The Treaty follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by this Government. However, Finnish extradition law requires inclusion in treaties of provisions common only among Scandinavian states.

The Treaty provides for the extradition of fugitives who have been charged with any of thirty-one offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to the Treaty. The most significant offenses are the offenses relating to narcotics, including psychotropic drugs and other dangerous drugs, and the offense of aircraft hijacking. Also significant is the inclusion of a provision in Article 2 which enables extradition to be granted in the case of a conspiracy to commit any of the offenses mentioned.

Article 3 defines the territorial application of the Treaty. In addition to the normal content of that concept, territorial jurisdiction includes registered aircraft in flight. Flight is defined in accordance with the Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, done at Tokyo on September 14, 1963 (Tokyo Convention). The major purpose of this provision is to extend jurisdiction to acts of aircraft piracy whether or not they occur over United States territory.

The third paragraph of Article 3 provides for extradition for offenses committed outside the territory of either party if the offense so committed would be punishable under the laws of both parties. It is anticipated that this provision would be most useful in the area of narcotic and counterfeiting violations. . .

Article 4 is a provision similar to that contained in many of our recent extradition treaties dealing with the extradition of one's own nationals. It is a formulation which takes into account Finnish extradition law and practice whereby its nationals are not normally extradited but rather prosecuted in Finland, regardless of where the offense was committed. Since the United States does not have this capability, the provision grants the executive the discretionary power to extradite its own nationals. This achieves approximate reciprocity in capacity to bring criminal offenders to justice. If extradition is denied on the basis of nationality, the requested state undertakes to try the requested individual when the offense is punishable under its own laws and it has appropriate iurisdiction. This latter provision, while relatively new to United States extradition treaties, is included in the treaty with Argentina now in effect.

Article 6 is a new type of provision. On occasion a fugitive whose extradition is sought would prefer to waive formal proceedings and return at once. This provision recognizes that situation as an expedited form of extradition.

Article 10 contains a special discretionary provision for former Finnish nationals who are nationals of other Nordic states resident in Finland.

Article 21 provides that each party shall assist the other in the presentation of extradition cases before the respective judges and

magistrates. This requirement has been included in the more recent extradition treaties which the United States has negotiated. It is normally included now because the costs of presentation are a hindrance to the making of extradition requests. The article, similar to one in the Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Denmark, differs from 18 U.S.C. 3195 which requires that costs or expenses incurred in extradition proceedings be paid by the requesting authority.

S. Ex. I, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., V-VI.

Art. 10 of the 1976 U.S.-Finnish Extradition Treaty reads as follows:

In the case of a request for extradition emanating from the Government of the United States, the subject of which is an individual born in Finland of Finnish nationality who at the time of the request for extradition is a permanent resident of Finland and a national of Denmark, Iceland, Norway or Sweden, the Government of Finland shall have the right to recommend that the extradition request be withdrawn, specifying the reasons therefor. The Treaty will, upon entry into force, terminate the U.S.-Finnish Treaty for the Extradition of Fugitives from Justice signed on Aug. 1, 1924 (TS 710; 44 Stat. 2002; 7 Bevans 695; 34 LNTS 103; entered into force Mar. 23, 1925), and the Supplementary Extradition Treaty signed on May 17, 1934 (TS 871; 49 Stat. 2690; 7 Bevans 734; 152 LNTS 83; entered into force Aug. 10, 1934).

The Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, done at Tokyo on Sept. 14, 1963 (TIAS 6768; 20 UST 2941; 704 UNTS 219), entered into force for the United States on Dec. 4, 1969.

The Extradition Treaty between the United States and Denmark was signed on June 22, 1972 (TIAS 7864; 25 UST 1293; entered into force on July 31, 1974). For further information concerning the 1976 U.S.-Finnish Extradition Treaty, see the 1976 Digest, Ch. 3, § 5, p. 130.

Plea Bargaining

In Petition of Geisser, 554 F. 2d 698 (1977), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held not clearly erroneous the finding of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that the U.S. Government had not fulfilled its promise in a plea bargain made with the petitioner, Josette Geisser Bauer, to use its "best efforts" to prevent her extradition to Switzerland or France. However, the court of appeals found that the district court had erred by not giving the Government a reasonable time in which to use its best efforts to prevent her extradition. In an opinion by Circuit Judge John Minor Wisdom issued on June 22, 1977, the court of appeals vacated the district court's decision granting the petitioner's application for release and vacating the extradition order and remanded the case.

On November 2, 1967, the Swiss Government obtained an order in the Southern District of Florida certifying the extraditability of the petitioner. Soon thereafter, the petitioner and her accomplice agreed to plead guilty to certain charges in return for divulging their knowledge of a domestic and international drug conspiracy and for testify

ing in related prosecutions. As part of the plea bargain, the U.S. Government promised to use its "best efforts" to prevent the extradition of the two to Switzerland or France.

In this action the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition for specific enforcement of the plea agreement, and she sought an injunction against the extradition order. The district court found that there was a definite agreement and that she would not be extradited to France or Switzerland. On appeal, the U.S. Government was given a second opportunity to keep its bargain or explain why the petitioner's extradition could not be prevented. Geisser v. United States, 513 F.2d 862 (1975). (See the 1975 Digest, Ch. 3, § 5, pp. 178–180.)

