REPORT

29–115

117

ONGRESS

XEC

. R

EPT

" !

SENATE

2d Session 117–4

TREATIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA ON EXTRADITION

AND MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

UNE

23, 2022.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. M

ENENDEZ

, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany Treaty Doc. 116–2]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the

Agreement between the Government of the United States of Amer-

ica and the Government of the Republic of Croatia comprising the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on

Extradition between the United States of America and the Euro-

pean Union, signed June 25, 2003, as to the Application of the

Treaty on Extradition signed 25 October 1901 (the ‘‘U.S.-Croatia

Extradition Agreement’’), and the Agreement between the Govern-

ment of the United States of America and the Government of the

Republic of Croatia comprising the Instrument as contemplated by

Article 3(3) of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between

the United States of America and the European Union signed at

Washington on June 25, 2003 (the ‘‘U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement’’), both signed at Washington on December 10,

2019 (Treaty Doc. 116–2), having considered the same, reports fa-

vorably thereon with one declaration with respect to each, as indi-

cated in the resolutions of advice and consent, and recommends

that the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof,

as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolutions of ad-

vice and consent.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

CONTENTS

Page

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2

(A) The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement ............................................. 2

(B) The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement ....................... 3

III. Entry into Force and Termination ............................................................... 4

IV. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 4

V. Committee Recommendation and Comments .............................................. 4

VI. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement ........................... 4

VII. Explanation of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement 9

VIII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification .......................... 14

(A) The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement ............................................. 14

(B) The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement ....................... 14

I. P

URPOSE

The purpose of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement is to

modernize in important respects the Treaty between the United

States of America and the Kingdom of Serbia for the Extradition

of Fugitives from Justice, signed October 25, 1901, which is cur-

rently in force between the United States of America and the Re-

public of Croatia. The purpose of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement is to formalize and strengthen the institu-

tional framework for legal assistance between the United States of

America and the Republic of Croatia in criminal matters.

II. B

ACKGROUND

CROATIA EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

The United States is currently party to more than 100 bilateral

extradition treaties, including a treaty with the Kingdom of Serbia

for the Extradition of Fugitives from Justice, which was signed on

October 25, 1901, and entered into force on June 12, 1901 (here-

after the ‘‘1901 treaty’’). The 1901 treaty applies to the Republic of

Croatia as a successor state to the former Socialist Federal Repub-

lic of Yugoslavia.

The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement serves to implement, as

between the two Parties, the Agreement on Extradition between

the United States of America and the European Union (‘‘the U.S.-

EU Extradition Agreement’’), which was signed on June 25, 2003

and entered into force on February 1, 2010. Application of the U.S.-

EU Extradition Agreement to the 1901 treaty, as reflected in the

U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement, meaningfully updates both

the procedural and substantive aspects of the extradition relation-

ship between the United States and the Republic of Croatia.

The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement is designed to mod-

ernize the 1901 treaty. Most significantly, it replaces the outdated

list of extraditable offenses with the modern ‘‘dual criminality’’ ap-

proach, thereby enabling coverage of newer offenses, such as cyber-

related crimes, environmental offenses, and money laundering. In

addition, it includes several provisions updating and streamlining

procedural requirements for preparing and transmitting extradition

documents.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

(B) THE U

CROATIA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (‘‘MLATs’’) are international

agreements that establish a formal, streamlined process by which

governments may gather information and evidence in other coun-

tries for use in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The U.S.-

Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement is designed to

strengthen the institutional framework for legal assistance between

the United States of America and the Republic of Croatia in crimi-

nal matters. In order for the United States to successfully pros-

ecute criminal activity that is transnational in scope, it is often

necessary to obtain evidence or testimony from a witness in an-

other country. While U.S. federal courts may issue subpoenas to

U.S. nationals overseas, they lack the authority to subpoena for-

eign nationals found in other countries or the authority to sub-

poena evidence in a foreign country. Additionally, effectuating serv-

ice of a subpoena to U.S. persons abroad may be difficult.

In the absence of an applicable international agreement, the cus-

tomary method for obtaining evidence or testimony in another

country is via a ‘‘letter rogatory,’’ which tends to be an unreliable

and time-consuming process. It generally involves a court in one

country sending a formal communication to a government authority

in another country, requesting certain evidence or the testimony of

a person within the latter’s jurisdiction, for use in a pending action.

