2005 Compliance Report

2005 Report on Compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention

Submitted Pursuant to Section 2803 of Public Law 105-277, (Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998), as amended by Section 202 of Public Law 106-113 (the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001), and Section 212 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003

INTRODUCTION______ 3

REPORTING PERIOD__ 6

RESPONSE TO SECTION 2803 (A)__ 6

NOTE REGARDING COMPARISONS TO THE 2004 REPORT_ 9

NONCOMPLIANT COUNTRIES________ 10

AUSTRIA 10

COLOMBIA 12

ECUADOR 13

HONDURAS 14

MAURITIUS 15

PANAMA 16

TURKEY 17

COUNTRIES NOT FULLY COMPLIANT_______ 18

CHILE 18

GREECE 19

MEXICO 21

COUNTRIES OF CONCERN 23

HUNGARY 23

POLAND 24

ROMANIA 25

SWITZERLAND 26

THE BAHAMAS 27

UNRESOLVED RETURN CASES  28

ENCOURAGING USE OF THE CONVENTION  28

ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS  29

FRANCE 29

GERMANY 30

GREECE 31

ISRAEL 31

POLAND 31

SPAIN 31

SWEDEN 32

SWITZERLAND 32

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  33

Attachment A – Summaries of Long-Outstanding Cases

Introduction

The Department of State places the highest priority on the protection of U.S. citizens abroad, and especially on the welfare of our country’s children.  When children become the victims of international parental child abduction, the Department takes seriously its responsibility to help parents who seek the return of, or access to, their children through lawful means.  For many parents, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) is a viable remedy to the trauma of an abduction.  With each passing year, the number of U.S. left-behind parents filing for the return of or access to their children under the terms of the Convention has grown.

During the period covered by this report, the Department assisted in the return to the United States of 292 children abducted or wrongfully retained overseas.  Of this number, 154 children returned in cases in which a Hague application was filed, while 138 returns were involved in non-Hague cases, a 17 percent increase over the previous year.  As a mechanism for promoting the return of children to their habitual residence, the Hague Convention continues to be an invaluable tool.  It is noteworthy that while Hague cases constitute about 30 percent of the total volume of abduction cases handled by the Department, they represent a larger percentage (over 50 percent) of children returned.

The Convention is an international treaty that provides a mechanism to bring about the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained outside their country of habitual residence in violation of rights of custody existing and actually exercised in the child’s country of habitual residence.  Along with the other signatories of the Convention, the United States believes that children must be protected against the harmful effects of international abduction.  The United States was a major force in preparing and negotiating the Convention, which was finalized in 1980 and entered into force for the United States on July 1, 1988.  Since then, the Convention has been an important tool for reuniting families across international borders and in deterring potential abductions.  Currently, seventy-five countries are party to the Convention. 

Today, the United States has a treaty relationship under the Convention with fifty-five other countries.  When a new country accedes to the Convention, the Department of State undertakes an extensive review of that country’s accession to determine whether the necessary legal and institutional mechanisms are in place to fully implement the Convention.   Once the Department concludes that a country has the capability to be an effective treaty partner, its accession is recognized and the Convention comes into force between our two countries.  The Convention applies to the wrongful removal or retention of a child that occurred on or after the date the Convention came into force between the U.S. and the other country concerned.  The date on which the U.S. entered into a treaty relationship with its many Convention partner countries varies, and more countries are considering becoming parties to the Convention all the time.  The U.S. has actively encouraged countries to accede to the Convention, recognizing its potential effectiveness not just in resolving cases of international parental child abduction, but also in deterring future abductions.

As mandated by Section 2803 of Public Law 105-277, (the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998), as amended by Section 202 of Public Law 106-113 (the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001) and Section 212 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Department of State submits this report on compliance with the Convention by other party countries.  The individual cases covered in Attachment A of the present report remained unresolved as of September 30, 2004.

This report identifies the Department’s concerns about those countries in which implementation of the Convention is incomplete or in which a particular country’s judicial or executive authorities do not properly apply the Convention’s requirements.  Where known, the report notes country-specific reasons for compliance failure and attempts to indicate varying degrees of compliance.

The Department of State serves as the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention; one of its functions is to assist parents in filing applications for return and access under the terms of the Convention with the Central Authority of the country where the child is located.  Under the Convention, return and access applications may also be filed either with the Central Authority of the country in which the child is located or directly with a properly empowered court in that country.  Because of this, left-behind parents may (and frequently do) pursue the return of a child under the Convention without involving the U.S. Central Authority.  In these circumstances, the U.S. Central Authority may never learn of such applications or their eventual disposition.  This report therefore cannot give a complete picture of the outcome of all Convention applications for the return of children to the United States.

As has been the practice in previous reports, the Department is reporting as “resolved” cases that are determined by the U.S. Central Authority to be “closed” as Convention cases or that are “inactive.”  This is a technical designation, and does not necessarily mean an end to the Department’s support of a left-behind parent’s efforts to resolve a dispute involving an abduction or wrongful retention.  As in other countries party to the Convention, the U.S. Central Authority closes or inactivates Convention cases for a variety of reasons.  These include: return of the child; parental reconciliation or agreement; a parent's withdrawal of the request for assistance; inability to contact the requesting parent after numerous attempts over a two-year period; exhaustion of all judicial remedies available under the Convention; the child attaining 16 years of age; or (in appropriate cases) the granting and effective enforcement of access rights.  In all such cases, regardless of the outcome, no further proceedings pursuant to the Convention are anticipated.  Treating these cases as “resolved” and closing them as Convention cases is consistent with the practice of other Convention party countries.  The Department marks a case as “inactive” when, in the absence of such definitive circumstances, the facts of the case do not allow, or the applicant parent does not permit, a further reasonable pursuit of the case.  One year after inactivation, and in the absence of additional relevant requests for assistance by the left-behind parent, the Department closes inactive cases.  Should a relevant change in material circumstances occur thereafter, the Department will always consider reopening a case.

