What country has the most favorable status of forces agreement with the United States?

Question

In many host nations, especially those with a large foreign military presence such as South Korea and Japan, the SOFA can become a major political issue following crimes allegedly committed by servicemembers. This is especially true when the incidents involve crimes such as robbery, murder, manslaughter or sex crimes, especially when the charge is defined differently in the two nations. For example, in 2002 in South Korea, a U.S. military AVLB bridge-laying vehicle on the way to the base camp after a training exercise accidentally killed two girls. Under the SOFA, a United States military court martial tried the soldiers involved. The panel found the act to be an accident and acquitted the service members of negligent homicide, citing no criminal intent or negligence. The U.S. military accepted responsibility for the incident and paid civil damages. This resulted in widespread outrage in South Korea, demands that the soldiers be retried in a South Korean court, the airing of a wide variety of conspiracy theories, and a backlash against the local expatriate community.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement

What country has the most favorable status of forces agreement with the United States? I was reading this article, but it didn't provide the particularities of each nation and it didn't say which country had the most favorable status of forces agreement with the United States. By favorable, I mean that favors the host country and gives as much power over to the host country when a servicemember from the United States commits any crime in the host country.

Answer 1

According to one commentator, the [1951] NATO SOFA (which the US part of) is probably it overall. Just checking what it says about crimes seems to fit too:

Article VII 1. b. the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

However the US rarely deploys troops in sizeable numbers to a NATO country without some additional agreements, so this answer may not be entirely satisfactory as it's not about a bilateral (but rather multilateral) agreement.

Also, even that article VII is rather long, and if one peruses it, other paragraphs add exceptions to 1. b., e.g.

3. In case where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

a. The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or of a civilian component in relation to

i. offences solely against the property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that State or of a dependent;

ii. offences arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

FWTW, a somewhat obscure point is that the NATO SOFA nowadays covers al PfP (Partnership of Peace) countries [by the latter agreements], not just the core NATO members.