LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Communicated to the Council C.199.M.109.1935. XI.r ni the Members of the League. O.C. 1599

Geneva, May 18th, 1935.

TRAFFIC IN OrIUM ANT OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS

DRAFT C-CI7VEliTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC

IN DANGEROUS DRUGS

SECOND CONSULTATION.

Replie s from Governrsejn ts to the Secretar.v-Gener?! ' s letter

dated July 16th, 1934.^

NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL.

1. On May 14th, 1934, at its Seventy ninth Session, the Council decided to invite the Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs, ts prepare an annotated draft convention on the basis cf the otservaticne transmitted by Governments in reply to the firs<; consultation concerning the iraft articles suitable for inclusion in an international convention for the suppression cf illicit traffic in dangerous drugs. (2). The C o u n c i l also instructed the Secretary—General to communicate to Governments, with a view to the second consultation and without again submitting it to xho Council, the annotated draft convention te be pre­pared by thjs Advisory Committee.

2. In accordance with the Council's decision, the Secretary-General sent to Governments, with his lettsr of July 16th, 1934 (C.L. 120.1934. XT) and with a view to the second consultation, the Advisory Committee's report, to­gether with the annotated draft convention drawn up at ihe Committee's Eighteenth Session (May 1934) ani the observa­tions forwarded by Governments in reply to the first con­sultation (3), requesting them to be good enough t# state

(1) C.L. 120.1934.XI.

(2) Documents C.335.1933. XT. — O.C. 1369 (c) (1) •ommunioat- ed to Governments for their examination Icy the Secretary- General on August 29th, 1933. (C.L.155.1933.XI.)

(3) See Annex to C.L.120.1934.XI. (document O.C.1558 (1))

- g -

their views on the previsions of the draft, with any obser­vations that might be suggested to them by the other Govern­ment.11 s replies.

By May 10th, 1935, the Secretary-General had re­ceived 85 replies from Governments, 20 of whom expressed themselves in favour of the draft convention; three consi­dered that the draft was of no interest tn them, while two merely sent an acknowledgment.

3. A general idea of the position may be obtai­ned if the replies from all the Governments to the first(1) and second consultations are taken into consideration; we thus find that altogether -15 Governments have transmit­ted their observations. 33 are in favour of the draft con­vention, 9 simply sent an acknowledgment (2), while four state that the draft does not interest them.

4. The Secretary-General has the honour to com­municate herewith to the Members of the League and the Count»il, the Governments' replies to the second consulta­tion, received up to May 7th, 1935.

5. This question has been placed on the provi­sional agenda of the Eighty-sixth Session of the Council.

List of countries

which transmitted observations in reply to the second consultation.

1. Austria2 • Belgium3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland4. Canada5. Chile6. China7. Denmark8. Spain9. Finland

10. France11. Hungary12. India13. Irish Free State14. Italy15. J ap an16. Latvia17. Lithuania

TTJ See Annex to 0.L.120.1934. TI. (document O.C.1558 (1))

(2) One Government (Venezuela) has sent a different reply to each consultation; it sent a favourable reply to the first consultation and simply an acknowledgment in reply to the second.

18. Monaco19. Netherlands20. Poland21. Sweden22. Czechoslovakia23. Union of South Africa24. Uruguay25. Venezuela

1. Austria (February 4th, 1935).

Federal Chancellory.Department ef Foreign Affairs.

I have the honour to inform you that, generally speaking, the Austrian Federal Government has no further observations to make in regard to the text of the draft

contained in the ''Annex to C.L.120.1934. XI.". However, it considers that attention should again be drawn to two points already mentioned in my letter 111,064-14a, dated May 17th last, namely, that the present Austrian law alrea­dy provides for prosecution for fiscal offences in cases of infringement of the Customs laws and regulations, and that the Convention to be concluded should not affect the m.a-e extensive rights and obligations ensuing, in the mat­ter of extradition, from agreements already existing bet­ween certain countries (as for example, Customs cartels).

If no account of those two points is taken in the convention, the Federal Government will be unable to sign it without an appropriate reservation.

2. Belgium (November 7th, 1934).

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

I have the honour t* inform you that the Belgian Government has no objection to the changes made in the text of the preliminary draft Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs.

3. United Kingdom (April 29th, 1935).

Foreign Office.