The exhaustion of all judicial remedies available under the Convention may result in a case that is “closed” but that has been resolved in a way that is unsatisfactory to the applicant parent and the U.S. Central Authority.  Even when a case for the return of a child under the Convention has been closed, however, the U.S. Central Authority provides assistance to the left-behind parent by helping to facilitate access to a child (which may be sought under or independently of the Convention), reporting on the welfare of the child, or assisting the parent to achieve a more satisfactory solution through non-Convention remedies.  In such instances, the U.S. Central Authority treats the case as an open “non-Hague” case for return or access, depending on the parent’s goals.  When a foreign court decision on the Convention aspects of a case indicates a misunderstanding of or failure properly to apply the Convention’s terms, the U.S. Department of State may register its concern and dissatisfaction with the decision through both the foreign Central Authority and diplomatic channels.  The same is true in circumstances involving the failure by administrative or other executive officials effectively to enforce court or other relevant orders arising out of applications under the Convention.  The Secretary of State, other senior Department officials, U.S. Ambassadors abroad and U.S. Consuls frequently raise international parental child abduction issues and specific cases with appropriate foreign government officials.

Annexed to this report as Attachment A is a list by country of the cases submitted pursuant to the Convention that remained unresolved for more than 18 months as of September 30, 2004.  Specific details that might identify the parties to a case or relevant others have been removed to protect the privacy of the child and the applicant parent.

This report identifies specific countries and individual cases in which countries party to the Convention have not complied with its terms or in which the results for applicant parents in the United States has been inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the Convention.  The U.S. Department of State continues to take steps to promote better information sharing and more consistent practices among countries party to the Convention.  The Department works in close cooperation with the Hague Permanent Bureau on judicial education issues and the formulation of Best Practices guides for states party to the Convention.

Reporting Period

This report covers the period from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.  The information provided herein is that available to the U.S. Central Authority within these dates.  In some instances, the report provides updates to include developments subsequent to September 30, 2004.

Response To Section 2803 (A)

Section 2803(a)(1) of Public Law 105-277, as amended, requires that we report “the number of applications for the return of children submitted by applicants in the United States to the Central Authority for the United States that remain unresolved more than 18 months after the date of filing.”

Taking into account the above clarifications, as of September 30, 2004, there were thirty-three (33) applications for return in U.S. Central Authority records that remained open and active eighteen months after the date of filing with the relevant foreign Central Authority.  This total includes several cases that became known to the U.S. Central Authority through contacts with parents or local and state officials, but that were actually filed by California authorities directly with a foreign Central Authority.

Section 2803 (a)(2) requests “a list of the countries to which children in unresolved applications described in paragraph (1) are alleged to have been abducted, are being wrongfully retained in violation of the United States court orders, or which have failed to comply with any of their obligations under such convention with respect to applications for the return of children, access to children, or both, submitted by applicants in the United States.”

The thirty-three applications identified above that remained unresolved eighteen months after the date of filing, as of September 30, 2004, involved ten countries: Colombia, Croatia, Greece, Honduras, Israel, Mauritius, Mexico, Poland, Romania, and Spain.  The extent to which these countries and others appear to present additional, systemic problems of compliance with the Convention is discussed further in the passages concerning Sections 2803(a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(6), below.

In considering the question of compliance with the Convention and the treatment of court orders of custody, it should be noted that adjudications of return applications under the Convention are not custody proceedings.  Rather, the basic obligation under the Convention to return a child arises if a child is removed to or retained in a country party to the Convention in violation of rights of custody existing and actually exercised in (and under the law of) the child’s country of habitual residence.  Most Convention cases filed by parents seeking the return of a child to the United States are premised on the existence of rights of custody held by the applicant parent that arise by operation of law, typically because the applicable state law creates joint rights of custody in both parents.  A court order of custody in favor of a left-behind parent is not a requirement for pursuing a return application under the Convention.  In effect, the Convention requires that foreign countries recognize rights of custody arising under U.S. law (if the child is habitually resident in the U.S.) to the extent that such rights provide the basis for an application and the rationale for return.  Courts adjudicating applications for return under the Convention are not permitted to examine or rule on the merits of an underlying custody dispute.

Section 2803 (a)(3) requests “a list of countries that have demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the obligations of the Convention with respect to the applications for the return of children, access to children, or both, submitted by applicants in the United States to the Central Authority of the United States.”

There are many factors relevant to evaluating whether a country has properly implemented and is effectively applying the Convention, not least because the executive, legislative and judicial branches of each member country have important and varying roles.  A country may thus perform well in some areas and poorly in others.  The Department of State, building on the recommendations of an inter-agency working group on international parental child abduction, has identified certain elements of overall performance relating to the Convention’s most important requirements and has used these as factors to evaluate each country’s compliance.

The Department used analysis of the following four elements to reach its findings on compliance: the existence and effectiveness of implementing legislation; Central Authority performance; judicial performance; and enforcement of court orders.  Analysis of  “implementing legislation” examines whether, after ratification of the Convention, the Convention is given the force of law within the domestic legal system of the country concerned, enabling the executive and judicial branches to carry out the country’s Convention responsibilities.  “Central Authority performance” involves the speed of processing applications; the existence of and adherence to procedures for assisting left-behind parents in obtaining knowledgeable, affordable legal assistance; the availability of judicial education or resource programs; responsiveness to inquiries by the U.S. Central Authority and left-behind parents; and success in promptly locating abducted children.  “Judicial performance” comprises the timeliness of a first hearing and subsequent appeals of petitions under the Convention and whether courts apply the law of the Convention appropriately.  “Enforcement of court orders” involves the prompt enforcement of civil court or other relevant orders issued pursuant to applications under the Convention by administrative or law enforcement authorities and the existence and effectiveness of mechanisms to compel compliance with such orders.  Countries in which failure to enforce orders is a particular problem are addressed in the passages concerning Section (a)(6) below.

This report identifies those countries that the Department of State has found to have demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance or that, despite a small number of cases, have such systemic problems that the Department believes a larger volume of cases would demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance.  In addition, the Department recognizes that countries may demonstrate varying levels of commitment to and effort in meeting their obligations under the Convention.  The Department considers that countries listed as noncompliant are not taking effective steps to address serious deficiencies.

