« ÎnapoiContinuați »
congresses, conferences, official visits and other international events and to tourists during the season;
they will develop the possibilities for taking out subscriptions according to the modalities particular to each country;
they will improve the opportunities for reading and borrowing these publications in large public libraries and their reading rooms as well as in university libraries.
They intend to improve the possibilities for acquaintance with bulletins of official information issued by diplomatic missions and distributed by those missions on the basis of arrangements acceptable to the interested parties. (iii) Filmed and Broadcast Information
-To promote the improvement of the dissemination of filmed and broadcast information. To this end:
they will encourage the wider showing and broadcasting of a greater variety of recorded and filmed information from the other participating states, illustrating the various aspects of life in their countries and received on the basis of such agreements or arrangements as may be necessary between the organizations and firms directly concerned;
they will facilitate the import by competent organizations and firms of recorded audiovisual material from the other participating states.
The participating states note the expansion in the dissemination of information broadcast by radio, and express the hope for the continuation of this process, so as to meet the interest of mutual understanding among peoples and the aims set forth by this Conference.
(6) Cooperation in the field of Information -To encourage cooperation in the field of information on the basis of short or long term agreements or arrangements. In particular:
they will favor increased cooperation among mass media organizations, including press agencies, as well as among publishing houses and organizations;
they will favor cooperation among public or private, national or international radio and television organizations, in particular through the exchange of both live and recorded radio and television programs, and through the joint production and the broadcasting and distribution of such programs;
they will encourage meetings and contacts both between journalists' organizations and between journalists from the participating states;
they will view favorably the possibilities of arrangements between periodical publications as well as between newspapers from the participating states, for the purpose of exchanging and publishing articles;
they will encourage meetings and contacts both between journalists' organizations and between journalists from the participating states; experience and views between experts in the field of the press, radio and television.
(c) Improvement of Working Conditions for Journalists The participating states, desiring to improve the conditions under which journalists from one participating state exercise their profession in another participating state, intend in particular to:
-examine in a favorable spirit and within a suitable and reasonable time scale requests from journalists for visas;
grant to permanently accredited journalists of the participating states, on the basis of arrangements, multiple entry and exit visas for specified periods;
-facilitate the issue to accredited journalists of the participating states of permits for stay in their country of temporary residence and, if and when these are necessary, of other official papers which it is appropriate for them to have;
-ease, on a basis of reciprocity, procedures for arranging travel by journalists of the participating states in the country where they are exercising their profession, and to provide progressively greater opportunities for such travel, subject to the observance of regulations relating to the existence of areas closed for security reasons;
ensure that requests by such journalists for such travel receive, insofar as possible, an expeditious response, taking into account the time scale of the request;
-increase the opportunities for journalists of the participating states to communicate personally with their sources, including organizations and official institutions;
-grant to journalists of the participating states the right to import, subject only to its being taken out again, the technical equipment (photographic, cinematographic, tape recorder, radio and television) necessary for the exercise of their profession;*
enable journalists of the other participating states, whether permanently or temporarily accredited, to transmit completely, normally and rapidly by means recognized by the participating states to the information organs which they represent, the results of their professional activity, including tape recordings and undeveloped film, for the purpose of publication or of broadcasting on the radio or television.
The participating states reaffirm that the legitimate pursuit of their professional activity will neither render journalists liable to expulsion nor otherwise penalize them. If an accredited journalist is expelled, he will be informed of the reasons for this act and may submit an application for reexamination of his case.
*While recognizing that appropriate local personnel are employed by foreign journalists in many instances, the participating states note that the above provisions would be applied, subject to the observance of the appropriate rules, to persons from the other participating states, who are regularly and professionally engaged as technicians, photographers or cameramen of the press, radio, television or cinema. (Footnote in original,]
For the full text of the Final Act of the CSCE, signed at Helsinki on Aug. 1, 1975, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1888, Sept. 1, 1975, pp. 323–350. For reference to other provisions of the Final Act, see index entries, this Digest, under Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (1975).
Section 104 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1976 (P.L. 94–141; 89 Stat. 757; 22 U.S.C. 2688), approved vember 29, 1975, states:
It is the sense of the Congress that the position of United States Ambassador to a foreign country should be accorded to men and women possessing clearly demonstrated competence to perform ambassadorial duties. No individual should be accorded the position of United States Ambassador to a foreign country primarily because of financial contributions to political campaigns.