His Majesty's Government have examined the propo­sed Convention in detail and desire to offer the following observations on the present draft :

Article 1. The words "in either case" in line 12 should be omitted. These words apply only to "preparato­ry acts" and not to "attempts", which in English law and no doubt in that of other countries have well defined meanings. The words "if they have reached the stage of commencement of exe­cution" are necessary in amplification of "pre­paratory acts" but not of "attempts", which have a definite legal significance.

- 4 -

Articles 2. 3 and 4. No comments .

Article 5. The words in the third paragraph of the Article"and the treaties in force between the country- asking for extradition and the country to whom the request is made11 are superfluous and might well be omitted. In every case in which extra­dition is granted it will of necessity be in accordance with treaties in force between the countries concerned.

Articles 6 and 7. No comments.

Article 8. The words "in urgent cases" at the beginning ofparagraph 2 should be omitted. They limit the scope of the Article unnecessarily and appear to be inconsistent with the intention of Ar­ticle 7 •

Article 9. This Article would appear to be unneccessary and might be omitted. Having regard to the existence and regular meetings of the Opium Advisory Committee, it seems undesirable to impose upon the parties to the Convention an obligation to hold conferences.

Articles 10 and 11, No oomments.

Article 12. The words "without ever being allowed impunity" appear to be quite unnecessary arid outside the scope of Article 1 inasmuch as they infer pu­nishment in all cases. It is suggested that they should be omitted.

A. Canad a (September 12th 1934 )Canadian Advisory Officer.League of Nations.

I have the honour to transmit to you the followingobservations of the Canadian Government :

It is noted that the draft Convention as amended at the last meeting of the Advisory Committee contains some of the suggestions previously made by Canada, and it is considered that the new text affords a good basis for eventual discussion at the Conference-that will doubtless be held in connection therewith. Canada, however, still adheres to the opinion that the inclusion of the offence of "conspiracy" in Article 1, and subse­quent extradition in connection therewith under Article 5, would constitute a more effective wea­pon in the hands of narcotic control offices in the practical application of their efforts t^ cope with the higher international narcotic trafficker than is obtainable by means of Arti 2le 1 as at present constituted.

5. Chile (December 13th, 1934).

Permanent Chilean Delegation accredited to the League of Nations.

In reply, I am instructed by my Government to •inform you that it accepts this draft.

- 5 -

6. China (May 7th, 1935)

Permanent Office of the Chinese Delegation to the league of Hâtions:

I have the honour yo inform you that the views of my Government on the draft Convention has already been expressed in my letter of May 12th, 1934. Furthermore, my Government has no objections to the amendments which were made by the opium Advisory Committee in the light of the observations of various governments.

My Government, however, desires to make a general reservation with regard to all provisions of the draft Con­vention which involve the question of extradition and the principle of the prosecution of offences committed abroad, regarding which, owing to the existence of foreign consular juridiction in China, my Government is unable, for the time being, to undertake any obligations.

7. Denmark (April 2nd, 1935)

The Permanent Delegate of Denmark accredited to the League of Nations

I am instructed by my Government to inform you that the Danish Government has m objection to the conclu­sion of a convention embodying the proposed text.

8. Spain (February 25th, 1935).

Ministrv of Forei/rn Affairs. Translation from sp̂ igir:--

I have the honour to send you herewith the report for which you ask in your communication with regard to the draft International Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs. I ta*ce this opportuni­ty to inform you that, generally speaking, the Spanish Go­vernment sees no objection to the convocation of the propo­sed conference for the study of this draft Convention.

_Ker>ort ^n the draft Convention for the_ Supjoression_of 1111 cite Traffic in Dangerous"- Drugs'n repared by the legal Com­mission of the Mi n i s tr^_ of J u s t i n e_ a t_ t he request of the

Spanish Ministry of Foreign'Affairs.

3.

General remarks on the draft.

There is no objection to this draft as an instru­ment for the more strict suppression of the illicit traffic. As stated in what may be regarded as an explanatory state­ment (Document O.C.1369 (c) (1)), there are many cases in which the national penal provisions allow persons who or­ganise and facilitate smuggling to go unpunished. Many no­torious traffickers take no part personnally in illicit transactions, and it is this immunity from punishment, in particular, which should be avoided. It would seem, in fast, that what is required is to make it impossible for the trafficker, in the widest sense of the word, to escape

- 6 -

the penalties laid down in the different penal legislations. It is this factor of oau.se and effeot which would seem to be most important. Starting from this idea, therefore, and from our infernal legislation, we shall consider, in exa­mining each article, whether the aim in view can actually be achieved. A priori the reply must be in the negative, at any rate in so far as concerns the idea of complete sup­pression postulated in the preamble in question, which would seem to pursue a more comprehensive aim than the articles dealt with below.

