PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser.GORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CSH-1784/17

31 March 2017COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY Original: Spanish

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEMISPHERIC PLAN OF ACTION AGAINST

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

DEPARTMENT AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME(DTOC)

SECRETARIAT FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL SECURITY(SMS)

APRIL 2017

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEMISPHERIC PLAN OF ACTION AGAINST

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

DEPARTMENT AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME(DTOC)

SECRETARIAT FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL SECURITY(SMS)

APRIL 2017

Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3II. INTRODUCTION 7III. GENERAL OBJECTIVE 9IV. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 9V. METHODOLOGY 10VI. ANALYSIS 11

A. National strategies...............................................................................14B. Legal instruments.................................................................................20C. Law enforcement-related matters........................................................23D. Training................................................................................................27E. Information sharing..............................................................................29F. International cooperation and assistance............................................31G. General information for the process of revising or updating the PoA...36

VII. FINDINGS 40

2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The chief purpose of this report is to reveal the level of implementation of the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime (PoA-TOC) and to provide the member states with inputs for analysis based on official, updated information to inform its future updating. To achieve that, it provides information that was furnished directly by the countries through their answers to the questionnaire and was then organized into Excel spreadsheets. That method of organizing the information was used on account of the wide range of formats in which the questionnaire responses were received. In light of the official status of the sources, the information was not verified or validated in terms of its comprehensiveness, completeness, or exactness by the DTOC’s group of specialists.

The information furnished by the countries enabled the preparation of this report, which will be an important element in allowing the Committee on Hemispheric Security (CHS) to analyze the progress made and challenges still pending with the implementation of the PoA-TOC.

Although the report is organized in accordance with the sections of the questionnaire that the member states answered, this executive summary gathers together the main findings on the level of implementation of the PoA-TOC in the different regions of the Hemisphere. It should be noted that of the 34 OAS member states, 19 submitted responses to the questionnaire.

The first finding that arises from the information provided is that 14 countries believe that the best way to deal with TOC is through the design and implementation of comprehensive strategies or programs to prevent and combat this criminal phenomenon. Addressing TOC remains

3

essentially a matter for state action, with low participation by and cooperation from nongovernmental organizations. At the same time, the approach taken appears largely to favor prosecution. Eight of the 19 countries that responded to the questionnaire said that their strategies or programs entailed a component of prevention.

The second notable finding is that although a majority of the countries (14 out of 19) believe that the best way to tackle TOC is through the design and implementation of comprehensive national strategies or programs, only eight countries said that they had a national authority with responsibility for the topic. The absence of a person responsible for guiding, implementing, deciding on, and responding to the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy or program could be seen as a sign of its weakness. This is compounded by the fact that responsibility for and leadership of the comprehensive national strategy or program lies with different public institutions, according to the country in question. Each institution will have its own “professional bias” which, in turn, could affect the implementation, results, and impact of the comprehensive national strategy or program.

The third relevant finding is the existence of a high level of adhesion to the main international agreements that address the topic. This provides the countries with a common regulatory framework and serves as a reference point for guiding the preparation of laws, strategies, plans, and actions within each country.

A fourth important finding reveals that most of the countries (18) have mechanisms for protecting victims and witnesses that can, in 17 cases, be described as broadly accessible : in other words, any person can be considered for them provided that he or she meets certain minimum conditions and basic requirements. Another decisive variable is the budgetary resources allocated. The fact that 18 countries already have

4

victim and witness protection mechanisms would therefore allow a second step to be taken (since it is no longer necessary to focus on the adoption of mechanisms of that kind) and to begin understanding and learning about how those mechanisms operate in order to help improve their effectiveness and sustainability. Moreover, the existence of those mechanisms would facilitate horizontal transfers of cooperation between those countries already making use of those mechanisms with proven effectiveness to make them available to countries still without them.

A fifth important finding is that 16 of the 19 states have measures to ensure the security, control, and integrity of travel and identity documents. This offers another possibility for horizontal exchanges of experiences among countries to help improve the effectiveness of their measures.

This report’s sixth major finding deals with training and exchanges of information related to TOC. With the exception of financial intelligence, the training provided by the states tends to be sporadic and isolated and is not sustained over time. Given that this is a criminal phenomenon with the principal characteristic of constant adaptation and evolution, work is needed on stable, updated, and constant training programs. The countries’ responses seem to indicate that there is room for working on and improving the mechanisms for and practice of exchanges of information between the countries, within the frameworks set by national laws and paying particular attention to information security protocols. The area where there are the closest relations and coordination among the countries is extradition (18 countries reported having policies or agreements addressing that topic). In contrast, lower levels of exchanges between the countries were detected with respect to special investigation techniques ( SITs) (11 countries).

