Senator ERVIN. Seventy-seven percent?

Mr. FORMAN. Of the offenses which the foreign authorities reserved

for their disposition.

Senator ERVIN. It would seem to me that we have made over the years a constant increase in the number of waivers of primary jurisdiction by the host countries, which to me is a very encouraging sign in respect to our relationship between our forces and the host countries. It gives cause for much gratification in that respect.

Do you have any questions, Senator?

Senator MCINTYRE. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Is there a significant problem with Americans participating in black market activities in Vietnam, and is this problem under the jurisdiction of the South Vietnamese courts?

Senator ERVIN. I do not know whether that is one you prefer to take up in executive session or not?

Mr. FORMAN. I think we would prefer to take that up in executive session.

Senator ERVIN. Yes; we will have an executive session.

Senator MCINTYRE. How about drugs? Do you want to take that up in executive session, too?

General PARKER. I would think so; yes, sir.

Senator MCINTYRE. No further questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEN. HAROLD E. PARKER

Mr. Chairman: I will begin my report by giving you a statistical analysis of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over United States defense personnel and their dependents during the period 1 December 1966-30 November 1967.

WORLD

Chart A-Exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over United States personnel, 1 December 1966-30 November 1967

To assist you in keeping track of the flood of figures that follows, we have prepared several charts and tables. Chart A is designed to give you a quick over-all picture of the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during the reporting period. The NATO Status of Forces figures shown in the right-hand columns are also included in the world-wide figures shown to the left. For the time being I would like to direct your attention to the world-wide figures. These figures do not include cases from Vietnam, which are treated separately later in this report.

You will note that, during the current reporting period, a total of 33,401 United States personnel, military and civilian, were charged with offenses subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of foreign tribunals. 31,466 of these offenses, or 94% of the total, were charged against military personnel. 10,161 of the charges against military personnel were subject to exclusive foreign jurisdiction because they involved only violations of foreign law. Nonetheless, foreign authorities released 2,640 or 26% of the exclusive foreign jurisdiction offenses to United States military authorities for administrative or other appropriate disposition.

The bulk of the military offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction, 21,305 of them, were concurrent jurisdiction offenses involving alleged violations of both United States military law and foreign law, over which the foreign country had the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. I am happy to report that United States military authorities obtained a waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 17,988 of these incidents, for a waiver rate of 84.4%. This represents an improvement over last year's waiver rate of 82.7%, and is primarily due to the continuing excellent work of our liaison personnel in the various foreign countries.

Thus, during the current reporting period foreign authorities reserved for their disposition a total of 10,838 offenses allegedly committed by military personnel. Nearly 70% of these offenses were relatively minor charges which were not punishable under United States miiltary law, and were therefore subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign authorities. 77% of the military offenses reserved for disposition by foreign authorities involved traffic violations.

Before continuing with an explanation of the balance of Chart A, I will briefly summarize the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over our civilian employees and dependents during the reporting period.

A total of 1935 civilian employees and dependents were charged with offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction. Since civilians are not subject to trial by courtmartial in peacetime, the United States had no effective jurisdiction over these offenses. Nonetheless, foreign authorities released 395 of these offenses, or 20% of the total, to United States military authorities for administrative or other appropriate disposition. Foreign authorities reserved for their disposition the remaining 1540 offenses charged against civilian employees and dependents.

Returning now to Chart A, the balance of the figures shown there include both military and civilian offenders. First, you will see that during the current reporting period there were 11,066 final results of trials (i.e., final acquittals and final convictions). 213 or nearly 2% of the final results were acquittals. The vast majority of United States personnel who were convicted-10,527 of them or 95% of the total final results of trials-received only a sentence to fine or reprimand. The remaining 3% of the final results of trials were split almost evenly between suspended sentences to confinement (165), and unsuspended sentences to confinement (161).

Chart B-Types of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction

Chart B depicts the number and types of offenses subject to foreign jurisdiction during the current and immediately previous reporting periods. As used here, "subject to foreign jurisdiction" means only that foreign authorities had the right to exercise jurisdiction over the offenses shown. It does not mean that they actually exercised jurisdiction over all of these offenses.

The total number of such offenses decreased from 34,039 last year to 33,401 for the current period. As to specific offenses, decreases occurred in manslaughter. aggravated assault, traffic offenses, and other offenses. Rather substantial increases occurred in robbery, simple assault, economic control law violations, and disorderly conduct.

Chart C-Unsuspended sentences to confinement imposed on United States personnel by foreign courts

Chart C shows the number and lengths of unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current and immediately previous reporting periods. As I mentioned before, there were 161 unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current reporting period. This represents a substantial increase over the 105 such sentences reported for the previous period. 75 of the unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current period, or nearly half of the total, were less than one year in length. The longest sentence was ten years, and was imposed by German courts on three occasions, once for murder and twice for robbery. The longest sentence to confinement adjudged against a civilian was one year, which was imposed by a German court against a dependent convicted of rape.