The State Department advises that the ‘‘letter-rogatory’’ process

can often take a year or more and, unless undertaken pursuant to

an international agreement, compliance is a matter of judicial dis-

cretion. Furthermore, the scope of foreign judicial assistance might

also be limited by domestic information-sharing laws, such as bank

and business secrecy laws, or be confined to evidence relating to

pending cases rather than preliminary, administrative, or grand

jury investigations conducted prior to the filing of formal charges.

Execution of ‘‘letters rogatory’’ is usually carried out under the ju-

dicial norms of the responding country. However, responding coun-

try norms may be insufficiently compatible with U.S. law such that

the resulting evidence is rendered inadmissible in a U.S. court.

MLATs are designed to overcome these and similar problems.

In view of the Republic of Croatia’s accession to the EU on July

1, 2013, the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

serves to implement, as between the two Parties, the Agreement on

Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America

and the European Union, signed on June 25, 2003 (‘‘the U.S.-EU

Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement’’), and which entered into force

on February 1, 2010. Consistent with the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement, the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance

Agreement addresses identification of bank information, joint in-

vestigative teams, video-conferencing, expedited transmission of re-

quests, assistance to administrative authorities, use limitations,

confidentiality, and grounds for refusal. This approach is consistent

with that taken with respect to other EU Member States, e.g., Bul-

garia, Denmark, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Slovak Republic, and

Slovenia.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

III. E

NTRY INTO

ORCE AND

ERMINATION

Article 5, in both the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement and

the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, contains

final clauses addressing entry into force and termination. Under

Article 5(1), each Agreement is subject to the completion of the

countries’ respective, applicable, internal procedures for entry into

force, and will enter into force upon the completion of an exchange

of notifications, upon the date of receipt of the latter notification.

Under Article 5(2), each Agreement is terminated in the event of

the respective termination of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement

or the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. It further

notes that the Parties may alternatively agree to continue to apply

the provisions of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement and the

U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, in whole or in

part.

IV. C

OMMITTEE

CTION

The Committee on Foreign Relations reviewed both the U.S.-Cro-

atia Extradition Agreement and the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement (together, the ‘‘Treaties’’) at a hearing on April

6, 2022, at which representatives of the Departments of State and

Justice testified. On May 4, 2022, the committee considered the

Treaties and ordered them favorably by voice vote, with the rec-

ommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to the

ratification of the Treaties subject to the declaration that they are

self-executing.

V. C

OMMITTEE

ECOMMENDATION AND

OMMENTS

The committee recommends favorably the Treaties with the Re-

public of Croatia. The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement modern-

izes a treaty that is over a century old and provides a more flexible

‘‘dual criminality’’ provision that will incorporate a broader range

of criminal offenses than is currently covered. In addition, the U.S.-

Croatia Extradition Agreement will facilitate the ability of the

United States to prosecute more effectively, through new provisions

related to requests from more than one State, simplified extra-

dition, and temporary surrender.

The committee believes the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assist-

ance Agreement, which would enhance law enforcement coopera-

tion between the United States and the Republic of Croatia, would

further U.S. efforts in fighting terrorism and transnational crime,

while still comporting with existing U.S. legal requirements and

practice.

VI. E

XPLANATION OF THE

U.S.-C

ROATIA

XTRADITION

GREEMENT

What follows is an article-by-article description of the provisions

of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement, including the Annex,

prepared by the Departments of State and Justice.

Article 1 of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement acknowl-

edges that the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement is applied in rela-

tion to the 1901 Extradition Treaty and specifies the articles of the

U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement applicable between the United

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

States and Croatia. The specified articles of the U.S.-EU Extra-

dition Agreement are:

(a) Article 4, governing the scope of the extraditable of-

fenses;

(b) Articles 5(1) and 7(1), governing the mode of trans-

mission of the extradition request and supporting docu-

ments, and providing for an alternative method for trans-

mission of the request for extradition and supporting docu-

ments following provisional arrest;

certification, authentication or legalization of the extra-

dition request and supporting documents;

(d) Article 6, authorizing an alternative channel of trans-

mission of requests for provisional arrest;

(e) Article 8, governing the channel to be used for sub-

mitting supplementary information;

(f) Article 9, governing the temporary surrender of a per-

son being proceeded against or serving a sentence in the

requested state;

(g) Article 10, governing the decision on requests made

by several states for the extradition or surrender of the

same person;

(h) Article 11, governing the use of simplified extradition

procedures;

(i) Article 12, governing requests for transit of persons in

custody;

(j) Article 13, governing extradition with respect to con-

duct punishable by death in the requesting State; and,

(k) Article 14, governing consultations where the request-

ing state contemplates the submission of particularly sen-

sitive information in support of a request for extradition.

