Opinion ID: 781597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Uniformity and Reciprocity Among Treaty Partners

Text: 43 Interpreting the MLAT to subject each and every request to the existing substantive law of the requested state runs contrary to another fundamental principle of treaty interpretation. Treaties 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. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations § 325 cmt. d; United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2000). Obviously, the United States and Canada have their own domestic substantive law. Consequently, under the appellees' construction of the MLAT, the viability of requests under the Treaty would often turn on which country is entertaining the request, even if the information requested is identical. 44 We find no statements anywhere in the text of the Treaty or its negotiation and ratification history to suggest that the parties did not intend the obligations to be reciprocal and uniform. In fact, a desire for uniform treatment of similar requests made by the two countries underlies the decision to enter into the MLAT in the first place. The Treaty's ratification history reveals that in conjunction with signing the Treaty, Canada enacted implementing legislation to give its courts the authority to execute requests from the United States for assistance in criminal investigations prior to the filing of formal charges. See Report from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S. Treaty Doc. 100-14, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988) at 2-3. See also Technical Analysis at 1-2. That implementing legislation is known as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA), R.S.C.1985, c. 30 (4th Supp.), s. 18. 45 Prior to the MLAT, because Canada's domestic law prohibited compelled testimony from witnesses prior to charges being filed, assistance was denied to authorities from the United States. The MLACMA was enacted along with the MLAT to remove the legal barrier and permit (indeed, obligate) Canada to provide assistance prior to indictment ... [and make] assistance available at the investigative stage. Technical Analysis at 2. That legislation was intended to make sure that there would be no remaining legal impediments to MLAT requests made back-and-forth between the two countries. 46 If the circumstances were reversed in this case and the United States sought this type of assistance from the Canadian courts, such assistance would seemingly be available under the MLAT by virtue of the Canadian implementing legislation. This treaty negotiation and ratification history makes clear that uniformity and reciprocity regarding requests for assistance in criminal matters were a vital concern of the two countries in entering into the MLAT. That is precisely what the United States was seeking to accomplish in requiring Canada to enact the implementing legislation along with the MLAT. See Report from the Committee on Foreign Relations, S. Treaty Doc. 100-14 at 2-3 (explaining that the MLAT along with Canada's implementing legislation will remove the legal barrier and obligate Canada to provide assistance at the investigative stage and the MLAT will add an element of standardization and uniformity to criminal procedures); Technical Analysis at 1-2. Nevertheless, the appellees urge us to construe this Treaty in a way that destroys the uniformity and reciprocity that the treaty drafters intended to create by requiring Canada to adopt this implementing legislation concurrent with the Treaty. We cannot faithfully construe the Treaty in such a manner. 47