5

A seventh important finding, in the field of international cooperation and assistance, was the existence of an urgent need for training on key topics such as special investigation techniques and the management of joint investigation teams; exchanges of experiences on asset management and the disposal of property; training for police officers and prosecutors, and exchanges of training in that area; and the establishment of agreements for the relocation of witnesses. In addition, it can be seen that although all the countries that responded have signed the Palermo Convention, there is still room for improving the levels of international cooperation on mutual legal assistance in the Hemisphere.

The eighth significant finding is that the countries’ responses indicate that there is no consensus regarding the need to review or update the Hemispheric Plan of Action: five countries said they did not support reviewing or updating it, and a further five expressed no opinion on the issue.

6

II. INTRODUCTION

In October 2006, by means of resolution CP/RES. 908 (1567/06), the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime. That Hemispheric Plan, within the framework of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols, sets out a series of actions designed to bolster cooperation in preventing, investigating, prosecuting, and punishing illicit activities related to transnational organized crime and to build national, subregional, and regional capacities for tackling it.

The Working Group on the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime, which was installed by the Committee on Hemispheric Security on January 14, 2016, decided that since almost ten years had passed since the Plan of Action’s adoption, it was necessary to examine the current situation as regards its implementation in the member states and, in particular, to determine the extent to which it has influenced the states’ laws and regulatory frameworks.

To that end, the Working Group instructed the Department of Public Security (DPS) of the OAS Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (SMS) to design a questionnaire in order to gather relevant, updated information on the progress made and the challenges facing the member states in implementing the Plan of Action. In addition, the questionnaire has a section where the member states can offer suggestions if they think that the Plan of Action requires updates or modifications.

In compliance with the instructions received, the DPS designed a draft questionnaire and presented it to the delegations. It was approved by the Committee on Hemispheric Security on April 21, 2016, and distributed to the

7

member states by means of a verbal note dated May 10, 2016. July 21, 2016, was set as the deadline for returning replies.

The Secretary General’s Executive Order 16-01, which came into force in January 2016, created the Department against Transnational Organized Crime (DTOC). The functions assigned to the new department include monitoring the implementation of the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime (PoA-TOC), including following up on the responses to the questionnaire addressed in this report. DTOC specialists tabulated the member states’ responses and analyzed the level of compliance with the PoA-TOC, in order to provide relevant, updated information for the CHS to be able to analyze the progress made and the pending challenges.

As of the original deadline (July 21, 2016), only nine member states had sent their responses to the questionnaire; the Committee on Hemispheric Security therefore agreed on an extension until October 14, 2016. However, upon the expiration of the extended deadline, only twelve questionnaires had been returned, as a result of which the Committee agreed to a second extension with a deadline of October 28, 2016.

As of November 10, 2016, replies had been received from the following 16 member states: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Grenada sent an e-mail providing some general information related to certain sections of the questionnaire, but it did not return the questionnaire with detailed responses.

In light of the number of questionnaires returned (16), the CHS decided that it did not have enough information to conduct an analysis with a level of detail that would provide the member states a complete overview of the Plan of Action’s hemispheric implementation. It therefore agreed on a further

8

extension of the deadline, allowing those countries that had not yet done so to return their questionnaire responses up until January 31, 2017. As of February 21, 2017, a total of 19 replies had been received, including those of Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. A final extension until February 28, 2017, was granted (see Figure 1).

III. GENERAL OBJECTIVE

To reveal the level of implementation of the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime (PoA-TOC) and to provide the member states with inputs for assessing its future updates based on official, up-to-date information.

IV. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. Tabulate the data returned by the OAS member states in each section of the PoA-TOC evaluation questionnaire.

2. Produce relevant and updated information based on the data supplied in the questionnaire responses, so the CHS can analyze the progress made and pending challenges in the implementation of the PoA.

3. Support the CHS in consolidating the recommendations and requests made by the OAS member states through the PoA evaluation questionnaire, which will be used as an input for the next Meeting of National Authorities on Transnational Organized Crime.

4. Support decision-making processes so that the information provided and analyzed by the CHS leads to actions geared toward supporting the implementation of the Palermo Convention in the member states.

9

V. METHODOLOGY

In preparing this report, a storage facility was set up for the files collected in response to the request for information, given that some of the countries, in addition to the questionnaires, also provided additional files, such as laws and regulations, as part of their replies.

The information provided in the questionnaires was input into Excel spreadsheets. That method of organizing the information was used on account of the wide range of formats in which the questionnaire responses were received. Because it came from official sources, the information was not verified or validated in terms of its comprehensiveness, completeness, or exactness by the DTOC’s group of specialists. The information provided by the member states was incorporated into the spreadsheets without any modifications. Both the questionnaires and the spreadsheets were incorporated into this report’s annexes.

The information from the spreadsheets was used to prepare charts to illustrate the member states’ levels of compliance with the implementation of the PoA-TOC.

Once the information had been consolidated on the spreadsheets, specific analyses of the answers were performed based on the questionnaire’s thematic dimensions. That information has been made available to the CHS to be used as an input in its decision-making regarding the Plan of Action.

