[Senate Executive Report 106-22]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Exec. Rept.
SENATE
2d Session 106-22
======================================================================
TREATIES WITH BELIZE, COSTA RICA, THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, GUATEMALA
AND PANAMA ON THE RETURN OF STOLEN VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT
_______
September 29, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany Treaty Docs. 105-54, 106-40, 106-7, 105-58 and 106-44]
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred
the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of Belize for the Return of Stolen
Vehicles, with Annexes and Protocol, signed at Belmopan on
October 3, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-54), the Treaty Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government
of the Republic of Costa Rica for the Return of Stolen,
Embezzled or Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes
and a related exchange of notes, signed at San Jose on July 2,
1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-40), the Treaty Between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of the
Dominican Republic for Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles,
with Annexes, signed at Santo Domingo on April 30, 1996 (Treaty
Doc. 106-7), the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of
Guatemala for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, Embezzled or
Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related
exchange of notes, signed at Guatemala City on October 6, 1997
(Treaty Doc. 105-58) and the Treaty Between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of the Republic
of Panama for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Converted
Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes, signed at Panama on June
6, 2000, and a related exchange of notes of July 25, 2000
(Treaty Doc. 106-44), having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with the declarations and provisos indicated
in Section VII, and recommends that the Senate give its advice
and consent to the ratification thereof as set forth in this
report and the accompanying resolutions of ratification.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................2
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................2
IV. Entry Into Force and Termination.................................6
V. Committee Action.................................................6
VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................6
VII. Text of Resolutions of Ratification..............................6
I. Purpose
These treaties obligate the Parties to recover and return
vehicles and, in some cases aircraft, that are documented in
the territory of one Party, stolen within its territory or from
one of its nationals, and found in the territory of the other
Party.
II. Background
These bilateral treaties share the goals of eliminating the
difficulties faced by owners of vehicles, and in some cases,
aircraft, stolen or otherwise misappropriated in one country,
when they try to secure the return of such vehicles, or
aircraft, from another country to which the vehicles or
aircraft have been taken; and of establishing procedures
facilitating the location and return of the vehicles or
aircraft. The need for such agreements arises due to the
increase in transnational theft of such vehicles and aircraft.
III. Summary
A. GENERAL
The treaties covered in this report are modeled on the
single such bilateral treaty in force, the Convention between
the United States of America and the United Mexican States for
the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles and
Aircraft (Jan. 15, 1981, T.I.A.S. No. 10653, entry into force
June 28, 1983). The latter Convention itself superseded a 1936
Convention for the Recovery and Return of Stolen or Embezzled
Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Airplanes, or Component Parts of Any
of Them between the United States and Mexico, which, while it
established the principle of mutual assistance in the recovery
of stolen vehicles and aircraft, was framed in very general
terms.
The 1981 Convention clarified and established procedures
for the return of stolen vehicles and aircraft. The treaties
covered in this report would together establish similar
procedures while incorporating one major improvement--
establishing more concrete and restrictive deadlines for action
by the party providing notification of a seized vehicle or
aircraft or receiving a request for the return of a vehicle or
aircraft.
The five treaties summarized here follow the basic
components of the Convention with Mexico, and are very similar
to each other. Some have unique clauses, and two do not cover
aircraft. As with the Convention with Mexico, no implementing
legislation is necessary.
B. KEY PROVISIONS
For details about each treaty, please refer to individual
treaty documents. What follows is a general description of the
format of the proposed treaties.
Preamble
In general, the treaty preambles note the growing problem
of international vehicle theft, and express the purposes of the
treaty as elimination of the difficulties faced by owners of
vehicles stolen in one country in obtaining the return of
vehicles from the country to which they have been taken.
Definitions
The treaties define covered conveyances using the generally
accepted understandings of what constitutes a ``vehicle'' or,
where applicable, an ``aircraft.'' Each treaty also provides
guidance on what constitutes stolen, robbed, embezzled,
appropriated or misappropriated vehicles or aircraft for
purposes of the treaties. Some of the treaties also define
terms associated with timing of requests, and seizures of
vehicles. Some identify competent authorities for purposes of
treaty activity.
Party Obligations
In general, Article 2 of each of the treaties contains the
key obligations, namely, to return vehicles or aircraft, as
applicable, from one party's territory to the other's upon
request.
