Opinion ID: 183941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harmony in Results

Text: We have adopted the view of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 325 cmt. d (1987) that [t]reaties that lay down rules to be enforced by the parties through their internal courts or administrative agencies should be construed so as to achieve uniformity of result despite differences between national legal systems. See United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (By refusing to adopt an exclusionary rule, we thus promote harmony in the interpretation of an international agreement. (citing Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 325 cmt. d)). Here, the parties agree that the Russian government does not have an analog to § 1782; the Russian courts have not been vested with discretionary authority to deny a request for assistance. The government's view therefore supports harmony in the interpretation of the MLAT, whereas Appellants' view creates discord.