Finally, a consolidated report on the answers and supporting documents based on the Palermo Convention and its Protocols was produced.

10

ArgentinaBelizeBoliviaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaHondurasMexicoPanamaParaguayPeruTrinidad and TobagoVenezuela

VI. ANALYSIS

Number of countries that returned questionnaires.

Figure 1. Countries that returned questionnaire responses.

11

Figure 2. Nineteen questionnaires were submitted by CHS contact points.

Figure 2 shows that 19 of a possible total of 34 questionnaires were received, representing slightly more than half of the OAS member states. The figure below shows the breakdown of the questionnaires received by subregions. Comparatively, there is a pronounced difference between the CARICOM countries that responded and those that did not.

Figure 3. Distribution of the number of questionnaires received, by regional integration mechanisms.

12

In addition to the questionnaire return rates, reference must also be made to the quality of the files sent, given that—as with the previous criteria—there are significant asymmetries

On the one hand, some of the replies sent included all the requested elements in terms of form and contents, covered all the questions asked, provided justification for them with references to the relevant legal frameworks, and furnished details and examples showing their implementation. Some replies even included copies of the instruments referred to in the questionnaire, which was an important source of support that will provide decision-makers with relevant information when they are called on to formulate recommendations.

In contrast, some questionnaire responses did not cover all the questions or did not include all the information requested in each case. In addition, some replies were submitted in a format other than the one initially sent out (new or modified forms), which prevented the uniform tabulation of the data.

This could indicate that the conclusions drawn from the available information might be entirely inaccurate.

13

A. National strategies1

Figure 4. Answers related to the development of national strategies against transnational organized crime, implemented from 2006 to date. Section II, item 1, of the Plan of Action, “Actions,” focuses on states’ national strategies for combating TOC and sets out a series of elements that member states should consider in their national strategies for combating TOC.

1. The questions in this section refer to section II.1 of the Plan of Action.

14

Question A.1: National strategies

Question A.1 asked whether the countries had such a strategy. Of the 19 countries that returned questionnaires, 182 answered this question. A total of 10 countries responded in the affirmative: five3 said they had national strategies, and another five4 said their governments combated TOC by means of a range of plans, programs, and/or legal instruments. For example, Mexico said that its government fought TOC by means of two plans and two national programs. Eight countries5

reported that they had no national strategy.

Those countries that indicated that they did have national strategies said their strategies involved several government agencies, while only Brazil and Peru spoke of the involvement of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the preparation of their anti-TOC policies.

2. Panama did not reply. 3. Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru.4. Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Paraguay, and Venezuela.5. Argentina, Belize, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, and

Trinidad and Tobago.

15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Does your country have a national strategy to combat TOC?

Question A.1a

Yes No N/A

Based on section II, item 1.a, of the Plan of Action, which calls on the countries to consider the adoption of a comprehensive approach to preventing and combating TOC, question A2.a on the questionnaire was designed to determine whether their national strategies involved the participation of all the institutions responsible for the prevention and combat of transnational organized crime, to which nine countries6 responded in the affirmative. As regards the involvement of nongovernmental institutions in the implementation of national strategies addressed in question A2.b, three countries7 said that such cooperation did exist. More than half the countries that returned their questionnaires—11 in total—did not reply to this question.

In response to question A2.c, asking whether the national strategies included preventive activities for combating TOC, eight countries8

answered in the affirmative and reported specific activities such as training, demand reduction, the socialization of violence-prevention knowledge, rehabilitation, the use of intelligence tools to anticipate and prevent criminal acts, international cooperation, and

others.

In response to question A2.d, on the anti-TOC activities included in their national strategies, nine states9 answered that they did pursue such activities; of those, seven10 gave specific examples, such as: improved information systems, cooperation, and oversight; participation in international mechanisms, such as INTERPOL and the Financial Action Task Force of Latin America (GAFILAT); and combating money laundering.

6. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.7. Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru. 8. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela. 9. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and

Venezuela. 10. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, and Venezuela.

16

In question A3.a, those countries11 that said they did not have a national strategy for preventing and combating TOC in question A.1 were asked whether their governments were planning to design one. In response, four states12 said their governments were planning to draw up national strategies. The Dominican Republic said that its government was planning to design such a strategy over the coming months (one to six months). Belize and Trinidad and Tobago spoke of a time frame of between one and twelve months, and Argentina said it had not set a deadline for that undertaking.

Further to section II, item A1.d, of the Plan of Action—on the review, when applicable, of the national policies and laws governing transnational organized crime— question A.4.a in the questionnaire asked the states to report whether they had specific laws and/or norms on combating TOC and its related offenses. All 19 countries replied that they did have such laws and/or norms, and they all provided lists of the relevant legislation.