C

Examination of the articles

Article 1.In the first place, the•amendments to this arti­

cle qs compared with the same article in the preliminary draft do not seem, in spite of the inclusion of the words ’'despatch” and "transports", tn make it certain that persons who arrange for and finance the despatch of illicit drugs, shall not escape the penalties. It is obvious that the des­patch and transport of illicit drugs are distinct from, and sometimes even of far less importance than the other acts enumerated. At first sight, it would seem that arranging preparing for or finaneing the despatch of illicit drugs are not in their proper place in this article, but should rather be included among the preparatoiy acts referred tn in the second paragraph of the same article. There is, however, one objection to this, namely, that according to paragraph 2, preparatory acts in addition to constituting a commencement of execution - and that is not quite accu­rate - relate to manufacture, oonversion, extraction, pre­paration, possession, offering for sale, etc. In none of these cases, however, is there, either in so far as concerns real preparatory acts or according to the text, any commen­cement of the execution of what constitutes the essence '■'f the different categories of offences (manufacture, conversion extraction, etc.).

In our opinion, acts consisting in arranging for preparing for and financing the despatch of illicit drugs are completely covered by'The concept trafficker, traffic, in the same way and with as much reason, for example, as manufacture and possession. With regard to illicit traffic in dangerous drugs, the draft does not keep to t'.iB strict meaning of the w^rt "traffic" but by divesting it of its material or formal content (to make, to go or tn come' to convert) , Interprets it to mean the whole series of tran­sactions which can be classified as illicit trade in drugs.It might therefore be better instead of naming a list of the acts, which, as we have seen, could never, notwithstan­ding the last intentions, be complete, to speak of illicit traffic - an expression preferable tn trade - and to leave it to the courts of each country to decide in specific ca­ses whether the act is or is not an act of illicit traffic. This would, in fact, be in strict correlation with Article 12.

The first paragraph of Article 1 as drafted ex­cludes the possibility of a gift or, indeed, of a loan of dangerous drugs, a case which might very well occur.

- 7 -

The .̂ ame paragraph mentions the desirability of punishing the acts in question by imprisonment. That might lead to considerable inequality in view of the differenoe in degree of that penalty in the different States.

In Spain imprisonment may be imposed for from six months and a day to six years. In Italy the sentence impos­ed is not imprisonment but penal servitude up to a maximum of 24 years. Here the difficulties and consequently the inequality are even more obvious. In France als- there is no imprisonment in the strict sense, but penal servitude for from 5 to 10 years. In Germany imprisonment varies from oneday to 5 years. There is no need to mention other codes toprove that the term of imprisonment varies in each country and if, in short, the legislation of each country is to be competent in each specific case, it is better to leave States to fix the term of imprisonment in accordance with the penal system of the country, without fixing the penalty in advance. Otherwise, the different national penal sys­tems would have to be amended, and that is not admissible, however great the importance attached to a convention.

If by "prison” is meant only deprivation of liber­ty -- though this does not seem to be brought out by the text - the difficulties entailed by fixing an international penalty in advance would be avoidel, to a great extent. In addition to leaving matters to the unrestricted operation of the national law in each country, without changing thatlaw in any way, it might also permit of greater equality inthe term of imprisonment. Lastly, it should not be for­gotten that there is now a tendency to do away with the former limited and narrow classification of sentences, and t bring it into line with the conception of properly grad­uated periods of deprivation of liberty. The modern practice is to start from wider limits, and the 'Id terminology, which always brings to mind a state .of affairs that should bo forgotten, or at any rate left behind, is being more and more abandoned.

From the point of view of our penal legislation, attention may also be drawn to another point in this first paragraph. It was stated in Article 1 of the preliminary draft that, in order to be punishable, offences must be intentional. This would appear to require frau-1.. If we leave on one side for the moment, as this is not the place to discuss it, the point whether the use cf the word "intentional" implies a particular conception of fraud, which does not appear to have been the drafters’ intention, the word in question was at all events designed to exclude culpable conduct. This much is obvious.

