective July 26, 1954) Italy (effective Jan. 21, 1956) Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) 

00

0

27

0

88

34

22

374

36

36

586

31

30

432

71

34

235

38

30

216

18

36

305

26

45

271

43

86

274

14

52

296

26

371

3,075 364 Netherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) _ Norway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Portugal (effective Dec. 22, 1955) Turkey (effective June 17, 1954) United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) 

2

0

5

1

12

492

11

2

0

18

1,235

( 9

5

0

. Ii

2, Z.6

104

1

0

54

2,783

129

6

0

55

2,410

111

6

0

53

2,365

171

7

0

50

1,946

188

3

0

103

1,966

119

1

0

95

2, 037

247

4

0

116

1,640

274

00

105

1,304

277

1

0

112

937

1,707 37

0

809

21, 850

Total 272 3,442 4,977 7,400 7,704 8, 197 7,745 7, 015 6,810 7,532.13,641 24,814 28,411 128, 050

CASES TRIED

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Canada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Germany (effective July 1, 1963) Greece (effective July 26, 1954) Italy (effective Jan. 21, 1956) Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) Netherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Norway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) Portugal (effective Dec. 22, 1955) Turkey (effective June 17, 1954) United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) 

1

0

21

0

0

0

249

283

0

0

1

0

8

271

2

426

0

439

0

6

0

1

0

12

1, 225

2

406

0

471

0

64

17

1

3

0

22

2, 208

1

372

0

445

0

126

27

0

1

0

43

2, 124

0

453

0

479

3

138

11

0

6

0

38

1,961

4

293

0

423

2

86

46

0

4

0

39

1,843

7

329

1

539

1

101

43

0

6

0

41

1,668

2

307

1

556

2

86

14

0

1

0

64

1,858

2

397

1

617

3

124

14

0

3

0

96

1,672

7

382

2

733

349

5

103

41

0

2

0

87

1,519

3

787

1

678

3, 73115

123

20

1

2

0

84

1, 236

4

648

1

701

5, 50511

136

28

0

1

0

86

885

35

5, 049

7

6, 385 9, 58542

1,087 267

3

30

0

620

18, 270

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 41,386

OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 11 
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, 1965)—Continued

CONFINEMENT NOT SUSPENDED

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1065 Total

Belgium (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Danada (effective Sept. 27, 1953) 0 6 0 0 5 1 2 3 6 1 4 6 2 36

Denmark (effective June 27, 1955) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

France (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 15 31 28 42 28 30 14 26 35 40 53 17 19 358

Jermany (effective July 1, 1963) 8 11 31 50

areece (effective July 26, 1954) .

0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5

rtaly (effective Jan. 21, 1956) 9 3 2 4 2 6 6 5 6 1 44

0 Luxembourg (effective July 23, 1954) 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 9

Vetherlands (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Vorway (effective Aug. 23, 1953) 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 3 2 2 0 17

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

Purkey (effective June 17, 1954) 0 1 2 2 5 7 2 6 7 8 7 0 47

United Kingdom (effective Jan. 13, 1954) _ 6 31 35 34 12 21 18 5 10 6 11 4 193

TotaL 15 44 60 89 75 55 51 57 59 71 68 62 59 765

NOTE.—Unless otherwise indicated, the yearly statistics cover December 1 of the preceding year through November 30 of the stated year.

12 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 13

TABLE II.-Summary of exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over

U.S. personnel, worldwide, Dec. I, 1958, through Nov. 30, 1965

Cases subject to foreign juris- Cases tried-Con.

diction:

1954 

1955 

1956 

1957 

1958 

1959 

1960 

1961 

7,

10,

14,

13,

13,

12,

11,

11,

416

249

394

971

659

909

516

707

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

4,

4,

4,

8,

9,

254

375

652

459

646

Total 57,916

Confinement not suspended:

1962 12, 291 1954 77

1963 19,017 1955 120

1964 28,762 1956 108

1965 32,311 1957 124

1958 96

Total 188, 202 1959 100

1960 117

Cases tried: 1961 114

1954 1, 475 1962 98

1955 3, 142 1963 107

1956 4,437 1964 87

1957 4,980 1965 103

1958 4, 263

1959 4,070 Total 1, 251

1960 4, 163

TABLE III.-Statistical highlights for NATO-SOFA countries

Country

Cases subject

to local jurisdiction

Cases waived, -

released, or

dropped

Cases pending

from previous

period

Cases tried Acquittals

Belgium 58 (57) 50 (52) 1 (2) 4 (3) 0 (1)

