REMJA WORKING GROUP OF EXPERTS ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS AND EXTRADITION
APRIL 5th& 6th2006, PORT-OF-SPAIN, TRINIDAD, W.I.
Opening Remarks from Senator the Honourable John Jeremie S.C., Attorney General of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Welcome words from Host, Mr. David West, Head, Central Authority Unit, Ministry of the Attorney General, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Introductory remarks from the OAS REMJA Mutual Legal Assistance Working Group Coordinator, Mr. Pierre-Gilles Bélanger
Report and considerations from the Technical Secretariat -Jorge Garcia-Gonzalez, Department of Legal Affairs, OAS
1) Recommendations from REMJA and Central Authorities meetings; Network and considerations
OAS member states that are parties to treaties for legal and judicial cooperation must appoint Central Authorities. The Working Group should continue its activities for the network to expend to all countries of the Americas. A meeting of Central Authorities and Other Experts should be held at least once between the REMJAs, with the support and coordination of the Working Group, to analyze challenges faced by member states regarding MLA. A confusion has been seen over the years since the Working Group took responsibilities over the Central authorities meeting. In respect to the network, and the Working Group achieving well all this work, REMJA’s mandate of support and coordination has lead to confusion and created a type of superposition between both processes. To avoid this in the future, the process should be consolidated and a new structure into the creation of a unit is a necessity.
2) Mandate from Plan of Action of the 4th Summit of the Americas and its development
The original mandate, as viewed by the Technical Secretariat, was to consolidate the Hemispheric Information Exchange Network for MLA, support the actions for the implementation of a strategic plan for the Justice Studies Centre of the Americas (JSCA) and strengthen the institutional development of the General Secretariat of the OAS with respect to these issues, in accordance with the framework of the REMJAs. Also and so far, the Office of Legal Cooperation in the Department of International Legal Affairs has been established with technical secretariat functions.
3) Framework of REMJA and Considerations for continuity
Technical Secretariat: states that they are compiling commonly used terms, advance documents and follow-up for completion before third Meeting; maintain public and private web pages for the Network and request information from States every 4 months to update Network; gather information for appropriate consideration to be given to REMJA VI as to means by which the Network can be maintained and properly funded long term; provide support in the evaluation of the secure e-mail pilot project.
Collectively or Groups for the Third Meeting and Support: Coordinator continues to seek information for the web page , both public and private, works with IT OAS in the training of authorities on the secure e-mail, Canada is preparing a guide of best practices; Argentina with Chile preparing a model law, Trinidad with a project of legislation on Back Warrants, Mexico a guide of procedures for extradition; offer was made by Brasil and Technical Secretariat to help them with some material.
Transnational Organized Crime Plan Update - Edouardo Baca (Mexico)
Negotiations continue at the meetings in Washington. Mexico has been requested to move forward in the negotiations but this requires a joint effort by all member states to be effective (i.e., participation in the discussions regarding this plan). A Special Committee on Transnational Organized Crime has been holding meetings on this plan of action, which addresses: better coordination by the General Secretariat to maximize resources and avoid duplication of efforts, dissecting provisions in the convention and determining which section of the OAS will be responsible for these, avoiding duplication between the OAS and UNODC, important gaps not addressed in the Palermo Convention (i.e., kidnapping, youth gangs, etc.). There is hope that a document might be presented at REMJA VI but this should not be rushed.
What does “institutionalization of the Working Group” mean? - Pierre-Gilles Bélanger - Round Table discussion
Catherine Vézina (Canada): A good coordination between regional and ministerial meetings is necessary given that the REMJA, OAS and foreign ministers have different needs which must be considered. As recommended at the last General Assembly and in Brasilia, the Working Group, with the Central authority meetings must be institutionalized and more integrated in the OAS; meaning a permanent office at the OAS must be set up to provide better cooperation. Chile and Trinidad agreed. Trinidad, supported by all countries believes that the Working Group must stay and needs to meet more than every two years or on an ad hoc basis.
