EXTRADITION: US-EU AGREEMENT NOW, BILATERAL TREATY

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