Nine affirmative answers13 were received to question A.5 on the questionnaire—on whether the countries had a legislative committee specifically to address the topic of TOC—of which three14 provided no contact details for those committees. In four countries there is a single legislative committee that deals with TOC-related matters, while in the other five countries,15 there are several committees that do so separately.

Fifteen countries16 answered the question on government actions that are considered effective in strengthening the capacity of public institutions to prevent and combat TOC, offering a total of 47 examples of effective action. These included plans that had been adopted, legislative amendments and

11. Argentina, Belize, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Trinidad and Tobago.

12. Argentina, Belize, Dominican Republic, and Trinidad and Tobago.13. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,

Honduras, and Trinidad and Tobago. The reported contacts were included on the answer spreadsheet and will be used to prepare a directory.

14. Argentina, Canada, and Dominican Republic. 15. Argentina, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, and Dominican Republic. 16. Canada, Guatemala, Panama, and Peru provided no details.

17

administrative reforms that had been implemented, the creation of specialized units, international cooperation, the signing of bilateral and multilateral treaties, etc.17

To question A.7, on the use of special investigation techniques (SITs) to fight TOC in accordance with national law and the Palermo Convention, 18 countries replied that different SITs were provided for in their legislation. Belize acknowledged that although some members of its Department of Police had been trained in that area, there was a still a need for additional training. One country did not respond to this question.18

The 16 answers19 to question A.8—on the frequency with which the Palermo Convention and its Protocols are used as the basis for requests for mutual (active or passive) legal assistance or extradition—ranged from “frequently” to “figure not available,” and some also indicated the number of requests received. The answers to this question indicate that the countries are indeed making use of the Convention’s provisions for that purpose.

Eighteen countries gave affirmative answers to question A.9—on the existence in domestic law of provisions and/or norms for the prosecution, trial, and punishment of perpetrators of transnational organized crime—and provided information on the relevant legislation. One country did not respond.20

Question A.10 on the Questionnaire asked whether the offenses defined in the Palermo Convention and its Protocols were criminalized by the country’s domestic laws. Sixteen countries answered in the affirmative; Paraguay replied negatively, without offering any additional information, and two other countries did not respond.21

17. The list of effective actions can be found in the attached spreadsheet.1818. Peru.19. Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,

Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

18

Seventeen countries replied in the affirmative to question A.11, which asked whether the governments took steps to disseminate the Palermo Convention and its Protocols among prosecutors and judges. Two countries did not respond to this question.22

22. Guatemala and Peru.

19

B. Legal instruments23

Figure 5. International legal instruments to which the countries are parties.

Section 2 of the Plan of Action urges the member states to sign international agreements for combating transnational organized crime (TOC). The responses received indicate that the 19 countries have adopted the main international instruments: the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000).

It is important to identify those cases in which states have not signed or do not report a positive response.

First of all, there are those countries that said they were not signatories to any of the agreements and do not have any constitutional or other

23. The questions in this section refer to section II.2 of the Plan of Action.

20

impediment for doing so. That group includes Belize,24 Colombia,25 and El Salvador.26

Second, there are those countries that provided no information for certain international agreements, such as Belize27 and Peru.28 It should be noted that both Belize and Peru did not refer to any constitutional or other impediments to their signing any of these international agreements.

The third group covers those states that face constitutional or other impediments to their adhesion to certain international agreements relating to TOC. Bolivia is in this group.29

24. Belize replied that it was not a party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003) and that it was not a party to either the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1992) or the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (1996).

25. It has not signed the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air (2000) or the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition (2000).

26. Not a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) as amended by the 1972 Protocol.

27. No response regarding the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition (2000) or the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (1997).

28. Did not respond regarding the status of the following agreements: the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air (2000); the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), as amended by the 1972 Protocol; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971); the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988); and the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (1996).

29. Bolivia’s reply to question B.2: “The Plurinational State of Bolivia adhered to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), as amended by the 1972 Protocol thereto, and lodged a reservation regarding Article 49, sections 1.c and 2.e, in connection with Article 26, in accordance with Article 384 of its Constitution, which provides for the preservation of coca leaf chewing (acullico) and is in keeping with the reservation on July 10, 1990, with respect to the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.”

21

As regards bilateral agreements for combating TOC (question B.3), 17 of the member states30 reported that they had agreements with each other and with other countries beyond the region, including states of the European Union, Russia, and China Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico said they had bilateral agreements with Venezuela; while Peru, Mexico, and Chile said they had bilateral agreements with Panama. In spite of those answers, Venezuela and Panama said they had no bilateral agreements.

30. Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago.

22

C. Law enforcement-related matters31

Figure 6. Answers regarding victim and witness protection, document security, and special investigation techniques.

As established in section II.3 of the Plan of Action, and taking into consideration the provisions of Article 24 of the Palermo Convention, this section of the questionnaire was intended to examine the protection afforded to witnesses and victims of offenses related to transnational organized crime, the security measures adopted for the control and identification of travel documents, and the investigation techniques used by the member states to combat TOC.