Applying the criteria identified above, and as discussed further below, the Department of State considers Austria, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Mauritius, Panama, and Turkey to be “Noncompliant” and Chile, Greece, and Mexico, to be “Not Fully Compliant” with their obligations under the Convention.  The Department of State has also identified several “Countries of Concern” that have inadequately addressed significant aspects of their obligations under the Convention.  These countries are Hungary, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, and The Bahamas.

Note Regarding Comparisons to the 2004 Report 

In several countries during this reporting period, the U.S. Central Authority saw either improvements or increasing problems with Hague Abduction Convention implementation that has led to a change in the Department’s findings in this report, as compared to last year’s report.

Mexico demonstrated an improved record of returning children, and this year we find it not fully compliant; Switzerland and Romania both improved to the level of country of concern.  Israel is no longer cited for compliance problems, although we continue to see enforcement problems. 

In three countries, implementation of the Convention has either deteriorated or we have further evidence of a lack of performance to justify a lower compliance finding than in previous years.  Chile has been added to the list of countries we have identified with compliance problems for the first time, as not fully compliant.  Greece and Panama, which were countries of concern in the last report, have also demonstrated increasing difficulties in implementation of the Hague Convention, and we now find Greece to be not fully compliant, and Panama to be noncompliant.  In both Chile and Greece, the tendency to treat Hague cases as custody determinations, and an overly expansive interpretation of the allowable defenses against issuing a return order, seriously risk undermining the power of the Convention to act as a defense against further wrongful abductions of children.

France and Greece are cited for enforcement problems in this year’s report due to significant delays in enforcing return or access orders.

Noncompliant Countries 

AUSTRIA

As in past compliance reports, the United States continues to view Austria as noncompliant in its implementation of the Hague Convention.  Our primary concern in the past has been with the capabilities and willingness of the Austrian authorities and legal system to enforce judicial orders for return or for access.  These concerns are exemplified by a long-outstanding access case that, although not pursued under the Convention in 2003, resulted from earlier compliance problems (the history of this case was outlined in earlier Compliance Reports).  The left-behind parent has brought two cases against the Austrian Government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), prevailing in both instances.  While the ECHR determined that Austria had violated this parent’s and his child’s right to a family life under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, this parent continues to experience difficulties gaining acceptable access to the child.  The Department of State has continued to engage the Government of Austria over the past year and has pushed for a resolution to this case that fully respects the parental rights of the left-behind parent.

We are encouraged by the fact that the Government of Austria has continued to address the difficult challenges to creating suitable Hague Convention compliance mechanisms and effective enforcement procedures.  In November 2003, the Austrian Parliament passed new implementing legislation that, effective January 1, 2005, limits the number of courts empowered to hear Hague Convention return cases to sixteen, down from over two hundred (Convention access cases were not restricted to these courts).  It may be several years before we can begin to determine the effects of the legislation on judicial processing of return applications.  In the meantime, the Austrian Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has begun conducting in-depth training for the judges at the sixteen Austrian courts that will be handling all Hague return cases.  The MOJ has also instituted a pilot program to train bailiffs in child psychology in order to sensitize them to complications that may arise during enforcement procedures.  Furthermore, in October 2004, a panel of experts was convened to draft recommendations for improvements in enforcement of custody and return orders; the conference received nation-wide press coverage and legislation incorporating the recommendations is being prepared.

Over the reporting period, Austrian judicial and legal authorities displayed a greater sense of urgency in enforcing return orders, often in the face of harsh public criticism, particularly in three high-profile, non-U.S. Hague return cases.  Judicial delays are still common, but this new awareness of the need for effective enforcement represents a significant step forward by the Austrian Government. 

There were no new cases opened during the reporting year of children abducted from the United States to Austria; however, the Austrian Government has maintained consistent communication with the U.S. Central Authority and the U.S. Embassy on general Hague compliance matters.  We hope future U.S. cases will be accorded the same high level of commitment as recent non-U.S. cases have been receiving.

COLOMBIA 

As in last year’s report, the United States continues to view Colombia as noncompliant in its implementation of the Hague Convention.  Previously mentioned systemic problems, particularly with respect to judicial processing, have persisted.  Court jurisdiction over Hague cases remains unclear in practice, despite a Constitutional Court ruling in 2002 that addressed jurisdiction.  This lack of clarity creates lengthy delays in case processing; in some instances, cases have remained pending for years.  A key component in the effective application of the Convention is courts’ willingness and ability to hear and issue a decision on Convention applications expeditiously.  Delays are also caused when judges routinely order home studies or psychological evaluations.  These inquiries, unless part of a carefully circumscribed inquiry in response to a taking parent’s assertion of an exception to return under the Convention’s Article 13(b), are inappropriate in the context of a Hague proceeding since they tend to go to the merits of custody, and are properly left to the courts of the country of habitual residence.  It does not appear that Colombian judges are receiving specialized training in the Hague Convention.  A review of the Office of Children’s Issues’ records shows that very few abducted children return to the United States from Colombia despite the considerable volume of cases.

Colombian officials have begun to demonstrate a greater openness to discussing outstanding Hague-related problems with the Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues and with U.S. Embassy officials.  In March 2004, U.S. Ambassador Wood discussed abduction issues with Colombia’s President Uribe.  U.S. Embassy officials were actively involved in assisting Central Authority officials and legislators during the drafting of implementing legislation, which would clarify jurisdictional problems by directing Hague cases to the Family Court.  The legislation was passed by the Colombian House of Representatives on December 14, 2004, and must now be passed by the Senate.  U.S. Embassy officers have encouraged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take a more active role in managing interagency procedures in order to facilitate Hague case processing.  Assistant Secretary Harty has twice during the past year relayed our concerns to the Colombian Ambassador here in Washington. 

The Colombian Central Authority has become more responsive over the past year to requests for information and in providing assistance in welfare visits, and case processing is becoming more efficient.  However, the procedural issues within the court system discussed above continue to seriously impede case resolution.  We hope that engagement and dialogue between the United States and Colombia continues. 

