AN ARTICLE BY ABRAMOVSKY AND EAGLE (NCJ 54811) CRITICIZED THIS TREATY FOR RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS BECAUSE IT FAILS TO SAFEGUARD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR AMERICANS DURING FOREIGN TRIALS AND BECAUSE IT PERPETUATES DISPARITIES BETWEEN MEXICAN AND AMERICAN PENALTIES FOR SIMILAR CRIMES. THE CRITIQUE SUGGESTED THAT GREATER DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS IN MEXICAN PRISONS, THAT AMERICAN ATTORNEYS OR A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET UP TO INSURE AMERICAN RIGHTS DURING THE MEXICAN TRIALS, AND THAT THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE INSISTED UPON CONTROL OVER THE PRISONER UPON TRANSFER RATHER THAN AGREE TO CONTINUE THE MEXICAN PENALTY. THE CONTINUOUS DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS WHICH PRECEDED THE TREATY ARE TRACED. THESE EFFORTS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN CLOSING ONE OF THE MORE NOTORIOUS INSTITUTIONS, BUT THE LARGE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS INCARCERATED, THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY MEXICO HAS TO SPEND ON INCARCERATION FACILITIES, AND THE POLITICAL SITUATION ALL PREVENTED THESE EFFORTS FROM HAVING MUCH IMPACT. POLITICAL REALITIES WHICH MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL FOR AMERICAN DEFENDERS TO APPEAR IN MEXICAN COURTS ARE REVIEWED ALONG WITH PROBLEMS WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT AMERICANS NOT BE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL TO MEXICO. THE AMERICAN-MEXICAN TRANSFER TREATY IS SIMILAR TO EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STATES IN WHICH THE SENDING STATE RETAINS CONTROL OVER THE TRANSFERRED PRISONER. THERE ARE 73 FOOTNOTES CONTAINING REFERENCES, CASE CITATIONS, AND DISCUSSION. (GLR)