Question C.1 asked the countries about the different mechanisms they have in place to protect witnesses. Here, 18 of the 19 member states32 said they had such mechanisms and satisfactorily provided the relevant articles of

31. The questions in this section refer to section II.3 of the Plan of Action.32. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,

Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

23

Law enforcement-related matters

their laws and/or applicable provisions. Belize alone reported that it had no such mechanisms in its legal system.

Similarly, in question C.2, neither does Belize have a specific program to protect victims and witnesses, and Panama did not respond. Nevertheless, the remaining 17 states do have specific programs for protecting victims and witnesses. In addition to having government agencies with particular responsibility for the protection of victims and witnesses, such programs include the possibility of assisting their families. The degree of kinship of the family members able to receive this type of state assistance varies from country to country, while protection for the families of victims and witnesses is a service provided for in all the existing programs.

Likewise, the 17 states33 that reported that they had protection programs for victims and witnesses said that those programs were accessible by the general public provided that certain minimum conditions and basic requirements were met. Each country has its own rules for accepting applicants into those programs. Question C.2d asked about the communication and dissemination of that kind of programs. Sixteen states said they had such channels, either through the agencies responsible for the programs (38%), online channels (29%), the mass media (24%), or talks and seminars with officials and the general public (9%).

33. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago.

24

Figure 7. Answers, in percentages, to section C.2.d, dealing with the various channels for information and

dissemination used to publicize the existence of programs for victim and witness protection.

Regarding the implementation of procedures for the protection of victims and witnesses—specifically, as regards measures for their relocation and providing them with new identities (question C.3)—seventeen states, with the exception of Peru and Belize, said they had such measures. In addition, 15 states34 furnished additional information, such as the laws, articles, and rules that apply in those cases. Finally, the institutions responsible for programs of this kind vary from one state to the next and, in some cases, more than one agency is involved in the process.

To question C.4—on evidentiary rules that permit witnesses to give testimony in a manner that does not endanger their safety, such as through the use of video links and other communications technologies—16 states35

replied that they had rules in place to facilitate such procedures. In addition, they furnished the articles contained in their codes of criminal procedure and other legal instruments that regulate their use. Trinidad and Tobago said that it had no such rules or regulations, although it noted that its courts had, in

34. Canada and Paraguay did not provide any details.35. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Belize, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican

Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela.

25

certain cases, allowed the use of technological tools for testimony to be given when witnesses’ lives were in danger.

Question C.5—on mechanisms to ensure the security, control, and integrity of travel and identity documents—received 16 affirmative answers.36 Such measures have been put in place at the national level, chiefly at immigration checkpoints in airports, in order to strengthen document technology and to train the personnel responsible for verifying document authenticity. The results reported by the states indicate that the adulteration of identity and travel documents has decreased, while there has been an increase in timely arrests of individuals who falsify documents.

Finally, in response to question C.6, on the institutions charged with combating and punishing the falsification of travel or identity documents, 17 states37 replied that they had an extensive network of state agencies responsible for such matters. There were cases such as Argentina, which has as many as nine institutions involved in the process, and that of Belize, which was the only state to indicate that only one agency was responsible for those tasks. Public prosecution services, attorney generals’ offices, and national police forces are among the agencies most commonly responsible for those tasks, along with national immigration services.

36. Guatemala, Panama, and Peru did not answer the question.37. Panama and Peru did not answer the question.

26

D. Training38

Figure 8. TOC training programs in place in the states.

The fourth part of the questionnaire was intended to identify the training programs in place in the countries for dealing with issues related to transnational organized crime. Answers to this section were received from 18 states; only one country did not respond.39

Question D.1 asked about the existence of training programs on the security, control, and integrity of travel and identity documents. Although the majority of countries (15)40 answered in the affirmative, their replies indicated that those courses are aimed at the officials responsible for specific tasks in the areas of training and/or refresher courses.

38. The questions in this section refer to sections II.2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Plan of Action.39. Peru did not reply to this section of the questionnaire.40. Honduras replied that it had no such programs, whereas Panama and Guatemala did

not respond.

27

Most of the courses are taught sporadically, for officials from other related agencies, or as part of a comprehensive training strategy. In very few cases are continuous or regular training courses offered. As for the length of those courses, some last for a week while others are part of the study plans of specialized degree programs that can last as long as a semester.

Training programs dealing with victim assistance are available in 14 states (question D.2). Most of the countries provided information on training efforts that addressed specific offenses, such as sexual exploitation or domestic violence. Two countries gave nonspecific responses, and another two replied that they did not have that type of training available.41

The third question in this section (D.3) asked about training programs dealing with witness protection. Sixteen countries said their specific courses on physical protection were intended for officials from specialized agencies. Two countries said they did not have that kind of training.42

The final question in this section (D.4) was about training programs on financial intelligence to combat money laundering. In response, 16 states said they provided training on financial intelligence. Only two countries said they did not have courses on financial intelligence.43 The questionnaire responses revealed pronounced differences in coverage and format among the countries offering courses of this type. In some cases this can be explained by the fact that these training efforts are a component of national strategies to combat money laundering. It was also determined that some financial intelligence units currently have online courses for law-enforcement agencies and obligated entities. Those training courses are available throughout the year and can be taken by interested parties located both inside and beyond the corresponding jurisdictions.