ECUADOR 

Ecuador’s performance in implementing the Hague Convention was previously cited as “noncompliant” due to the lack of a functioning Central Authority and lack of progress in resolving cases.  The Government of Ecuador abolished its Central Authority in April 2003 and has still not appointed a new office to function as the Central Authority to fulfill its responsibilities under the Hague Convention, despite several requests from U.S. officials.  The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs raised this concern in meetings in Quito in September 2004.  The U.S. Embassy in Quito has repeatedly discussed this with the Ecuadorian officials and in Washington, the Office of Children’s Issues has discussed the matter with officials from the Embassy of Ecuador. 

Left-behind parents can still file Hague applications directly with Ecuadorian courts.  Without a functioning Central Authority, however, the Government of Ecuador has not been able to coordinate resources to work with law enforcement to locate missing children, to train judges hearing Hague cases, or to promote consistent, appropriate implementation of the Convention.  Ecuador has appointed a series of offices to serve temporarily as the Central Authority, but these offices have not been given any additional resources that would enable them to carry out their mandates.  The United States has sent two diplomatic notes to the Government of Ecuador with requests that a permanent Central Authority be designated, and asking for updates on our unresolved cases.

HONDURAS 

The United States continues to view Honduras as noncompliant due to its ongoing failure to carry out its obligations under the Hague Convention.  Honduras lacks a functioning Central Authority; although IHNFA, the Honduran Agency for Children and Families, is the government agency designated as the Honduran Central Authority, it has not set up an office nor appointed any staff to handle Hague Abduction Convention issues.  No progress has been made in any abduction cases forwarded from the U.S. Central Authority.  Although the Hague Convention has been in effect between the United States and Honduras since 1994, the Honduran Government refused to accept Hague Convention cases for ten years because the Honduran Congress had not ratified the Convention.  In early 2004, the Honduran Congress ratified the Hague Convention, thus resolving this longstanding deficiency.

Over the past year, the Department of State has seen no improvements in the Government of Honduras’ implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention.  The Honduran Central Authority remains dysfunctional.  A small office was designated to handle Hague matters for a brief period, but this office was soon disbanded.  There are no judicial training or education programs to prepare judges who hear Hague cases.  Even though the Convention has been ratified, Hague applications still are not being forwarded to the courts. 

U.S. Embassy officials continue to press the Honduran Government to establish a functioning Central Authority and to process outstanding cases expeditiously.  It appears that the government agency responsible for carrying out Central Authority functions is undergoing a reorganization and is looking into establishing new procedures for handling Hague cases.  We support any efforts the Government of Honduras makes that will bring it into compliance with the Hague Convention.

MAURITIUS 

The United States continues to view Mauritius as noncompliant in its implementation of the Hague Convention.  The Hague Convention entered into force for Mauritius in 1993.  The United States accepted Mauritius’ accession in the same year, creating reciprocal obligations between the U.S. and Mauritius under the treaty.  Mauritius failed, however, to put in place domestic implementing legislation until October 2000.  This failure created lengthy delays for the two Hague cases forwarded by the U.S. Central Authority to Mauritius (one in 1998 and one in 1999).  Although both abductions took place years after the treaty entered into force between the United States and Mauritius, the Mauritian Supreme Court, in June 2004, six years after the initial filing of the Hague application, decided in the first case to deny the application for return on the grounds that no domestic implementing legislation was in effect at the time the application was filed (1998). 

It is the Department’s view that this decision places Mauritius in violation of its obligations to the United States under the Hague Convention.  Article 35 of the Hague Convention obliges signatory countries to apply the Convention to all abductions occurring after entry into force of the treaty between the U.S. and Mauritius. 

In addition to making our complaints known to the Government of Mauritius regarding the way in which this case was handled, the Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Mauritius are also concerned that the June decision by the Supreme Court will be used as a precedent for the second U.S. case, which is scheduled to be heard by the court in June 2005. 

Removal of Mauritius from the category of noncompliant countries will require concrete action to resolve both these cases and any future cases consistently with Mauritius’ Convention obligations.  The first case discussed above is not listed in Attachment “A” as one of the cases unresolved after 18 months.  The Department believes such a listing would be misleading because, while we do not believe Mauritius is in compliance with its obligations and we are not satisfied with the outcome of the case, the case has been resolved in the sense that the judiciary has completed its action.   

PANAMA 

The Department has cited Panama’s compliance problems in previous editions of this report.  After making progress in 2003 in its handling of its Hague responsibilities (passage of new legislation, training for judges, and good communication from the Central Authority), in 2004 Panama’s performance deteriorated and it once again demonstrated systemic problems with Hague Convention compliance. 

The Panamanian Central Authority (PCA) has not processed Hague applications expeditiously, and communication with the Office of Children’s Issues (CI) has been inconsistent.  In the only case in which a decision was actually rendered during the reporting period, the PCA did not inform CI that the left-behind parent lost the case.  CI learned of the case’s outcome six months after the decision was rendered only by contacting the U.S. family of the left-behind parent.  Since then, CI has attempted repeatedly to contact the PCA to learn more about the case outcome, but has received no response. 

The failure of Panamanian authorities to locate children continues to create enormous and unnecessary delays in resolving cases, and we have not seen any steps being taken to remedy the situation.  On the contrary, in at least two cases, U.S. consular staff provided the PCA with detailed information concerning the whereabouts of abducted children, and still there was no action on the part of the PCA to investigate and confirm the locations of these children so that the Hague applications could move forward to the courts. 

We also have serious concerns in the area of judicial performance.  The huge backlogs of cases that are endemic to the Panamanian court system have created lengthy delays in Hague proceedings.  In some cases it takes months for a hearing date to be set, and in one case no date has been set despite the fact that the Hague application was filed over a year ago.  Panamanian authorities have made no efforts to expedite the way in which courts handle Hague abduction cases.  Once Hague cases do come to court, judges commonly order psychological evaluations of the children and parents and generally approach cases as if they were custody cases, an approach which contradicts the objects of the Hague Abduction Convention.  Despite initial attempts to restrict Hague cases to a limited number of trained judges and courts, it seems cases are being filed in whatever courts are closest to the child’s location, and the judges who do sit on the appropriate courts change frequently, making it difficult for those courts to retain the experience that would enable Hague cases to be handled appropriately.  Although the PCA has stated that judges are being offered Hague Convention training, we have seen no positive effects from this training on case processing or decisions.