Canada 663 (797) 15 (10) 0 (0) 648 (787) 3 (2)

Denmark 5 (1) 4 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0)

France 4, 217 (4, 244) 3, 537 (3, 544) 120 (98) 701 (678) 32 (30)

Germany_ 21,767 (17, 658) 16, 238 (14, 131) 142 (341) 5, 505 (3, 731) 8 (10)

Greece 52 (86) 50 (66) 12 (5) 11 (15) 1 (4)

Italy 296 (274) 102 (158) 202 (206) 136 (123) 45 (42)

Luxembourg 26 (14) 0 (0) 2 (8) 28 (20) 3 (1)

Netherlands 277 (274) 277 (273) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0)

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

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

Turkey_ 112 (105) 19 (16) 19 (14) 86 (84) 39 (40)

United Kingdom 937 (1,304) 99 (73) 81 (87) 885 (1,236) 32 (34)

NoTE.-( ) Figure for previous period.

Cases in Germany and France accounted for 91% of the total new cases subject

to the jurisdiction of NATO countries. Thus, I would like briefly to review each

of these countries more closely.

FRANCE

Consistent with past practice France waived jurisdiction in about 85% of the

3704 new cases involving military personnel (cases down 9% from previous period) ;

441 civilians of the 513 newly charged were released to the United States for disposition. Traffic offenses totaled 3548 (down 4% from previous period). Of the

701 persons tried for all types of offenses charged, including the 9 appeals pending

at the close of the previous period, 32 were acquitted, 531 were fined or reprimanded, and 116 of the 135 sentences to confinement were suspended. Unsuspended sentences ranged from 10 days to three, 3-year sentences (two for rape,

one for arson). Twelve appeals from convictions were pending at the end of the

current period.
14 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

GERMANY

Our jurisdictional arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany—

NATO-SOFA, as modified by the German Supplementary Agreement—provide

for an automatic, advance waiver to the U.S. of all concurrent jurisdiction cases

over which Germany has primary jurisdiction. This waiver is subject to recall if German authorities, within three weeks after notification decide that "by

reason of special circumstances in a specific case major interests of German ad- ministration of justice make imperative the exercise of German jurisdiction."

During the current period 21,767 offenses subject to German jurisdiction arose;

14,735 or 68% of these were traffic offenses. German authorities recalled their waiver of jurisdiction in only 27 of the 14,624 cases involving concurrent jurisdic- tion. These plus 18 cases involving military personnel, recalled in and held over

from the previous period, resulted in 22 convictions. Charges were dropped in 1

case, 12 trials were pending and 10 appeals from conviction were pending. All

found guilty received sentences to confinement but the sentences of five were

suspended. The average of the 17 sentences executed was slightly more than three

years.

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 upon the

request of the United States each country has agreed to waive her primary right

to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance. The Netherlands

did not deny the United States' request in any of 268 new cases over which she had

primary jurisdiction; in fact, The Netherlands has exercised jurisdiction over

U.S. military personnel in only two of the more than 1500 cases that have arisen

since NATO-SOFA became effective. Greece retained jurisdiction in only 7 of 48

cases.

(In NATO 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.")

ICELAND

The NATO Status of Forces Agreement does not control the jurisdictional

status of United States personnel stationed in Iceland; however, the Agreement

with Iceland of 8 May 1951 contains similar provisions. During the current

reporting period United States military personnel were charged with 129 offenses

71 of which concerned traffic violations; 11 of 19 new cases involving civilians,

also concerned traffic violations. Iceland did not waive jurisdiction in any case

subject to its primary jurisdiction. Only one of the 128 cases tried and concluded

resulted in an unsuspended sentence to confinement. Two cases were on appeal

from conviction.

