US embassy cable - 04ABUDHABI2638

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 002638 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR L/LEI AND NEA/ARP 
DOJ FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL, PTER, PGOV, TC 
SUBJECT: UAEG RESPONDS TO MLAT PROPOSAL 
 
REF: STATE 4881 
 
1. This message contains an action request - see paragraph 4. 
 
2. SUMMARY: Post received on August 1 the UAEG's response to the 
Embassy's January 24, 2004 letter requesting the UAEG to move 
forward with Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) talks without 
linking it to other negotiations.  The UAEG opposes resuming MLAT 
discussions without opening parallel negotiations on extradition 
and prisoner transfer treaties.  Also, the UAEG has rejected our 
suggestion to join the Council of Europe's Multilateral Prisoner 
Transfer Treaty.  The UAEG has agreed to not pursue bilateral 
discussions on civil and commercial cooperation, per our January 
request.  However, it won't budge when it comes to cooperation on 
criminal affairs.  The letter requests opening three 
negotiations, namely, the MLAT, extradition, and prisoner 
transfer treaties, as soon as possible.  END SUMMARY. 
 
3. Following is Post's unofficial translation of the text: 
 
(BEGIN TEXT) We would like to thank you for your interest in 
discussing a bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty, which will 
enhance friendly relations between our two governments.  We are 
honored to send to your Excellency our response to your letter 
dated 24 January 2004. 
 
In relation to mutual assistance in criminal matters 
 
We agree completely with what has been mentioned in your letter 
regarding reasons for the importance of holding bilateral talks 
in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between our 
countries at the nearest opportunity. 
 
In relation to extradition 
 
We believe that reaching a bilateral agreement on the extradition 
of criminals is as important as a mutual legal assistance treaty 
in criminal matters, and even more important for the following 
reasons: 
 
a. There have been several requests from U.S. authorities for the 
extradition of charged or sentenced people by American courts. 
We find it hard to respond to many of them, due to non-existence 
of a bilateral extradition treaty between our countries. 
 
b. Reaching a bilateral extradition agreement will eliminate the 
repetitious objections by human rights organizations on 
procedures that might be taken against some people, which violate 
their rights without any legal support. 
 
c. As for the difficulties you mentioned with regard to double 
criminalization and different punishments between our countries, 
these are all problems that can be easily resolved when we 
discuss the agreement's articles. 
 
In relation to a prisoner transfer treaty 
 
To say that it is possible for the UAE to join the Council of 
Europe's Multilateral Prisoner Transfer Treaty is not an easy 
issue.  There are several legal, political, and practical 
obstacles to joining this Council.  It is difficult for a country 
outside the European Council (EC) to join except by an invitation 
extended by the ministerial committee of the concerned countries 
and after consulting with parties of the Council, and it should 
be based on a decision by the majority of EC countries, as well 
as on a unified consensus from member countries of the 
ministerial committee.  These long and complicated procedures 
make it difficult for us to join. 
 
In addition to that, and according to Article 18 (1) of the 
Treaty, the latter is open for signature only by EC member 
countries, and non-member countries that participated in forming 
the Council such as the U.S.  In this regard, we point out that 
the UAE did not participate in the preparatory procedures for 
this Council. 
 
The mentioned Council has been established under the umbrella of 
the EC for the purpose of achieving more cooperation between its 
members, and for this reason it has a European color.  To join 
this agreement, the UAE will be required to join other related 
European agreements.  Since there is no representation for the 
UAE in the EC or the EU, this will form a major obstacle towards 
the UAE's participation in everything related to cooperation, 
application, and effective execution of the agreement. 
 
As a party in the Council of Europe's Multilateral Prisoner 
Transfer Treaty, the U.S. is not prohibited from holding 
bilateral agreements on this issue according to Article 22 of the 
Treaty. 
 
We prefer to hold a bilateral agreement on this issue similar to 
agreements between the U.S. and several other countries, such as 
France, Turkey, and Mexico. 
 
In relation to civil and commercial cooperation 
 
In relation to civil and commercial cooperation, and looking at 
what obstacles this issue brings up as per your letter, we do not 
see a necessity to continue discussions on this issue. 
 
In relation to cooperation on criminal matters, we prefer not to 
segregate them from negotiation of the three aforementioned 
subjects, which are: the mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters, the extradition of criminals, and prisoner transfers. 
 
We hope to start negotiating these three agreements soon.  We 
also see the possibility of answering your request to hold 
detailed agreements around them, to be negotiated side by side. 
There is no doubt that settling these agreements will develop and 
enhance the existing friendship and cooperation between our 
countries and enhance the legal and judicial cooperation between 
us so that it rises to the required level. (END TEXT) 
 
4. ACTION REQUEST:  Post requests L/NEA review the MFA letter and 
suggest a course of action and/or provide us a response we can 
convey to the UAEG.  As the UAE remains fixed on an extradition 
treaty, L may want to consider a visit in the fall to discuss 
with senior UAEG officials our desire to proceed with an MLAT and 
the reasons why we cannot proceed simultaneously with an 
extradition treaty. 
 
ALBRIGHT