Text - Treaty Document: Senate Consideration of Treaty Document 110-11All Information (Except Treaty Text)

A Senate treaty document provides the text of the treaty as transmitted to the Senate, as well as the transmittal letter from the President, the submittal letter from the Secretary of State, and accompanying papers.

Text of Treaty Document available as:

For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Senate Treaty Document 110-11]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



                                     

110th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                     Treaty Doc.
                                                                 110-11
_______________________________________________________________________
 
                  EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ROMANIA AND 
                PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL 
                  ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH 
                                ROMANIA

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

  EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROMANIA 
(THE ``EXTRADITION TREATY'' OR THE ``TREATY'') AND THE PROTOCOL TO THE 
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROMANIA ON MUTUAL LEGAL 
   ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS (THE ``PROTOCOL''), BOTH SIGNED AT 
                    BUCHAREST ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2007




 January 22, 2008.--Treaty was read the first time, and together with 
the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
          and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                 The White House, January 22, 2008.
To the Senate of the United States:
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the 
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Extradition 
Treaty between the United States of America and Romania (the 
``Extradition Treaty'' or the ``Treaty'') and the Protocol to 
the Treaty between the United States of America and Romania on 
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the ``Protocol''), 
both signed at Bucharest on September 10, 2007. I also 
transmit, for the information of the Senate, the reports of the 
Department of State with respect to the Extradition Treaty and 
Protocol.
    The Extradition Treaty would replace the outdated 
Extradition Treaty between the United States and Romania, 
signed in Bucharest on July 23, 1924, and the Supplementary 
Extradition Treaty, signed in Bucharest on November 10, 1936. 
The Protocol amends the Treaty Between the United States of 
America and Romania on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal 
Matters, signed in Washington on May 26, 1999 (the ``1999 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty''). Both the Extradition Treaty 
and the Protocol also fulfill the requirements for bilateral 
instruments (between the United States and each European Union 
(EU) Member State) that are contained in the Extradition and 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements between the United States 
and the EU currently before the Senate.
    The Extradition Treaty follows generally the form and 
content of other extradition treaties recently concluded by the 
United States. It would replace an outmoded list of 
extraditable offenses with a modern ``dual criminality'' 
approach, which would enable extradition for such offenses as 
money laundering and other newer offenses not appearing on the 
list. The Treaty also contains a modernized ``political 
offense'' clause, and it provides that neither Party shall 
refuse extradition based on the citizenship of the person 
sought. Finally, the new Treaty incorporates a series of 
procedural improvements to streamline and speed the extradition 
process. The Protocol primarily serves to amend the 1999 Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaty in areas required pursuant to the U.S.-
EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, specifically: mutual 
legal assistance to administrative authorities; expedited 
transmission of requests; use limitations; identification of 
bank information; joint investigative teams; and video 
conferencing.
    I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable 
consideration to the Extradition Treaty and the Protocol, along 
with the U.S.-EU Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreements and the other related bilateral instruments between 
the United States and European Union Member States.

                                                    George W. Bush.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                       Department of State,
                                      Washington, November 1, 2007.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you the 
Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and 
Romania (the ``Extradition Treaty'') and the Protocol to the 
Treaty between the United States of America and Romania on 
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the ``Protocol''), 
both signed at Bucharest on September 10, 2007. Upon its entry 
into force, the Extradition Treaty would replace the 
Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and 
Romania, signed at Bucharest on July 23, 1924, and the 
Supplementary Extradition Treaty, signed at Bucharest on 
November 10, 1936. The Extradition Treaty and the Protocol 
fulfill the requirements of the Agreements on Extradition and 
Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America 
and the European Union, both signed on June 25, 2003, which 
were transmitted to the Senate on September 28, 2006, for 
implementing bilateral instruments between the United States 
and each member state of the European Union. The article-by-
article analyses of the two instruments are enclosed with this 
report. I recommend that the Extradition Treaty and the 
Protocol be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent to ratification. Both instruments are self-executing 
and will not require implementing legislation.
    Respectfully submitted.
                                                  Condoleezza Rice.
    Enclosures: Overviews and analyses of the provisions of the 
Extradition Treaty and Protocol.