Article 2 establishes that the Annex reflects the integrated text

of the 1901 Extradition Treaty and the provisions of the U.S.-EU

Extradition Agreement that apply between the two countries, and

confirms that the Annex is an integral part of the U.S.-Croatia Ex-

tradition Agreement that applies upon the Agreement’s entry into

force. Article 2 further provides for minor numbering and termino-

logical modifications in the Annex outside the scope of the provi-

sions identified in Article 1, none of which reflect substantive

changes to the 1901 Extradition Treaty, and defines ‘‘high con-

tracting parties,’’ as used in the 1901 Extradition Treaty, to mean

the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic

of Croatia.

Article 3 specifies that the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement

applies to offenses committed prior to and following entry into

force.

Article 4 provides that the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement

does not apply to requests for extradition made prior to its entry

into force, except for certain enumerated provisions. In accordance

with Article 16 of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement, certain arti-

cles of the Annex, including the object and purpose (Article I), ex-

traditable offenses (Article II), and temporary surrender (Article X

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

bis) provisions shall apply to extradition requests predating the

U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement’s entry into force.

Article 5 contains final clauses addressing the U.S.-Croatia Ex-

tradition Agreement’s entry into force and termination. Article 5(1)

provides that the U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agreement is subject to

the completion of the countries’ respective, applicable, internal pro-

cedures for entry into force, and will enter into force upon the com-

pletion of an exchange of notifications, upon the date of receipt of

the latter notification. Article 5(2) provides that the U.S.-Croatia

Extradition Agreement shall be terminated in the event that the

U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement is terminated, in which case the

1901 Extradition Treaty would be applied. It further notes that the

Parties may in the alternative agree to continue to apply the provi-

sions of the U.S. Croatia Extradition Agreement, in whole or in

part.

Pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S.-Croatia Extradition

Agreement, the Annex reflects the integrated text of the 1901 Ex-

tradition Treaty and the provisions derived from the U.S.-EU Ex-

tradition Agreement that are to be applied to the 1901 Extradition

Treaty (‘‘the Integrated Treaty Text’’). The following is an article-

by-article description of the provisions reflected in the Annex. In

addition to the modifications required by the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, the Integrated Treaty Text is updated throughout to

refer directly to the Republic of Croatia, refer to ‘‘State’’ or ‘‘States’’

rather than ‘‘country’’ or ‘‘countries,’’ respectively, and add captions

and enumerated paragraphs for ease of reference.

Article I is modified, consistent with Article 4 of the U.S.-EU Ex-

tradition Agreement, to reflect—together with Article II(1)—the

basic obligation for each Party to extradite to the other persons

who are sought for prosecution or for imposition or service of a sen-

tence with respect to an extraditable offense, provided there is suf-

ficient evidence under the laws of the requested State.

Article II, which is taken from Article 4 of the U.S.-EU Agree-

ment, provides for a ‘‘dual criminality’’ approach to extraditable of-

fenses. Article II(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 Integrated

Treaty Text with respect to extraditable offenses is consistent with

the modern ‘‘dual criminality’’ approach, rather than the old ‘‘list’’

approach, and is one of the key benefits of integrating the texts.

Use of a ‘‘dual criminality’’ clause, rather than the categories of of-

fenses listed in the 1901 Extradition Treaty, obviates the need to

renegotiate or supplement the 1901 Extradition Treaty as addi-

tional offenses become punishable under the laws of both States.

Use of the dual criminality standard also ensures a comprehensive

coverage of criminal conduct for which extradition might be sought.

Article II(1) further defines an extraditable offense to include an

attempt or a conspiracy to commit, or participation in the commis-

sion of, an extraditable offense. The Parties intended to include,

under the broad description of ‘‘participation,’’ the offenses of aid-

ing, abetting, counseling or procuring the commission of an offense,

as well as being an accessory to a request.

