given preferential attention; if the extradition is requested for different acts, the nation to be given preference shall be the one in which the gravest offense has been committed, in the opinion of the nation of refuge; or, if the acts are of equal gravity, the first nation to request extradition shall be given the preference. When all the requests are presented on the same day, that of prior date shall prevail; if all are of equal date, the nation requested shall determine the order to be followed. In all the cases contemplated by this article, except the first, the reextradition of the offender may be stipulated so that he may be subsequently delivered up to the other requesting nations.

ART. 13. The extradition shall be requested through the diplomatic officers, and in the absence of the latter, through the consuls, or directly from Government to Government, the request being accompanied

(a) By a copy of authentic transcript of the final sentence, together with proof that the criminal was summoned and represented at the trial or declared legally in default; or, if it is not a case of a convicted party, by a writ instituting criminal proceedings, issued by a judge or competent authority and formally decreeing or ipso facto effecting the subjection of the accused party to trial and substantiated by an authentic copy of the penal law applicable to the offense on which the request is based.

(b) By all the data and facts necessary in order to establish the identity of the person whose extradition is demanded.

SECTION 1. The documents required under (a) shall be issued in the form prescribed by the legislation of the demanding nation and shall contain an accurate statement of the acts charged and of the place and data at which it was committed.

ART. 14. In urgent cases the fugitive may, even by virtue of a telegraphic request, be placed under provisional arrest until the demanding nation presents to the requested nation, within the period to be fixed by the latter, and which shall not exceed two months, the formal request duly substantiated. SECTION 1. All responsibility arising from the provisional detention shall be borne by the nation requesting the latter.

ART. 15. When the documents accompanying the request are deemed insufficient or irregular, owing to form, the requested Governmeut shall return them in order that the deficiencies may be supplied or the defects corrected, and the party, if under arrest, shall remain under arrest until the period referred to in the foregoing article has expired.

ART. 16. The request for extradition, as regards the formalities connected with it, the decision as to whether it shall be admitted, and the admission and weighing of any defense which may be made against it, shall, as far as is not contrary to the provisions of this code, be subject to the decision of the competent authorities of the nation of refuge, in accordance with the legislation of that nation.

SECTION 1. The right of the individual demanded to utilize the remedy of habeas corpus or amparo shall be guaranteed in all cases, as shall also the right to demand release on bail, provided the conditions prescribed by the law of the demanding nations are fulfilled.

ART. 17. Together with the person claimed, or even subsequently, there shall be seized and delivered all articles found in his possession or deposited or hidden in the nation of refuge and which may have occurred in the perpetration of the punishable act or which may have been obtained by means of this act, as well as those which may serve as convicting evidence.

1. These articles shall be delivered up, even though because of the death or flight of the fugitive, the extradition does not take place, provided it has already been granted. If it has not yet been granted, the proceedings shall continue for that purpose.

2. Articles seized and which are in the possession of third parties, or in the hands of the offender but belonging to third parties, shall not be surrendered unless the latter are heard and state whatever objections they may have, and the articles shall be restored to them, if they are entitled thereto, without any expense, upon the termination of the proceedings.

ART. 18. The fugitive shall be taken, by agents of the requested nation, to the frontier of the latter, or to the port which is most appropriate for embarka tion, and he shall there be delivered to the agents of the requesting nation. ART. 19. The transit of the extradited party through the territory of a third nation shall be permitted upon the mere extradition of the original copy or an authentic transcript of the document granting the extradition, provided the offense is also punishable according to the laws of such third nation.

1. If the extradited party is a citizen of the third nation, the granting of the passage shall be optional.

2. The transit shall take place under the escort of agents of the third nation. ART. 20. The expenses of the extradition shall be borne by each nation within the limits of its territory. Those of transportation through intervening nations, or by sea, shall be borne by the requesting nation.

ART. 21. A nation which secures the extradit on of a person who has not been convicted shall be obliged to communicate the final sentence to the nation granting extradition, as rendered in the trial for which the extradition was requested.