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

STATES HAS A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT

To relate to you the experience of the Armed Services in each of the non-NATO

countries where we have a jursidictional agreement, I would like to place in the

record a table (Table IV) which contains certain statistical highlights. [Table

W—Summary of Data on .the Exorcise of Criminal Jurisdiction by Foreign

Tribunals in non-NATO Countries Where a Jurisdictional Agreement Exists for

period 1 December 1964-30 November 19651 For comparison, the figures in

parentheses are for the previous period, 1 December 1963-30 November 1964.
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 15

TABLE IV.—Summary of data on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals in non-NA TO countries where a jurisdictional agreement exists for period Dec. I, 1964 to Nov. 30, 1965

[Figures in parentheses are for previous period]

Country

Cases subject to local

jurisdiction

Cases

waived,

released or

dropped

Cases

pending

from previour period

Cases tried Acquittals

Azores 

Costa Rica 

93

0

(143) 89 (140) 0 (0) 4 (3) 0(1)

Ecuador 1 

(1) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0(0)

Greenland 1 

1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Iceland 2 

1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0(0) 0 (0)

Japan 

148 (135) 8 (1) 4 (10) 130 (140) 0 (1)

Morocco 

1,960 (2,010) 1,661 (1,627) 51 (51) 306 (383) 6 (0)

New Zealand 

10 (8) 4 (9) 4 (16) 8 (11) 4 (3)

Philippines 7 (20) 6 (20) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0(0)

Spain 204 (132) 184 (104) 37 (22) 1 (13) 1 (2)

Venezuela 1 

172 (160) 144 (148) 17 (15) 12 (9) 5 (2)

West Indies (Antigua, 

1 1 0 0 0

Bermuda,

Turks and Caicos) 87 (133) 1 (10) 0 (0) 83 (123) 0 (12)

1 First case.

in 

2 

Iceland 

while Iceland 

is T.I.A.S. 

is signatory to NATO-SOFA, the effective agreement governing the status of U.S. forces 2295.

JAPAN

The largest number of cases in a non-NATO country arose in Japan. There were 1960 cases subject to Japanese jurisdiction of which 1548 (79%) were traffic offenses; criminal involvement of U.S. Forces in Japan has decreased nearly one-half over the preceeding two periods.

Our jurisdictional arrangements with Japan continue to operate effectively. The waiver rate has increased nearly three percentage points, waivers having been granted in 1306 or 83% of the 1576 alleged offenses involving military personnel. Of the 306 cases tried, in addition to 15 cases in which appeals were pending at the end of the previous period, six were acquitted, fines or reprimands only comprised 257 cases, and 26 of 48 confinement sentences were suspended. One Navy member received a sentence of life for murder; he is elibigle for parole in June 1975, however. Appeals from convictions pending at the end of the current period totaled 10.

SPAIN

During the current period 172 cases involving United States personnel arose in Spain; 17 cases were pending from the previous period. The United States exercised jurisdiction in 127 of those new cases. There were 12 trials by Spanish authorities, which including two appeals pending at the close of the previous period, resulted in five acquittals, five fines or reprimands, one suspended sentence and one sentence to confinement. Appeals were pending in two cases at the end of the current period.

COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE A JURISDICTIONAL

AGREEMENT

To show our experience in countries where we do not have a jurisdictional agreement, I would also like to place in the record another table containing statistical highlights. [Table V—Summary of Data on the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction by Foreign Tribunals in Countries Where No Jurisdictional Agree- ment Exists for period 1 December 1964-30 November 1965.] For comparison .,he figures in parentheses are those of the previous period, 1 December 1963-30 November 1964.
16 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

TABLE V.—Summary of data on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign

Tribunals in countries where no jurisdictional agreement exists for period Dec. 1,

1964, to Nov. 30, 1965

[Figures in parentheses are for previous report!

Cases Cases Cases

Country subject waived, pending from Cases Acquittals

to local

jurisdiction

released

or dropped

previous

period

tried

Ascension 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1)

Austria 7 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (3) 0 (0)

Hong Kong 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0)

Iran 0 (11) 6 (2) 6 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0)

Mexico 1,005 (1,100) 45 (56) 1 (2) 959 (1,045) 0 (1)

Panama 198 (93) 89 (31) 28 (11) 123 (45) 10 (8)

Thailand 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)

MEXICO AND PANAMA

Once again, of the countries where the United States has no jurisdictional

agreement, the largest number of incidents arose in Mexico and in Panama. Of

1,006 new offenses in Mexico which include one held over (over 80 percent were

disorderly conduct), only one has thus far resulted in a sentence to confinement;

958 received fines and, except two which are pending, the remainder were dropped.

