Practice Relating to Rule 161. International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings
In 1996, in a diplomatic communiqué issued in reaction to the events linked with the operation by the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru (MRTA) at the residence of the Japanese ambassador in Peru, and to the release of two Peruvians whose extradition was requested, the President of Uruguay declared:
The release of the Peruvians Luis Samaniego and Silvia Gora, decided by the Third Criminal Appeals Court, was exclusively the act of the Judicial Power … [The appellate court] upheld the same criterion applied in previous court decisions concerning the application of the 1889 Montevideo Treaty on International Penal Law.
The President recognized the limitations of the extradition treaties, concluded over a century ago, that had governed Uruguay’s relations with third parties in this respect. He stated that the Executive Power had brought these rules up to date by signing new extradition treaties in 1996 with Argentina, Chile, Spain, France and Mexico, and by pursuing negotiations with other countries. These treaties excluded terrorism from the category of political offences.
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
31.1. The Oriental Republic of Uruguay must fully cooperate with the International Criminal Court and comply with requests for cooperation and assistance that may arise in accordance with the Rome Statute …
31.2. The inexistence of procedures in the internal order may not be invoked to justify non-compliance with cooperation requests from the International Criminal Court.
31.3. The existence of facts which the International Criminal Court imputes to a person or the culpability of the requested person may not be discussed.