Article II(2) directs that if extradition is granted for an extra-

ditable offense, it must also be granted for any other offense speci-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

fied in the request that is punishable by one year’s deprivation of

liberty or less, provided that all other requirements for extradition

are met.

Article II(3) establishes that an offense is an extraditable offense

regardless of whether: (a) the laws in the requesting and requested

State place the offense in the same category or use the same termi-

nology in defining the offense; (b) the offense is one for which U.S.

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 merely for the

purpose of asserting federal jurisdiction; or, (c) the laws of the re-

questing 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, in criminal cases related to such

matters.

Article II(4) provides that, with regard to offenses committed out-

side the territory of the requesting State, extradition shall be

granted if the laws of the requested State provide for the punish-

ment of such conduct committed outside its territory in similar cir-

cumstances. If the laws of the requested State do not so provide,

the executive authority of the requested State may, at its discre-

tion, grant extradition provided that all other applicable require-

ments for extradition are met.

Article III expands and updates the procedures and required doc-

uments for extradition Article III(1), taken from Articles 5(1) and

7(1) of the U.S.-EU Extradition Agreement, requires transmission

of extradition requests through the diplomatic channel, allowing

that if the person sought is held under provisional arrest this re-

quirement may be met by submitting the request to the embassy

of the requested State located in the requesting State. It further

specifies that in such cases, the date of delivery to the embassy is

the date of receipt for purposes of satisfying the time limit estab-

lished in Article IV.

Article III(2) preserves original language from the 1901 Extra-

dition Treaty.

Article III(3), taken from Article 5(2) of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, provides that documents bearing the seal of the min-

istry of justice or ministry or department responsible for foreign af-

fairs of the requesting State shall be admissible in extradition pro-

ceedings in the requested State without further certification, au-

thentication, or legalization. The article also defines ‘‘ministry of

justice’’ as the Department of Justice for the United States and as

the Ministry of Justice for the Republic of Croatia, respectively.

Article III(4) preserves original language from the 1901 Extra-

dition Treaty.

Article III bis, taken from Article 8 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, allows the requested State to require from the request-

ing State supplementary information within a reasonable period of

time if the requested State considers the original request not to in-

clude sufficient information. It further provides that such requests

may be made and satisfied directly between the respective min-

istries of justice.

Article III ter, taken from Article 14 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, provides for consultations between the Parties in cases

where the requesting State is considering submitting sensitive in-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

formation as part of an extradition request, to determine to what

extent the information can be protected by the requested State. If

the requested State cannot protect the information as sought, the

requesting State may nevertheless determine to include the infor-

mation in the request.

Article IV(1), taken from Article 6 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, allows for provisional arrest requests to be made di-

rectly between the respective ministries of justice, or by using the

facilities of the International Criminal Police Organization

(INTERPOL), as an alternative to using the diplomatic channel.

Articles IV(2), V, VI, VI, and VIII preserve original language

from the 1901 Extradition Treaty.

Article VIII bis, taken from Article 13 of the U.S,-EU Extradition

Agreement, provides that where extradition is sought for an offense

that is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State

but not under the laws of the requested State, the requested State

may grant extradition subject to the condition that the death pen-

alty, if imposed, shall not be carried out. If the requesting State

does not accept such conditions, the request for extradition may be

denied

Article IX preserves original language from the 1901 Extradition

Treaty.

Article X, taken from Article 10 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, regards decisions on multiple requests for the sur-

render of the same person. Article X(1) establishes that, where the

requested State receives requests from the requesting State and

one or more additional States for the extradition of the same per-

son, the executive authority of the requested State shall determine

to which State, if any, the person will be surrendered. Article X(2)

elaborates that if the Republic of Croatia receives an extradition re-

quest from the United States and a surrender request pursuant to

a European arrest warrant for the same person, the Minister of

Justice of the Republic of Croatia shall determine to which State,

if any, the person will be surrendered. Article X(3) sets forth a non-

exhaustive list of factors that the requested State will consider in

determining to which State a person will be surrendered, according

to the provisions of Article X(1) and (2).

Article X bis, taken from Article 9 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, allows for temporary surrender for purposes of prosecu-

tion in the requesting State, of a person who is being proceeded

against or serving a sentence in the requested State. Its second

paragraph provides further that a person so surrendered will be

kept in custody by the requesting State and returned to the re-

quested State following the completion of proceedings in the re-

questing State, according to conditions mutually agreed between

the Parties. It also allows that time spent in custody of the request-

ing State may be deducted from the time remaining to be served

in the requested State.