Chart D-Country, offense and length of sentence breakdown for United States

personnel receiving unsuspended sentences to confinement

Chart D provides for each country a breakdown by offense and length of sentence for all unsuspended sentences to confinement adjudged by foreign courts against United States personnel. Analysis of this chart discloses that two offenses rape and robbery-accounted for a substantial portion of the increase in unsuspended sentences to confinement. Such sentences for rape increased from 15 for the previous reporting period to 29 for the current period. In the case of robbery, the increase was from 29 last year to 46 for the current period.

Four countries-Japan, Germany, France, and Canada-accounted for most of the increase in unsuspended sentences to confinement.

In Japan such sentences increased from 15 for the previous reporting period to 33 for the current period. Considering the seriousness of most of the offenses for which confinement was imposed by Japanese courts, however (10 rape, 11 manslaughter, 7 robbery, 2 murder, 1 aggravated assault), there is no indication that the sentences were unduly severe.

German courts imposed 57 unsuspended sentences to confinement against United States personnel during the current period, an increase of 10 over the 47 such sentences adjudged in Germany last year. This increase is attributable to a rise in robbery offenses in Germany. There were 25 unsuspended sentences to confinement for robbery in Germany during the current period, as compared to 13 such sentences for robbery last year. Many of the robbery offenses in Germany involved attacks on taxi drivers or other motorists, which is an aggravated form of robbery under German law.

In France unsuspended sentences to confinement increased from 8 for the previous reporting period to 17 for the current period. 14 of these 17 sentences, however, were less than one year in length.

In Canada there were 9 unsuspended sentences to confinement during the current period, whereas there were none last year. 6 of the 9 sentences to confinement were less than one year in length.

Chart E-United States personnel in post-trial confinement in foreign penal institutions as of 30 November stated year

Chart E illustrates the number of United States personnel confined in foreign prisons as of 30 November of the past eleven years. The 101 individuals in confinement at the end of the current reporting period represents an increase of 20 over the number confined at the close of the previous period, and is the largest figure ever reported.

Table II summarizes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by foreign tribunals over United States personnel during the period 1 December 1953-30 November 1967. It shows for each of the years during that period the total cases subject to foreign jurisdiction, the total cases tried, and the number of unsuspended sentences to confinement.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN NATO-SOFA COUNTRIES

I will now give you a statistical analysis of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over United States defense personnel and their dependents by the thirteen countries party to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement.

Returning to Chart A, you will note that during the current reporting period, a total of 27,248 United States personnel, military and civilian, were charged with offenses subject to the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of NATO-SOFA countries. 25,809 of these offenses were charged against military personnel. 16,195 of the charges against military personnel were concurrent jurisdiction offenses over which the NATO-SOFA country had the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. United States military authorities obtained a waiver of primary foreign jurisdiction in 15,129 of these incidents, for a waiver rate of 93.4%. This is a significant improvement over last year's NATO-SOFA waiver rate of 90.9%. The balance of the figures shown on Chart A include both military and civilian offenders. They show that during the current reporting period there were 8,518 final results of trials in NATO-SOFA countries. 165 of these final results were acquittals, for an acquittal rate of approximately 2%. Most of the United States personnel who were convicted in NATO-SOFA countries-8,150 of them or 96% of the total final results of trials-received only a sentence to fine or reprimand. The remaining 2% of the final results of trials were split about evenly between suspended sentences to confinement (101), and unsuspended sentences to confinement (102).

Table I summarizes the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by NATO-SOFA countries over United States personnel during the period 1953-1967. It shows for each year the NATO Status of Forces Agreement has been in effect in each country the total cases subject to foreign jurisdiction, the total cases tried, and the number of unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Table III shows statistical highlights for each NATO-SOFA country during the current reporting period. Comparisons are made with figures from the previous reporting period. This table discloses that Germany accounted for 24,033 or 88% of the 27,248 total offenses subject to the jurisdiction of NATO-SOFA countries. I will now discuss Germany and some of the other NATO-SOFA countries in more detail.

Germany

Our jurisdictional arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany provide for advance waiver to the United States of all concurrent jurisdiction offenses over which Germany has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. This waiver is subject to recall if German authorities, within three weeks after notification of an offense falling within the waiver, decide that, because of special circumstances in the case, "major interests of German administration of justice make imperative the exercise of German jurisdiction."

During the current reporting period, 14,432 of the 24,033 offenses subject to German jurisdiction were concurrent jurisdiction offenses allegedly committed by United States military personnel over which Germany had the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. These offenses were subject to the advance waiver to the United States discussed above. German authorities recalled their waiver of jurisdiction over only 66 of those 14,432 offenses, for a waiver rate of 99.5%. German authorities also reserved for their disposition 6131 minor offenses allegedly committed by United States military personnel which were punishable only under German law, and were therefore subject to exclusive German jurisdiction. German authorities reserved for their disposition 1255 offenses allegedly committed by civilian employees and dependents.