Protocol to the Treaty Between Romania and the United States of America 
             on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters


                                OVERVIEW

    The Protocol to the Treaty between Romania and the United 
States of America on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal 
Matters (the ``Protocol'') serves to implement, as between the 
United States and Romania, the provisions of the 2003 Agreement 
on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America 
and the European Union (the ``U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement''). It does this through amendment of the Treaty 
between Romania and the United States of America on Mutual 
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Washington on 
May 26, 1999 (the ``1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty'').
    The following is an article-by-article description of the 
provisions of the Protocol.
    Article 1 of the Protocol incorporates Article 8 of the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (``Mutual legal 
assistance to administrative authorities''), thereby providing 
an express legal basis for the provision of assistance to an 
administrative authority investigating conduct with a view to 
criminal prosecution or referral to criminal investigation or 
prosecution authorities, pursuant to its specific 
administrative or regulatory authority to undertake such 
investigation. If the administrative authority anticipates that 
no prosecution or referral will take place, assistance is not 
available. This provision is added as Article 1 bis of the 1999 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
    Article 2 of the Protocol replaces Article 2 of the 1999 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. The only change is that the 
amended treaty will reflect that, for Romania, the Central 
Authority is the Ministry of Justice.
    Article 3 of the Protocol replaces Article 4(1) of the 1999 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and provides that requests 
transmitted by fax or email shall be considered to be in 
writing. It also adds Article 4( 1) bis to the 1999 Mutual 
Legal Assistance Treaty to incorporate Article 7 of the U.S.-EU 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (``Expedited transmission of 
requests''), which provides that requests for mutual legal 
assistance, and communications related thereto, may be made by 
expedited means of communications, including fax or email, with 
formal confirmation to follow where required by the requested 
State. The requested State may respond to the request by any 
such expedited means of communication.
    Article 4 of the Protocol incorporates Article 6(2) of the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, providing that the 
costs associated with establishing and servicing a video-
conference for mutual legal assistance purposes, as well as the 
allowances and expenses related to travel of persons in 
relation to such video-conferences, will be borne by the 
Requesting State unless otherwise agreed. This provision 
replaces Article 6( 1) of the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance 
Treaty.
    Article 5 of the Protocol incorporates Article 9 of the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (``Limitations on use 
to protect personal and other data'') by replacing Article 7 of 
the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. Paragraph 1 of the new 
Article 7 permits the Requesting State to use evidence or 
information it has obtained from the requested State for its 
criminal investigations and proceedings, for preventing an 
immediate and serious threat to its public security, for non-
criminal judicial or administrative proceedings directly 
related to its criminal investigations or proceedings, for non-
criminal judicial or administrative proceedings for which 
assistance was provided under Article 1 of the Protocol, and 
for any other purpose if the information or evidence was made 
public within the framework of the proceedings for which it was 
transmitted or pursuant to the above permissible uses. Other 
uses of the evidence or information require the prior consent 
of the requested State.
    Paragraph 2(a) specifies that the article does not preclude 
the requested State from imposing additional conditions where 
the particular request for assistance could not be granted in 
the absence of such conditions. Where such additional 
conditions are imposed, the requested State may require the 
requesting State to give information on the use made of the 
evidence or information.
    Paragraph 2(b) provides that generic restrictions with 
respect to the legal standards of the requesting State for 
processing personal data may not be imposed by the requested 
State as a condition under paragraph 2(a) to providing evidence 
or information. This provision is further elaborated upon in 
the explanatory note to the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance 
Agreement (regarding Article 9(2)(b) of that Agreement), which 