Article X ter, taken from Article 11 of the U.S.-EU Extradition

Agreement, allows for simplified extradition, consistent with the

principles and procedures of the legal system of the requested

State, in cases where the person sought has consented to sur-

render, which consent may also include waiver of protection of the

rule of specialty. In such situations, the requested State shall sur-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

render the person to the requesting State as expeditiously as pos-

sible.

Article X quater, taken from Article 12 of the U.S.-EU Extra-

dition Agreement, concerns requests for transit of persons in cus-

tody. Article X quater(1) provides that the Parties may authorize

transit through their respective territory of a person surrendered

to the other Party by a third state, or by the other Party to a third

state. Article X quater(2) specifies that transit requests shall be

made through the diplomatic channel, or directly between the

United States Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice of

the Republic of Croatia. It further allows that INTERPOL facilities

may be used. Finally, it specifies the substantive content of a tran-

sit request, and that a person in transit must be detained during

the transit period.

Article X quater(3) provides that a transit request is not required

for air transit where no landing is scheduled in the territory of the

transited State. It allows for the transited state to require a transit

request in the case of an unscheduled landing, and provides that

all necessary measures will be taken to prevent the person in cus-

tody from absconding until transit is effected, so long as the transit

request is received within 96 hours of the unscheduled landing.

Article XI preserves original language from the 1901 Extradition

Treaty, with minor revisions to the punctuation of the first sen-

tence.

Article XII provides for the 1901 Extradition Treaty to remain in

force for six months following notice of termination from either

Party.

VII. E

XPLANATION OF THE

U.S.-C

ROATIA

UTUAL

EGAL

SSISTANCE

GREEMENT

What follows is an article-by-article description of the provisions

of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty prepared by

the Departments of State and Justice.

Article 1 acknowledges that the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assist-

ance Agreement is applied between the United States of America

and Croatia, and identifies those articles of the U.S.-EU Mutual

Legal Assistance Agreement establishing the substantive terms of

the agreement. The identified articles of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement are:

(a) Article 4, governing the identification of financial ac-

counts and transactions;

(b) Article 5, governing the formation and activities of

joint investigative teams;

son located in the requested State by use of video trans-

mission technology between the requesting and requested

States;

(d) Article 7, governing the use of expedited means of

communication;

(e) Article 8, governing the providing of mutual legal as-

sistance to administrative authorities:

(f) Article 9, governing the limitation on use of informa-

tion or evidence provided to the requesting State, and the

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

conditioning or refusal of assistance on data protection

grounds;

(g) Article 10, governing the circumstances under which

a requesting State may seek the confidentiality of its re-

quest; and

(h) Article 13, governing the invocation by the requested

State of grounds for refusal.

Article 2 establishes that the Annex is an integral part of the

U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement and reflects the

provisions of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement ap-

plied between the United States of America and the Republic of

Croatia upon the entry into force of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement.

Article 3 specifies that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance

Agreement applies to offenses committed prior to and following

entry into force.

Article 4 provides that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance

Agreement does not apply to requests made prior to its entry into

force, save for certain limited exceptions. In accordance with Article

12 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, provisions

related to video conferencing (Annex, Article 3) and the expedited

transmission of requests (Annex, Article 4) shall apply to requests

made prior to the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agree-

ment’s entry into force.

Article 5 contains final clauses addressing the U.S.-Croatia Mu-

tual Legal Assistance Agreement’s entry into force and termi-

nation. Article 5(1) provides that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement is subject to the completion of the countries’

respective, applicable, internal procedures for entry into force and

will enter into force upon the completion of an exchange of notifica-

tions, upon the date of receipt of the latter notification. Article 5(2)

provides that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement

shall be terminated in the event that the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement is terminated, provided however that, in the

alternative, the Parties may agree to continue to apply the provi-

sions of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, in

whole or in part.

As provided in Article 2, the Annex reflects the provisions of the

U.S.-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty applied between the

United States of America and the Republic of Croatia. The fol-

lowing is an article-by-article description of these provisions.

Article 1, taken from Article 4 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, regards the identification of bank information.

