View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

Part One. Article 18 179“(c) A summary of the relevant facts, except in relation to requests for the purposeof service of judicial documents;“(d) A description of the assistance sought and details of any particular procedurethat the requesting State Party wishes to be followed;“(e) Where possible, the identity, location and nationality of any person concerned;“(f) The purpose for which the evidence, information or action is sought. 56“11. The requested State Party may request additional information when itappears necessary for the execution of the request in accordance with its domesticlaw or when it can facilitate such execution.“12. A request shall be executed in accordance with the domestic law of therequested State Party and, to the extent not contrary to the domestic law of the requestedParty and where possible, in accordance with the procedures specified in therequest. 57“13. Wherever possible and consistent with fundamental principles of domesticlaw, a State Party shall permit [encourage] testimony, statements or other forms ofassistance to be given via video link or other modern means of communication and,subject to domestic law, shall ensure that perjury committed under such circumstances58, 59is a criminal offence.“14. The requesting State Party shall not transmit or use information or evidencefurnished by the requested Party for investigations, prosecutions or proceedings otherthan those stated in the request without the prior consent of the requested Party.56At the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee it was pointed out that the source of this paragraph was the 1988Convention. Colombia expressed preference for a simplified version of the text.57Canada submitted a proposal for the reformulation of the text of this paragraph (see A/AC.254/L.42), as follows:“A request shall be executed in accordance with the domestic law of the requested State Party and, to the extent not prohibitedby that law, in the manner and in accordance with the procedures specified in the request”. This proposal receivedlimited support. Italy submitted a proposal (see A/AC.254/5/Add.8) for the reformulation of this paragraph and the additionof another paragraph, as follows:“1. Where mutual assistance is afforded and such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamentalprinciples of law in the requested State, the requested State shall undertake to comply, for purposes of executing lettersrogatory, with formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the requesting State. The requested State shallexecute the request for assistance as soon as possible and shall take as full account as possible of any deadlines setby the requesting State.“2. Where the request cannot be executed in full accordance with the requirements set by the requesting State, theauthorities of the requested State shall promptly inform the authorities of the requesting State and indicate the conditionsunder which it might be possible to execute the request. The authorities of the requesting State and the requestedState may subsequently agree on further action to be taken concerning the request, where necessary making suchaction subject to the fulfilment of those conditions.”The Ad Hoc Committee was of the view that the ideas contained in that proposal merited further consideration. In particular,the second paragraph of that proposal might be considered further in conjunction with paragraph 19 of this article.58Several delegations expressed concern about the criminalization of perjury in this paragraph (see, for example, theview of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document A/AC.254/L.34). The clause on domestic law was inserted to makesuch criminalization optional and thus meet those concerns. Nevertheless, several delegations expressed their preference forthe deletion of the provision.59Japan suggested that the adoption of the necessary measures enabling testimony via video link should be optional.Italy proposed the insertion of several new paragraphs after paragraph 13 (see A/AC.254/5/Add.8). The first paragraph ofthat proposal was favourably received at the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee as a potential alternative to paragraph13. The first paragraph of the proposal by Italy read as follows:“Where an individual is in the territory of a State Party and has to be heard as a witness or expert by the judicialauthorities of another State Party, the first State Party may, at the request of the other, permit the hearing to takeplace by videoconference if the criminal proceedings for which the hearing was requested provide appropriate guaranteesof conformity with its fundamental principles of law and where it is not possible or desirable for the individualin question to appear in person in the territory of the requesting State.”The rest of the proposal made by Italy was found to contain many useful concepts and ideas, but was deemed too lengthyand detailed for an international legal instrument.