In the present draft the word "intentional’1 has been replaced by "wilfully" and doubts may thus arise, since fraudulent conduct is actually just as wilful as culpable conduct, although that does not apply to the consequences in both cases. Since in our opinion, and notwithstanding the foregoing interpretation, the word '’wilfully" has merely been substituted for "intentional", the intention being, as before, that it should apply solely to fraud, it would be ^referable to go back to*the original wording, although this is somewhat imperfect, because culpability would then be obviously excluded, which is less clear if the word "wilfully" is U3ed« It should not be forgotten that the principles of

- 8 -

the convention will have to be applied lator in each country and it is quite possible that the scope assigned to the word "wilfully" may exceed what it was presumably intended to convey in Article 1. In any case, in view of Article IS of the draft, this question might perhaps remain with the limits of the penal system of each country and be settled in accordance with its laws and legal practice. In that case no account need be taken of these observations, which were made solely with the desire that the technical pro­visions should be clearer.

Am regards the last two paragraphs of this ar­ticle , we do not think it is at all in accordance with penal practice nor with the legislation of most countries to couple together preparatory acts and attempts and to assume that both may constitute a commencement of execution. That is not invariably true except in the case of attempts; it is not always true in the case of preparatory acts, in which the commencement of execution constitutes the dif­ference between the preparatory aot and the attempt « The draft departs to a certain extent from this distinction, since, although it appears to maintain it, it recognises a greater possibility than has hitherto been admitted as regards the punishment of preparatory acts. It might be preferable, if it is desired to punish .."these acts in cer­tain oases, to abojidon the criterion of "a commencement of execution”, because this already constitutes an attempt, and in the enumeration of those acts to adopt, owing to their exceptional nature, the "numerus clausum" criterion. It would be even better to leave the determination of pre­paratory a')ts and attempts to the legislation of each coun­try, in accordance^ with Article 12 of the draft.,

Art icle J3 „

We have no observations to make, as this is a logical consequence of the principle of the international recognition of previous convictions. However, in view of its connection with Article 5, it appears to be chiefly directed against nationals who have committed an offence and been convicted abroad*

Article 3.

This is a consequence of the "principle of com­munity of interests" on which the draft is based. The fact that Spain may punish acts covered by the Convention and committed outside the country does not imply any departure from that principle saying that she has the right to dz. so in certain cases in accordance with the "principle of pro­tection" laid down in the Organic Law of the Judicial ^ower*

The application of the penalty even in c a s e s where nationality has been acquired after the offence has been committed is a possibly extreme but logical consequence of the above -mentioned "principle of community of interests" which, moreover, does not clash with Spanish practice.There is an important precedent for t h i s i n t h e s t a t e m e n t by the Public Prosecutor of the Supremo Court on February 10th, 1911; the latter held that the Spanish courts were

competent in cases of a change of nationality, "since other­wise persons who had acquire!.1 Spanish nationality would have an advantage over persons who were Spanish by birth",

Article 4.

The wording of the previous draft has been kept and we do not consider this very satisfactory.

A careful perusal of the article shows that the second paragraph is the most important one, as the whole of the first paragraph is subject to the condition that ex­tradition has been requested and cannot be granted. Even admitting this precedent in regard to extradition, which is correct since it implies a recognition of the faot that each State has the primary right to try its nivn nationals (which is a l s o implied in Article 7>) , it appears to be more satisfactory and also more practical net to make the request for prosecution and punishment in the country of refuge de­pendent on the recognition or non-recognition of the prin­ciple in question. If tne present text is retained, the propped scope of the Convention, according to its 'Preamble and Article 1, will be limited to a formal procedure since, according to the present wording of Article 4, it appears that if extradition is not practicable - in the event, for instance, of a political offence - and the principle of extraterritoriality mentione i above is not admitted either, it will not be possible tc punish the foreign offender who has taken refuge in the country. This appears to be correct in accordance with the "right of asylum" but it is not in conformity with the "principle cf community of interests" which, if it is to be effective, must naturally take pre­cedence over that right.

Consequently, the reference to international pro­secution greatly restricts the draft and should be eliminate! in accordance with the aims cf the draft. In any case the restriction will have no practical effect, since most coun­tries recognise extraterritoriality to some extent.

Article 5.

The object is to prevent any offenders whom it is desire! to prosecute from escaping punishment owing to the absence of a treaty or principles of reciprocity.

In so far as it aims at preventing any person from eluding punishment owing to the lack of rules as to ex­tradition , it is in accordance with the object of the draft and facilitates the proce'iure. This article clearly re­veals once again the conflict of principles involve! in the previous article.

Article 6.

IJo observations.