specifies that the fact that the requesting and requested 
States have different systems of protecting the privacy of data 
does not give rise to a ground for refusal of assistance and 
may not as such give rise to additional conditions under 
paragraph 2(a). Such refusal of assistance could only arise in 
exceptional cases in which, upon balancing the important 
interests involved in the particular case, furnishing the 
specific data sought by the requesting State would raise 
difficulties so fundamental as to be considered by the 
requested State to fall within the essential interests grounds 
for refusal.
    Paragraph 3 provides that where, following disclosure to 
the requesting State, the requested State becomes aware of 
circumstances that may cause it to seek additional conditions 
in a particular case, it may consult with the requesting State 
to determine the extent to which the evidence or information 
can be protected.
    Article 6 of the Protocol incorporates Article 4 of the 
U.S.-EU Agreement (``Identification of Bank Information'') as 
Article 17 bis of the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
    Paragraph 1(a) requires the requested State to promptly 
ascertain if banks located in its territory possess information 
on whether a natural or legal person suspected of or charged 
with a criminal offense as designated pursuant to paragraph 4, 
holds a bank account or accounts. Paragraph 1(b) permits, but 
does not obligate, the requested State to ascertain whether 
bank information exists pertaining to convicted persons, or 
whether there is information in the possession of non-bank 
financial institutions, or financial transactions other than 
those related to accounts.
    Paragraph 2 requires a request for this form of cooperation 
to include, first, the identity of the natural or legal person 
relevant to locating such accounts or transactions; second, 
sufficient information to enable the competent authority of the 
requested State to reasonably suspect that such person engaged 
in a criminal offense and that banks or non-bank financial 
institutions in the requested State may have the information 
requested and to conclude that the information sought relates 
to the criminal investigation or proceeding for which 
assistance is sought; and, third, as much information as 
possible concerning which banks or other institutions may have 
the information, in order to reduce the breadth of the inquiry.
    Paragraph 3 designates the U.S. channel of communication 
for requests for assistance under this article as the U.S. 
legal attache to Romania representing the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (depending 
on the nature of the investigation or proceeding giving rise to 
the request). For Romania, the designated channel is the 
Prosecutor's Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 
Paragraph 3 also allows the United States and the European 
Union to modify these designations by exchange of diplomatic 
notes after the entry into force of the Protocol.
    Paragraph 4 provides that the United States and Romania 
will provide assistance under this article with respect to 
money laundering and terrorist activity punishable under the 
laws of both states, and with respect to such other criminal 
activity as to which may subsequently be agreed by the Parties. 
U.S. negotiators verified that under Romanian law assistance 
will be available for a wide range of conduct associated with 
terrorism (which includes the conduct criminalized in 
international counterterrorism conventions to which they are 
party) and money laundering with respect to an extremely broad 
range of predicate offenses.
    Paragraph 5 indicates that the Requested State shall 
respond to a request for production of the records concerning 
the accounts or transactions identified pursuant to this 
article in accordance with the other provisions of the 1999 
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, as amended by the Protocol.
    Article 7 of the Protocol incorporates Article 5 of the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (``Joint 
Investigative Teams''), and is added as Article 17 ter of the 
1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
    Paragraph 1 of the new Article 17 ter provides that joint 
investigative teams may be established and operated in the 
respective territories of the United States and Romania, where 
the Parties agree to do so.
    Under paragraph 2, the manner of the team's operation shall 
be agreed between the competent authorities, as determined by 
the respective States concerned.
    Paragraph 3 describes channels of communication so as to 
facilitate direct communication between law enforcement 
authorities with respect to cases arising under the Treaty. The 
paragraph provides that the competent authorities determined by 
the respective States concerned shall communicate directly for 
purposes of establishing and operating such teams, except where 
the complexity, scope, or other circumstances involved are 
deemed to require more central coordination, in which case the 