While cases in Mexico have decreased by 95, criminal involvement of U.S. forces

in Panama has sharply increased from 93 to 198; while one-half of this increase

are traffic offenses, serious offenses have increased from 6 to 12 cases. Since

September of last year the United States and Panama have discussed aspects of

a Status of Forces agreement.

EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1037

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

related expenses incurred incident to their defense before foreign courts paid with

appropriated funds. During the current period, $82,651.93 was expended in 291

cases as compared with $66,517.87 in 284 cases during the previous period and

with $59,266.84 in 296 cases for the period ending 30 November 1963. The

average expenditure per case has risen over these three reporting periods from

$200.22 to $284.02. I would like to enter in the record Table VI, which further

details the foregoing for countries in which section 1037 was utilized. [Table

VI—Expenditures in Implementation of 10 U.S.C. 1037, 1 December 1964-30

November 1965]

TABLE VI.—Expenditures under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1037, Dec. 1, 1964, to

Nov. 30, 1965

Country

Number

of cases Counsel fees Bail

Court costs

and other

expenses

Net total

Paid during period

Australia: Navy 1 $466. 50 $466.50

Australia: Army 7 1, 589.45 ($6, 216.00) $18.88 1, 608. 33

Azores: Air Force 2 196.97 196.97

Bermuda: Air Force 1 211. 04 211.04

Canada:

Navy 1 100.00 100.00

Air Force 3 465.85 465.85

Costa Rica: Army 1 490. 00 490.00

Ecuador: Army 1 17.02 17.02

France:

Army 64 5, 156.48 1, 131.87 6, 288. 35

Navy 3 1, 632. 65 1, 632. 65

Air Force 4 214.29 214.29

Germany: Army 28 11, 566. 01 3, 295. 00 14, 861. 01

Greece:

Army 2 300.00 . 300.00

Air Force 7 3. 465. 00 3, 465. 00

Hong Kong: Navy 4 2, 908. 04 2, 908. 04

Iran: Army 3 1,287. 12 9. 33 1, 296. 45

Italy:

Army 28 3, 128. 00 3, 128. 00

Air Force 2 240.00 240.00
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 17

"'ABLE VI.—Expenditures under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1037, Dec. 1, 1964, to

Nov. 30, 1965—Continued

Country

Number

of cases Counsel fees Bail

Court costs

and other

expenses

Net total

Paid during period

Japan:

Army 9 $3, 150.00 $895.80 $4, 045.80

Navy 27 8,000.00 1, 016. 64 9, 016.64

Air Force 35 12, 275. 00 505.25 12, 780. 25

Mexico: Army 2 758.94 758.94

Morocco:

Navy 4 348.16 348. 16

Air Force_ 1 102.00 102.00

Panama:

Army 10 3, 200. 00 (4, 450. 00) 32.85 3, 232. 85

Air Force 1 600.00 (1, 000 00) 600.00

Philippines:

Navy 1 408.16 408.16

Air Force 3 3, 440. 33 (149. 86) 514. 14 3, 954. 47

Spain: i

Army 1 1, 169.40 1, 169.40

Air Force 2 370.00 370.00

Turkey: .

Army 9 3,255. 55 (444. 44) 3,255. 55

Navy_ 2 472.22 (444. 44) 472.22

Air Force 16 4, 566. 66 (3,777. 77) 4, 566. 66

United Kingdom: Air Force 5 1, 343. 97 1, 343. 97

Venezuela: Army 1 5, 774. 14 5,774. 14

Total 291 82, 651. 93 1 (16, 482. 51) 7, 436.78.90,088. 71

1 No bail forfeited during reporting period.

CONCLUSION

No United States commander has reported that jurisdictional arrangements

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

workable and satisfactory.

Senator ERVIN. General, would the figures indicate that there has

been, as a general proposition that there has been, an increase in offenses during the past year over the previous year, which is more or

less, I hate to say, in accordance with the conditions we find in this

country?

General HODSON. There has been an increase. Most of it is attributable to the increase in Germany.

