Page 209 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

of the sending States, unlike the United States, were ap- German court, a serviceman cannot be tried again for the
parently not interested in securing any greater rights to ex- same offense by a court-martial in Germany.
ercise criminal jurisdiction than are provided in the NATO (6) Civilians and Dependents. Civilian employees of
SOFA itself, and therefore did not desire a general the United States forces in Germany and dependents have
waiver.) When an offense is committed by a U.S. service- not been subject to peacetime court-martial jurisdiction
man over which the Federal Republic would have the since the Supreme Court decisions on this subject in Janu-
primary right to exercise jurisdiction, the United States ary 1960. Civilians in Germany, therefore, will continue
military authorities must notify the appropriate German to be fully subject to the jurisdiction of German courts for
authorities of the case. Within three weeks from receipt of crimes committed in Germany. Trial safeguards in Ger-
the notification, the local German authorities may recall man courts for these civilians are the same as for United
the waiver. Provision is made for discussion between the States servicemen.
local German authorities and the local United States mili- (7) Non-Criminal Jurisdiction. United States per-
tary authorities in cases of recall and, if there is disagree- sonnel in Germany continue, under the new agreements
ment on the propriety of the recall, for appeal to their as they were under the Bonn Conventions, to be subject
counterparts at the Land (State) level. If the problem can- to the non-criminal jurisdiction of German tribunals.
not be resolved at the Land level, the matter may be They are not, however, subject to any proceedings for the
referred to the Mixed Commission established under Ar- enforcement of any judgment against them in Germany in
ticle 30 of the Supplementary Agreement. The Ger- a matter arising from their performance of official duties.
madAmerican Mixed Commission consists of a repre- (8) Further Implementation. Most of the 83 articles
sentative of the German Federal Ministry of Justice and of the Supplementary Agreement contemplate the making
the Judge Advocate, United States Army, Europe and Sev- of further and more detailed implementing arrangements
enth Army. Final appeal is to the United States Embassy and Agreements. A Protocol of Signature accompanies
and to the Federal Republic. The Government of the the basic agreement and contains Agreed Minutes and
Federal Republic, however, has the right to resolve the Declarations relating both to the NATO SOFA and to the
matter unilaterally and finally. However, both the United Supplementary Agreement. In addition, numerous ad-
States Embassy and the German government must give ministrative agreements have been concluded between
"sympathetic consideration" to any joint recommenda- the United States and Germany at the U.S. Em-
tion of the Mixed Commission. In an agreed minute, the bassy/German Foreign Office level implementing or
Germans have indicated that the term "major interests of amending specific articles of the NATO SOFA, the Sup-
German administration of justice" includes such crimes plementary Agreement and the Protocol of Signature. The
as homicide, rape, and robbery. These criminal jurisdic- Agreement, therefore, cannot be authoritatively in-
tion arrangements are much more favorable to the United terpreted without recourse to these materials.
States than are those of the NATO SOFA. 6. Japan. As Japan was not a member of NATO the
(4) Arrest Powers. Under the Bonn Conventions, status of U.S. forces stationed in the home islands of
the German police possessed only a very limited authority Japan after the conclusion of the occupation was first
to arrest United States servicemen. Under the new agree- governed by a 1952 Administrative Agreement. 79 This
ments, the German police have plenary powers of arrest Administrative Agreement was one of several agreements
over servicemen. which were executed in implementation of a 1952
(5) Custody and Trial. A United States serviceman Security Treaty 80 with Japan. Both the Security Treaty
who is to be tried for a crime by a German court may be and the Administrative Agreement came into force the
retained in United States custody both before and during day the Peace Treaty 81 with Japan came into effect. With
his trial. A United States serviceman who is charged by a respect to criminal jurisdiction, the Administrative Agree-
German court may choose local defense counsel, who will ment provided that the U.S. was to have the primary right
be retained for him by the United States Army, which will to exercise jurisdiction in all cases. However, the agree-
normally pay for such counsel and for court cost, but not ment also contained a pledge to revise this criminal juris-
fines. The trial, of course, will be conducted in German diction formula along the lines of the NATO SOFA when
but the accused is provided an interpreter. A United States that latter agreement came into force for the United
trial observer (a JAGC officer or American civilian at- States. Therefore, when in 1953 the NATO SOFA
torney on the staff of the command Staff Judge Advocate) became effective, the U.S. signed a protocol with Japan
will attend the trial of United States service-connected revising so much of the Administrative Agreement with
personnel by German courts and will report on the fair- Japan as pertained to the exercise of criminal jurisdic-
ness of the trial and whether the accused's treaty rights tion-making it nearly identical with corresponding provi-
were respected during the proceedings. An accused sen-
tenced to confinement in a German prison will be 79. [I9521 3 U.S.T. 3341, T.I.A.S. No. 2492.
regularly visited by United States representatives who will 80. [I9521 3 U.S.T. 3329, T.I.A.S. No. 2491.
report on the conditions of confinement. Once tried by a 81. [I9521 3 U.S.T. 3169, T.I.A.S. No. 2490.