ART. 22. The extradition of persons accused of acts of anarchy may be re quested, provided the legislation of both nations punishes such acts. In this case the extradition shall be granted, even if the penalty prescribed is less than two years' in prisonment.

ART. 23. The person demanded may be restored to liberty and shall not be again arrested for the same cause if, after the extradition has been granted, the proper diplomatic or consular officer fails to send him to his destination within 20 days from the date on which he was placed at his disposal.

ART. 24. Existing treaties shall remain in force so far as they are not contrary to the foregoing principles or afford greater facilities for extradition, especially as regards offenses which warrant extradition and as regards the preference in granting it when it is requested by several nations on the same date.

The nations may likewise conclude new agreements on extradition provided they observe these conditions.

EXHIBIT 16.

Minutes of the sixth regular session.

[Extract.]

On July 17, 1912, at 8 p. m., the session was opened.

The president states that, when the previous session adjourned, he thought of having a copy prepared of the approved draft on extradition, in order to receive the signatures of the delegates present; but in view of the opinion of the majority of the latter (which he heard) to the effect that the labors of the commission should not have assigned to them the character of final treaties, he agreed with the delegates that the chair should merely authenticate the copies which are to be sent to the Governments here represented.

The order of the day is now taken up, consisting of a discussion and vote on the report of the committee charged with preparing a draft on the execution of foreign judgments.

The secretary general reads the report, first giving explanations of the omissions and discrepancies which are noted in the printed copies distributed among the delegates. When the reading is finished, Dr. Candido de Oliveira, of Brazil, sends to the desk the draft he had prepared and of which the committee had meanwhile adopted some ideas.

The report having been placed in discussion, Dr. Victor Castillo, of Mexico, takes the floor and sets forth some lengthy considerations regarding what transpired in the committee regarding the difficulties which it encountered (as) mentioned in its written note), and he finished by proposing that the Commission of Jurists, in view thereof, decide to send the report, the drafts annexed thereto, and the respective amendments to that one of the committees charged with the study of private international law which has to do with the execution of foreign Judgments.

This proposal being placed in discussion, Drs. Candido de Oliveira, of Brazil, and Alberto Elmore, of Peru, speak against it, as does also Dr. Victor Castillo, of Mexico, in reiteration of his arguments. The president states that as no one else wishes to speak he will declare the discussion closed, and he will call for a vote first on the proposition of the delegate of Mexico.

The proposal is approved, in view whereof the president declares that the Chair will send the whole matter under discussion to the sixth committee, which is to meet at Lima, and which appears to him to be the competent one.

DRAFT ON THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS AND LETTERS ROGATORY.

The special committee encountered serious difficulties in preparing a draft on the execution of foreign judgments which should embrace all the points which this subject should cover. The opinion was then expressed in the committee by one of its members (this being appended separately as a note to this draft) regarding the impossibility of arranging this draft independently of the data which would be necessary in order to obtain the probable consent of the interested nations, these data being properly deemed necessary by the international commission in order that the other committees might undertake their work, but in the case of our committee they were deemed unnecessary in spite of the fact that the question submitted to our study so intimately concerns the sovereignty of the nations.

The said note is also founded on a variety of systems followed by the legis lation of the American nations, which systems are difficult to harmonize in spite of the great spirit of conciliation with which those who sign the present draft are imbued.

The most serious difficulty seems to relate to a lack of knowledge of the system to be adopted by the fifth and sixth committees, which are instructed to present a draft code of private international law, so that the work projected by us lacks the unity which is essential to every conscientious work if we were now to decide in favor of some system.

The committee being aware of the force of these arguments, nevertheless thought that it ought to perform its duty, even though in an insufficient manner, according to its own view, provided it obeyed, as far as possible, the instructions which it received from this honorable assembly. Even though it does not succeed in attaining anything but an embodiment, as a principle of international law, of the execution of judgments rendered abroad, nevertheless, in view of the impossibility of accepting a uniform system, we believe that the only thing possible at the present time consists in respecting in this point the law of the country of execution.

