United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Extradition Treaty

United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992)

Was the abduction a violation of the 1978 Extradition Treaty with Mexico?

Article 9 - "extradite or prosecute" Was the treaty designed to be

comprehensive, or did the parties "silently reserve[] the right to resort to self help whenever they deenl force more expeditious than legal process"?

What materials does the Court look to interpret the Treaty?

* Language * Historical context * Ker precedent * 1881 letter fronl Secretary of State James

Blaine * "the backdrop of customary international

law"








law"

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection


Did the abduction violate customary international law.?

Alvarez-Machain argued that it violated "the general principle of international law that one government n1ay not 'exercise its police power in the telTitory of another state. '"

Is that a principle of customary international law?

What are its sources? United Nations Charter, Article 2(4). OAS Charter, Aliicle 18. [Stevens cites The Apollon (1824), the

Restatement of Foreign Relations Law, and a South African case!]


Did the abduction violate customary international law.?

Alvarez-Machain argued that it violated "the general principle of international law that one government n1ay not 'exercise its police power in the telTitory of another state. '"


What are its sources? United Nations Charter, Article 2(4). OAS Charter, Aliicle 18. [Stevens cites The Apollon (1824), the



United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Was Chief Justice Rehnquist correct in

characterizing the customary-international-law norm prohibiting the exercise of jurisdiction in the territories of other countries as a norm "with only the most general of international law 'I principles to support it"?

Compare Justice Story in The Apollon (1824):

"It would be monstrous to suppose that our revenue officers were authorized to enter into foreign ports and territories, for the purpose of seizing vessels which had offended against our laws. It cannot be presumed that Congress would voluntarily justify such a clear violation of the law of nations."

United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Was Chief Justice Rehnquist correct in

characterizing the customary-international-law norm prohibiting the exercise of jurisdiction in the territories of other countries as a norm "with only the most general of international law 'I principles to support it"?

Compare Justice Story in The Apollon (1824):

"It would be monstrous to suppose that our revenue officers were authorized to enter into foreign ports and territories, for the purpose of seizing vessels which had offended against our laws. It cannot be presumed that Congress would voluntarily justify such a clear violation of the law of nations."


Is United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Consistent with:

* United States v. Toscanino (2d Cir. 1974)?

~':Cook v. United States (1933)?

Does Action by U.S. Officials Apprehending a Person (or VesseV in Violation ofa Treaty Deprive a U.S. Court of Jurisdiction?

* Paquete Habana?

* Yunis?

Is United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Consistent with:

* United States v. Toscanino (2d Cir. 1974)?

~':Cook v. United States (1933)?

Does Action by U.S. Officials Apprehending a Person (or VesseV in Violation ofa Treaty Deprive a U.S. Court of Jurisdiction?

* Paquete Habana?

* Yunis?



Was there a conflict between customary international law and a decision by the exec;utive branch, as in Garcia-Mir?


Was there a conflict between customary international law and a decision by the exec;utive branch, as in Garcia-Mir?


Alvarez-·Machain v. United States (9th Cir. 1996)

Persons working for the U. S . Drug Enforcement Agency seized Dr. AlvarezMachain (because of their view that he had assisted in the death of a DEA agent)~ tortured him, and brought him to the U.S.

U.S~ Supreme Court said in 1992 that U.S. courts had jurisdiction to prosecute him.

But the federal district court threw out the case because of inadequate evidence (December 1992).

He then brings a civil action for damages, using 42 U. S. C. se~ . 1_983, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Alvarez-·Machain v. United States (9th Cir. 1996)

Persons working for the U. S . Drug Enforcement Agency seized Dr. AlvarezMachain (because of their view that he had assisted in the death of a DEA agent)~ tortured him, and brought him to the U.S.

U.S~ Supreme Court said in 1992 that U.S. courts had jurisdiction to prosecute him.

But the federal district court threw out the case because of inadequate evidence (December 1992).

He then brings a civil action for damages, using 42 U. S. C. se~ . 1_983, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Torture Victim Protection Act.


Alvarez-Machain v. United States (9th Cir. 2001)

Dr. Alvarez brought an action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1350, against U.S. DEA agents and the United States for kidnaping and arbitrary detention.

Ninth Circuit rules that he has standing to recover under the A TCA because "statesponsored abduction violates customary norms of international human rights law."

Citing * U ni versal Declaration of Human Rights * American Convention on Human Rights, * International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights * American Declaration on the Rights and

Duties of Man * European Convention on Human Rights * African Charter on Human and People's

Rights


Dr. Alvarez brought an action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1350, against U.S. DEA agents and the United States for kidnaping and arbitrary detention.

Ninth Circuit rules that he has standing to recover under the A TCA because "statesponsored abduction violates customary norms of international human rights law."

Citing * U ni versal Declaration of Human Rights * American Convention on Human Rights, * International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights * American Declaration on the Rights and

Duties of Man * European Convention on Human Rights * African Charter on Human and People's

Rights



What is the proper level of damages?

Ninth Circuit ruled he could recover only for the time he was in Mexico, i.e., the time prior to his arraignment.