States concerned may agree upon other channels of 
communication. This approach facilitates speed, efficiency, and 
clarity by providing for direct communications in most cases 
among the affected law enforcement components, rather than 
through a mutual legal assistance request transmitted through 
the Central Authority, as would otherwise take place pursuant 
to a bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
    Paragraph 4 states that, where the joint investigative team 
needs investigative measures to be taken in one of the States 
involved in the team, a member of the team of that State may 
request its own competent authorities to take those measures 
without the other State having to submit a mutual legal 
assistance request. The legal standard for obtaining the 
measure is the applicable domestic standard. Thus, where an 
investigative measure is to be carried out in the United 
States, for example, a U.S. team member could do so by invoking 
existing domestic investigative authority, and would share 
resulting information or evidence seized pursuant to such an 
action with the foreign authorities. A formal mutual legal 
assistance request would not be required. In a case in which 
there is no domestic U.S. jurisdiction and consequently a 
compulsory measure cannot be carried out based on domestic 
authority, the other provisions of the 1999 Mutual Legal 
Assistance Treaty, as amended by the Protocol, may furnish a 
separate legal basis for carrying out such a measure.
    Article 8 of the Protocol incorporates Article 6 of the 
U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (``Video 
Conferencing''), except that Article 6 (2), relating to the 
costs of video conferencing is addressed, as noted above, in 
Article 4 of the Protocol. Article 8 is applied as Article 17 
quater of the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
    Paragraph 1 of the new Article 17 quater provides that the 
use of video transmission technology shall be available between 
the United States of America and Romania for taking testimony 
in a proceeding for which mutual legal assistance is available. 
The procedures to be applied in taking such testimony are as 
otherwise set forth in the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, 
as amended by the Protocol.
    Paragraph 2 provides for a consultation mechanism in order 
to facilitate legal, technical or logistical issues that may 
arise in the execution of a particular request.
    Paragraph 3 provides that the making of intentionally false 
statements or other witness or expert misconduct shall be 
punishable in the requested State in the same manner as if such 
conduct had been committed in the course of a domestic 
proceeding. This is already the case where the United States 
has been requested to facilitate the taking of video testimony 
from a witness or expert located in the United States on behalf 
of a foreign State, since the proceeding to execute the request 
is a U.S. proceeding and therefore penalties under U.S. law for 
perjury, obstruction of justice, or contempt of court are 
applicable.
    Paragraph 4 specifies that the availability of video 
transmission technology for purposes of facilitating the taking 
of testimony does not mean that other means of obtaining 
testimony are no longer available.
    Paragraph 5 makes clear that the requested State may also 
permit the use of video conferencing technology for purposes 
other than providing testimony, including for purposes of 
identification of persons or objects, and taking of 
investigative statements (to the extent these are not 
considered to be testimony under the law of the requesting 
State).
    Article 9 of the Protocol sets out the temporal application 
of the Protocol in accordance with Article 12 of the U.S.-EU 
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. Paragraph 1 provides that 
the Protocol will apply to offenses committed before as well as 
after it enters into force. Paragraph 2 provides that the 
Protocol shall apply to requests for assistance made after its 
entry into force; however, Articles 3 (``Expedited transmission 
of requests''), 4 (``Cost of video conferencing''), and 8 
(``Video conferencing'') shall apply to requests pending in the 
Requested State at the time the Protocol enters into force.
    Article 10 of the Protocol provides for entry into force 
and termination of the Protocol. Entry into force of the 
Protocol occurs, following an exchange of notifications 
regarding the completion of applicable internal procedures, on 
the date of entry into force of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement. In the event of termination of the U.S.-
EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, the Protocol also will 
terminate. Thereupon the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 
will apply along with any provisions of the Protocol for which 
the United States and Romania agree to continue application.
    The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in 
urging approval of this Protocol by the Senate at the earliest 
possible date.