There were 6611 final results of trials in Germany, consisting of 50 acquittals, 6475 sentences to fine or reprimand, 29 suspended sentences to confinement, and 57 unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Greece and the Netherlands

In Greece and in The Netherlands the United States operates under supplemental agreements to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement whereby each country has agreed to waive its primary right to exercise jurisdiction upon request, except in cases of particular importance. During the current reporting period The Netherlands waived its jurisdiction over all 370 offenses allegedly committed by United States military personnel. The Netherlands has tried only three United States military personnel in over 2300 cases that have arisen since NATO-SOFA became effective. During the current period Dutch authorities retained jurisdiction over one civilian.

Greek authorities retained jurisdiction over 21 of 56 offenses allegedly committed by United States personnel. 19 of these 21 offenses involved military personnel. Greek courts adjudged unsuspended sentences to confinement in seven cases. Six of these sentences were less than one year in length.

Turkey

In NATO-SOFA countries other than Germany, Greece and The Netherlands, waivers of jurisdiction are governed by a provision under which requests for waiver are to be given "sympathetic consideration." Operating under this provision, Turkey seldom grants requests for waivers. During the current reporting period, 129 cases involving military personnel were reserved for disposition by Turkish authorities. Final dispositions, however, were comparatively lenient. Charges against 16 military personnel were dropped. Of the 96 completed trials, 35 resulted in acquittal. Among the 61 convictions, there were only two unsuspended sentences to confinement. Both of these sentences were for very brief terms-one for ten days and the other for thirty days.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN NON-NATO COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT

Table IV illustrates the experience of the Armed Services in each of the nonNATO countries where the United States has a jurisdictional agreement. Comparisons are made with figures from the previous reporting period. Japan and Korea accounted for 76% of the total offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the countries listed in Table IV.

Japan

Our jurisdictional arrangements with Japan continue to operate effectively. Japanese authorities waived their primary right to exercise jurisdiction over 1398 or 85% of the 1649 offenses allegedly committed by United States military personnel. Japan retained jurisdiction over only 39 of 348 offenses charged against United States civilian employees and dependents. There were 309 final results of trials, consisting of one acquittal, 228 sentences to a fine only, 47 suspended sentences to confinement, and 33 unsuspended sentences to confinement.

Korca

The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Korea entered into force on 9 February 1967. Between that date and the close of the current reporting period (30 November 1967), United States military personnel were charged with 1169 offenses subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea. Korean authorities waived their primary right to exercise jurisdiction over 1159 of these offenses, for a waiver rate of 99%. Moreover, Korea retained jurisdiction over only one of the 38 offenses charged against United States civilian employees and dependents. Charges were dropped in three of the ten military cases reserved for disposition by Korea. There were two final results of trials during the current period-one acquittal and one sentence to a fine only.

Vietnam

In Vietnam the United States retains jurisdiction over its military personnel in all cases. Also, pursuant to Article 2 (10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civilians serving with or accompanying our military forces in the field in time of war are subject to United States military law and may be tried by courtmartial. Current United States policy limits the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians in Vietnam to United States nationals. These civilians may also be subject to the jurisdiction of Vietnam. During the current reporting period, five employees of United States defense contractors were charged with offenses subject to the primary jurisdiction of Vietnam. Vietnamese authorities waived their jurisdiction over two of the offenses, and reserved for their disposition the remaining three offenses. Two of the latter offenses have been tried in Vietnamese courts and the other is pending trial. One trial resulted in a final conviction of assault and suspended sentence to confinement. In the other trial, the court found the accused guilty of negligent homicide and sentenced him to 15 days confinement and a fine of approximately $7267.00. This accused has filed an appeal.

EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE A JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT

Table V summarizes the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction in countries where the United States does not have a jurisdictional agreement. Comparisons are made with figures from the previous reporting period.

Merico and Panama

Mexico and Panama accounted for 99% of the offenses charged against United States personnel in countries where no jurisdictional agreement is in force. In Mexico there were no offenses charged against civilian employees or dependents. Mexican authorities charged United States military personnel with 1436 offenses, 90 less than were charged during the previous reporting period. Over 76% of these offenses were disorderly conduct. Charges against 35 military personnel were dropped. There were 1392 sentences to a fine or reprimand, one suspended sentence to confinement, and 10 unsuspended sentences to confinement. The longest unsuspended sentence to confinement was 7 months. The other 9 sentences to confinement were for 30 days or less.

Panamanian authorities charged United States military personnel with 486 offenses. Civilian employees and dependents were involved in 15 alleged offenses. Dispositions of these offenses were generally lenient. Charges against 63 United States personnel were dropped. There were 18 acquitals, 381 sentences to a fine or reprimand, and only two final unsuspended sentences to confinement (one for 6 months and the other for 3 months and 10 days).

EXPENDITURES UNDER TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1037

Under the provisions of 10 United States Code 1037, United States military personnel are generally entitled to have counsel fees, bail, court costs and other expenses incident to their defense before foreign courts paid by the United States Government. Table VI itemizes expenditures under this statute in the various countries during the current reporting period. A total of $136,298.27 was expended on behalf of 477 military personnel prosecuted in foreign courts. The average expenditure per accused was $285.74.

CONCLUSION

No United States commander has reported that jurisdictional arrangements have had significant impact on the accomplishment of his mission. The Department of Defense considers present status of forces arrangements to be quite workable and satisfactory.