Good ruling?

District court awarded him $25,000. Fair?


What is the proper level of damages?

Ninth Circuit ruled he could recover only for the time he was in Mexico, i.e., the time prior to his arraignment.

Good ruling?

District court awarded him $25,000. Fair?


United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Did the abduction violate customary

international law? How does Rehnquist respond? "There are many ,actions which could be

taken by a nation that would violate this principle, including waging war, but it cannot seriously be contended an invasion of the United States by Mexico would violate the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations."

An "invasion of the United States by Mexico"?

Would it violate customary international law?

Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[r]espondent and his amici may be correct that respondent's abduction may be in violation of general intemationallaw principles. "

But he then he says that it "is a matter for the Executive Branch." Why?


international law? How does Rehnquist respond? "There are many ,actions which could be


An "invasion of the United States by Mexico"?


Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[r]espondent and his amici may be correct that respondent's abduction may be in violation of general intemationallaw principles. "




Did the abduction violate customary international law?

Alvarez-Machain argued that it violated "the general principle of international law that one government may not 'exercise its police power in the territory of another state. '"


What are its sources? United Nations Charter, Article 2(4). OAS Charter, Article 18. [Stevens cites The Apollon (1824), the



Did the abduction violate customary international law?

Alvarez-Machain argued that it violated "the general principle of international law that one government may not 'exercise its police power in the territory of another state. '"


What are its sources? United Nations Charter, Article 2(4). OAS Charter, Article 18. [Stevens cites The Apollon (1824), the






comprehensive, or did the parties "silently reserve[] the right to resort to self help whenever they deem force more expeditious than legal process"?


* Language * Historical context * Ker precedent * 1881 letter from Secretary of State James


law"




comprehensive, or did the parties "silently reserve[] the right to resort to self help whenever they deem force more expeditious than legal process"?


* Language * Historical context * Ker precedent * 1881 letter from Secretary of State James


law"



international law? How does Rehnquist respond? "There are many actions which could be


An "invasion of the United States by Mexico "?


Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[r]espondent and his amici nlay be correct that respondent's abduction may be in violation of general intemationallaw principles. "

But he then he says that it "is a nlatter for the Executive Branch." Why?






Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[r]espondent and his amici nlay be correct that respondent's abduction may be in violation of general intemationallaw principles. "

But he then he says that it "is a nlatter for the Executive Branch." Why?


, ,



Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction over a crin1inal defendant "abducted to the United States fron1 a nation with which it has an extradition treaty"?

"The District Court concluded that DEA agents were responsible for respondent's abduction, although they were not personally "Ifi' ~ involved in it." -

"DEA officials ... , through a contact in Mexico, offered to pay a reward and expenses in return for the delivery of respondent to the United States." (Emphasis added.)


Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction over a crin1inal defendant "abducted to the United States fron1 a nation with which it has an extradition treaty"?

"The District Court concluded that DEA agents were responsible for respondent's abduction, although they were not personally "Ifi' ~ involved in it." -

"DEA officials ... , through a contact in Mexico, offered to pay a reward and expenses in return for the delivery of respondent to the United States." (Emphasis added.)







Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[rJespondent and his an1ici may be correct that respondent's abduction .. D1ay be in violation of general international law principles."







Rehnquist acknowledges at the end of the opinion that "[rJespondent and his an1ici may be correct that respondent's abduction .. D1ay be in violation of general international law principles."




Was the extradition a violation of the 1978 Extradition Treaty with Mexico?





Blaine * "the backdrop of custonlary international

law"


Was the extradition a violation of the 1978 Extradition Treaty with Mexico?





Blaine * "the backdrop of custonlary international

law"


Do U.S. Courts Lose Jurisdiction Over Persons Arrested Illegally?

Does it matter whether the illegal arrest occurred in the United States or abroad?

Ker v. Illinois (1886) - Ker was forcibly abducted from Peru (but by a private bounty hunter, without U.S. government involvelnent). U.S. & Peru had an extradition treaty (but Peru did not object to the abduction).

Frisbie v. Collins (1952) - illegally arrested fronl one state and taken to another.

Do U.S. Courts Lose Jurisdiction Over Persons Arrested Illegally?

Does it matter whether the illegal arrest occurred in the United States or abroad?

Ker v. Illinois (1886) - Ker was forcibly abducted from Peru (but by a private bounty hunter, without U.S. government involvelnent). U.S. & Peru had an extradition treaty (but Peru did not object to the abduction).

Frisbie v. Collins (1952) - illegally arrested fronl one state and taken to another.



Was the 1978 Extradition Treaty ((selfexecuting" ?

Was it designed to create rights for individuals?

Or only rights for Mexico? Or only rights for the individual if Mexico

protests?

Did Mexico protest? Yes.


Was the 1978 Extradition Treaty ((selfexecuting" ?

Was it designed to create rights for individuals?

Or only rights for Mexico? Or only rights for the individual if Mexico

protests?

Did Mexico protest? Yes.


Documents

United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Extradition Treaty