internationally protected persons is prohibited. Penalty provisions in existing law are utilized except that the penalty for first degree murder is imprisonment for life and the penalty for attempted murder is imprisonment for not more than twenty years.

The definitions largely parallel those previously found in 18 U.S.C. 1116, but add the term "internationally protected person" and its appropriate use throughout the remaining definitions to define that class of persons in whose favor the extraterritorial provisions of the statute operate. "Internationally protected person" is defined as:

(A) a Chief of State or the political equivalent, head of government, or Foreign Minister whenever such person is in a country other than his own and any member of his family accompanying him; or

(B) any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who at the time and place concerned is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack upon his person, freedom, or dignity, and any member of his family then forming part of his household.

The term "international organization" is limited to a public international organization designated pursuant to section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288).

Subsection (c) of section 1116 provides that in case of murder or attempted murder of an internationally protected person, the United States may exercise jurisdiction if the alleged offender is present within the United States, regardless of the place where the offense was committed or the nationality of the victim or of the alleged offender. With regard to this provision, Jay C. Waldman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, testified on June 30, 1976, in hearings before a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, that it was the crux of the statute. He added:

The assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction is in proper discharge of the duly adopted international obligations of the United States pursuant to the treaty power and is further supportable under the Constitution as an exercise of the power "[t]o define and punish... offenses against the law of nations." There is nothing in the bills which would, in the alternative, prevent the orderly extradition of offenders when there is a legal basis for extradition. The Department believes that extradition will continue to be the normal procedure when the only nexus for jurisdiction is presence within the United States.

Section 4 of the Act includes the class of internationally protected persons within the kidnapping provisions of section 1201 of title 18, United States Code, and provides the convention-required extension of jurisdiction over extraterritorial kidnappings and attempted

kidnappings. A new subsection (d) makes attempted kidnapping a crime.

Pursuant to the conventions, section 5 of the Act amends section 112 of title18, United States Code, to include internationally protected persons within the reach of the assault provision of that section and provides for appropriate extraterritorial jurisdiction. It covers intimidating, coercing, threatening, or harassing a foreign official or an official guest, or obstructing a foreign official in the performance of his duties, or attempts to do the same. It prohibits congregating with two or more persons within one hundred feet of protected premises with intent to violate any other provision of the section. Section 7 of the Act prohibits forcible thrusting by any person of "any part of himself or any object" into or upon the premises occupied by foreign officials or official guests, if done willfully with intent to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass. It also prohibits refusal to vacate such premises if a lawful demand is made upon the intruder.

Threats to kill, kidnap, or assault foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons are prohibited under section 8 of the Act, as is extortion related to such threats. Provision is made for the requisite extraterritorial jurisdiction if the threat is directed against an internationally protected person.

Throughout the Act, provision is made for the Attorney General to request assistance from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, in enforcing the provisions against murder, kidnapping or assault.

Section 10 of the Act makes clear that the Act is not intended to preempt State law and that local officials have the right and obligation to arrest for Federal as well as local crimes.

See also H. Rept. 94-1614 and S. Rept. 94-1273. For testimony by Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Dept. of State, and Jay C. Waldman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dept. of Justice, see Hearing on Internationally Protected Persons Bills, Unsworn Declarations Bills, before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., June 30, 1976, pp. 9-35.

Regulations

The Department of the Treasury announced on December 9, 1976, the addition of a new part 13, "Procedures for Providing Assistance to State and Local Governments in Protecting Foreign Diplomatic Missions," to title 31, Code of Federal Regulations. The addition took effect December 17, 1976. It prescribes procedures governing protective and financial assistance to State and local governments in the protection of foreign diplomatic missions as authorized by sections 202 and 208 of title 3, United States Code, as amended and

added, respectively, by Public Law 94-196 (89 Stat. 1109), approved December 31, 1975. See the 1975 Digest, p. 241.

Under 31 CFR 13.3, protection will be provided by the Executive Protective Service only to foreign diplomatic missions located in metropolitan areas (other than the District of Columbia) where there are located 20 or more such missions, as determined by the Secretary of State, which are headed by full time officers. On the effective date of the regulations the following metropolitan areas had 20 or more such missions: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco. Protection would be provided in those areas only if requested by the area, if the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury determines that an extraordinary protective need exists, and it arises in association with a visit to or occurs at (1) a permanent mission to an international organization of which the United States is a member, or (2) an observer mission invited to participate in the work of an international organization of which the United States is a member.

The new regulations also cover procedures for requesting protection; utilization of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of State and local governments; reimbursement of State and local governments; reimbursement when the Assistant Secretary makes no determination to utilize State and local governments services, personnel, equipment and facilities; and appendices on the form of request for assistance.

Fed. Reg., Vol. 41, No. 244, Dec. 17, 1976, pp. 55179-55191.