TURKEY 

Hague applications for the return of abducted children from Turkey continue to experience the same systemic problems that were cited in the last report.  Cases move very slowly through the courts and can take years to resolve.  It appears that few judges or lawyers are familiar with the Convention or understand it well enough to implement it effectively.  For example, Hague cases are often treated as custody cases and home studies are frequently ordered.  Turkish officials have consistently been unable to locate abducted children.  New legislation implementing the Hague Convention has still not been enacted, although the Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting the legislation.

Developments since the end of this reporting period, however, are encouraging.  Turkey has consolidated abduction cases into new family courts, which are more familiar with all aspects of family law, including the Hague Convention.  This consolidation should help to move cases along through the courts more rapidly.  The Turkish Parliament also passed legislation to criminalize parental child abduction.  Once the new law takes effect in April 2005, Turkish police officials will have more authority to investigate and locate missing children.  Turkish judges and prosecutors throughout the country participated in a series of training sessions on the Hague Abduction Convention sponsored by the European Union in order to gain greater familiarization with the principles and mechanisms of the Convention.

During this reporting period, a child was ordered returned to the United States when an appeal court overturned a lower court decision.  This case had been marked by repeated hearings and delays.  Throughout the entire process, the U.S. Ambassador, Deputy Chief of Mission, and Consular Chief repeatedly pressed for resolution of the case consistent with the Convention during meetings with appropriate senior Turkish officials, including the Ministers and the Under Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Justice, and the Turkish Central Authority.

U.S. Embassy and Department of State officials have worked closely with the Government of Turkey over the past year on matters related to the Hague Convention:  encouraging proper treaty implementation, inquiring into the status of cases, delivering demarches, etc.  It is crucial that the Government of Turkey sustain the momentum needed to fully implement the Hague Convention and carry out its obligations under the Convention.  In particular, we hope to see implementing legislation passed as soon as possible. 

Countries Not Fully Compliant 

CHILE

Chile has not been cited in previous Compliance Reports.  Key to the Department’s finding that Chile is not fully compliant this year is our observation of significant problems in Chilean judicial performance.  There is evidence that Chilean courts favor mothers and Chilean nationals over foreign left behind parents.  In addition, Chilean courts consistently handle Hague return cases more as custody determinations than as decisions regarding wrongful removal and habitual residence of the child, in clear contradiction of the letter and spirit of the Convention.  Psychological or social evaluations are routinely conducted, in most cases in the absence of any evidence of risk or harm to the child.  Such evaluations, unless part of a carefully circumscribed inquiry in response to a taking parent’s assertion of exceptions to return under the Convention’s Article 13(b), are inappropriate in the context of a Hague proceeding, since they tend to go to the merits of custody, and they properly should be left to the courts of the country of habitual residence.  Chile is also a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Chilean courts seem to be using this Convention as a rationale for introducing an examination of a broad range of custody-related issues into Hague cases.   The appeal decisions in two cases were egregious enough to prompt the Chilean Central Authority (CCA) to file a complaint with the Chilean Supreme Court alleging that the appeal judges abused their judicial discretion.  The U.S. has raised its concerns about Chilean judicial performance several times over the past year, including in three demarches to the Government of Chile.  Then-U.S. Ambassador Brownfield raised these issues in discussions with Chilean government leaders. 

The CCA has functioned well over the reporting period and has maintained consistent communication with the Department of State.  CCA officials are aware of the problems in judicial performance noted above.  U.S. Embassy officers are exploring with the CCA the possibility of jointly sponsored training for Chilean judges on the Convention.

GREECE 

The U.S. Central Authority considers Greece to be “not fully compliant” with the Hague Abduction Convention due to two grave concerns in the area of judicial performance: lengthy court delays, and a consistent pattern of deciding Hague cases based on custodial matters and not on the merits of the Hague application, which has led to an alarmingly low rate of return decisions.

As noted in last year’s Compliance Report, Hague case processing in Greece continues to be characterized by long delays.  Of particular concern is the long period of time that elapses between a hearing and notification of the court’s decision.  In many cases, it has taken as long as six to twelve months before a judge’s decision is communicated to either the left-behind parent or the U.S. Central Authority.  These lengthy delays violate Article 11 of the Convention requiring the expediting of proceedings, and ultimately worsen the impact from the abduction on the children involved.

Furthermore, rather than restricting their analysis to the matters of habitual residence and wrongful removal as required by the Hague Convention, courts in Greece exhibit a clear and consistent tendency to determine matters of custody in the course of Hague proceedings.  This problem is worsened by a pattern of nationalistic preference and inappropriate considerations of the home environment (including the benefits to the child of living surrounded by his or her Greek extended family).  Over the last review period, Greek courts failed to order a single return to the U.S.  Greek courts frequently accept taking parents’ claims that the left-behind parent was abusive or generally unfit to be a parent without clear evidence in support of these assertions.  Courts do not fully investigate these claims or consider alternative methods – such as the availability of social services – to protect the child and the taking parent so that a return can be ordered and custody can be properly determined in the child’s country of habitual residence.

Institutionally, the legal framework in Greece seems to support the necessary mechanisms for the Hague Convention to function effectively.  The Convention has force of law and has primacy over domestic law; first instance courts can hear Hague cases under expedited procedures (provisional or “emergency” measures); and enforcement mechanisms exist.  Despite the legal status of the Convention, however, U.S. case experience over the last few years indicates that Greek courts consistently find ways of circumventing the Convention and, using expansive interpretations of the allowable defenses, are extremely reluctant to order children to leave Greece and return to their country of habitual residence.  Since 1997, of the twelve applications provided by the U.S. to the Greek Central Authority, two have resulted in orders for return, while Greek courts have rejected returns in ten other cases.  Other countries have reported similar trends on returns from Greece.