41. Costa Rica and Guatemala did not give specific answers, while Belize and Honduras indicated that they had no programs of that kind.

42. Belize and Honduras. 43. Guatemala and Honduras.

28

E. Information sharing44

Figure 9. Answers about the ways used by states to share TOC-related information.

Section E of the questionnaire sought to reveal the ways in which the member states share information related to transnational organized crime.

Question E.1: The first question in the section (E.1) asked the states to provide the contact details of their national authorities for TOC-related matters. In response, only eight states45 said they had such authorities and furnished the relevant information for the OAS-DTOC Directory. The individuals named come from a variety of institutions, such as ministries of foreign affairs, ministries of justice, judicial branches, and public prosecution services.

Question E.2 asked whether the countries’ national legal systems included laws and/or norms allowing information sharing, including real-time operational information, among national institutions with similar competences, as well as the use of, inter alia, the INTERPOL database and

44. The questions in this section refer to section II.5 of the Plan of Action.45. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela,

29

the Hemispheric Information Exchange Network for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and Extradition. Fifteen countries confirmed that they had access to INTERPOL information and/or identified the legal instruments that would afford them access. Some answers spoke of mechanisms at the subregional and regional levels and of membership in international cooperation networks such as GAFILAT’s Asset Recovery Network (RRAG), the Ibero-American Network IberRED, and the Central American and Caribbean Network of Prosecutors against Organized Crime (REFCO). The only state to reply in the negative was Bolivia, while Paraguay and Panama answered “Does Not Apply.”

In the case of financial intelligence units, reference was made to their access to the Egmont Group’s information exchange network and to the bilateral agreements they can enter into with other similar units. Some laws on combating transnational organized crime regulate exchanges of information on specific offenses, such as organized crime, the funding of terrorism, the falsification of travel documents, human trafficking, money laundering, and customs offenses.

The countries were asked (question D.3) about whether they had any experience with exchanges of special investigative techniques for combating TOC. Seventeen states—all of them except one46—answered in the affirmative. However, only two countries made specific reference to cases in which use was made of SITs. The other responses merely noted the existence of legal frameworks whereby that was possible or simply said that they were used without providing any concrete examples.

Finally, question E.4 asked the countries for their opinions on the importance of exchanges of information about current laws governing the prevention and combat of TOC. There were no negative responses to this question, although two countries declined to answer.47

46. Guatemala. As noted above, Peru did not answer this section of the questionnaire. 47. Honduras and Panama.

30

F. International cooperation and assistance48

Figure 11. Questionnaires received on international cooperation and assistance for preventing and combating TOC.

Section II, item 6, of the Plan of Action calls for international cooperation and assistance—not only between the OAS member states, but also with other states and international organizations. In addition, the section encourages the use of international cooperation mechanisms to build capacities for preventing and combating transnational organized crime in the region.49

Question F.1: Policies, agreements, arrangements, protocols, or laws to improve cooperation for mutual legal assistance. In response to the first question (F.1), which asked whether the states had national policies, agreements, arrangements, protocols, or laws devised and in place in order to improve cooperation on mutual legal assistance, 16 countries

48. The questions in this section refer to section II.6 of the Plan of Action.49. Because Honduras did not respond to this section of the questionnaire, section F

covers only 18 states.

31

shared information on the different mechanisms and bilateral agreements that they have in force.50 Only one country did not respond to this question.51

The responses to question F.1 revealed that seven countries52 have agreements with states beyond the region, including Russia, Switzerland, and various countries of the European Union. The country that reported the largest number of bilateral agreements on this topic was Colombia, with the lowest numbers being given by Costa Rica and Belize.

Question F.2: Development of international cooperation mechanisms among states in matters concerning assistance and protection for victims and witnesses. Fourteen countries53 answered in the affirmative to this question; in addition, eight54 provided detailed responses that identified the laws, rules, and agreements they had reached with other states regarding victim and witness protection matters. Mexico and Belize said that their countries had not participated in the development of international cooperation mechanisms between states in the areas of assistance and protection for victims and witnesses in cases involving transnational organized crime. Guatemala and Peru did not respond to this question.

Question F.3: Extradition policies. Eighteen countries said they were parties to agreements that allowed extradition.55

Question F.4: Deportation policies. Fourteen countries56 said they had implemented policies or agreements to permit deportation to the country of origin. Paraguay said that its national legislation used the terms “rejection”

50. Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Canada replied in the affirmative but provided no details.