On remand Judge William O. Mehrtens of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida permitted the Swiss consul general to intervene and received into evidence among other items a letter written on October 3, 1975, by Deputy Attorney General Harold R. Tyler, Jr., to Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger describing the court of appeal's negative reaction to the failure of the Department of Justice to do anything to keep its bargain with the petitioner, and a letter of March 19, 1976, from Deputy Secretary of State Robert S. Ingersoll to Deputy Attorney General Tyler enumerating the actions of the Department of State as part of the "best efforts" obligation. (For the text of the two letters, see the 1976 Digest, Ch. 3, § 5, pp. 119-122.)

The district court found, inter alia, that the Government had not used its "best efforts" to forestall the petitioner's extradition, granted the petitioner's application for release, and vacated the extradition order. Both the United States and the Swiss consul general, as intervenor, appealed that order.

On appeal for the second time, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals again found that the U.S. Government had failed to keep its part of the plea bargain but granted the Government a reasonable time to use its "best efforts" to prevent the petitioner's extradition to Switzerland. Portions of the second opinion of the court of appeals in this matter appear below:

The documentary evidence presented to the district court fails to reveal a "best efforts" performance by the United States Government through the Departments of State and Justice. The letter written by Deputy Attorney General Tyler only obliquely refers to the reason for the nonextradition agreement. In none of the documents is there a "strong presentation" of the likely dangers to Bauer suggested by this Court. Under the "best efforts" bargain the Government obligated itself to serve, in effect, as Bauer's personal advocate on the issue of her extradition. In contrast, the letters are

I

*

written from the perspective of those concerned not so much about commitments to a client but about a damaging legal precedent. The reasons underlying the original bargain, Bauer's admirable performance in keeping her part of the agreement, her "intense fear of reprisals," and the conclusion of Government agents on the case that her fears were well-founded were never presented to the State Department by the Department of Justice nor by the former to the Swiss Confederation.

The Department of Justice conceded at oral argument that Deputy Attorney General Tyler's letter to Secretary of State Kissinger did not contain a representation that Bauer feared for her life on extradition to Switzerland and that some Justice Department staff members had concluded at the time of the bargain that her fears were well-founded. The Department nevertheless contends that such an omission is irrelevant because the Swiss Embassy was aware of such concerns and concluded they were unrealistic. We do not agree. The "best efforts" bargain requires that the Government advocate Bauer's case for nonextradition to Switzerland and France in the most effective terms possible. Her intense fear for her life was the predicate for the bargain, and the Government's failure to explain fully and strongly this part of the agreement reduced its advocacy of her cause almost to an empty gesture.

554 F.2d 703-704 (footnote omitted).

We conclude that a narrowly drawn remedy specifically enforcing the Government's "best efforts" agreement is required. The Government must again try to prevent Bauer's extradition to Switzerland or France. We are not convinced that the vast powers of persuasion at the command of the Departments of Justice and State have been adequately applied to Bauer's cause. The bargain she made with the United States Government in entering her guilty plea and waiving her constitutional rights requires no less.

While retaining jurisdiction, we remand the case to the district court if, in the discretion of that court, further proceedings are necessary or appropriate. The Government has a reasonable time in which to use its "best efforts" to prevent the extradition of Bauer to Switzerland or France. Enforcement of the extradition order outstanding against Bauer must of course be held in abeyance until this case has been resolved.

554 F.2d 706.

$ 6

Protection of Human Rights

General

During his address to representatives to the United Nations in the U.N. General Assembly Hall on March 17, 1977, President Carter

made the following statement concerning respect for basic human rights:

*

The search for peace and justice also means respect for human dignity. All the signatories of the U.N. Charter have pledged themselves to observe and to respect basic human rights. Thus, no member of the United Nations can claim that mistreatment of its citizens is solely its own business. Equally, no member can avoid its responsibilities to review and to speak when torture or unwarranted deprivation occurs in any part of the world.

The basic thrust of human affairs points toward a more universal demand for fundamental human rights. The United States has a historical birthright to be associated with this process.

We in the United States accept this responsibility in the fullest and the most constructive sense. Ours is a commitment, and not just a political posture. I know perhaps as well as anyone that our own ideals in the area of human rights have not always been attained in the United States, but the American people have an abiding commitment to the full realization of these ideals. And we are determined, therefore, to deal with our deficiencies quickly and openly. We have nothing to conceal.

To demonstrate this commitment, I will seek congressional approval and sign the U.N. covenants on economic, social, and cultural rights, and the covenants on civil and political rights. And I will work closely with our own Congress in seeking to support the ratification not only of these two instruments but the United Nations Genocide Convention and the Treaty for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well. I have just removed all restrictions on American travel abroad, and we are moving now to liberalize almost completely travel opportunities to America.

The United Nations is a global forum dedicated to the peace and well-being of every individual-no matter how weak, no matter how poor. But we have allowed its human rights machinery to be ignored and sometimes politicized. There is much that can be done to strengthen it.

The Human Rights Commission should be prepared to meet more often. And all nations should be prepared to offer its fullest cooperation to the Human Rights Commission, to welcome its investigations, to work with its officials, and to act on its reports.

I would like to see the entire United Nations Human Rights Division moved back here to the central headquarters, where its activities will be in the forefront of our attention and where the attention of the press corps can stimulate us to deal honestly with this sensitive issue. The proposal made 12 vears ago by the Government of Costa Rica, to establish a U.N. High Commission [er] for Human Rights, also deserves our renewed attention and our support. Strengthened international machinery will help us to close the gap between promise and performance in protecting human rights. When gross or widespread violation takes place contrary to international commitments-it is of concern to all. The solemn commitments of the United Nations Charter, of the United Nations

For

鼠