Article 1(1) provides that, upon request, the requested State shall

promptly ascertain whether banks in its territory possess informa-

tion on whether an identified natural or legal person suspected of

or charged with a criminal offense is the holder of one or more

bank accounts. The requested State must also promptly commu-

nicate its findings to the requesting State. Article 1(1) goes on to

extend the same obligations to identification of information regard-

ing persons convicted or otherwise involved in a criminal offense,

information in the possession of non-bank financial institutions, or

financial transactions unrelated to accounts.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

Article 1(2) describes the information that must be contained in

requests for such information as may be requested under the pre-

ceding paragraph. Article 1(3) identifies for each Party the chan-

nels of transmission for requests under this Article, which may be

modified only by exchange of diplomatic notes between the United

States and the European Union. For the United States, requests

shall be transmitted by the attache

responsible for the Republic of

Croatia of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau

of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for matters under their

respective jurisdictions, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

for all other matters. For the Republic of Croatia, requests shall be

transmitted by the Ministry of Justice.

Article 1(4) limits the scope of criminal activity in relation to

which the Parties will provide assistance under this Article to

money laundering or terrorist activity punishable under the laws

of both the requesting and requested States, as well as any addi-

tional criminal activity as one Party may subsequently notify to the

other Party. U.S. negotiators verified that under Croatian law as-

sistance will be available for a wide range of conduct associated

with terrorism (which includes the conduct criminalized in inter-

national counterterrorism conventions to which they are party) and

money laundering with respect to an extremely broad range of

predicate offenses. Article 1(5) provides that requests under this

Article may not be denied on the grounds of bank secrecy. Article

1(6) provides that the requested State shall respond to a request

for production of the records concerning the accounts or trans-

actions identified pursuant to this Article in accordance with the

requirements of its domestic law.

Article 2, taken from Article 5 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, regards the establishment and operation of

joint investigative teams. Article 2(1) allows for joint investigative

teams to be established and operated in the respective territories

of the United States of America and the Republic of Croatia to fa-

cilitate criminal investigations or prosecutions involving the United

States and at least one Member State of the European Union. Arti-

cle 2(2) provides that the operational procedures for the joint inves-

tigative team will be agreed between the competent authorities of

the respective States concerned, as determined by those States. Ar-

ticle 2(3) provides for direct communication among the identified

competent authorities, except where otherwise agreed among the

concerned States in light of a need for more central coordination.

This approach facilitates speed, efficiency and clarity by providing

in most cases for direct communications among the affected law en-

forcement components, rather than through a mutual legal assist-

ance request transmitted through a central authority, as would

otherwise generally take place.

Article 2(4) establishes that where a joint investigative team

needs investigative measures to be taken in one of the constituent

States, a team member from that State may request such measures

from its own competent authorities without requiring a mutual

legal assistance request from the other constituent States. The

legal standard for obtaining the measure is the applicable domestic

standard in the state where the measure is to be carried out. 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

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

existing domestic investigative authority, and would share result-

ing 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 car-

ried out based on domestic authority, the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

Section 3512 may furnish a separate legal basis for carrying out

such a measure.

Article 3, taken from Article 6 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, concerns the use of video conferencing. Article

3(1) establishes that video transmission technology shall be avail-

able between the United States of America and the Republic of

Croatia for the testimony of a witness or expert located in the re-

quested State, for use in a proceeding for which mutual legal as-

sistance is available. It further provides that unless modified by

this article, the procedure for taking such testimony will follow the

laws of the requested State. Article 3(2) provides that the request-

ing State will bear the cost of establishing and operating the video

transmission, unless otherwise agreed, and that other costs will be

assigned as agreed by the Parties. Article 3(3) allows for consulta-

tions between the Parties to resolve legal, technical, or logistical

issues.

Article 3(4) provides that, without prejudice to jurisdiction under

the laws of the requesting State, the making an intentionally false

statement or other misconduct by the witness or expert in the

course of the video testimony is punishable in the requested State

in the same manner as if it occurred in the course of its domestic

proceedings. 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 for-

eign State, since the proceeding to execute the request is a U.S.

proceeding and therefore penalties under U.S. law for perjury, ob-

struction of justice, or contempt of court are applicable. Article 3(5)

notes that this Article is without prejudice to other available legal

means for obtaining testimony in the requested State. Article 3(6)

allows that the requested State may make video conferencing avail-

able for purposes other than those specified in Article 3(1), includ-

ing for purposes of identification of persons or objects, and taking

of investigative statements.