Reference to the text of the Summit of the Americas
The idea of having an agency to promote stronger ties for Central Authorities would allow member states to reach their optimum level. Mar del Plata (S. Garcia) agreed that the institutionalization of the secretariat should be strengthened. Mexico suggested that the text of Mar del Plata and Brasilia be used to achieve greater institutionalization. With respect to institutionalization: 1) Article 113 sets out the powers of the Secretary General of the OAS (i.e., has final decision on the structure and appointment of staff); 2) Funding for the OAS comes from a regular budget and voluntary contributions - most voluntary contributions are for programs and the implementation of projects.
The REMJA process and how the Working Group fits into REMJA?
In respect to REMJA, there are meetings in different fields but none on such topics at Ministerial levels. REMJA is always convened from a resolution and always reports to the General Assembly.
That there is a need to reorganize the OAS; one consolidated Network should be established to study the organization. Clarification of the structure and process needs to be examined. A parallel structure of the Working Group and Central Authorities meetings needs to be developed and regular meetings are necessary. Reports of these meetings should be given to the Ministers of Justice. Delegates who attend the Working Group and Central Authority meetings are the same representatives acting in different capacities. Recommendations should be made through the Central Authority meetings as opposed to REMJA. The structure could be a Secretariat and the order could be as follows: Working Group ( with support of the secretariat) ------Central Authority ( with support of the WG and secretariat) ------REMJA.
The secure e-mail system is important; it is a means for information that is shared among states. It ensures savings for all member states. All members agree that having an operational Intranet saves money. The name AMERICAjus is not the most suitable. The OAS (Nelly Cochicoa) stressed that more technological support is required to maintain and update the system and therefore additional financing is necessary.
The USA noted that the Working Group is a group of Central Authorities and experts and their work must be forwarded to the Central Authority meetings for their consideration prior to going to REMJA. Canada states that this affirmation is far from being clear, and this is another reason why we should clarify it. However all agreed to say that the Working Group is an essential complimentary body. As for Chile, USA, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Argentina and Canada, they all agreed that a body to handle day-to-day operations of the MLA Working Group is necessary and therefore a permanent office at the OAS is required to support this. Nicaragua added that Central Authority meetings are a follow-up to Working Group meetings but with legal assistance. Meetings should be held on a regular basis. Argentina and Canada believe that the Working Group needs to meet at least two or three times yearly.
Mexico and Guatemala, however, do not see the Working Group as a separate body from the Central Authorities. They believe that the Working Group makes recommendations to the Central Authorities who then proposes them to REMJA. This is too long of a chain, given that Central Authorities already attend the Working Group meetings. According to them, as agreed to at the last meeting, the institutionalization of the Working Group is not sufficient for the Central Authorities to exist. For example, the Central Authorities could meet once or twice yearly to discuss the updated information. Only one body is necessary to do the work and provide administrative assistance (i.e., technical support). The OAS (Jorge Garcia Gonzalez) suggested having one meeting of experts that is called a Working Group, which reports to the Central Authorities and preparatory meetings could be held in between. Additional bodies are not necessary. Guatemala stated that Central Authorities do not always work on an operational level and therefore a Working body should meet on a regular basis to allow them to do so.
Canada (Claude Lefrançois) It is believed by some countries or people, that the work of the Working Group may have taken over that of the Central Authorities. Given that the Central Authorities are not accomplishing much, a smaller group (i.e., Working Group) must be established. Group finally agreed that even if the Working Group now, cannot make recommendations to REMJA, this does not meant that it cannot give an overview recommendation or reports to REMJA and in fact coordinator should do so on our behalf.
According to the USA, ministers should decide regarding institutionalization based on the recommendations from the Central Authorities. Chili recommended that the Secretary General be asked to convene a special meeting during the course of the year to discuss the nature of AMERICAjus. USA supported this. All recognize that a clear structure is necessary to avoid further confusion.
All countries agree that an office must be set up to take charge and follow up, and technical support is required to eliminate some of the problems and challenges that the Working Group has faced in the past. The need to have Working Group meetings has become very evident and therefore a body headed by experts is essential. Otherwise, the Working Group will loose everything it has achieved so far. Working Group meetings are very helpful and necessary. Communication is necessary, whether multilateral or bilateral. The Working Group meetings consist of experts and this expertise should be reflected in its mission. It must inform other levels of their labors and that their meetings make things happen.