                    U.S.-Romania Extradition Treaty


                                OVERVIEW

    The U.S.-Romania Extradition Treaty (the ``Extradition 
Treaty'' or the ``Treaty'') replaces an outdated 1924 
extradition treaty, as amended by a 1936 supplementary treaty. 
This new Extradition Treaty also serves to implement, as 
between the United States and Romania, the provisions of the 
Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America 
and the European Union (``the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement''), 
currently before the Senate.
    The following is an Article-by-Article description of the 
provisions of the Treaty.
    Article 1 obligates each Party to extradite to the other, 
pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty, persons whom the 
authorities in the Requesting State have charged with, found 
guilty of, or convicted of an extraditable offense.
    Article 2, which is taken from Article 4 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, defines extraditable offenses. Article 
2(1) defines an offense as extraditable if the conduct on which 
the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both 
States by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one 
year or by a more severe penalty. The approach taken in the 
Treaty with respect to extraditable offenses is consistent with 
the modem ``dual criminality'' approach, rather than the old 
``list'' approach, and is one of the key benefits of the new 
Treaty. Use of a ``dual criminality'' clause, rather than the 
categories of offenses listed in the 1924 Treaty, obviates the 
need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as additional 
offenses become punishable under the laws in both States and 
ensures a comprehensive coverage of criminal conduct for which 
extradition might be sought.
    Article 2(2) further defines an extraditable offense to 
include an attempt or a conspiracy to commit, or participation 
in the commission of, an extraditable offense. The Parties 
intended to include, under the broad description of 
``participation,'' the offenses of aiding, abetting, 
counseling, or procuring the commission of an offense, as well 
as being an accessory to an offense.
    Additional direction is provided by Article 2(3), which 
provides that an offense shall be an extraditable offense: (a) 
whether or not the laws in the Requesting and Requested States 
place the acts or omissions constituting the offense within the 
same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same 
terminology; (b) whether or not the offense is one for which 
United States federal law requires the showing of such matters 
as interstate transportation, or use of the mails or of other 
facilities affecting interstate or foreign commerce, such 
matters being jurisdictional only; or (c) whether or not, in 
criminal cases relating to taxes, customs duties, currency 
control, or commodities, the laws of the Requesting and 
Requested States provide for the same kinds of taxes, customs 
duties or controls on currency, or on the import or export of 
the same kinds of commodities.
    With regard to offenses committed outside the territory of 
the Requesting State, Article 2(4) provides that extradition 
shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of the 
Treaty if the laws of the Requested State provide for the 
punishment of such conduct committed outside its territory in 
similar circumstances. If the laws of the Requested State do 
not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed 
outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the 
executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, 
may proceed with extradition provided that all other 
requirements of the Treaty are met.
    Article 2(5) provides that, if extradition is granted for 
an extraditable offense, it shall also be granted for any other 
offense specified in the request if the latter offense is 
punishable by one year's deprivation of liberty or less, 
provided that all other requirements for extradition are met.
    Article 3 provides that extradition shall not be refused 
based on the citizenship of the person sought. This provision 
reflects a significant development in the U.S.-Romania 
extradition relationship. The 1924 Treaty does not require that 
the Parties extradite their citizens, and this provision 
required an amendment both to the Romanian Constitution and 
Romania's domestic law on international extradition.
    Article 4 governs political and military offenses as a 
basis for the denial of extradition. As is customary in 
extradition treaties, paragraph 1 provides that extradition 
shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is 
requested constitutes a political offense. Article 4(2) 
specifies six categories of offenses that shall not be 
considered to be political offenses:
          (a) a murder or other violent crime against a Head of 
        State of one of the Parties, or of a member of the Head 
        of State's family;
          (b) an offense for which both Parties have the 
        obligation pursuant to a multilateral international 
        agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit 
        the case to their competent authorities for decision as 
        to prosecution;
          (c) murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, 
        inflicting grievous bodily harm, assault with intent to 