The central office referred tc already exists in Spain (see Royal Decree of April 30th 1928).

The contact referred to in paragraphs (a), ( h i ) and (c) of this article a l s o exists. All that is needed is possibly to improve and extend the organisation of the office.

Article 8.

No ob serrations.

combine latter.

Itthis

would have been structually more correct to article with the previous one, by extending the

.Article 9.

Notechnical or

observations. This article does not raise any legal problem.

ArticleorH

No observations.

Article 11.

No observations.

Art icle 12.

Although the wording is possibly somewhat imper­fect, the object of this Article is that the offences enumerated in Article 1 may be punished in every case. The determination of circumstances, not only those which ex­clude criminal responsibility altogether but also of mitigat ing circumstances, etc., is obviously left to the domestic law of each country.

In accordance with general principles - the general part cf each legislation - it is entirely admissible without its being necessary to mention this in the draft, that complicity and also the various forms of co-participat­ion should be punished according to the criminal provisions of each country. The omission of these forms from the draft therefore appears to us tc be correct.

Notwithstanding the enormous scope that c a n be given to this Article, we would stress the observations we have already made, in respect of Article 1, concerning organisers, etc. of illicit consignments of narcotics. A correct procedure as laid down by the draft and the c o n t e n t s

of the preamble do not permit of the inclusion in this Ar­ticle of the problems therein mentioned with respect to this concrete point.

- 11 -

Articles 13, 14 et soc.• • t •

No legal or technical observations.

The foregoing statement constitutes the report an* observations on the draft which the Legal Advisory Committee was requested to submit.

Madrid, February 8th, 1935.

Initialled by the President and Secretary- General of the Commission in question.

(signed) .....

Under-Secretary.

9. Finland (October 16th, 1934. )

Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

I have the honour to inform you that, after taking note of the documents annexed to your letter, and in part­icular of the draft Convention, the Finnish Government de­sires to express its appreciation of the humanitarian aims of this Convention, and is of opinion that the means pro­posed for their achievement should be of considerable assist­ance in suppressing the traffic in narcotic drugs.

However, the Finnish Government considers it ad­visable to inform the Seoretariat at the present stage of the Advisory Committee's work, that in its present form the convention in question would involve appreciable changes in Finnish legislation now in force, and that the creation of the new posts provided for, would place a considerable burden on the State. For this reason, and in view of the fact that nffences in regard to the trade in manufacture and transport of narcotic drugs committed in Finland have up to the pre­sent been very rare and are comparatively unimportant, the Finnish Government does not consider that there are suffi­cient reasons for its participation in the proposed Con­

vention, particularly as, so far as it is aware, persons engaged in the illicit drug traffic have not utilised Finnish territory as a base for their work and have not sought refuge in that country.

10. France (January 28th, 1935)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

By your circular letter of July 16th last you were good enough to communicate to me for my opinion and for purposes of a second consultation, the "Draft Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drues” prepared and annotated by the Opium Advisory Committee.

- 12 -

The new text of Article 1, in the drafting of which the observations I made at the time of the first con­sultation have been taken into consideration, provides that attempts and preparatory acts shall be punishable only if they have reached the stage of a commencement nf execution.

Under these conditions I can only confirm my letter of May 12th, 1934, in which I informed you that I agreed with the principles adopted in the drafting of the different articles and that the Convention seemed to me suitable to serve as a basis for the work of the Conference which would be entrusted with the task of preparing a final text.

11. Hungary (October 3rd, 1934)

Hungarian Delegation accredited tv the League of Nations.

I am instructed by my Government and have the honour to inform you that the Eoyal uHungarian Government has no objection to the revised Draft International Con­vention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, annexed to your circular letter mentioned above.

12. India Office (September 27th, 1934).

I am directed by the Secretary of State for India to communicate the following observations of the Government of India on some of the more important articles of the re­vised draft Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs forwarded with your letter:-

Article 2.

This article does not affect India as India is not a country where the principle of the international reco­gnition uf previous convictions is recognised.

Article 3.

This article appears to be an alternative to the extradition and punishment of nationals committing offences abroad. As India is a country where the extradition nf offenders is recognised, the article would appear to excludeIndia.

Article 4.

The Indian Legislature has no power to provide for the punishment of offences committed outside India by forei^ners. The application of Article 4 to India would, therefore have to be reserved in the manner adopted in PartII of the Protocol to the Convention for the suppression of Counterfeiting Currency in respect of Article 9 of that Convention.

