GOJ CALLS FOR JUDICIAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L AMMAN 001704 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/19/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL JO SUBJECT: GOJ CALLS FOR JUDICIAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING MAJED TALAT HAJBEH REF: A. AMMAN 1309 ¶B. AMMAN 1028 Classified By: Ambassador David Hale for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Post received on April 18 a diplomatic note which stated the GOJ would not be able to comply with ref A request for written information regarding the legal status of Majed Talat Hajbeh. ¶2. (SBU) Translation of the relevant portion of the diplomatic note follows below. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to inform the Embassy that the concerned authorities say that diplomatic note 297 is not sufficient to release the legal history of Majed Talat Hajbeh, and that the request should be made via judicial order from the court that is trying the case in the United States." ¶3. (C) Poloff requested an explanation from Mahmoud al-Hmoud, the Foreign Ministry's Legal Advisor. Al-Hmoud said the "concerned authority" referred to in the diplomatic note was the Ministry of Justice. On April 19 poloff spoke with Judge Ammar al-Husseini, Director of International Relations at the Ministry of Justice. Al-Husseini said that other American requests of this kind had been conveyed by diplomatic note accompanied by documents from an American court, asking the GOJ to convey information to the USG for use in U.S. courts. Although he did not make clear his reasons for applying this precedent, Al-Husseini insisted that any request for written information on Hajbeh's status under Jordanian law should come in the same format. ¶4. (C) Comment: Although post's Legatt often receives evidentiary documentation without having to negotiate bureaucratic obstacles, the GOJ insistence in this case on a U.S. court request is not without precedent. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of International Affairs (OIA) often requests, via Embassy Amman's consular section, that the GOJ provide evidentiary documentation for use in U.S. court proceedings. End Comment. ¶5. (C) Comment continued. It is unclear to post why the Jordanian authorities are handling the Hajbeh case in this manner. It may reflect legalistic insistence on reciprocity, bureaucratic inertia, or it may be an expression of sub-cabinet annoyance at our insistence on obtaining information in written format that GOJ officials had already provided to us orally (refs A, B). End comment. HALE