        cause serious physical injury, or serious sexual 
        assault;
          (d) an offense involving kidnapping, abduction, or 
        any form of unlawful detention, including the taking of 
        a hostage;
          (e) placing, using, threatening to use or possessing 
        an explosive, incendiary, or destructive device capable 
        of endangering life, causing substantial bodily harm, 
        or causing substantial property damage; and
          (f) a conspiracy or attempt to commit, or 
        participation in the commission of any of the offenses 
        set forth in.(a)-(e).
    Article 4(3) provides that, notwithstanding Article 4(2), 
extradition shall not be granted if the executive authority of 
the Requested State determines that the request was politically 
motivated.
    Article 4(4) provides that the competent authority of the 
Requested State may refuse extradition for offenses under 
military law that are not offenses under ordinary criminal law. 
Desertion would be an example of such an offense.
    Article 4(5) provides that the Executive Branch is the 
``competent authority'' for the United States for purposes of 
Article 4.
    Article 5 governs those circumstances in which the person 
whose extradition is sought has been the subject of a prior 
prosecution. Article 5(1) provides that extradition shall not 
be granted when the person sought has been convicted or 
acquitted in the Requested State for the offense for which 
extradition is requested.
    Article 5(2) provides that extradition shall not be 
precluded by the fact that the competent authorities of the 
Requested State have decided:
          (a) not to prosecute the person sought for the acts 
        for which extradition is requested;
          (b) to discontinue any criminal proceedings which 
        have been instituted against the person sought for 
        those acts; or
          (c) to investigate the person sought for the same 
        acts.
    Article 6 provides that extradition may be denied if 
prosecution of the offense or execution of the penalty is 
barred by lapse of time under the law of the Requesting State. 
Acts that would interrupt or suspend the prescriptive period in 
the Requesting State are to be given effect by the Requested 
State.
    Article 7, which is taken from Article 13 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, concerns capital punishment. It provides 
that, when an offense for which extradition is sought is 
punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State but 
not under the laws in the Requested State, the Requested State 
may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty 
shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural 
reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the 
Requesting State, on condition that the death penalty, if 
imposed, shall not be carried out. If the Requesting State 
accepts extradition subject to such a condition, it must comply 
with the condition.
    Article 8 establishes extradition procedures and describes 
the documents required to support a request for extradition. 
Article 8(1), which is taken from Article 5(1) of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, provides that all requests for 
extradition must be submitted through the diplomatic channel, 
which shall include transmission through the channel specified 
in Article 12(4) of the Treaty.
    Article 8(2) specifies the documents, information, and 
legal texts that shall support all extradition requests. 
Article 8(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a 
person who is charged with an offense must also be supported 
by: a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a 
judge, court, or other competent authority; b)a copy of the 
charging document; and c) such information as would provide a 
reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed 
the offense for which extradition is sought.
    Article 8(4) sets forth the items, in addition to those set 
forth in Article 8(2), that must accompany a request for the 
extradition relating to a person who has been found guilty or 
been convicted of the offense for which extradition is sought.
    Pursuant to Article 8(4)(d), a request for extradition of a 
person who has been convicted in absentia must also be 
supported by those documents required for a request for a 
person who has been charged with an offense, as well as 
information regarding the circumstances under which the person 
was absent from the proceedings.
    Article 9, which is taken from Article 8 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, authorizes the Requested State to 
require the Requesting State to furnish additional information 
to support an extradition request, if the Requested State deems 
it necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Treaty. It 
specifies that such information may be requested and supplied 
directly between the United States Department of Justice and 
the Ministry of Justice of Romania.
    Article 10, which is taken from Article 5(2) of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, concerns admissibility of documents. It 
provides that documents bearing the certificate or seal of 
either the Ministry or Department of Justice or the foreign 
affairs Ministry or Department of the Requesting State shall be 
admissible in extradition proceedings in the Requested State 
without further certification.
    Article 11 provides that all documents submitted under the 