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

General HODSON. And most of it involving traffic offenses; and, as I

say, the commanding general in Europe says that the overall reporting

procedures have been improved.

Senator ERVIN. I think on the whole however, the record is pretty

good, because we have got to remember that so many of the civilians

are sort of like myself, they have reached an age where they are not

capable of engaging in too much devilment, and most of these men in

the Armed Forces are young, with all the vigor of youth, and for that

reason they are subject to more temptation, I think, than some of us

who no longer have as much capacity to sin as we used to have.

But I think the record compares, notwithstanding the slight increase

in the number of crimes, very favorably with the record in the 'United

States among civilians.

General HODSON. I believe it does, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Since I became a member of this subcommittee,

we have received testimony on behalf of the Department of Defense

indicating that the operation of jurisdictional arrangements under the

Status of Forces Treaty and similar agreements has been satisfactory.
18 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

We have had reports from field commanders indicating that these

arrangements have had no detrimental effect on the accomplishment

of the missions of our forces abroad, and that they have had no deleterious effect upon the morale and discipline of our forces.

Now, the statements today would indicate that this was true during the past reporting year that we are now considering, which ended

November 30 of 1965. I take it that that is the fact from both your

report---

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRONEZ. Yes, sir; we would endorse that.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, it is true from your report that

these arrangements have been, on the whole, unusually satisfactory

considering differences in language and habits between our servicemen and .those of many countries, the host countries, and also they

have not had any bad effect on the accomplishment of the mission of

our forces abroad, and have not had any bad effect on the morale of

our troops.

Mr. BRONEZ. We think, sir, that, on the whole, it is certainly true.

General HODSON. It has had certainly no significant impact on

morale, and it has not affected the accomplishment of the mission.

Much of the credit for the successful operation of the Status of Forces

Agreements in the criminal field, I think, must be given to the Judge

Advocates of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force for the excellent

liaison they have maintained with the various Ministry of Justice

officials, procurators and prosecutors of the foreign countries in which

the troops are stationed.

Senator ERVIN. That certainly is in full accord with what I observed and the information I received last October and November

when I visited the Armed Forces at various places in Europe in some

seven or eight different countries, and being interested in the operation

of the Status of Forces Treaty, and these other jurisdictional arrangements, I made particular inquiry about those matters, came in contact

with many of the Judge Advocates in those countries, and I found

that to be true. They deserve the major share of the credit for the

very satisfactory operation of these agreements.

Now, I have noted in the past, which the figures, today indicate,

that as a whole, these members of the armed services who are tried

in the courts abroad, in the foreign courts, where the foreign courts

have exclusive jurisdiction or where they do not grant waivers, fare

very well as compared with Americans in. our civilian courts here

charged with similar offenses; is that not true?

General HODSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

My analysis of the sentences leads me to the conclusion that the

sentences imposed are no more severe than those courts impose on

their own nationals, and frequently are less severe; and second, that

the sentences imposed are generally less than the person might receive

if he were tried either by a court-martial or by a U.S. court.

Senator ERVIN. I was interested in your reference to the serviceman

who was in prison in Spain. As I recall, that offense was a very atrocious offense.

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And in all probability, if it had been committed

in many of the States in this country he would probably have received

a death penalty rather than imprisonment.
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 19

General HODSON. Correct.

Senator ERVIN. Do you have any questions you would like to ask,

Senator?

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I noticed on your chart on page 2, in Germany it seems

that we have four civilians who were tried for robbery, if I understand

the line under the figure in the case of civilians, is that correct?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Those are U.S. civilians over there?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Do you know what action was taken when

they completed their sentences? I presume they were separated from

the service.

General HODSON. I would say in all probability 

Senator THURMOND. It seems like a high proportion of civilians.

There are three military men, it seems, convicted of robbery, and

four civilians, and, of course, the civilians, I presume, are in the

minority, are they not? This does mean civilians working with our

military, it means U.S. citizens who have gone over there, as I understand, who are subject to 

General HODSON. Our records indicate, Senator Thurmond, that

the four civilians who were convicted of robbery in Germany last

year were all dependents.

Senator THURMOND. All dependents.

General HODSON. All dependents, and, I assume, dependents of

military personnel.

