UAEG RESPONDS TO MLAT PROPOSAL

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