MEXICO 

In the last report, the Department found Mexico to be noncompliant with the Convention due to systemic problems, including slow case handling, lack of progress in resolving cases, and inability to locate children.  Mexico continues to be the destination country of the greatest number of children abducted from the United States or wrongfully retained outside the United States by parents or other relatives.  Over the recent reporting period, the Department has seen some notable improvements in the performance of the Mexican Central Authority (MCA).  The MCA forwards Hague applications to judges much more expeditiously than before; whereas previously delays of 3-6 months were common, cases are now being forwarded to the courts as early as 4-8 weeks after being received.  MCA responsiveness to inquiries from the U.S. Central Authority has also improved.  The Office of Children’s Issues is now in regular (weekly and at times daily) contact with the MCA.  Mexican authorities and judges participated in various training opportunities and judicial conferences co-sponsored by the Department of State.  This training appears to be having a positive effect.  Over the past year we have seen the highest number of court-ordered returns from Mexico to the United States of any reporting period.

Many of the problems cited in the past do persist, however.  Our greatest concern remains Mexico’s inability to locate missing children or taking parents.  In some cases, finding them takes years.  Though the MCA has begun to work more closely with the various branches of local law enforcement, including Interpol, we have not observed a substantial change in the frequency with which children are found.   Also of serious concern are lengthy court delays, especially due to the excessive use of a special Constitutional appeal process (the “amparo”), which can block Convention proceedings almost indefinitely. 

Delays are also due to the ability of Mexican appellate courts to reconsider factual determinations made by a lower court.  These case delays could be dealt with through the passage of implementing legislation incorporating Convention procedures and obligations, something that the Department of State has urged Mexico to do; we have seen no steps taken in this direction.  In addition, Mexico’s record on enforcement of judicial orders for return is mixed.  Although some mechanisms do exist to enforce court orders, they are not utilized consistently.  Finally, we continue to see Hague cases mishandled as custody cases rather than focusing on securing the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained abroad. 

We have made numerous appeals to the Mexican Government to invest greater funding and attention towards international child abduction-related issues, including strengthening the MCA, offering more training for judges, and allocating more resources for locating children.  The U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Mexico have worked closely throughout the year with Mexican officials and judges to explain roles and obligations under the Hague Convention.  Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty has repeatedly raised USG concerns over Mexico’s compliance problems with senior Mexican officials, including during the November 2004 Binational Commission meetings and during Secretary of State Rice’s first trip to Mexico in March 2005.  Mexican judges participated in Department-sponsored training and conferences, including a December 2004 Latin American Judicial Seminar, at which judges from 19 countries in the hemisphere shared experience and worked through cases studies using Hague principles.  Nevertheless, the MCA has not taken a sufficient lead in broadening the amount of training offered within its borders to judges.  While the Department is pleased at the progress seen since last year’s report, there remains considerable room for improvement.

Countries of Concern

HUNGARY 

The Department of State continues to see significant problems in communicating with the Hungarian Central Authority (HCA) and with adjudication of Hague cases in Hungary.  The HCA has been slow to respond to requests from the Department for information, sometimes taking weeks or months to answer.  Further, the HCA does not have regular, structured judicial education for Hungarian judges; it states that it provides training services when requested.  Hungarian judges consistently attempt to make custodial determinations in Hague cases, which is inappropriate in the context of a Hague proceeding, since such issues are properly left to the courts of the country of habitual residence.

Two recent cases illustrate our concerns with case processing in Hungary.  In one case, the Supreme Court overturned a return order on the grounds that separation of the child from his half-sibling would constitute serious and irreparable psychological damage to the child.  In another case, an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling against the return of the children on the grounds that the children were too young to be separated from their mother and that the mother could not support herself in the U.S.  We do not believe that either of these decisions reflect the spirit of the Hague Convention, the intention of which is to narrowly limit the range of exceptions to return allowed under Article 13(b).  Although the first case was appealed to the Supreme Court, this final appeal was not allowed in the second case.  The HCA has acknowledged that the decision in the second case was not a good one.

Historically, the number of U.S. cases submitted to Hungary has been very small, and as of March 2005, there are no open U.S. cases in Hungary.  Nevertheless, recent case experience suggests that the Hague process may not be functioning properly in Hungary.  The U.S. Central Authority and the U.S. Embassy will continue to monitor the treatment of any future applications for return in Hungary.

POLAND 

The U.S. Central Authority continues to see problems in the way Hague cases are handled in Poland.  Courts routinely order psychological evaluations and home studies.  Locating missing children is still a significant problem, in part because it appears that Polish law limits the ways in which Polish law enforcement can offer assistance.  In one U.S. case a taking parent in hiding was able to protest a return order in court while also collecting child support payments from the government.  This situation indicates that institutionally there is a disturbing lack of coordination among local law enforcement, the Polish Central Authority, and social welfare agencies.  In Poland, international parental kidnapping is not a criminal offense as long as the taking parent retains parental rights, limiting the involvement of local law enforcement to search for children hidden by the taking parent and limiting the use of the law enforcement tools of provisional arrest and extradition of the taking parent. 

We understand that the examination of home environments by Polish courts is often at the demand of attorneys who represent taking parents in these cases and invoke Article 13(b).  The Polish procedure does limit the number of courts that can hear Hague cases in an attempt to allow judges to develop Hague expertise.  However, Polish law does not permit courts to consider resources for child welfare and protection in the country of habitual residence when asked to consider the grave risk defense.  We hope that recent EU legislation (“the Brussels II bis”) will allow courts to order a return if the resources in the Contracting State are available to address concerns regarding a child’s welfare.  In addition, we are not aware of any institutionalized training opportunities available to Polish attorneys which would assist them in improving their understanding of the Hague Convention and its practice. 

Officials from the Department of State in Washington and the U.S. Embassy in Poland continue to raise compliance issues and individual abduction cases with high-ranking officials from the Polish Government through diplomatic notes, formal demarches, and ongoing communications with the Polish Central Authority.  Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty regularly raises the issue during bilateral meetings with her Polish counterpart. 

ROMANIA 

The Department of State has noted some improvements in the performance of the Romanian Central Authority over the past year, especially with respect to the level of responsiveness to requests for status updates and case information.  Hague cases continue to face lengthy court delays, although there have been some improvements in recent months.  Many of the problems cited in the last report continued in 2004, especially the use of psychological evaluations, an apparent lack of familiarity with the Hague Convention that results in judges and attorneys treating cases as custody determinations, and judicial determinations of resettlement that result because of cases languishing in the Romanian court system.  Delays in case processing on the part of a foreign government should not penalize children or left-behind parents.  The burden of proof lies on the taking parent to prove that the child is in fact re-habituated, and the child should still be ordered returned if the taking parent cannot demonstrate that the child is now integrated into that culture in such a way that his/her habitual residence has changed. 