In one of the treaties, with regard to a vehicle or
aircraft that was stolen outside the territory of a requesting
party from one of its nationals, there is no obligation to
return if a prior request for return has been made by a third
party. This provision expressly addresses the possibility of
requests from both a country in whose territory the vehicle or
aircraft was actually stolen and a country from whose national
but outside of whose territory the same item was stolen.
Central Authorities
Some of the treaties require each party to designate a
Central Authority for treaty activity. For the United States,
the Central Authority shall be the Secretary of State, the
Department of State, or the American Embassy, depending on the
treaty. One of the treaties also sets out how Central
Authorities are to communicate with one another.
Obligation to Notify
The treaties also impose upon the party where a covered
vehicle or aircraft is seized an obligation to notify the other
party of the discovery within a certain period following the
seizure. The notice is to include identifying data described in
the annexes. In one treaty, where a vehicle or aircraft has
been seized because it may have been involved in the
commission, or represent the proceeds, of a crime, the first
party shall notify the other party within 60 days of seizure of
this circumstance, so the owner has the opportunity for
appropriate recourse under the laws of the seizing party.
Storage and Disposition
The treaties also govern and provide for storage and
disposition of the vehicle by the seizing party pending
possible return to the other party. Generally, the seizing
party may not operate, auction, dismantle, or otherwise alter
or dispose of the conveyance unless no request for the
vehicle's return is received within a certain period following
receipt of notification, or in other specified circumstances.
In general, the treaties obligate the true owner to take action
to retrieve the vehicle within a certain period following
notification by the seizing state.
Form of Requests for Return
The treaties also state the form to be used by requesting
countries when preparing and sending return requests to seizing
states. Some of the treaties permit the despatch and receipt of
requests between Central Authorities, without the need for
additional authentications in the requesting country by
consular representatives of the requested state. In general,
ownership documents and reports of the vehicle's theft or
misappropriation must also be included with the request. The
treaties also set out translation requirements where
applicable. The treaties also set forth procedures to be
employed when the requesting party has discovered the presence
of a vehicle in the requested state through means other than
notification from the requested state.
Obligation to Respond
The treaties provide that requested parties are under an
obligation to respond to requests from treaty partners, and
sets out time limits, under varying circumstances, for the
responses. There are also provisions to ensure that the seized
vehicle remains available for a sufficient period to allow
treaty procedures to be initiated.
Exceptions to Obligation to Return Vehicles or Aircraft
In general, when a vehicle or aircraft whose return is
requested is evidence in a criminal investigation or
prosecution, it may be retained in the requested state until
the end of the investigation or prosecution. Under most of the
treaties, Parties are obliged, however, to take all practical
measures to ensure that, where available, alternative evidence
is used. In addition, there is no obligation to return if a
judicial action results in a decision awarding the vehicle to
someone other than the person identified in the request for
return as the owner or owner's representative. One treaty
specifies that such a decision may include that of an
administrative panel where the panel is designated to review
the issue of ownership or custody of the vehicle, as long as
the requesting party is given adequate notice of the proceeding
and the administrative decision may be appealed to a court of
law. Where applicable, these provisions are intended to allow
for the possibility of criminal forfeiture, but most expressly
provide the claimant with due process protections.
In addition, unless the owner and requesting state timely
reply to notification of seizure from the requested state, the
obligation to return may be extinguished. Likewise, the
obligation to return may be postponed if the return of a
vehicle whose return is requested is not possible owing to the
pendency of criminal or civil proceedings. In such cases,
however, the requested state is obliged to send written notice
of such delay to the requesting state.
Finally, in some treaties the obligation to return the
vehicle may be extinguished by the passage of time where no
request for return is received, or where the owner fails to
take possession of the stolen vehicle or aircraft after it is
made available.
Conditions of Return
Generally, the treaties forbid the assessment of duties,
taxes, fines, or other monetary penalties or charges as
conditions of return. However, in some cases, ``reasonable
expenses'' incurred by the requested state for return of the
vehicle or aircraft, including towing, maintenance, storage,
transport, and document translation, may be assessed to the
claimant and must be paid prior to return. In one treaty,
``actual expenses'' incurred for return of the vehicle,
including towing, maintenance, storage, transport, and document
translation, shall be borne and paid by the claimant prior to
return. However, in that case, the requested parties are under
a duty to make efforts to keep expenses down. In certain cases,
expenses of return may include expenses of repair necessary to
transport, store and maintain the vehicle in the condition in
which it was found, but the person requesting return shall not
be obligated to cover the costs of any other work on the
vehicle or aircraft done while it was in the custody of the
requested party.