Treaty by the Requesting State shall be translated into the 
language of the Requested State.
    Article 12 sets forth procedures and describes the 
information that is required for the provisional arrest and 
detention of the person sought pending presentation of the 
formal extradition request and supporting documents. Article 
l2( 1) provides for provisional arrest and sets forth 
procedures for transmission of a request for provisional 
arrest. Article 12(2) specifies the information that must 
accompany an application for provisional arrest. Article 12(3) 
requires the Requested State to notify the Requesting State of 
the disposition of the provisional arrest request and the 
reasons for any inability to proceed with the request.
    Article 12(4) provides that, if the Requested State has not 
received the request for extradition and supporting documents 
within sixty days of the date of provisional arrest, the person 
shall be discharged, unless good cause is shown to maintain 
custody. Consistent with Article 7 of the U.S.-EU Extradition 
Agreement, Article 12(4) provides an alternative channel for 
receipt of extradition requests applicable with respect to 
persons who have been provisionally arrested, namely, through 
transmission of the request to the Embassy of the Requested 
State in the Requesting State. Article 12(5) provides that the 
discharge of a person from custody pursuant to Article 12(4) 
does not prejudice the person's subsequent rearrest and 
extradition if the extradition request and supporting documents 
are delivered at a later date.
    Article 13 specifies the procedures governing a decision on 
the extradition request and the surrender of the person sought. 
It requires the Requested State to promptly notify the 
Requesting State of its decision regarding a request. If the 
request is denied in whole or in part, the Requested State must 
provide an explanation of the reasons for the denial and, upon 
request, copies of pertinent judicial decisions. If extradition 
is granted, the States shall agree on the time and place for 
the surrender of the person sought. If the person sought is not 
removed from the territory of the Requested State within the 
time period prescribed by the law of that State, the person may 
be discharged from custody, and the Requested State, in its 
discretion, may subsequently refuse extradition for the same 
offense(s).
    Article 14 addresses temporary and deferred surrender. 
Article 14(1), on temporary surrender, is taken from Article 9 
of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement. It provides that, if a 
person whose extradition is sought is being proceeded against 
or is serving a sentence in the Requested State, the Requested 
State may temporarily surrender the person to the Requesting 
State for the purpose of prosecution. The Requesting State 
shall keep the person so surrendered in custody and shall 
return that person to the Requested State after the conclusion 
of the proceedings against that person, in accordance with 
conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the States. 
Time spent in custody in the Requesting State pending 
pros'ecution there may be deducted from the time to be served 
in the Requested State.
    Article 14(2), on deferred surrender, provides that the 
Requested State may postpone the extradition proceedings 
against a person who is being prosecuted or who is serving a 
sentence in the Requested State until that prosecution has 
concluded or sentence has been served.
    Article 15, which is taken from Article 10 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, governs the situation in which the 
Requested State receives requests for the extradition or 
surrender of the same person from more than one State, either 
for the same offense or for different offenses. In the event of 
requests by more than one State for the same person, the 
executive authority of the Requested State shall determine to 
which State, if any, it will surrender that person. In the 
event that Romania receives requests both from the United 
States and pursuant to a European arrest warrant for the same 
person, Romania's judicial authority, or such other authority 
as Romania may designate, shall determine to which State, if 
any, it will surrender the person. Article 15(3) provides a 
non-exclusive list of factors to be considered by the Requested 
State in determining to which State to surrender a person who 
is sought by more than one State.
    Article 16 provides that the Requested State may, to the 
extent permitted under its law, seize and surrender to the 
Requesting State all items, including articles, documents, 
evidence, and proceeds, that are connected with the offense in 
respect of which extradition is granted. Such items may be 
surrendered even if the extradition cannot be carried out due 
to the death, disappearance, or escape of the person sought. 
The Requested State may condition the surrender of the items 
upon satisfactory assurances from the Requesting State that the 
property will be returned to the Requested State as soon as 
practicable. The Requested State may also defer the surrender 
of such items if they are needed as evidence in the Requested 
State. The rights of third parties in such items are to be 
respected in accordance with the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 17 sets forth the Rule of Specialty, which, subject 