Protection of Diplomats
On January 15, 1975, a Federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Napoleon Lechoco, a Philippine national, who had taken Ambassador Eduardo Romualdez hostage at gunpoint in the Philippine Embassy in Washington on November 18, 1974, while demanding his son's release from alleged detention in the Philippines and safe conduct to the United States. He also wounded or threatened other members of the Embassy staff and a Metropolitan Police officer, before surrendering to police and FBI agents. The surrender occurred after an agreement was reached with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos to place Lechoco's son on the first available flight from Manila.
Lechoco was tried in a bifurcated proceeding in the U.S. District Court. The jury returned a guilty verdict on June 19, 1975, and found him sane in a separate verdict rendered June 25, 1975. United States v. Lechoco, Criminal Case No. 75–37. Judge Howard F. Corcoran, on August 22, 1975, imposed concurrent sentences of ten years for Federal kidnapping (18 U.S.C. 1201(a)(4)), three-totwelve months for assault with a dangerous weapon (D.C. Code 502), and three-to-twelve months for carrying a pistol without a license (22 D.C. Code 3204).
On the same date, the defendant Lechoco filed a notice of appeal and a motion to continue his release on bond pending the resolution of the appeal. On August 25, Judge Corcoran denied the motion for release on bond pending appeal and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the defendant had not met the burden of showing that he posed no danger to the Ambassador or to members of his staff, in view of the continued existence of the defendant's political motivation of antagonism toward the Marcos regime and his desire to embarrass the Philippine Government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on August 25, 1975, affirmed Judge Corcoran's denial of release pending appeal. United States v. Lechoco, 514 F.2d 837 (1975). The defendant has appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred (1) in excluding character testimony as to defendant's reputation for truthfulness and honesty and (2) in admitting taped conversations between the defendant and his attorney (retained by Lechoco during the incident and who participated in the negotiation of Lechoco's surrender).
P.L. 92–539 (86 Stat. 1072), approved Oct. 24, 1972, amended 18 U.S.C. 1201(aX4) to provide:
(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when:
(4) the person is a foreign official as defined in section 1116(b) or an official guest as defined in section 1116(c)(4) of this title, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
P.L. 92–539, supra, also amended 18 U.S.C. 112, concerning assaults and other violence against diplomats, to apply to "foreign officials and official guests.”
On October 28, 1975, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, signed for the United States on December 28, 1973 (S. Ex. L, 93d Cong., 2d Sess.). See the 1973 Digest, pp. 156– 158, for a summary of provisions.
A statement by Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, in support of the Convention was presented to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 16, 1975. It noted that implementing legislation, supplementary to the 1972 Act for the Protection of Foreign Officials and Official Guests of the United States (P.L. 92–539; 86 Stat. 1070), would be proposed by the Departments of State and Justice. The legislation would establish jurisdiction over serious crimes against diplomats, such as murder and kidnapping, as well as threats and attempts, wherever they
occur, and would permit prosecution or extradition of the alleged offender for such crimes, wherever they occur.
S. Ex. R. No. 94-10, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Oct. 22, 1975.
On December 31, 1975, President Ford approved Public Law 94 196 (89 Stat. 1109; 3 U.S.C. 202, 203, 208), providing Federal support for the protection of foreign diplomats at diplomatic missions in metropolitan areas in the United States outside Washington, D.C., in cases of extraordinary protective need. The legislation increases the size of the Executive Protective Service and provides for reimbursement to State and local governments for expenses they incur in protecting foreign diplomats. Reimbursement is limited to protection of diplomats in cities with 20 or more foreign diplomatic missions when the need arises “in association with a visit to or occurs at a permanent mission to an international organization of which the United States is a member or an observer mission invited to participate in the work of such organization."
See also, S. Rept. No. 94-573, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.
Privileges and Immunities
In Caravel Office Building Company, et al. v. The Peruvian Air Attache, No. 9185, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided on October 23, 1975, that the action brought against the Peruvian Air Attache for breach of a lease of an office building was, in fact, an action against the Government of Peru, rather than against the air attache as a private individual. Accordingly, it held that the personal diplomatic immunity provided by 22 U.S.C. 252 did not bar the action. The case was remanded to the D.C. Superior Court for further opportunity to answer and present the matter to the Department of State. The Court relied upon a letter of July 11, 1975, from Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Department, to the Clerk of the Court, which stated, in part:
The fact that the Department of State issued a certificate of immunity status does not reflect any conclusion by the Department on the merits of the underlying legal action. It is merely a confirmation of the entitlement of the individuals involved to the benefits of the immunity statute and acts to put the Court on notice that because of this immunity, jurisdiction may not be exercised over such persons in the absence of a formal waiver thereof.