- 13 -

Art is.le 5.

The legislative requirements of Article 5 of the Convention are met "by the enactment of the Extradition Act, 1952, in the case oi 1 foreign States' within the meaning of that expression as used in the Indian Extradition Act ; j n the case of States which are not 1 foreign States' within that meaning, they can be met by adding dangerous drugs nffenoes to the list of extradition offences in the First Schedule to the Indian Extradition Act.

Article 6.

This article should be amended so as to exclude frc.m its purview drugs, substances and articles that are the subject of technical offences, e.g., mere irregularities in procedure.

A r t i o le 7.

The Government of India are unable to subscribe to the Convention as drafted u a Iess some of the clauses of this article are amended. The Government of India have been forced to pnetpone the creation of a Central Intelligence Bureau ^n a^ocunt of financial stringency and it is im­possible to foretell how soon economic conditions will im­prove sc far as to r.ermit of the revival of the proposal. They are, however, prepared to appoint the Central Board of Revenue as the 'Central Office' for the purposes of Articles 7 to 10, but they anticipate serious difficulties in comply­ing with the provisions of Article 7. The first difficulty arises in connection with the first sentence of the Article. In its capacity as the Central Pevenues Branch of the Finance Department, the Central Board of Revenue is res­ponsible for the Law and the rules under which measures are taken to prevent the illicit acts referred to and to ensure their punishment ; but it cannot haire any authority. (Indeed, it would be unconstitut4 r-nal for it to claim authority, since Excise is a trail? =rred subject) to make itself res­ponsible for carrying out all operations necessary to prevent illicit acts and to ens'are that steps are taken to prosecute persons guilty of such acts. The Government of India could subscribe to the first sentence if it were so altered as to make the Central Office responsible for the maintenance of adequate regulations to prevent the illicit acts, etc.

Turning to the second sentence of the Article, it is not practicable for the Central Board of Revenue to be in close contact with the po1j ce authorities throughout the country, nor could the Local Governments be pressed to agree to this. This sentence wruld be acceptable if clause (b) were altered so as to read : -

'with the authorities within the country charge! with supervising the enforcement of the regulations ;f

The Government of India could then interpret the word 'authorities' as meaning the Local Governments (except in the case of import and expert, where the Central Govern­ment are in direct control of the Customs arrangements).

- 14 -

The third sentence would alsc have to be mndifie'1 sc as to confine the duties of the 1Central Office' tc the centralisation of all information of such a nature as tc facilitate the investigation, prevention and punishinent of international illicit traffic. The Central Board of Revenue could not undertake to be a central intelligence bureau for all the ordinary internal illicit traffic throughout the whcle country,

Article 10.

As regards the channel for the transmission of letters cf request under this article, the Government of India are of the cpinion that the mnet convenient channel will be the third of those enumerated in the Article, viz., through the diplomatic or consular representative of the country making the request in the country tr which the re­quest is made. The Government of India are opposed to direct communication between courts and Ministers of Justice.

13. Irish Free State (February 4th, 1335)

Permanent Delegation accredited to the League of Nations.

I have the honour to state that the Gcvernment of the Irish Free State, after careful consideration of the draft annctated Convention, are in general agreement with its previsions, and that they would be prepared to consider favourable the fermai acceptance by the Irish Free State of a Convention in the same or similar terms.

14. 11aly (October 2nd, 1934)

Ministry fcr Foreign Affairs.

The Royal Government has the honour tc confirm its approval of the main principles of the draft ; they are in perfect harmony with the special legislation in f^roe which has now been incorporated in the new unified text of health laws approved by Royal Decree Ho. 1265 of July 27th, 1934, and with the existing Penal Code.

The Royal Government must nevertheless stress the advisability, urged by the Canadian Government, of arriving at an international agreement for the provision cf adequate punishment for offences in connection with illicit t r a f f i c in narcotics and considers that an agreement cf this Kind could be reached for the moment by laying down in Article 1 çf the draft now under consideration a minimum penalty of imprisonment for the gravest offences, t c be introduced compulsorily into the legislation of the acceding States, with the adaptations required to bring i t into line with the penal system in force in each State.

The Royal Government does not underestimate the difficulty cf finding a universally acceptable formula which will meet the fcregoing requirements. It considers never-

- 15 -

tholess that this is possible and that a careful study rf the question should bo undertaken with a view to arriving at a satisfactory formula.