Romania passed Hague Convention implementing legislation in September 2004.  This legislation should improve Hague case processing, particularly because it centralizes the hearing of Hague cases in family courts, allowing the development of judicial expertise.  Under the provisions of this new law, Hague abduction cases are to be tried in the Child and Family Department of the Bucharest Court by family law judges who are trained in the provisions of the Convention.  The law became effective on December 27, 2004.  Pending cases have been or are in the process of being transferred to the new court.  The Ministry of Justice is in the process of drafting internal regulations for the processing of Hague Convention cases according to the new law.  The Department does have some concerns about the consistency of specific articles of the implementing law with the Hague Convention.  For example, the mandated involvement of psychologists in all cases raises concerns, as psychological reports can delay decisions and inevitably go to the merits of custody.  Since the implementing legislation was passed at the end of this reporting period, we will be alert to the effects the new legislation might have on pending and future U.S. Hague cases.

SWITZERLAND 

Last year the Department found Switzerland to be not fully compliant in this report because of concerns with lengthy court delays.  Swiss authorities have made concerted efforts to address, on an institutional basis, many of the problems cited in previous Hague Convention compliance reports.  Switzerland has a federal system of government with powerful and independent cantonal governments.  Federal level authorities, including the Swiss Central Authority, are cooperative and responsive, even if their power and influence over cantonal institutions are limited as a result of the federal structure.  That said, courts and officials at all levels of Swiss government have demonstrated the seriousness with which they take their obligations stemming from the Hague Convention, and efforts have been made to centralize practices regarding international child abduction.  Although the U.S. Central Authority did not submit any Hague applications to Switzerland for the return of children last year, the Swiss Central Authority did in fact process many cases from other countries.  The rate of returns from Switzerland in these non-U.S. cases has been very high; furthermore, Swiss courts have demonstrated their willingness to order returns in very difficult cases, often against a backdrop of hostile public opinion or media outcries.  It is our understanding that when a Hague decision has been made in one court, that decision is valid and enforceable throughout the country and the case cannot be easily re-opened.  The Department will continue to monitor Swiss compliance on the basis of experience with U.S. cases that occur in the future. 

THE BAHAMAS 

Over the past year there have been improvements in the level of assistance and responsiveness from the Bahamian Central Authority (BCA) to requests for case status updates.  Recently, Bahamian Government officials met with representatives of the Office of Children’s Issues to discuss how Hague cases are handled in The Bahamas.

We have two serious procedural concerns over Hague Convention implementation, however.  Our first concern regards legalization requirements.  The Bahamas requires authentification or certification of documents submitted by left-behind parents, including certified copies of the laws of the originating jurisdiction, notarial authorizations, and apostilles on foreign decisions.  This practice is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Hague Abduction Convention, which declares that states need not make recourse to specific procedures for proof of a law of the requesting state or for the recognition of foreign decisions. 

Secondly, we have concerns about the required affidavit process.  While the BCA is concerned that affidavits be in the correct format prior to submission to the courts, the process that applicants need to go through, including drafting the affidavit in support of the application, sending the draft for vetting to the BCA, returning the affidavit to the applicant for notarized signature, and resubmitting the notarized affidavit to the BCA, is cumbersome and can potentially create lengthy delays.

The delays that can be caused by these extraordinary requirements contravene the Convention’s Article 2 requirement to use the “most expeditious procedures available.”  Such delays have the potential to cause significant harm to all parties to the dispute, especially the children.

 

Attachment A - Unresolved Return Cases 

Section 2803 (a)(4) requests “[d]etailed information on each unresolved case described in paragraph (1) and on actions taken by the Department of State to resolve each such case, including specific actions taken by the United States chief of mission in the country to which the child is alleged to have been abducted.”

The information requested under this section is provided in Attachment A.

Encouraging Use of the Convention

Section 2803 (a)(5) requests “information on efforts by the Department of State to encourage other countries to become signatories to the Convention.”

The Department avails itself of appropriate opportunities that arise in bilateral contacts to persuade other countries of the advantages that would derive from becoming parties to the Convention.  The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs consistently raises the Convention in talks with foreign officials on other bilateral consular matters.  The Department maintains a library of talking points and materials for its overseas posts to use in explaining to foreign governments the advantages of adhering to the Convention.

When a country accedes to the Convention, the Department does not automatically accept it as a Convention partner.  The Department assesses whether the country has established the necessary legal and institutional framework for carrying out its Convention responsibilities.  In 2004, the U.S. completed its assessments of Bulgaria and Uruguay and accepted their accessions.  Assessments are currently underway of all other countries whose accessions to the Convention have not yet been recognized by the U.S.

The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs formally discussed the Convention this year with several countries, including Egypt, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, which have not yet acceded to the Convention.  States that have recently acceded to the Convention include the Dominican Republic (November 2004). 

Enforcement Problems 

Section 2803 (a)(6) requests “[a] list of the countries that are parties to the Convention in which, during the reporting period, parents who have been left-behind in the United States have not been able to secure prompt enforcement of a final return or access order under a Hague proceeding, of a United States custody, access, or visitation order, or of an access or visitation order by authorities in the country concerned, due to the absence of a prompt and effective method for enforcement of civil court orders, the absence of a doctrine of comity, or other factors.”

The Convention directs contracting states to ensure that rights of custody and/or access are effectively respected.  The Convention requires that other countries recognize U.S. custody rights, including rights of access and visitation, to the extent that such rights provide the basis for applications and the rationale for return.  Adjudication of a return case by a foreign court under the Convention is not a decision whether to enforce a custody order.

In the context of a return application, the Convention specifically limits consideration of custody matters to the question of whether the applying parent was actually exercising rights of custody (under the applicable law in the child’s country of habitual residence) at the time the child was wrongfully removed to or retained in another country.  Our evaluation of compliance with the Convention’s requirements concerning the return of abducted or wrongfully retained children and corresponding enforcement issues does not, therefore, evaluate the extent to which U.S. court orders are recognized and enforced as such. 