to specific exceptions set forth in paragraph 3, prohibits a 
person extradited under the Treaty from being detained, tried, 
or punished in the Requesting State except for:
          (a) any offense for which extradition was granted, or 
        a differently denominated offense based on the same 
        facts as the offense for which extradition was granted, 
        provided such offense is extraditable, or is a lesser 
        included offense;
          (b) any offense committed after the extradition of 
        the person; or
          (c) any offense for which the competent authority of 
        the Requested State consents to the person's detention, 
        trial, or punishment.
    Article 17(2) provides that a person extradited under the 
Treaty may not be the subject of onward extradition or 
surrender for any offense committed prior to the extradition to 
the Requesting State unless the Requested State consents. This 
provision would preclude Romania from transferring a fugitive 
surrendered to it by the United States to a third country or 
international tribunal without the consent of the United 
States.
    Article 17(3) sets forth exceptions to the rule of 
specialty. It provides that the restrictions set forth under 
Article 17 shall not prevent the detention, trial, or 
punishment of an extradited person, or the extradition of a 
person to a third State, if the extradited person either leaves 
the territory of the Requesting State after extradition and 
voluntarily returns to it or fails to leave the territory of 
the Requesting State within twenty days of being free to do so.
    Article 17(4) provides that the Executive Branch is the 
``competent authority'' for the United States for purposes of 
Article 17.
    Article 18, which is taken from Article 11 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, permits surrender without further 
proceedings if the person sought consents to being surrendered 
to the Requesting State. The consent of the person sought may 
include agreement to waiver of protection of the rule of 
specialty.
    Article 19, which is taken from Article 12 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, governs the transit through the 
territory of one State of a person surrendered to the other 
State by a third country, or to a third country by the other 
State. .
    Article 20 contains provisions regarding representation and 
the expenses associated with extradition. Specifically, the 
Requested State is required to advise, assist, appear in court 
on behalf of, and represent the interests of the Requesting 
State in any proceedings arising out of a request for 
extradition. Article 20(2) establishes that the Requested State 
bears all expenses incurred in that State in connection with 
the extradition proceedings, except that the Requesting State 
pays expenses related to the translation of extradition 
documents and the transportation of the person surrendered. 
Article 20(3) specifies that neither State shall make any 
pecuniary claim against the other arising out of the arrest, 
detention, examination, or surrender of persons under the 
Treaty.
    Article 21(1) provides that the parties may consult in 
connection with the processing of individual cases and in 
furtherance of efficient implementation of the Treaty. Article 
21(2), which is taken from Article 14 of the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement, provides for consultation between the 
parties when the Requesting State contemplates the submission 
of particularly sensitive information in support of a request 
for extradition, in order to determine the extent to which the 
information can be protected by the Requested State in the 
event of submission.
    Article 22 makes the Treaty applicable to offenses 
committed both before and after the date it enters into force.
    Article 23 contains final clauses addressing the Treaty's 
ratification, entry into force, and termination. It provides 
that the Treaty is subject to ratification and that the Treaty 
shall enter into force upon the exchange of the instruments of 
ratification. Article 23(3) provides that, upon entry into 
force of the Treaty, the Treaty of Extradition between the 
United States of America and Romania, signed at Bucharest on 
July 23, 1924, as well as the Supplementary Extradition Treaty, 
signed at Bucharest on November 10, 1936, shall cease to have 
any effect except that they shall apply in extradition 
proceedings in which extradition documents have already been 
submitted to the courts of the Requested State at the time the 
Treaty enters into force. In such cases, only Articles 2, 
14(1), and 18 of this Treaty will apply, and Article 17 of the 
Treaty, regarding the rule of specialty, will apply to persons 
found extraditable under the earlier treaties. Under Article 
23(4), where a request for extradition was received by the 
Requested State but not submitted to its courts before the 
entry into force of this Treaty, the Requesting State, after 
entry into force of this treaty, may amend or supplement the 
request for extradition as necessary in order for it to be 
submitted to the courts of the Requested State under this 
Treaty.
    Under Article 23(5), either State may terminate the Treaty 
with six months' written notice to the other State through the 
diplomatic channel.
    The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in 
urging approval of this Treaty by the Senate at the earliest 
possible date.