Senator THURMOND. I see. In other words, on the manslaughter

you had one civilian. Was that a dependent?

General HODSON. Our records would indicate that was a dependent

also.

Senator THURMOND. And these civilians, four dependents, they

were tried in the German courts?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Crime, in general, during the past year increased among our military and our civilians both?

General HODSON. Well, the number of offenses worldwide increased

with respect to both military and with respect to those civilians, including employees and dependents, who accompanied the military

overseas. There was an increase.

Senator THURMOND. You attribute that to the general worldwide

increase in crime or is there any specific reason?

General HODSON. No, sir. I made as careful an analysis of that

as I could to see whether I could see any trend and, as I say, most of

it is attributable to better techniques in reporting crime in Germany,

because most of the increase---,-

Senator THURMOND. Do you think it is better techniques in reporting, rather than an increase in crime?

General HODSON. There may have been very slight increase in

crime, but I think most of it can be attributed to the reporting of a

great many minor offenses in Germany which had not in the previous

reporting period been reported. They were so minor they were

handled locally without being brought to our attention, so that we

could include them in our statistical report. It is similar to the
20 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

situation where a new commissioner of police takes over in, we will

say, Chicago, and institutes new reporting requirements, and sometimes discovers that there appears to have been an increase in the

crime rate in the particular city, when there actually was no increase

in crime rate. It is just that they were reporting the crimes being

committed, and I think this is what we have this year. There

was just an improved reporting of those offenses which had been

committed.

' Senator THURMOND. You have been in the Pentagon for how long?

General HODSON. Eight years this time.

Senator THURMOND. Eight years. I think you have been there

a long time, and you have had a lot of experience then with the administration of justice in the military services.

From your experience in the Pentagon and out of the Pentagon,

too, you are convinced that the arrangements we have with these

different countries in our status-of-forces agreements are the best

arrangements, is that so?

General HODSON. I think it is the best arrangement that we can

come up with in the international community, recognizing the countries where we must station our troops in our interests and in their

interests, and recognizing the spirit of nationalism which we find in

some of those countries.

Senator THURMOND. They are better satisfied when they try people

who commit crimes than for our military to try them, and yet they

get off lighter, don't they?

General HODSON. Well, actually it is a question of, as I say, a

spirit of nationalism, if you wish to call it that, but it is a question of

a country maintaining its sovereignty.

Senator THURMOND. Maintaining its jurisdiction?

General HODSON. Sovereignty, and showing through the exercise

of criminal jurisdiction that it has not waived its sovereignty by

permitting us to station troops there.

Senator THURMOND. In some countries there is considerable

sentiment against waiving that sovereigntylisn't there?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. So far as punishment goes, our military

generally give more severe punishment than the local courts in the

status-of-forces country, do they not?

General HODSON. I would say so; yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND, If there were not this element there of local

pride and local sovereignty, as a military man interested in the

discipline of the troops, which would you probably choose, to let the

military punish these people or to let the local country do it?

General HODSON. I can refer now, of course, only to military

personnel, and I take it you are directing your question to the military

men.

If we had our choice, I think it would be better, more desirable,

for us to continue to exercise court-martial jurisdiction over the

military man. However, with respect to the serious offenses—and

I am now talking about murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, that

type of offense—in all probability, whether he is convicted by the

civilian courts of the receiving state or whether he is convicted by

court-martial, he is lost to the military anyway because he invariably

will be discharged, and he will not be our problem any longer. With
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 21

respect to the minor traffic offenses, these are really not any burden

overseas because we experience the same problem in the United

States, where we permit, of course, as you know, the States and the

municipalities to exercise jurisdiction with respect to traffic offenses,

so we are familiar with this, and it is no change when we move overseas except that there is a language barrier.

So all in all, the arrangement is a fairly good arrangement, and

which, as we have reported year after year, has no impact on the

accomplishment of our mission. So that when I say that we would

find it more desirable to handle a man by court-martial, I would say

this only because we keep the man, we feel that we owe this man protection, and we would like to keep him in the military community

or in the community of the U.S. citizens, and we think that this is a

little better than to have to turn him over to the foreign authorities.

