US embassy cable - 05BRATISLAVA265

C O N F I D E N T I A L  BRATISLAVA 000265 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR L/LEI KENNETH PROPP 
DOJ/OIA FOR DEBORAH GAYNUS 
USEU FOR MARK RICHARD 
PARIS FOR KENNETH HARRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/21/2015 
TAGS: KJUS, PREL, PHUM, LO 
SUBJECT: MOJ THOUGHTS ON DRAFT TEXT OF EXTRADITION TREATY 
 
Classified By: CDA Scott N. Thayer for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d). 
 
1. (C) Summary: Emboffs continue to press Slovak officials 
for a reaction to the draft bilateral extradition treaty we 
gave them in December 2004.  Nonetheless, the GOS still has 
not made a definitive decision on whether to commit to 
extradite Slovak nationals to the U.S.  On March 30, Justice 
Minister Daniel Lipsic told Charge d'Affaires he would look 
at the text, discuss it with his staff, and raise the issue 
at the cabinet meeting the week of April 4.  End summary. 
 
2. (C) Polec chief met March 21 with MOJ Director for 
Judicial Cooperation Branislav Bohacik to learn the likely 
GOS response to the U.S. proposed text for a new bilateral 
extradition treaty.  She emphasized the need for a signal on 
GOS willingness to extradite nationals to the U.S. before the 
April 15 negotiations in Brussels.  Bohacik said the current 
wording of Article 3, "Extradition shall not be refused based 
on the nationality of the person sought," would not be 
acceptable to members of Parliament who would eventually have 
to ratify the treaty.  Therefore, the MOJ wanted to propose 
language to make Article 3 "more flexible." 
 
3. (C) Polec chief asked whether extradition of Slovak 
nationals to the U.S. had been discussed in the cabinet or 
among the four political parties in the governing coalition, 
since it was obviously a question of political will.  Bohacik 
said that the draft text has been shared at the working 
levels in the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs, General Prosecutor's Office (this is an independent 
entity and is not under the MOJ's control), and Ministry of 
Interior.  He said that the cabinet should approve a mandate 
for this group to negotiate the treaty at the beginning of 
April, but that so far there had been no discussions "at the 
political level." 
 
4. (C) Bohacik's statements aside, emboffs have been engaging 
ministers and politicians on the extradition issue for 
several months.  Before he departed post, the former 
Ambassador raised extradition of Slovak nationals with the 
ministers of foreign affairs and justice.  Charge d'Affaires 
has continued to discuss it, most recently with both Foreign 
Minister Kukan and Prime Minister Dzurinda's advisor Milan 
Jezovica the week of March 21.  Polec chief has raised the 
issue in conversations with politicians from governing 
parties.  None has reacted with an immediate "no."  On the 
other hand, we still don't have a definitive "yes."  In the 
meantime, GOS legal experts are analyzing the text without a 
political mandate to proceed. 
 
5. (C) Charge d'Affaires talked to Justice Minister Lipsic 
March 30 to once again stress the need for a decision on 
Article 3 before the scheduled April 15 talks on extradition 
and mutual legal assistance in Brussels.  Lipsic promised to 
look at the draft treaty, discuss it with his staff, and 
raise the issue at the cabinet meeting the week of April 4. 
 
6. (C) Despite his continued reservations about Article 3, 
Bohacik insisted the GOS wanted a full bilateral extradition 
treaty and a full bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty. 
He said we should not let the opportunity pass to have legal 
arrangements in place to guarantee our cooperation for the 
next 50 years.  Polec chief explained that without an 
agreement to extradite nationals from the Slovak side, we 
would instead sign only a bilateral instrument to the U.S.-EU 
extradition agreement.  In addition, we did not have the 
resources to work on a full MLAT with Slovakia at this time. 
Bohacik responded that Slovakia would be willing to provide a 
draft MLAT text for the U.S. to consider. 
 
7. (C) Bohacik shared his thoughts on several other aspects 
of the draft treaty, which the U.S. may need to consider 
should the two sides proceed to negotiate.  (Note: These are 
only his initial reactions and do not include comments from 
the other ministries studying the text.) 
 
The Title:  Treaties are not agreements between governments, 
but countries.  Slovakia would want the title to be 
"Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and 
the Slovak Republic." 
 
Article 5.2: Bohacik had some concerns.  For example, if the 
Slovak President were to grant amnesty to an individual for a 
certain crime, Slovakia would not agree to extradite that 
individual for prosecution elsewhere. 
 
Article 6: Regarding lapse of time, Slovakia would not 
violate its own laws on statute of limitations. 
 
Article 7: The language should be changed to make clear the 
fact that Slovakia does not apply the death penalty. 
 
Article 8.1: Bohacik said that Slovakia would prefer not to 
limit requests exclusively to diplomatic channels.  He 
suggested language along the lines of standard EU provisions 
calling for communication between "central authorities, 
diplomatic channels not excluded."  This would allow 
flexibility for faster action should it be warranted. 
 
Article 8.3.a:  Slovak law requires original documents or 
"certified" copies. 
 
Article 8.4.a.  See comment on Article 8.3.a.  A statement by 
the judicial authority would not be sufficient; Slovakia 
would need a certified copy of conviction. 
 
Article 8.5: Fill in the blank with Ministry of Justice. 
Again, Bohacik advocated allowing for direct exchange of the 
original request between U.S. DOJ and Slovak MOJ, as well as 
the aditional documentation. 
 
Article 9: Slovak ministries don't have seals. 
 
Article 11.1:  Bohacik agreed with requests for provisional 
arrest directly through DOJ-MOJ channels. 
 
Article 11.4: The language may have to be changed slightly. 
Slovak law allows for 18 days provisional arrest and 40 days 
custody pending extradition. 
 
Article 12.2: Bohacik expressed some reluctance about 
providing explanations for denial in every case, but was 
vague in his reasoning. 
 
Article 14.2 and 14.3: Requests for extradition made by 
several states are governed by EU rules. 
 
Article 19.1:  As explained above, the General Prosecutor's 
office operates independently from the Ministry of Justice. 
The GOS will need to clarify internal procedures. 
 
 
THAYER 
 
 
NNNN