Article 4, taken from Article 7 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, allows requests and related communications to

be made by expedited means, with subsequent formal confirmation

if required by the requested State. The requested State may also

respond using expedited means.

Article 5, taken from Article 8 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, regards assistance to administrative authori-

ties. Article 5(1) provides that mutual legal assistance will be af-

forded to national administrative authorities investigating conduct

pursuant to a specific administrative or regulatory authority and

with a view to a criminal prosecution or referral for criminal pros-

ecution or investigation. If the administrative authority anticipates

that no prosecution or referral will take place, assistance is not

available. It also allows for, but does not require, assistance to be

afforded to other administrative authorities under similar cir-

cumstances Article 5(2) provides that requests for assistance under

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

this Article will be transmitted between the U.S. Department of

Justice and the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia, un-

less otherwise agreed

Article 6, taken from Article 9 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, regards limitations on use to protect personal

and other data. Article 6(1) permits the requesting State to use evi-

dence or information it has obtained from the requested State for

its criminal investigations and proceedings, for preventing an im-

mediate and serious threat to its public security, for non-criminal

judicial or administrative proceedings directly related to its crimi-

nal investigations, for non-criminal judicial or administrative pro-

ceedings directly related to criminal investigation or proceedings or

for which assistance was provided under Article 5, and for any

other purpose if the information or evidence was made public with-

in the framework of the proceedings for which it was transmitted

or pursuant to the above permissible uses. Other uses of the evi-

dence or information require the prior consent of the requested

State.

Article 6(2)(a) specifies that the article does not preclude the re-

quested State from imposing additional conditions where the par-

ticular 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 infor-

mation on the use made of the evidence or information. Article

6(2)(b) provides that generic restrictions with respect to the legal

standards in the requesting State for processing personal data may

not be imposed by the requested State as a condition under para-

graph 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 pri-

vacy of data does not give rise to a ground for refusal of assistance

and may not as such give rise to additional conditions under Article

6(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 re-

questing State would raise difficulties so fundamental as to be con-

sidered by the requested State to fall within the ‘‘’essential inter-

ests’’ grounds for refusal contained in Article 8. Article 6(3) pro-

vides 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 evi-

dence or information can be protected.

Article 7, taken from Article 10 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement, requires the requested State, if asked, to use

its best efforts to keep confidential a request and its contents, and

to inform the requesting State if the request cannot be executed

without breaching confidentiality.

Article 8, taken from Article 13 of the U.S.-EU Mutual Legal As-

sistance Agreement confirms that the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal

Assistance Agreement’s provisions do not preclude the assertion of

a ground for refusal based on applicable, legal principles, such as

sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests, ex-

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS

cept where such ground for refusal is precluded by Articles 1(5)

(bank secrecy) and 6(2)(b) (generic restrictions relating to personal

data) of the U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement.

VIII. T

EXT OF

ESOLUTION OF

DVICE AND

ONSENT TO

ATIFICATION

(A) THE U

CROATIA EXTRADITION AGREEMENT

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARA-

TION

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Agree-

ment between the Government of the United States of America and

the Government of the Republic of Croatia comprising the instru-

ment as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Extra-

dition between the United States of America and the European

Union, signed June 25, 2003, as to the Application of the Treaty

on Extradition signed on October 25, 1901 (the ‘‘U.S.-Croatia Ex-

tradition Agreement’’), signed at Washington on December 10,

2019, (Treaty Doc. 116–2), subject to the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject

to the following declaration: The U.S.-Croatia Extradition Agree-

ment is self-executing.

(B) THE U

CROATIA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO A DECLARA-

TION

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Agree-

ment between the Government of the United States of America and

the Government of the Republic of Croatia comprising the instru-

ment as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the Agreement on Mutual

Legal Assistance between the United States of America and the

European Union signed at Washington on June 25, 2003 (the ‘‘U.S.-

Croatia Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement’’), signed at Wash-

ington on December 10, 2019, (Treaty Doc. 116–2), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject

to the following declaration: The U.S.-Croatia Mutual Legal Assist-

ance Agreement is self-executing.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:15 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029115 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6611 E:\HR\OC\ER004.XXX ER004

ctelli on DSK11ZRN23PROD with REPORTS