FRANCE 

France has largely been effective in returning children abducted to France back to the United States, and until this past year, we did not discern a pattern of system-wide enforcement difficulty.  In two cases this year, however, left-behind parents were severely delayed in enforcing return orders, which led to increased bilateral consultations and diplomatic intervention to seek their resolution.  These cases occurred in entirely different parts of the country and involved different officials.  One case became highly visible in the media, and six months passed after a Hague return order was issued before the case was finally resolved.  The other case, however, remains unresolved as of this writing.  In the first case, the taking parent was able to avoid enforcement by refusing to comply with enforcement officials and by concealing the whereabouts of the child.  In the second, the prosecutor has taken no action since a return order was issued in March 2004.  The problems experienced in 2004 with respect to enforcement in France serve as a cautionary note that even in countries where Hague cases are handled well and frequently result in returned children, enforcement issues can and do occur. 

GERMANY 

Since 2000, Germany has demonstrated strong performance regarding applications for the return of children to the U.S.  Despite this, we continue to observe unwillingness on the part of some judges, law enforcement personnel and others within the child welfare system in Germany to vigorously enforce some German orders granting parental access in both Convention and non-Convention access cases.  American parents often obtain favorable court judgments regarding access and visitation, but the German courts' decisions can remain unenforced for years.  A taking parent can defy an access order with relative impunity.  As a result, a number of U.S. parents still face problems obtaining access to and maintaining a positive parent-child relationship with their children who remain in Germany.

In one particularly high-profile access case, the parent living in Germany, a non-German until early 2004 with physical custody of two children, defied valid German court orders permitting visitation by the U.S. parent.  The parent in Germany monitored all contacts between the children and other persons and prevented the children from meeting or communicating with the U.S. parent for almost eight years.  U.S. officials sought assistance from German officials at all levels.  In a breakthrough in early 2004, following years of sustained efforts by the German-U.S. bi-national working group, the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, and the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, local authorities temporarily removed the children from the foreign parent's care and have assisted in reacquainting the children with the U.S. parent after their prolonged separation.  In December 2004 the foreign parent was again able to thwart German officials by removing the children from a court-ordered group home and again curtail access by the U.S. parent.  The court order removing the children from the foreign parent's custody was later temporarily suspended, and they remain in her care.  German and American officials continue to cooperate toward a resolution of this vexing case. 

GREECE 

Based on U.S. Central Authority experience, when adjudicating Hague cases, Greek courts routinely ignore the existence of prior U.S. custody orders that granted custodial rights to left-behind parents and nearly always rule in favor of the taking parent.  Furthermore, taking parents have been successful in preventing left-behind parents who were granted access rights in Greece from obtaining visitation with their children.

ISRAEL 

The Israeli Central Authority has been cooperative and responsive in its dealing with the U.S. Central Authority.  However, court orders for return have not been executed because of excessive provisions (undertakings) in the orders requiring guarantees regarding the taking parents’ immigration or employment status upon return to the United States with the child or regarding prepayment of financial support beyond the means of the left-behind parent.  Additionally, in one long-standing case, a failure to locate the child and the taking parent (despite evidence of the child’s whereabouts) has prevented the enforcement of the order for the child’s return to the United States.

POLAND 

Poland’s domestic legal framework does not permit the consistent, effective enforcement of orders for return.  As a practical matter, a taking parent who flees or hides a child in defiance of a final return order cannot be compelled to comply with the order unless the parent is first stripped of his/her parental rights. 

SPAIN 

Spanish authorities recognize the importance of returning abducted children to the United States, but law enforcement officials continue to have problems locating children, as in the case discussed in Attachment A of this report.  Without improving their capabilities to locate children, Spanish authorities will continue to have problems enforcing orders if the taking parent decides to go into hiding, as occurred in a case discussed in last year’s report.

SWEDEN 

Sweden’s significantly improved record on enforcing return orders has been noted in previous Compliance Reports.  Enforcement problems, however, remain a barrier to access.  Arrest or physical removal of the child from the violator's care is rarely used, and Sweden does not have the equivalent of a “contempt of court” mechanism.   In the Department of State’s experience, Swedish courts have enforced very few of the access rulings favorable to American fathers.

SWITZERLAND 

Although Switzerland has a range of available legal mechanisms for enforcing court orders for return or for access, in an effort to protect children and their relationships with both parents, Swiss authorities are generally reluctant to use any coercive means.  This reluctance creates conditions that make it easier for taking parents to consider evading compliance with court orders.  Also, the independent nature of each canton creates an opportunity for complicating enforcement of orders.  Although cantons generally will respect decisions issued in other cantons, given the different procedures in place in each canton, a taking parent can delay the enforcement of an order by moving to another canton where the left behind parent may then have to formally request that their return or access order be enforced.

Non-governmental Organizations 

Section 2803 (a)(7) requests “[a] description of the efforts of the Secretary of State to encourage the parties to the Convention to facilitate the work of non-governmental organizations within their countries that assist parents seeking the return of children under the Convention.”

The U.S. Central Authority works in close partnership with non-governmental organizations, particularly the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), to promote education and training and to resolve cases of international child abduction.  The degree of cooperation continues to expand.  The International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC's international arm, has run a series of training programs targeted at law enforcement officers over the last year in such places as Croatia, Romania, and Hong Kong, among others.  This training, which includes a component on locating missing children, addresses a particular concern we have had with many of our treaty partners.

International Social Services (ISS) works with U.S. and foreign officials and parents to facilitate contact with and return of children.  ISS currently has national branch offices or bureaus in 146 countries (including most of our Hague Convention partner countries) to assist families who are separated, including separation resulting from child abduction.  When appropriate, the Department and U.S. consular officials refer parents to ISS for additional support or work directly with ISS.  In some cases, ISS has been actively involved in arranging escorts for returning children and in working to establish better communication between parents or between a parent and child. 

In our diplomatic efforts, the Department of State has encouraged Hague Abduction Convention parties to utilize the services and expertise of local NGOs, particularly in countries trying to develop or expand their capacity to more effectively implement the Convention.

 

 

---