Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PIL/STATE IMMUNITY/1
There is no language in this treaty, or in any other treaty made by this Cas. 525; State v. Smith, 1 Bailey, 283, (1829;) State v. Brewster, 7 Vt.
country on the subject of extradition, of which we are aware, which says 118, (1835;) Dow's Case, 18 Pa. St. 37, (1851;) State v. Ross, 21 Iowa,
in terms that a party fleeing from the United States to escape 467, (1866;) The Richmond v. U. S., 9 Cranch, 102. However this may be,
punishment for crime becomes thereby entitled to an asylum in the the decision of that question is as much within the province of the state
country to which he has fled. Indeed, the absurdity of such a proposition court as a question of common law, or of the law of nations, of which that
would at once prevent the making of a treaty of that kind. It will not be court is bound to take notice,
for a moment contended that the government of Peru could not have
ordered Ker out of the country on his arrival, or at any period of his
It must be remembered that And, though we might or might not differ
residence there. If this could be done, what becomes of his right of
with the Illinois court on that subject, it is one in which we have no right
asylum?
to review their decision.
Nor can it be doubted that the government of Peru could, of its own
It must be remembered that this view of the subject does not leave the
accord, without any demand from the United States, have surrendered
prisoner, or the government of Peru, without remedy for his unauthorized
Ker to an agent of the state of Illinois, and that such surrender would
seizure within its territory. Even this treaty with that country provides for
have been valid within the dominions of Peru. It is idle, therefore, to claim
the extradition of persons charged with kidnaping, and, on demand from
that, either by express terms or by implication, there is given to a fugitive
Peru, Julian, the party who is guilty of it, could be surrendered, and tried
from justice in one of these countries any right to remain and reside in
in its courts for this violation of its laws. The party himself would probably
the other; and, if the right of asylum means anything, it must mean this.
not be without redress, for he could sue Julian in an action of trespass
The right of the government of Peru voluntarily to give a party in Ker's
and false imprisonment, and the facts set out in the plea would without
condition an asylum in that country is quite a different thing from the
doubt sustain the action. Whether h could recover a sum sufficient to
right in him to demand and insist upon security in such an asylum. The
justify the action would probably depend upon moral aspects of the case,
treaty, so far as it regulates the right of asylum at all, is intended to limit
which we cannot here consider. [119 U.S. 436, 445] We must therefore
this right in the case of one who is proved to be a criminal fleeing from
hold that, so far as any question in which this court can revise the
justice; so that, on proper demand and proceedings had therein, the
judgment of the supreme court of the state of Illinois is presented to us,
government of the country of the asylum shall deliver him up to the
the judgment must be affirmed.
country where the crime was committed. And to this extent, and to this
alone, the treaty does regulate or impose a restriction upon the right of
the government of the country of the asylum to protect the criminal from Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
removal therefrom.
Citation. 542 U.S. 692 (2004)
In the case before us, the plea shows that, although Julian went to Peru
with the necessary papers to procure the extradition of Ker under the Brief Fact Summary. Alvarez-Machain (P) argued he was detained
treaty, those papers remained in his pocket, and were never brought to against his will by bounty hunter and brought to the United States.
light in Peru; that no steps [119 U.S. 436, 443] were taken under them;
and that Julian, in seizing upon the person of Ker, and carrying him out of
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The abduction of a foreign national does not
the territory of Peru into the United States, did not act, nor profess to act,
amount to an arbitrary arrest within the meaning of the Universal
under the treaty. In fact, that treaty was not called into operation, was
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
not relied upon, was not made the pretext of arrest, and the facts show
Political Rights.
that it was clear case of kidnaping within the dominions of Peru, without
any pretense of authority under the treaty or from the government of the
United States. Facts. Alvarez-Machain (P) argued he was detained against his will by
bounty hunter and brought to the United States.
In the case of U. S. v. Rauscher, post, 234, (just decided, and considered
with this,) the effect of extradition proceedings under a treaty was very Issue. Does the abduction of a foreign national amount to an arbitrary
fully considered; and it was there held that when a party was duly arrest within the meaning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
surrendered, by proper proceedings, under the treaty of 1842 with Great and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Britain, he came to this country clothed with the protection which the
nature of such proceedings and the true construction of the treaty gave Held. No. The abduction of a foreign national does not amount to an
him. One of the rights with which he was thus clothed, both in regard to arbitrary arrest within the meaning of the Universal Declaration of
himself and in good faith to the county which had sent him here, was that Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
he should be tried for no other offense than the one for which he was Rights. Obligations as a matter of international law is not imposed by the
delivered under the extradition proceedings. If Ker had been brought to Declaration and while the Covenant binds the United States as a matter
this country by proceedings under the treaty of 1870-74 with Peru, it of international law, the U.S. ratified it on the express understanding that
seems probable, from the statement of the case in the record, that he it was not self-executing, and therefore did not itself create obligations
might have successfully pleaded that he was extradited for larceny, and that were enforceable in the federal courts.