15- Japan (November 2nd, 193-4) •

Consulate General of Japan.I an instructed by my Government to forward you

the following observations:

1. In the first paragraph of Article I, the acts enumerated might be replaced by the following phrase :"Eeoh of the High Contracting Parties agrees to make legis­lative provisions for severely punishing, and, in particular, punishing by imprisonment" , the acts which are wilfully c.om- mitted "-ni whi^h violate tbc provisions of la.vs~and régulâtiens whi^ h are p rorr.ulgatei in order to ensure tno eye out ion of the Convent ions.

2. In the English text, second paragraph of Article I, a phrase found in the French text, "au point de vue de la répression", is not found. Both texts should be made to correspond.

3. Since it would appear that a large number cf countries, among them the Japanese Government, find it difficult to recognize the principle embodied in Article 4 as a general rule, this article may be delete i *>r radically revi sed.

4. In article 6, the meaning of the terms,"articles" or "n b j e t s " is not ^lear; it mav be replaced by the term "récipient" nr such equivalent.

5. The sixth paragraph ®f article 10 may be amende i as follows, so as to be in oonforrnity with various national legislations:

In the execution of letters of request, fees for experts, the changes and necessary expenses shall be re­gulated in a^corianoe with the legislation of the country to which the request is mg.de.

Aocnrding to the present legislation in Japan, the law of co.operation at the instance cf foreign Courts of Justice (art. 1-2-5) provides that in the execution of letters of request by the country to which the request is made the payment of the necessary expenses shall be guaran­teed by the authority making the request.

6. The following points should be revised in or­der to make them clearer:

(a) the first part of the second paragraphnf Article I.

(b) Do the terras, "illicit traffic" use! in Article 6 include illicit manufacture? Also do the terms "seized or confiscated" include seizure and confiscation through administrative measures?

16. Latvia (August 20th, 1334)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

I have the honour to inform you that, after exam­ining the Draft Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, our competent authorities have reached the conclusion that the legislation now in for^e is sufficient to ensure the suppression of the illicit drug traffic in Latvia and that, at all events at the present time, there is nn need to strengthen the existing regulations by any now measures.

The Latvian Government does not intend, therefore, to become a Party to the proposed Convention and accordingly waives its right to express its opinion on the provisions of the Draft in question.

I c

17. Lithuania (December 29th, 13 34)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

I have the honour to inform you that the Lithuanian Government has no observations to make on the Draft Inter­national Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs prepared by the Advisory Committee on Traffi” in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs.

18. Mona". (November 23rd, 1934)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

In reply to your letter of August 29th, 1934, from which it appears that Articles 7 and 9 rf the Draft International Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs will not involve the establish­ment of a special organisation for the Principality, I have the honour to inform you that the ’’’rince's Government have no observations to make on the text submitted to it.

13. Netherlands (February 6th, 1935)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs League of Nations Department.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform you that the Netherlands Government agrees in principle to the Draft International Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs attached to the above-mentioned circular letter. However, the Draft Convention calls for the following observations:

1) Article 6 provides that not only "drugs and substances" but also "articles employed in the illicit traffic'' shall be seized and confiscated. It is stated in t ne comment that "articles employed in the illicit traffic" include "any article ih which the drugs have been concealei*" This categorical provision might give rise to practial

- 17 -

difficulties and to unfair confiscations.

It would be preferable, while still providing that drugs and substances employed in the illicit traffic shall compulsorily be confiscated, to make the confiscation of articles employed in that traffic optional and to allow the judge to decide whether they should be confiscated.

2) Articles 7, 8 and 9 provide for the setting up of a central offine by each of the High Contracting Parties. In the case of the Netherlands, whose territories are si­tuated in three different parts or the world, it would be impracticable to entrust a contral office in Europe with the cxe at j on of measures designed to prevent illicit traffic in the Netherlands Indien. The Parties should be allowed to set up a central office in each of the territories which belong to them and may be situated at a great distance frcni ea h other»

20. Poland (November 13th, 1934)

Polish Delegation attached to the League of Nations.

This Draft differs very little from the text of the preliminary Draft Convention on which the Polish Govern­ment expresse 1 its views in the letter from its delegation No 161/109 dated November 13th, 1933. Y7hile it approves of the principles of the Draft Convention, the Polish Govern­ment maintains the amendments which it proposed last year and which have not been taken into account in the present text.

21. Sweden (January 29th, 1935)

Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

As the revised Draft does not differ in any essential respect from the first Draft, I would refer to tne observations submitted in my letter of December 14th; 1933 and the accompanying memorandum.

