In 1985 Special Agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration was abducted, tortured and murdered by drug dealers in Mexico. OnApril 2, 1990, Humberto Alvarez-Machain was forcibly kidnapped from his medical office in Guadalajara, México, to be flown to El Paso, Texas, where he was arrested by Drug Enforcement Agency officials. Alvarez-Machain was a Mexican citizen. The Mexican government has officially protested the kidnappings. In Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001), court records describe Alvarez-Machain present at the house where Camarena-Salazar was held.
Alvarez-Machain was accused of having contributed in Special Agent Camarena’s murder in a predominantly gruesome manner: he allegedly used his medical skills to lengthen Camarena’s life under torture so that other members of the drug organization could interrogate him in an effort to learn what Camarena knew regarding their drug operation. Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001), records show that the Drug Enforcement Administration hired Garate-Bustamante, an informant to the administration and a Mexican national who then contacted Ignacio Barragan (businessman) to assist with apprehending Alvarez-Machain in Mexico.
n March of 1990, Barragan consulted with Sosa, a former Mexican policeman, to assist with the operation (Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001). Court records in Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001), show that Barragan told Sosa (former police officer) that the Drug Enforcement Administration had a warrant to arrest Alvarez-Machain, would pay for anything they required to successfully operate and promised Sosa a Mexican government position if he cooperated.
Estados Unidos de América
MéxicoEstados Unidos de AméricaMéxicoUnited States District Court for the Central District of California
Before the Court is a motion filed by defendant Humberto Alvarez-Machain to dismiss the charges for outrageous government conduct and for lack of personal jurisdiction on the criminal matters. Defendant argues that he is entitled to such relief because the means by which the United States secured his presence before this Court runs is in contradiction to the due process clause of the fifth amendment and international law, and undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
However, the Court finds that the United States violated the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico when it unilaterally abducted the defendant from his homeland. Under these circumstances, the Court lacks jurisdiction to try this defendant.
Accordingly, the defendant is ordered discharged and the government is ordered to repatriate the defendant to Mexico forthwith.
The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the apprehension of Humberto Alvarez-Machain was in violation of the United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty. The defendant's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct was denied
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Upon appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision was reaffirmed and called for the dismissal of the murder indictment and the deportation of Humberto Alvarez-Machain.
Other clarifying information: The United States then submitted a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Reaffirmed.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court considered whether the abduction of Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico.
Outcome: Reversal. The Court concluded that the abduction of Humberto Alvarez-Machain was not in violation of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico and does not prohibit his trial in a United States Court for violations of criminal laws within the U.S (United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 669-70, (1992). The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and he was joined by Associate Justices, White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Thomas. The dissenting opinion was delivered and written by Associate Justice Stevens; he was joined by Associate Justices O’Conner and Blackmun.
District Court
According to Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001), Alvarez Machain filed an action where he argued that the United States, Sosa, Garate Barragan, five unnamed Mexican civilians, and Drug Enforcement Administration Agents Jack Lawn, Peter Gruden, William Waters, and Hector Berrellez for the aforementioned claims. According to Alvarez-Machain v. United States of America, 266 F.3d 1045 (2001), Sosa appealed the District Court in its decision against him and says that the court made an error in applying common law damages under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
Charge: Kidnapping and arbitrary detention against Sosa, the DEA agents and the Mexican nationals under the Aliens Tort Claims Act.
Alvarez received damages from Sosa, only for the detention prior to arriving to the United States. Alvarez-Machain was to be awarded in total $25,000. The District Court changes the charges against the federal agents to the United States and dismissed a claim against the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Charges: Kidnapping, torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detention, assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, negligent employment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other constitutional courts. Alvarez-Machain appealed the decision of the name change by the District Court, the dismissal of the Federal Torts Claim Act claims and the decision to remove the charges against the Mexican nationals who kidnapped him from Mexico.
Affirmed the District Court’s decision with regards to damages applied to Sosa, substitution of the United States for the DEA agents, allowing federal common law to determine damages and limits of Alvarez-Machain’s captivity to Mexico.
Decision 2: Reversed the District Court’s decision of the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and remanded the case for determination of the United States liability.
Decision 3: Dismissed claims against Garate Bustamante by Alvarez-Machain and decided that if appealed, no party would recover costs.
conspiracy to commit violent acts and violent acts in furtherance of an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959), conspiracy to kidnap a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 1201(c)), kidnap of a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) (5)), felony-murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), 1114), and accessory after the fact (18 U.S.C. § 3).
Supreme Court of the United States
The case of United States v. Alvarez-Machain 504 U.S. 655 (1992) is significant to matter of international law because the US Supreme Court decided upon the abduction of Humberto Alvarez-Machain from Mexico to the US without the latter using formal channels of law. The decision in this case failed the very essence of international law and international relations under the principle of sovereignty. The Alvarez-Machain case did however demonstrate the limits of which the international community is willing to go. Alvarez-Machain was wanted for a domestic legal issue, not an international criminal violation. The international community was outraged to say the least of this decision and filed formal diplomatic protests with the U.S. In 1992, the UN Working Party Group on Arbitrary Detention determined that the decision of this case was in violation of 1978 Treaty signed by both the U.S. and Mexico. Even when the criminal domestic case of Humberto Alvarez-Machain went to court, the Judge acquitted the case based on the manner that Alvarez-Machain was captured and brought into the U.S.
Conspiracy Charges:
Humberto Alvarez-Machain was a medical professional in his homeland, Mexico. Alvarez-Machain was accused of having contributed in Special Agent Camarena’s murder in a predominantly gruesome manner: he allegedly used his medical skills to lengthen Camarena’s life under torture so that other members of the drug organization could interrogate him in an effort to learn what Camarena knew regarding their drug operation. Under US Federal Criminal Code, US government employees, including those in uniform are in violation and are further a protected class under instances of murder, manslaughter and kidnapping while they are conducting official duties. The importance of this charge is that the US government domestic laws criminalize such acts. Alvarez-Machain allegedly conspired to commit, even though he may not have directly caused the death of the DEA agent in question. Before the District Court, Alvarez-Machin argued that the United States had no jurisdiction to apply and charge him with domestic laws for a crime that may or may not have allegedly been committed in Mexico. Alvarez-Machain further argued that the court could not apply extraterritorial jurisdiction, the court denied this component of the motion. The District court focused more on the extradition matters rather than the criminal charges.