convicted by the verdict of a jury of embezzlement; for the statement in
the plea is that the demand made by the president of the United States, Discussion. This case shows the concept of self-determination under
if it had been put in operation, was for an extradition for larceny, international law. No document can give rise to obligations as a matter of
although some forms of embezzlement are mentioned in the treaty as international law that does not expressly purport to do so, and there no
subjects of extradition. But it is quite a different case when the plaintiff in state which can be bound to any international pact without its consent.
error comes to this country in the manner in which he was brought here,
clothed with no rights which a proceeding under the treaty could have United States v. Alvarez-Machain
given him, and no duty which this country owes to Peru or to him under
the treaty. We think it very clear, therefore, that, in invoking the
jurisdiction of this court upon the ground that the prisoner was denied a Citation. 504 U.S. 655 (1992)
right conferred upon him by a treaty of the United States, he has failed to
establish the existence of any such right.[119 U.S. 436, 444] The Brief Fact Summary. Alvarez-Machain (D) abducted from Mexico for
question of how far his forcible seizure in another country, and transfer trial in the U.S. (P) by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents, contended
by violence, force, or fraud to this country, could be made available to that his abduction was illegal because of an extradition treaty between
resist trial in the state court for the offense now charged upon him, is one the United States (P) and Mexico.
which we do not feel called upon to decide; for in that transaction we do
not see that the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The presence of an extradition treaty
guaranty him any protection. There are authorities of the highest
between the United States and another country does not necessarily
respectability which hold that such forcible abduction is no sufficient
preclude obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction.
reason why the party should not answer when brought within the
jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense,
and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court. Among the Facts. Agents of the DEA abducted Alvarez-Machain (D) from his office in
authorities which support the proposition are the following: Ex parte Mexico because he was wanted in the U.S. (P) for alleged complicity in
Scott, 9 Barn. & C. 446, (1829;) Lopez & Sattler's Case, 1 Dearsl. & B. Cr. the torture-murder of a DEA agent. But by contending that his abduction
PIL/STATE IMMUNITY/2
violated a U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty, Alvarez (D) sought to dismiss
the indictment. His prayer was granted by the district court and the Government of USA vs Purganan
indictment was dismissed. The court of appeals affirmed while the U.S. G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002
Supreme Court granted review.
Facts:
This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of
Issue. Does the presence of an extradition treaty between the United Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion where the court held that Jimenez was
States and another country does not necessarily preclude obtaining a bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of
the extradition process.
citizen of that nation through abduction?
Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of
America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May
Held. (Rehnquist, C.J.) No. The presence of an extradition treaty between 2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as
the United States and another country does not necessarily preclude Extradition Case 01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez
was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District
obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction. It has been
Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15 April 1999.
established that abduction, in and of itself, does not invalidate
prosecution against a foreign national. The only question to be answered
is whether the abduction violates any extradition treaty that may be in Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an
effect between the U.S. (P) and the nation in which the abductee was to Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that Jimenezs
be found. The international law applies only to situations where no application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23 May 2001
extradition treaty exists, so it is irrelevant here. Since the extradition Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for
hearing on 5 June 2001. In that hearing, Jimenez manifested its
treaty does not prohibit an abduction as it occurred in this case, then it is
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the
not illegal. Reversed. accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest.
Dissent. (Stevens, J.). the majority opinion fails to distinguish between
acts of private citizens, which do not violate any treaty obligations and
After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their
conduct expressly authorized by the executive branch, which respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an
undoubtedly constitutes a fragrant violation of international law and a alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to
breach of the U.S. (P) treaty obligations. post bail in the amount of P100,000.
Discussion. Alvarez (D) lost this battle but won the war. In 1993, he was The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on 15 June
tried in Los Angeles. The trial judge Edward Rafeedie dismissed the case 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing
for lack of evidence at the close of the prosecution case. The judge used the issuance of warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary
some harsh language in his order, apparently believing the case should liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and
never have been brought. posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty
via the challenged Order dated 4 July 2001. Hence, this petition.
In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice Exceptions to the No Bail Rule
and hearing before warrantsfor their arrest can be issued? Equally
important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisionalliberty The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition
while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general, the answer to cases. However, the judiciary hasthe constitutional duty to curb grave
these two novel questions is No. The explanation of and the reasons abuse of discretion[68] and tyranny, as well as the power topromulgate
for, as well as the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision. The rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights.[69] Furthermore, we
Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest believe that the rightto due process is broad enough to include the grant
warrant issued by the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of basic fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right
of Florida on April 15, 1999 : (1) conspiracy to defraudthe United States
371; (2) tax evasion; (3) wire fraud,; (4) false statements, in violation of to due process extends to the life, liberty or property of every person. It
Title 18 USCode Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign is dynamic and resilient,adaptable to every situation calling for its
contributions, application.[70]
II.The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with HELD: 3. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an
granting the prayer for bail and in allowing Jimenez to goon provisional extradition case is not one in which the constitutionalrights of the
liberty because: accused are necessarily available. It
is more akin, if at all, to a courts request to police
ISSUE: Is Respondent Entitled to Bail? Article III, Section 13 of the
Constitution, is worded as follows: authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped
detention or jumped bail.Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumptionis that the
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, person would escape again if given the opportunity.
PIL/STATE IMMUNITY/4