22. Czechoslovakia (January 24th, 1935)

Legation of the Czechoslovak Republic.

I have the honour to communicate to you herewith the additional observations of the competent Czechoslovak authorities on the draft International Convention for the Suppression of illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs.

Since it was not possible for the first observa- ticna communicated in my above—menti one letter to be taken into consideration when the original draft; convention was revised, the present observations are based on the revised

- 18 -

draft Convention. I should like tc point out, however, that they are ccmplementary to the previous criticisms ani suggestions offered in the first observations 'if the Czecho­slovak authorities and which they still maintain.

*

* *

The Czechoslovak authorities wish to supplement their general criticism "by obeorving that, apart from the dangerous and chaotic situation created by the excessivenumb ür of conventions dealing with different aspects of this question, this partial settlement makes it impossible for the now convention to be signed by States which were not parties to the 1912, 1925 and 1931 agreements.

The Czechoslovak authorities wish to supplement their criticism cf Article 1 by again pointing out the necessity for allowing the contracting States to grade the offerees covered by Article 1 according to their gravity, and would a l s o refer to the similar remark made by the Austrian Government, which considers that it should he possible t*» decide that judicial penalties and the appli­cation of Articles 2 tc 5 of the draft shall only relate to the gravest forms of offences.

However, these desiderata ha/e not been taken inte consideration in the new text of Article 1.

The Czechoslovak authorities think that, unless offences are grade! in Article 1 aronrding to their gravity, it will be impossible seriously to consider signing a convention providing that preparatory acts must in every case be punishable. They are in favour of making the charge optional by adopting the French or Swiss text, and in any case they propose that the words in the second paragraph cf Article 1 nhas reached the stage of a commencement of execution" should be omitted and also the words |: if, in either case, they have reached the stage of a commencement of execution” in paragraph 3 cf the same Article.

As an addition to their proposal concerning the indictment of co-offenders and accomplices, the Czechoslovak authorities wish to submit the following observations :

As one of the main reasons for the new convention the argument was advanced that it was necessary to make sure that persons who had not actually taken part in punish­able activities but had arranged or directed them or benefit ed therefrom should not escape the pur ishment they had de­serve!. Nov/ever, neither the original draft nor the present draft convention refers in any v;ay to co-culpability and punishable oomplicity. If, as the Committee proposas, the de.' i si on as to whether co-culpability and complicity in the offences covered by paragraph 1 of Article 1 are to be declared punishable is to depend on the legislation of the considering parties, the proposed agreement will lose a considerable part of its value and the campaign against the smuggling of dangerous drugs will suffer and will become ineffective at its most vulnerable point.

- 19 -

For the rest, the Czechoslovak authorities would refer to their original remarks concerning the other Art­icles of the draft Convention and would endorse the legal objections raised by various Governments to the last para­graph of Article 5, which introduces a factor of uncertainty, particularly in regard to extradition. They think it should be considered whether, in accordance with the Austrian Govern­ment's proposal, the concrete appreciation of the gravity of the offence ad hc_c could not be more effectively replaced by distinguishing between the elements constituting the offence according to their gravity as already defined in Article 1.

As regards Article 6 the Czechoslovak authorities also wish to refer to their original declarations. They have no observations to make regarding the changes in the style or contents of the other Articles of the original draft.

23. Union of South Africa. (September 24th,1034).

Department of External Affairs.

I have the honour to inform you that the Union Government have nothing further to add ^o their letter Ho. L.N.9/2 of the 7th November, 1933, in which you were informed that in view of the circumstances obtaining in the Union of South Africa in regard to illicit traffic in habit-forming drugs, the Union Government did not consider it neoessary to become a party to the proposed International Convention, and had, therefore, no comments to offer at that stage on the measures suggested.

24. Uruguay (August 23rd, 1934)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

(Translation from the Spanish)

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Secretary Ganeral's circular letter No. C.L.120.1934.XI, dated July 16th last, concerning the Draft Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs.

25. Venezuela (August 14th, 1934).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Translation from the Spanish.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the United States of Venezuela acknowledges receipt of the Secretary- General 's communication C.L.120.1934.XI dated July 16th last on the Draft Convention for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs, and has the honour to inform him that the commuhjoation in question has been passed on to the competent department, together with Document O.C. 1558 (1), for its opinion; its reply will be transmitted in due course.