Limitation of Requested Party's Liability
The treaties explicitly limit the liability of requested
parties for damage to recovered vehicles and aircraft while the
conveyance is in that party's hands, provided that the
requested party complies with the treaty provisions concerning
recovery, storage, safekeeping and return of a vehicle.
Treaty Not Exclusive Remedy
The treaties generally provide that their remedies are not
exclusive, and do not replace or extinguish remedies or
procedures which may be available under the domestic laws of
parties.
Mechanism for Consultations
The treaties provide that differences or disputes regarding
the interpretation or application of the treaty shall be
settled by consultation between the parties.
Final Clauses
Generally, the treaties are subject to ratification and
shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments
of ratification. The annexes and protocols are considered to be
integral parts of the treaty. The treaties may be terminated by
either party with a minimum 90 days written notice.
Treaty Annexes
Each of the treaties has annexes. In general, the annexes
establish the format and identifying information needed for the
notification of a stolen vehicle or aircraft, where applicable
and request for return. A protocol to the Belize treaty
establishes that there shall be no presumption that a vehicle
has been stolen if proper U.S. customs documents indicating
legal exportation are presented. Exchanges of notes, included
with certain of the treaties, express understandings as to the
meaning of the term ``appropriate translation,'' to the effect
that appropriate translations will include generic printed
forms in English and Spanish, with the blanks filled in with
standard vehicle or aircraft identification information. In
some cases, the notes explicitly state that the understanding
is to be treated as an integral part of the treaty. Under
international law, an exchange of notes can constitute a
legally binding agreement.
IV. Entry Into Force and Termination
A. ENTRY INTO FORCE
In general, each treaty would enter into force on the date
of the exchange of instruments of ratification.
B. TERMINATION
The treaties generally provide that either party may
terminate the agreement with a minimum of 90 days' notice.
V. Committee Action
The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on
the proposed treaties on September 12, 2000 (a transcript of
the hearing and questions for the record can be found in Senate
hearing 106-660 entitled ``Consideration of Pending
Treaties''). The Committee considered the proposed Treaties on
September 27, 2000, and ordered them favorably reported by
voice vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its
advice and consent to the ratification of the proposed Treaties
subject to the declarations and provisos noted below.
VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments
The Committee on Foreign Relations recommends favorably the
proposed treaties. On balance, the Committee believes that the
proposed treaties are in the interest of the United States and
urges the Senate to act promptly to give its advice and consent
to ratification.
VII. Text of the Resolutions of Ratification
Treaty with Belize
Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Belize for the Return
of Stolen Vehicles, with Annexes and Protocol, signed at
Belmopan on October 3, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-54), subject to
the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of subsection
(b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
upon the President:
Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification:
Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.
Treaty with Guatemala
Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of
Guatemala for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, Embezzled or
Appropriated Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related
exchange of notes, signed at Guatemala City on October 6, 1997
(Treaty Doc. 105-58), subject to the declaration of subsection
(a) and the proviso of subsection (b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
upon the President:
Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification:
Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.
Treaty with the Dominican Republic
Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Dominican Republic
for the Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles, with Annexes,
signed at Santo Domingo on April 30, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 106-7),
subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of
subsection (b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
upon the President:
Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification:
Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.
Treaty with Costa Rica
Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of Costa
Rica for the Return of Stolen, Embezzled or Appropriated
Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related exchange of
notes, signed at San Jose on July 2, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 106-40),
subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the proviso of
subsection (b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
upon the President:
Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification:
Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.
Treaty with Panama
Resolved (two thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of the Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama
for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Converted Vehicles and
Aircraft, with Annexes, signed at Panama on June 6, 2000, and a
related exchange of notes of July 25, 2000 (Treaty Doc. 106-
44), subject to the declaration of subsection (a) and the
proviso of subsection (b).
(a) Declaration.--The Senate's advice and consent is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be binding
upon the President:
Treaty Interpretation.--The Senate affirms the
applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally
based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in
Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and
Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the
Senate on May 14, 1997.
(b) Proviso.--The resolution of ratification is subject
to the following proviso, which shall not be included in the
instrument of ratification:
Supremacy of the Constitution.--Nothing in this
Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by the United States of America that is
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as
interpreted by the United States.