US embassy cable - 05BRATISLAVA585

C O N F I D E N T I A L  BRATISLAVA 000585 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR L/LEI - K. PROPP, EUR/NCE AND EUR/ERA 
PARIS FOR DOJ - K. HARRIS 
USEU FOR M. RICHARD 
VIENNA FOR DHS/ICE - D. MRKVA 
DOJ FOR OIA - D. GAYNUS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/20/2010 
TAGS: KJUS, PREL, EU, LO 
SUBJECT: EXTRADITION: US-EU AGREEMENT NOW, BILATERAL TREATY 
LATER 
 
REF: STATE 122726 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Scott N. Thayer for reason 1.4 (b) and 
 (d). 
 
1. (C) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Lipsic told Charge during 
his farewell call July 20 that he supported moving ahead with 
an initial agreement to implement the US-EU extradition 
treaty but urged that a more in-depth bilateral agreement be 
negotiated as well.  He indicated a willingness to move 
considerably beyond the limitations on extraditing Slovak 
nationals that had proved vexing in April, but still not to a 
blanket agreement.  END SUMMARY 
 
2.  (C) Charge and pol-econ chief met with Minister of 
Justice Daniel Lipsic July 20 to discuss moving forward on 
extradition and mutual legal assistance agreements per 
reftel.  Reftel had previously been reviewed with staff of 
the MOJ's international cooperation division at our July 1 
Independence Day reception and again on July 11.  MOJ staff 
had told us that the GOS preference continued to be full 
bilateral treaties on extradition and mutual legal 
assistance, and that they were maneuvering in the interagency 
process to draft proposed language on extradition of 
nationals for consideration by the U.S.  They stressed that 
Slovakia is entering an election year, that extradition of 
nationals is a politically-sensitive topic, and that time 
pressure from the U.S. was not healthy, though they 
understood the larger goal we have to finalize agreements 
with all 25 EU member states.  The position of the GOS, they 
explained, was to sign the US-EU agreements only as a last 
resort. 
 
3. (C) Lipsic showed far greater flexibility.  He listened 
carefully to Charge's points about our desire to move quickly 
to finalize implementing instruments with all EU member 
states.  His bottom line was that he would support Slovakia 
moving forward on implementing instruments for the U.S. - EU 
treaties as an interim measure, as long as this did not 
foreclose the possibility of continuing negotiations on more 
comprehensive bilateral treaties over the longer term.  He 
readily took Charge's point that continued effort would only 
be worthwhile for both sides if there were a greater 
likelihood of more meat in any bilateral agreement, To that 
end, regarding extradition of nationals, Lipsic repeated that 
it was a very sensitive political issue that would have to be 
approved by parliament but that he did not have a problem 
with it.  He explained that adopting the EU Arrest Warrant 
(which had prompted amendment of the Slovak Consitution to 
permit extradition -- not limited to EU countries) was a 
requirement for EU accession, and there is not similar 
imperative for extradition to the U.S.  Furthermore, the 
European Arrest Warrant requires extradition only for a 
specific list of 32 offenses.  He thought, therefore, that 
one way forward could be an agreement in which certain 
ofenses would certainly be extraditable, with others only 
possibly so.  Lipsic repeated his frequent observation that 
he did not personally view the death penalty as an obstacle, 
but cautioned that in this, as all other elements, the 
Cabinet and Parliament would have to agree as well.  Lipsic 
said he would discuss the matter with his staff, and assured 
us they had all the relevant texts for consideration. 
 
4. (C) On a related matter, Lipsic expressed surprise that 
the Prosecutor General's office had determined there was no 
existing basis for cooperation in a recent case involving 
visa fraud, asset seizure, and illegal employment schemes in 
the U.S., and requested the correspondence.  (Comment: 
Lipsic's staff had displayed a similarly negative view as the 
Prosector's office, so there may not be much movement here 
right away.) 
 
5.  (C)  COMMENT: We modestly believe there is scope here for 
optimism and movement forward.  Lipsic is very favorably 
disposed towards us, and has a better understanding of the 
U.S., and our legal system, than most (having studied at 
Harvard Law).  We will seek an early call on him by 
soon-to-arrive Ambassador Vallee in order to keep up the 
momentum.  Lipsic hopes to travel to Washington for a CEELI 
conference in September, which may provide a further 
opportunity to follow up.  We would encourage Dept and DOJ to 
be thinking in terms of what a realistic approach would be to 
the dichotomy Lipsic described for extraditing nationals 
(based principally on the 32 offenses covered by the EAW). 
We would discourage informal contacts with lower-level Slovak 
 
 
officials for the time being (who, we note, were pointedly 
not at this meeting, despite it being clear what subject was 
to be discussed). 
THAYER 
 
 
NNNN