This circumstance greatly diminishes the sphere of our action; but, on the other hand, we leave the field open for the study of more important questions by the fifth and sixth committees, which, with the draft which we now present, will encounter no obstacle in adopting the system which they may deem most suitable to propose to the Commission of Jurists.

We must state, as an homage to the illustrious author of the draft presented by the Brazilian Government, his excellency Mr. Lafayette Rodrigues Pereira, that the special committee accepted in general the articles of his draft with the modifications suggested by the difficulties set forth.

The committee, moreover, deemed it necessary in order to sanction a universal practice among nations and in order to better elucidate the ideas of some of the articles of the draft, to add one relating to letters rogatory in connec tion with court proceedings during trial, likewise taken from the Lafayette draft.

In view of the foregoing, we submit the following to the Commission of Jurists:

ARTICLE 1. A judgment rendered in one nation shall be capable of being executed in another.

ART. 2. In order that it may be admitted to execution, it will be necessary for the judgment to first obtain the proper exequatur or approval of the executive or judicial branch, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where the judgment is to be executed.

ART. 3. The granting of the exequatur shall be subject to the following re quirements:

(1) The judgment shall be provided with the external formalities showing Its authenticity.

(2) It shall have become final in accordance with the legislation of the country in which it has been rendered.

(3) It shall not be contrary to the laws of public order of the nation in which it is admitted to execution.

1) It shall have been preceded by a summons of the parties.

ART. 4. It shall be necessary to present to the executing judge an authentic translation of the judgment in the language of the country in which the judg ment is to be executed.

ART. 5. A foreign judgment which has received an exequatur or approval shall become final.

ART. 6. The foregoing provisions are applicable to arbitral awards whose authenticity and effectiveness are attested by a certificate of the court of the country in which they have been rendered.

ART. 7. The execution proceedings and incidents thereof shall be governed by the laws and practices in force in the nation in which the judgment is to be executed.

ART. 8. Letters rogatory sent by the judge of one district to that of another shall be subject to compulsory execution when they request the performance of certain acts or formalities of importance during the course of legal proceedings, such as the summoning of parties, the taking of testimony, inspections, examinations of books, taking of oaths, etc.

The requested judge shall observe the formalities of the laws of his country. Rio de Janeiro, Monroe Palace, July 22, 1912.

Article 1 accepted on condition that the judgment to be executed is not opposed to the laws of the country of execution.

The committee charged with preparing at this meeting a draft on the execution of judgments can not, according to my idea, duly fulfill its mission for the following reason:

The idea which prevailed in the international commission when it divided between several committees the preparation of the drafts of a codification of international law was based on a desire to give greater solidity and constancy to the work undertaken, especially from a practical standpoint, and to this end the said commission approved the directing part of the opinion which imposes on the committee before undertaking their work the duty of requesting of each Government in regard to the subject indicated information on the internal legislation of its respective country, the judicial or administrative resolutions, conventions, international cases which have occurred, and settlements which have been given them, and finally the mode of regulation which these Governments deem most suitable for the matter under consideration. I do not see any reason why, since this rule was considered very appropriate and suitable for the other committees, an exception should be made in the case of our committee in a matter which so intimately concerns the sovereignty of the nations.

The diversity of systems adopted in American legislations, from the necessity of an exequatur, accompanied by the possibility of a contentious suit and the intervention of the public prosecutor, to the simple decision of a judge of first instance, rendered on a petition by a party and without summoning the litigants; from those which admit only of the execution of judgments which have been brought about by a personal action to those which give executory force to any judgment, even if rendered by default, with the exception of those which offend recognized public order; this constitutes another obstacle in the way of the committee's entertaining the fond hope of arriving in a short time at an acceptable conclusion, even though its members be animated, as they are, with the best spirit of conciliation.

Moreover, the international commission appointed two committees (the fifth and sixth) charged with the elaboration of the drafts on private international law, so that we could not, without breaking the unity of the work, without knowing the system to be adopted by these committees, work out beforehand a draft on the execution of judgments which might deviate from the trend given them by those committees. Nor shall it be said that we can accept general or optional principles or exclude from the draft the indispensable examination of the international jurisdiction which is inevitably entailed by the application of the dominant system accepted in each country, for we should thus be performing an exceedingly deficient work on the one hand and an unnecessary work on the other, since there is not an American nation which does not, with more or less restrictions, admit the execution in its territory of judgments or decisions of foreign judges.

