Facts
The defendant was Alvarez-Machain while the prosecutor was the United States. The defendant was abducted from Mexico by the (DEA) to be tried in the US for allegations of complicity in the torture and murder of a DEA agent and his pilot. The fact that a US-Mexico extradition treaty was in effect at that time meant that the defendant had to seek the dismissal of the indictment on the rationale that his abduction infringed on the treaty. Thus, the district court affirmed his claims and dismissed the accusations.
Procedural History
The case was first taken to the District Court in Texas, which affirmed the claims of the defendant and dismissed the case on the basis of a violation of the treaty thereby ordering the defendant’s repatriation. The US subsequently proceeded to the Court of Appeals, which also confirmed the District Court’s determination based on the adjudication and holdings of its prior case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez of 1991 and the lack of jurisdiction by the District Court to try the defendant. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court for further consideration and adjudication where it was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Issue
The central issue of the case is the inquiry as to whether the defendant kidnapped to the US from Mexico with which it has a signed Extradition Treaty has an acquired defense to the ascendancy of the US courts. Another concern is the fact that the defendant invoked the treaty claiming that his abduction violated the treaty, and as such, called for the dismissal of the indictment. In contrast, the United States claims they had no direct involvement in the abduction and that they had tried all the negotiation and diplomatic channels with Mexico to no avail, and as such, the criminal defendant had to be tried in the US.
Rule(s)
A central rule used by the court is that the existence of an extradition treaty between the two countries does not certainly interdict securing a citizen of the other nation via kidnapping. Another rule in the case is that neither the language in the Treaty nor the deliberations and application under it support the premise that it forbids abductions beyond its terms. In other words, the Treaty does not unequivocally assert that either of the countries should refrain from forcible abductions from each other’s territory neither does it specify the consequences in case it happens. Also, the court asserts that the general concepts of international law do not offer any rationale for elucidating the Treaty to encompass an implied term prohibiting international abductions. An additional rule invoked is the rule of Ker ( Ker v. Illinois , 119 U. S. 436), which implies that if the Extradition Treaty does not interdict the defendant’s kidnapping, then the axiom is applied regardless of the jurisdiction.
Application/Analysis
On the rule that the existence of an international treaty between the US and another state does not certainly prohibit the former from forcibly obtaining or abducting a citizen from the latter country, the deduction is that abduction in itself does not invalidate prosecution against a foreign citizen. As such, the Supreme Court holds that the defendant’s forcible kidnap does not prevent his litigation in the US courts for his criminal infringement on the US laws. Regarding the rule on the language of the Treaty as well as the history of application and deliberation within its confines, the Supreme Court maintains that the Treaty does not specify any restraint from any country participating in the Treaty from forcible abductions nor its consequences. To this end, the defendant’s claims of extradition treaty violation and move to dismiss the indictment are null and void. Furthermore, the fact that the defendant had criminally violated the US laws and that the rule of Ker and its entirety was completely applicable to the case meant that the defendant lost his defense to the jurisdiction of the US courts, and as such, the Court of Appeals’ decision was rescinded and the case remanded for further consideration and adjudication.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the adjudication by the Court of Appeals was rescinded and the case was remanded for further consideration and deliberation congruous to the court’s holding. The holding was based on the rationale that the defendant’s forcible abduction did not prohibit him from being tried in US courts for his infringement on the criminal laws of the nation. Indeed, I agree with the court’s decision; the international law is only applicable to circumstances where no Extradition Treaty prevails, and as such, the law was irrelevant in the case. Moreover, since the Treaty does not unequivocally specify or prohibit forcible abductions as alleged in the case, then there were no illegalities from the US side, and as such, the defendant should be stripped off his jurisdiction and tried.