Financing the Work of the Working Group
Mexico and Guatemala believe financing issues should not be discussed at these meetings, instead recommendations by ministers should be made the General Secretary and REMJA. Argentina stated that it is concerned with the budget and will continue to give support to this project.
The paragraph presented by Argentina to REMJA on behalf of the Working Group
Chile agrees with the paragraph submitted (i.e., creation of a permanent body for the Working Group) and believes all should agree to this if the General Secretariat is to adopt this process. Canada takes USA’s position that the paragraph should be put forward as a proposal from one delegate to another. The benefit of these meetings is to have face to face interaction with members. A secretariat can assist in conducting studies and examining experts from Europe. However, members must specify what type of support they require.
Brazil and Mexico will work together to make a specific group with respect to extradition where they will try to unify all the rules in this area and strengthen the link in each country. All are invited to participate. Furthermore, Mexico will host workshops on extradition in Mexico City around the month of June. Survey being distributed and it is requested that information be submitted by the end of May 2006 or the beginning of June 2006.
DAY 2
Draft Backing of Warrants (OAS) Bill as proposed by the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago - David West
The proposal is good but limited in scope and should be broadened in an effort to eliminate the extradition process. This type of law might not work in all Latin American countries because their legislation does not provide for it. Common terms can be used for unifying the Bill. The draft should be used as a guideline to present to the OAS. A decision on the name of the Bill is required.
Extradition takes place in different stages in various jurisdictions and politics come into play. Therefore, a Treaty/Convention would be better than an Act. Member states are not at an ideal stage right now to accomplish this. A hemispheric warrant is a complicated process at the moment given that countries have different judicial and executive orders. Nonetheless, it should be proposed to the secretariat to begin the process. This would make extradition simpler. Most member states would like to see this in the future. This seems to have a domino effect but will take some time. This should be summarized and reported to the Ministers.
The OAS proposed that states complete a questionnaire to help eliminate obstacles for countries. They also suggested that Nicaragua, Panama and Paraguay put forward a more detailed analysis to move this forward. There is a need for raw material. All members are requested to lend support. A comparative study of each country’s legislation should be conducted.
Commentaries and Conclusions related to Best Practices Update - Canada
Canada was complimented on this proposal. The USA reiterated that the significant issues behind particular procedures demonstrate the particular legal procedures that need to follow. Panama expressed concern about the length of investigations and informal requests.
Website update and secure e-mail system update - Canada (Pierre-Gilles Bélanger) & Nelly Gochicoa (OAS)
Chile believes it would be a step back if secure e-mail systems were abolished due to a lack of funds. This is an essential tool to carry out extradition and mutual legal assistance and all should contribute financially. They use Groove frequently but admit it needs improvement. For instance, there should be a better classification of the system and this should be examined by each country. There are also licenses that are not being used by each country causing unnecessary expense. Furthermore, Groove should be accessible to the police for expediting extradition and mutual legal assistance.
Model Law Updates - ArgentinaChile
Argentina made a very well appreciated presentation on the evolution of the Model Law. Experts believed that this document as highly improved since last meeting. Comments should be sent to Diego Solerno by June 30th, 2006.
Curriculum for Training - Ecuador
Some offices do not have proper training for proceedings in extradition and mutual legal assistance. A training format was put on CD where the request was put in the relevant category and prepared electronically. These are tools that would assist the judiciary and INTERPOL in their investigation. An occasional problem faced by prosecutors is that they do not have a proper procedure to abide by. Practical, and theoretical training, should be provided to individuals in legal and administrative positions. A manual will be put together by Ecuador with the assistance of the United States. USA will work with Ecuador to propose at the next Working Group meeting a draft curriculum.
Importance in International Cooperation of Forensic Sciences - Danissa Cruz Taveras - Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic is at the beginning stages of carrying out DNA testing. A request was made for human resources and not just technological resources. Members were generally in support of the proposal made by the Dominican Republic and some requested legislation and further documents from the delegates in an attempt to implement this in their country. The exchange of scientific expertise among countries is a way to move forward.