Senator THURMOND. And that keeps down some criticism on the

part of our people here, too, who would object to foreign courts having

jurisdiction, although if they study the records they would find they

get off lighter in the foreign civilian courts than they probably would

in our own military.

General HOBSON. Yes, sir.

We have a little greater logistic and administrative problem when

they are tried by foreign courts. As you know, we supplement

rations, we inspect the prisons monthly, sometimes more often; we

take care of their health, their welfare, and this is a little bit of a

logistics problem.

We, in effect, are sustaining a prisoner overseas. It would be a

little easier to sustain that same prisoner, we will say, in the U.S.

disciplinary barracks, and it would require less manpower.

Senator THURMOND. I see.

General HODSON. I do not mean that we are providing all of the

food and all of the comforts and so forth, for a man in a foreign prison.

We just insure that he has enough, sometimes by supplementing it

with American rations.

Senator THURMOND. Some years ago, I believe, even though they

were tried in civilian courts, the military courts probably tried them

again, did they not? Is that still done?

General HODSON. Under the Status of Forces Agreement?

Senator THURMOND. That was probably before.

General HODSON. Under the Status of Forces Agreement, the

agreement usually includes that 

Senator THURMOND. Includes they will not be tried gain.

General HODSON (continuing). A statement that they will not be

tried again for the same offense in that country.

Senator THURMOND. Even though they should receive punishment

at the hands of the civilian court, which you feel is entirely inadequate,

you could not try them again if the Status of Forces Agreement so

provided, could you?

General HODSON. That is correct.

Senator THURMOND. Have you had any difficulty along that line?

Have you found any undue leniency in any particular country that

has caused a disciplinary problem?

General HODSON. No; not that I know of.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY

Senator ERVIN. I take it, General, that all the references in your

report to civilians being tried or convicted are to civilians who are

either working and serving with the Armed Forces or with the dependents, civilian dependents, or members of the Armed Forces?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. You would not be concerned and have no authority

with respect to civilians who go there as tourists, for example, and get

into trouble and are tried in the courts?

General HODSON. That is right.

Senator ERVIN. Whatever would happen to them would be handled

by the diplomatic service of our country abroad rather than the

military.

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Now, then, previous reports have indicated, and

you have also stated today, that we have a very unsatisfactory arrangement, rather unsatisfactory condition, with reference to civilians

who accompany our Armed Forces abroad since the decisions of the

Supreme Court that they were not subject to trial by military courtsmartial, and I presume that condition still exists?

General HODSON. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. As I recall previous reports, the host country where

it occurs is not ordinarily very much concerned where an American

civilian accompanying our Armed Forces commits an offense against

another American civilian or an American military man, rather than

against one of the nationals of the host country?

General HODSON. That is correct.

Senator ERVIN. So the result of the present arrangement is if a

civilian dependent of a military man accompanying our forces abroad

cannot be reached by disciplinary action, they go, to use the poetic

expression, unwhipped to justice?

General HODSON. Well, this varies from country to country. But,

generally speaking, the statement you have made with respect to what

we call inter se offenses, offenses against ourselves or offenses against

Government property or private property belonging to a member of

the military, the foreign countries are not too interested in taking

jurisdiction in those cases. In certain countries they will take jurisdiction, but usually the sentence is rather light. In other countries

they would prefer not to mingle in what they think are our own

affairs. They prefer not to get into them.

Senator ERVIN: It saves them a lot of expense not to be bothered

with an American civilian who steals property from another American

civilian 

General HODSON. That is right.

Senator ERVIN (continuing). Accompanying our Armed Forces or

from military personnel. In other words, they are not burdened with

the expense of a trial, and the expense of imprisonment and any other

expenses of that nature if they ignore it.

General HODSON. That is correct, particularly when an offense is

committed on a U.S. military area.

Senator ERVIN. We have had a number of bills, I introduced one

myself as a blueprint for discussion rather than as a solution to this

problem, relating to this, and never have yet been able to come up

with a satisfactory solution. There are so many practical and, also,
OPERATION OF ARTICLE VII, NATO STATUS OF FORCES TREATY 23

constitutional questions involved that it is one of the most difficult

areas I know to get any effective legislation in.

At this time we will go into executive session and request everyone

who does not have authority to remain to retire.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to proceed

in executive session.)

0
996,

4o4 a