Arrests and Trials

On September 23, 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded to the U.S. District Court the case of United States v. Lechoco, 542 F.2d 84 (1976), for a new trial on the issue of insanity. Napoleon Lechoco, a Philippine national accused of kidnapping and assault in taking hostage at gunpoint the Philippine Ambassador in Washington, had been found guilty by the District Court in 1975, and found sane in a separate verdict by that Court. See the 1975 Digest, pp. 239-240.

The Appeals Court agreed with Lechoco's contention that the trial court erred in excluding evidence pertaining to his reputation for truthfulness and honesty. It considered that the testimony of three psychiatrists, if accepted by the jury, would have provided an adequate basis for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity; that the jurors' determination of the weight to be given to that testimony rested to a great extent on the reliability of the information underlying their opinions; and the defendant's credibility, therefore, was of crucial importance. Further, said the Court, the Government

in cross-examining witnesses raised the issue of Lechoco's credibility and thus opened the door for the introduction of testimony as to his reputation for truth and veracity.

Dr. William R. Perl, a Jewish Defense League (JDL) leader, was arrested and tried in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on a four-count indictment based upon evidence that he had procured someone to fire shots into the residences of two Soviet diplomats. The trial, United States v. William R. Perl, ended on November 24, 1976, with the jury returning a guilty verdict on three counts. Dr. Perl was convicted of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371), attempt to injure property occupied by foreign officials (18 U.S.C. 970), and illegal transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3)). He was acquitted of knowing receipt of a stolen weapon (18 U.S.C. 922(J)).

In United States v. Kelner et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the trial of Russel Kelner, Thomas MacIntosh, Steven Rombom, and Jeffrey Weingarten terminated abruptly on November 1, 1976, when all defendants reached agreement with the prosecution for the entry of guilty pleas. Kelner, the reputed leader of Jewish Defense League (JDL) operations in New York City, and his codefendants, all affiliated with the JDL, were alleged to have engaged in a pattern of violent acts designed to harass and intimidate Soviet and Arab foreign officials in New York City. The various defendants were indicted on charges which included conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371), illegal transportation of explosives and firearms (18 U.S.C. 842, 844, 922, and 924), malicious damaging of the Iraq Mission to the United Nations by means of explosives (18 U.S.C. 844 and 970), and use of deadly weapons to offer violence against the Soviet Compound in Riverdale, New York, and the Soviet Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan (18 U.S.C. 112(a) and 970).

Kelner and Weingarten each pled guilty to one count of illegal transportation of a firearm in interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 924(a)). Rombom pled to one count of interstate transportation of explosives with intent that they be used to intimidate individuals and destroy property (18 U.S.C. 844(d)). MacIntosh pled to one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) and one count of interstate transportation of explosives with intent to intimidate individuals and destroy property (18 U.S.C. 844(d)).

Privileges and Immunities

Proposed Legislation

The Department of State submitted to the Congress on February 6, 1976, draft legislation to complement the Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations (TIAS 7502; 23 UST 3227; entered into force for the United States December 13, 1972). The bill was introduced in the Senate as S.3019 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 14828. It was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee. No action on the bill was taken by the 94th Congress.

Ambassador Robert J. McCloskey, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, in a letter of February 6, 1976, described the proposed legislation as follows:

*

The purpose of the bill is to promote the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States by specifying the privileges and immunities which foreign diplomatic missions and their personnel may be accorded in the United States. This bill is virtually identical to S. 1577 which was passed by the Senate in the 90th Congress except that, upon the recommendation of the Department of Justice, section 5(b) dealing with criminal penalties for a knowing violation of the statute has been eliminated. Bills identical to S. 1577 have been introduced in subsequent years, the latest such bill in 1974 during the 93rd Congress. A sectional analysis of the proposed bill is enclosed.

The primary purpose of reintroducing the bill at this time is to bring about uniformity in United States practice relating to diplomatic privileges and immunities following the entry into force of the Vienna Convention (TIAS 7502). At present, there are two distinct standards, one international and one domestic, for determining the scope of privileges and immunities which may be accorded foreign diplomatic missions and their personnel. The Vienna Convention, which is in force for 115 countries, including the United States, embodies in most material respects customary rules of international law in this area. In addition, sections 40634066 of the Revised Statutes (22 U.S.C. 252-254) provide a separate and, in some respects, broader standard of immunity for various classes of diplomatic mission personnel.

One reason for the bill is that as a matter of domestic law, the Vienna Convention does not repeal or supersede 22 U.S.C.252-254 in situations in which both are applicable. This is made clear by the text of the Convention (arts. 38 and 47) and the legislative history of its consideration (Ex. Rep. No. 6, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Ex. H. 88th Cong. 1st Sess., P. 11 (1965)). This view has been confirmed by an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, dated May 4, 1973.

In addition to bringing about conformity between the international and domestic legal standards on immunities through repeal of the above-mentioned sections of the Revised Statutes, the bill will serve the following major purposes:

(1) authorize the President, upon a basis of reciprocity and at his direction to accord the privileges and immunities specified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to diplomatic missions and their personnel of states not parties to the Convention;

(2) authorize the President to extend on the basis of reciprocity