From what has been said I am of opinion, subject to the better judgment of my illustrious colleagues, that the International Commission of Jurists should be requested to permit our special committee to present its work after the committees charged with the drafts on private international law have adopted the

system which they are to present in the way of a draft for its approval at the next session of the Commission of Jurists.

Candido de Oliveira, with restrictions. The Brazilian delegate thinks there is no difficulty in the immediate arrangement of the draft relating to the execution of foreign judgments which the Commission of Jurists almost unanimously thought ought to be prepared at this same session.

The jurists of the several nations previously had knowledge of the two drafts prepared by the Brazilian Government to serve as a basis for the discussion. In the draft on private international law there was Chapter VII, which deals with the very subject the examination of which was intrusted to this committee.

Even if it were a case of a new law, which can only be in force after approval by the legislative branch of each nation, it would matter little if rules were established which were contrary to some principles laid down in the local laws. The very purpose of private international law is to settle conflicts between legislations.

I therefore think that we ought to perform a more complete work than that outlined by the majority of the committee.

Some of the ideas which I expressed during the discussion were, to be sure, accepted and form part of the draft which is to be submitted to the consideration of the illustrious general commission. However, I deem that the following provisions should not be left aside, they having been embodied in the draft which I had the honor to submit to the committee and which the latter revised in the draft which it prepared.

Thus it is suitable that the following be added:

To article 6, No. 1:

The territorial judge or court shall not have the authority to modify, alter, derogate, supersede, or annul the judgment; he shall confine himself solely to declaring the judg ment not subject to execution in case it contains a decision which infringes or offends laws of public order.

Let the following also be added:

ART. 9. Independently of the approval and solely on exhibition of the judgment of bankruptcy and of the certificates of appointment, in authentic form, of the legal representatives of the creditors these representatives shall be authorized, as mandatories, to demand, in the nation where the judgment is being executed, proceedings tending to preserve the rights of the creditors, collect debts, compromise, if they have powers of attor ney for this purpose, and bring actions without the obligation of furnishing bond or costs. However, the attorney who institutes judicial proceedings shall be liable for these costs. 1. Any acts which involve the execution of judgments, such as the receiving and sale of the property of the bankrupt, shall be performed only after the judgment is rendered executory, by means of the approval or exequatur, the forms of the local law being observed.

2. Notwithstanding the approval or exequatur, the creditors domiciled in the nation where the judgment is executed and who have mortgages on property there situated shall be prohibited from demanding their claims and foreclosing the mortgaged property.

3. Concordats and other means of forestalling a declaration of bankruptcy shall be subject to approval or exequatur, and they shall only be binding on those creditors whe have been summoned to take part therein.

EXHIBIT 17.

Final meeting of the commission.

[Extract from the Jornal do Comercio (Rio de Janeiro) July 20, 1912.]

The seventh meeting of the Commission of Jurists was held yesterday. The floor was taken by Dr. Epitacio Pessoa, who gave a summary of the labors; by Dr. Zorilla de San Martin, delegate from Uruguay, in behalf of all the foreign delegates; and finally by Dr. Lauro Müller, who gave thanks in the name of the Brazilian Government and people.

The speech of Dr. Epitacio Pessoa was in part as follows:

The work of the International Commission of Jurists being terminated for the present, in accordance with the opinion approved on the 5th instant, at its second regular session, I must, before declaring the work to be adjourned until the time assigned for our second meeting (June, 1914), present to you a slight sketch of the work accomplished during this first period.

At the first regular session, held on June 28, the delegations from Argentina and Chile presented a statement proposing that, before any work were undertaken on the codification, a committee of five members be appointed to secure the opinions of the several dele gations regarding the underlying idea of the codification, the subjects which it should embrace, the method of work connected therewith, and any other points which might be suggested by the delegations, and to ascertain wherein and to what extent an agreement might be reached.