51. Guatemala. 52. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, and Peru.53. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,

Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.54. Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Panama, Trinidad and

Tobago, and Venezuela55. Again, Peru did not respond to this section of the questionnaire. 56. Belize replied that it had no such policies; Chile, Panama, and Peru did not respond to

this question, and Canada offered no details about the laws or agreements it has in place.

32

and “expulsion” rather than “deportation.” The remaining states said they had measures regulating the deportation of people to their countries of origin, either in their immigration laws or by means of decrees issued by their governments.

Question F.5: Cooperation or technical assistance in the prevention and prosecution of TOC. Question F.5 inquired about the existence of agreements, policies, or protocols to permit and foster the establishment of relations for cooperation or assistance with international organizations or with other countries to receive technical assistance in the fight against TOC. In response, 15 states57 responded in the affirmative. The countries that answered in

the affirmative were asked to offer recommendations about the areas that should be

strengthened:

Investigation and prosecution

Illegal mining Drug trafficking

Computer crime Illegal arms trafficking TerrorismHuman trafficking offenses

Police training Monitoring and exchanges of successful experiences and good practices

Illegal trafficking in wildlife

Expansion of bilateral treaties on extradition and mutual legal assistance with other countries

Creation of formal communications protocols

Technical assistance,

Assistance in capacity building for gathering and

 

57. In chronological order: Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Ecuador El Salvador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Canada.

33

programs, and projects specific to countries and their needs

analyzing statistical TOC data

Table 12. Thematic areas suggested by the states that could be strengthened in collaboration with the

Department against Transnational Organized Crime of the OAS Secretariat for Multidimensional Security.

Question F.6: Special investigation techniques and measures for exchanges and coordination between states. In response to this question, 11 countries58 said that they had policies, agreements, protocols, manuals, and/or guidelines to allow and encourage the exchange of special investigation techniques with other countries in prosecuting TOC. Of those 11 countries, nine59provided detailed information identifying the agreements, laws, and other legal instruments in force for exchanges of special investigation techniques. In turn, nine states60 have exchanged information with more than 23 countries, including not only countries in the Americas, but also nations such as Israel and various European countries.

58. Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

59. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

60. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

34

Figure 13. Countries with legal instruments for exchanges of special investigation techniques with other

countries across the world.

In addition, this question also inquired about the legal instruments in force for the international coordination of special investigation techniques. Eleven countries61 replied that they had such legal instruments and provided detailed information thereon. Three countries did not provide details about that type of legal instruments.62 Belize said it had no instruments of that kind, while six states63 did not reply.

61. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

62. Argentina, Bolivia, and Dominican Republic.63. Canada, Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru.

35

G. General information for the process of revising or updating the PoA

Figure 14. Answers regarding the revision or updating of the PoA.

This section addresses important issues for discussing possible future steps to be taken in connection with the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime.

Question G.1: Updating or revising the Hemispheric Plan of Action against Transnational Organized Crime

Of the 19 responses received, nine countries64 said that they thought a review or update was necessary, five countries65 took the opposite position, and the remaining five66 chose “Does Not Apply” as their response.

64. Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

65. Belize, Canada, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador. 66. Brazil, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru.

36

The countries that were in favor of reviewing or updating the Plan offered the following suggestions:

1. Greater emphasis on capacity building and exchanges of information and experiences, particularly in the areas of international cooperation and technical assistance.

2. Support for closer ties between counterparts.3. Inclusion of topics such as drug trafficking and the crime of terrorism

funding.4. Carrying out a review to ensure that the plan is still relevant in light of

changes and evolutions in crime and criminal activities.5. Establishment of indicators for assessing compliance.

Question G.3: Identification of technical assistance and cooperation needs

This question asked the countries to indicate the type of technical assistance or specific cooperation that they needed or would be of use to them in preventing and prosecuting TOC. Four topics have been identified to date by the ten states67 that replied to that question:

1. Training in special investigation techniques and the management of joint investigation teams.

2. Exchanges of experiences on asset management and the disposal of property.

3. Training for police officers and prosecutors, and exchanges of training in that area.

4. Agreements for the relocation of witnesses.

67. Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

37

Question G.4: Cooperation with the Department against Transnational Organized Crime through the secondment of officials from national governments

In response to question G.4, on the possible secondment of an official to the newly created OAS Department against Transnational Organized Crime, nine countries68 said they were willing to contribute.

Question G.5 Contribution to the Voluntary Fund

Question 5 asked whether the countries were considering contributing to the voluntary fund established by the OAS to assist member states with capacity-building to address transnational organized crime. Four countries69

said they were willing to do so. What about the remaining countries? As I understand it, 18 replied; did this question only get four answers? If so, that should be included in the report.

Finally, it should be noted that 13 countries70 have updated the relevant details of their national points of contact for transnational organized crime matters and that the up-to-date list will be included in this report’s annexes.

68. Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, and Venezuela.

