1. See ‘Proceedings of the Harvard Law School Conference on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters’, 31 Harvard ILJ (1990) pp. 1–117, especially p. 2.Google Scholar

2. See Vieuii, M.A.,‘El Delito en el Espacio’, Derecho penal internacionaly Derecho Internacional penal (1969) at p. 252.Google Scholar

3. One hundred and six countries were involved in the negotiations on this Convention; the Final Act was signed by 96 States and 44 of them have signed the Convention. At the present time, the Convention has 38 States Parties, 27 by ratification, 9 by accession and 2 by approval. Twelve of the States Parties are Member States of the OAS (Organization of American States); of these, seven States are Latin American countries (Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua and Paraguay).

4. See Sproule, D.W. and Denis, P.St., ‘UN Drug Trafficking Convention, An Ambitious Step‘, 27 Canadian YIL (1989) p. 285.Google Scholar

5. These words are from Havers, SirMichael, the former Attorney General for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in 21 Int. Lawyer (1987) no. 1, pp. 185–193 at p. 189.Google Scholar

6. See Vieira, M.A., ‘El derecho International Penal en el Sistema Interamericano, con especial referencia a los nuevos desarrollos que cabrfa esperar en este plazo hacia el futuro’, in Estudios Internationales, 3, Perspectivas del Derecho International Contemporáneo, Experiencia y Visión de América Larina (1981) pp. 146–164, at p. 161.Google Scholar

7. It is important to say that many UN multilateral treaties, dating from before the Vienna Convention, include provisions on cooperation in criminal matters, e.g., the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970), the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971), the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents (1975), the Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extorsion that Are of International Significance (1971), and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971).

In spite of this large number of multilateral treaties, the Convention is the first that, after two years of negotiations, has established a comprehensive set of innovative tools in the fight against drug trafficking.

8. This Convention is presently in force between Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel and Finland.

9. See the Report of the Permanent Council on the Draft Inter-American Convention on Judicial Assistance in Penal Matters (OEA/Ser.P, AG/doc.2697,3 May 1991).

10. See Vieira, M.A., ‘L'Evolution récente de l'Extradition dans le Continent Américain’, 185 Hague Recueil (1984, n) pp. 155–380.Google Scholar

11. On August 12,1991, Jamaica was the first Member State to present its comments, saying that ‘former negotiations are required’ (OEA/Ser.G, CP/CAJP-829/91).

12. See the Report, supra n. 9 at p. 8, para. 2a.

13. See the Report, supra n. 9 at Art 16, p. 17.

14. Ibid p. 23.

15. See Ellis, A. and Pisam, R.L., ‘U.S. Treaties on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters‘, 19 Int. Lawyer (1985) no. 1, pp. 189–223.Google Scholar

16. Ibid at pp. 192–193.

17. Ibid. p. 195, quoting 28, USC para. 1782.

18. Ibid. p. 196.

19. See Kenney, W.S., ‘Structures and Methods of Intemational and Regional Cooperation in Penal Matters‘, New York Law School Rev. (1984) pp. 39–99, at pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

20. A Treaty on Extradition and Cooperation in Penal Matters between the United States and Uruguay was signed at Montevideo (Uruguay), on April 6, 1973, and ratified by both Parties (the United States on November 21, 1973, and Uruguay by Law No. 15.476), and entered into force on April 11,1984. The 1991 Treaty is confined to Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

21. It is necessary to point out that, at the present time, the following treaties are in force among the States Parties of the Inter-American System: US-Bahamas (since July 18, 1990); US-Canada (March 19, 1990); Canada-Mexico (March 16, 1990). The following instruments are also in force: Treaty ofMutual Assistance with Cayman Islands-US-United Kingdom(1990), US-Italy(1983), US- Netherlands (1983), US-Switzerland (1977) and US-Turkey (1981).

