An agreement on visiting forces resembles an agreement on the status of the armed forces, with the exception of the first, which only temporarily covers intervention forces in a country that does not reside there. An Agreement on the Status of the Armed Forces (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation that deploys military forces in that country. CANPAÉs are often included with other types of military agreements as part of a comprehensive security agreement. A CANAPÉ is not a safety device; it establishes the rights and privileges of foreign staff in a host country in order to support the greater security regime.  Under international law, a force status agreement differs from military occupation. A sofa should clarify the conditions under which the foreign army can operate. As a general rule, purely military issues, such as base location and access to facilities, are covered by separate agreements. A SOFA focuses more on legal issues related to military individuals and property. This may include issues such as entry and exit, tax obligations, postal services or the employment conditions of nationals of the host country, but the most controversial issues are the civil and criminal competences of bases and staff. In civil matters, SOFS provides for how civilian damage caused by the armed forces is determined and paid for. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision of the United States is that U.S.
courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a serving member against another serving member or by a serving member as part of his or her military duty, but the host country retains jurisdiction for other crimes.  The political issue of SOFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign bases on their soil and that calls for the renegotiation of SOFA are often linked to calls for a total withdrawal of foreign troops. Issues of different national practices may arise – while the United States and host countries in general agree on what constitutes a crime, many American observers believe that the host country`s judicial systems offer much lower protection than the United States and that the host country`s courts may be under pressure from the public to be found guilty; In addition, U.S. service members who are invited to send shipments abroad should not be forced to waive their rights under the Rights Act. On the other hand, observers of the host country who do not have a local equivalent of the law of rights often feel that these are irrelevant excuses for special treatment and resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during colonialism. A host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its members total immunity from prosecution by the Kyrgyz authorities for any crime, which goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans enter into their country`s couch with the United States.  in view of the humanitarian ceasefire agreement on the conflict in Darfur, signed on 8 April 2004 between the Government of Sudan, on the one hand, the Sudan People`s Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, on the other, and the Ceasefire Commission (CFC); Recalling the decision taken by the Peace Council and the Security Council on the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan at its 10th session in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on 25 May 2004, in which the Chair of the AU Commission is authorized to take all necessary measures to ensure effective monitoring of the Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, and calling on the parties to strengthen their full cooperation with the World Observer and the AU and to ensure their free movement in Darfur, the agreement signed on 28 May 2004 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between the Sudanese contracting parties on the modalities of setting up the ceasefire commission and sending