69. Canada, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela.70. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

38

VII. FINDINGS

1. Of the 18 countries that answered the question about national strategies for combating transnational organized crime, ten reported that they did have strategies, plans, and/or programs for addressing it and four said they were planning to draw up such national strategies. It can therefore be said that 14 countries believe that the best way to deal with TOC is through the adoption and implementation of comprehensive strategies or programs for preventing and combating this criminal phenomenon.

Addressing TOC remains essentially a matter of state action, with low participation by and cooperation from nongovernmental organizations.

The approach taken appears largely to favor prosecution. Eight of the 19 countries that responded to the questionnaire said that their strategies or programs entailed a component of prevention.

Although a majority of the countries (14 out of 19) believe that the best way to address TOC is through the design and implementation of a comprehensive national strategy or program, only eight countries reported that they had a national authority with responsibility for the topic. The absence of a person responsible for guiding, implementing, deciding on, and responding to the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy or program could be seen as a sign of its weakness.

This is compounded by the fact that responsibility for and leadership of the comprehensive national strategy or program lies with different

39

public institutions, according to the country in question. Each institution will have its own “professional bias” which, in turn, could affect the implementation, results, and impact of the comprehensive national strategy or program.

2. There is a high level of adhesion to the main international agreements that govern the topic. This provides the countries with a common regulatory framework and serves as a reference point for guiding the preparation of laws, strategies, plans, and actions within each country.

3. Most of the countries (18) have mechanisms for the protection of victims and witnesses that can, in 17 cases, be described as broadly accessible : in other words, any person can be considered for them provided that he or she meets certain minimum conditions and basic requirements. Another decisive variable is the budgetary resources allocated.

The fact that 18 countries already have victim and witness protection mechanisms would therefore allow a second step to be taken (since it is no longer necessary to focus on the adoption of mechanisms of that kind) and to begin understanding and learning about how those mechanisms operate in order to help improve their effectiveness and sustainability. Moreover, the existence of those mechanisms would facilitate horizontal transfers of cooperation between those countries already making use of those mechanisms with proven effectiveness to make them available to countries still without them.

4. It is also encouraging to note that 16 of the 19 states have measures to ensure the security, control, and integrity of travel and identity documents. This offers another possibility for horizontal

40

exchanges of experiences among countries to help improve the effectiveness of their measures.

5. With the exception of financial intelligence, the training offered by the states tends to be sporadic and isolated and is not sustained over time. Given that this is a criminal phenomenon with the principal characteristic of constant adaptation and evolution, work is needed on stable, updated, and constant training programs.

6. The countries’ responses seem to indicate that there is room for working on and improving the mechanisms for and practice of exchanges of information between the countries, within the frameworks set by national laws and paying particular attention to information security protocols.

7. In line with the previous point regarding information sharing, the area where there are the closest relations and coordination among the countries is extradition (18 countries reported that they had policies or agreements addressing that topic). In contrast, lower levels of exchanges between the countries were detected in the area of SITs (11 countries).

8. Ten countries expressed their interest in receiving technical assistance or cooperation on the following topics: training in special investigation techniques and the management of joint investigation teams; exchanges of experiences on asset management and the disposal of property; training for police officers and prosecutors, and exchanges of training in that area; and the establishment of agreements for the relocation of witnesses.

41

9. Based on the questionnaire replies, it can be seen that although all the respondent countries have signed the Palermo Convention, there is still room for improving the levels of international cooperation in the area of mutual legal assistance in the Hemisphere.

10. Of the 19 responses received, nine countries said that they thought a review or update of the Plan of Action was necessary, five countries took the opposite position, and the remaining five chose “Does Not Apply” as their response. The responses received indicate that there is no consensus regarding the need to review or update the Hemispheric Plan of Action against TOC.

11. Regarding the possibilities for contributing to the strengthening of the DTOC, nine countries said they would be willing to assign an official to serve as a member of the DTOC team, and four countries expressed their willingness to contribute to the DTOC voluntary fund.

12. An examination of the List of National Points of Contact distributed on March 20 by the CHS Secretariat, document CP/CSH/INF. 464/17 rev. 7, reveals that 21 countries have appointed national points of contact for TOC, as requested in the Hemispheric Plan of Action. Of those countries, 12 have updated the details of their national points of contact in the past eight months.

42

ANNEX ALINKS:

LINKS TO THE SPREADSHEETS WITH THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEMISPHERIC PLAN OF ACTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONALORGANIZED CRIME:

Spreadsheet A: National strategies for combating DOT Link

Spreadsheet B: Legal instruments against TOC Link

Spreadsheet C: Law enforcement-related matters Link

Spreadsheets D+E: Training and exchanges of information Link

Spreadsheet F: Training and international assistance Link

LINK TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEMISPHERIC PLAN OF ACTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

http://scm.oas.org/doc_public/ENGLISH/HIST_16/CP35986E07.doc

43document.doc