Moreover, it is interesting to point out that some bilateral treaties have been signed among European and Latin American countries, e.g., between Argentina and Italy (in force since April 16, 1991); Argentina and Spain (1987); Spain and Mexico (1987). There is also one between Australia and Spain (1989). Among European countries there are also treaties which have standardized international law enforcement relations even more than the US (see Nadelmann, E.A., ‘The Role of the United States in the International Enforcement of Criminal Law’, 31 Harvard HJ (1990) no. 1, pp. 37–76.Google Scholar

22. For a very interesting analysis, see Kohlen, N., ‘The Confiscation of Criminal Assets in the United States and Switzerland’, 13 Houston JIL (1990) no. 1, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar The same broad scope characterizes the US-Colombia Treaty, which has not yet entered into force, and has been objected to in Colombia because of alleged unconstitutional provisions, which suggests that it will not be ratified by this country.

23. See Ellis, A. and Pisani, R.L., ‘U.S. Treaties on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters’, 19 Int. Lawyer (1985) no. 1, p. 191 citing Mueller.Google Scholar

24. See Zagaris, B., ‘Developments in International Judicial Assistance and Related Matters’ 18 Denver J. Int Law and Policy (1990) no. 2.Google Scholar

25. For the above reasons, the comparative study of treaties will be based on the US-Uruguay Treaty text. Regarding the US-Mexico Treaty, in addition to the text itself, the Message from the President of the United States (February 16,1988), is used as a source; another source has been the message of the Executive Branch of Uruguay (July 9,1991).

26. See Goldschmidt, W., Derecho Internacional Privado (El Derecho de la Tolerancia) (1985).Google Scholar

27. See Zagaris, B., ‘Senator Helms’ Inquiries over Individual Rights in MLAT's Delay Mark-up’, 4 Int. Enforcement L.Rep.(1988) p. 160.Google Scholar See also, fbe Washington Post (September 23,1988),‘Holm Vows to Block Pacts with Mexico, Bahamas’, by M. Isikoff.

28. See Ellis, and Pisani, , loc. cit. n. 15, at p. 201 and note 67.Google Scholar

29. We would like to note that the position of Uruguay during the negotiations has been to endow the Requested State with the normative mechanisms necessary to obtain a reasonable balance between die obligation to cooperate and other juridical values in play.

It must here be mentioned that the unique formal definition related to the international public order in Uruguay is the one contained in that country's statement about the scope of public order submitted by the Uruguayan Delegation at the time of adopting the Final Acts of the Second Specialized Inter-American Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP II, Montevideo, 1979). Due to the fact that it is an exception to the foreign juridical order and given its general character, this statement will be an unavoidable reference in the denial of a demand based on Art. 5.1(e), of the Uruguayan Treaty. In respect to this relevant point me statement says: “Therefore, in the opinion of Uruguay, the approved formula conveys an exceptional authorization to die various States Parties to declare in a nondiscretionary and well-founded manner that die precepts of foreign law are inapplicable whenever these concretely and in a serious and open manner offend die standards and principles essential to the international public order on which each individual state bases its legal individuality’.

30. The Delegation of Uruguay averted such a risk with their initiative proposals to (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Art. 18.

31. That formula was due to an initiative of the Uruguayan Delegation and it represents a criterion according to the national constitutional law, and was also introduced at our suggestion in the project for an Inter-American Convention (Art. 17).

32. In 1989, the US Justice Department agreed to transfer one million dollars each to Switzerland and Canada for their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of the Panama based Banco de Occidente. See Nadelmann, , loc. cit. n. 21, p. 62.Google Scholar

33. This is the wording that the Canada-Mexico Treaty, Ait. IV, para. 2, uses in dealing with the delivery of property.

34. Ellis, and Pisani, , loc. cit n. 15, at p. 222.Google Scholar

35. See Essex, A., ‘Common Goals and Different Ways in International Criminal Law; Reflexions from an European Perspective’, 31 Harvard ILJ (1990) pp. 117–127.Google Scholar

36. Ellis, and Pisani, , loc. cit. n. 15, at p. 106.Google Scholar

37. See Nadelmann, , loc. cit n. 21, pp. 37,76.Google Scholar

38. Loc. cit n. 5, at p. 193.