Search results

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. Concerning the liability of the United States, the Court found that the issue was of such important nature that it remanded the question and initiated an en banc (full court) hearing to decide on it.

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico.

Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals (including Jose Francisco Sosa) involved in his arrest, and against the United States. In first instance, the Court rejected the action against the United States, but established Sosa’s liability. The Court of Appeal confirmed Sosa’s liability, establishing that his involvement in the arbitrary arrest and detention of Alvarez-Machain constituted a breach of the ‘law of nations’. In the current en banc hearing and opinion the Court of Appeal affirmed its earlier conclusion concerning Sosa, and also established liability of the United States: Machain's arrest, planned by the DEA in the United States, was found unlawful.

The accused, Mr. G., was a citizen of Vanuatu Islands, while he previously resided in India. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the First Special Court in Alipore, Kolkata (India) on allegations of stealing 108,400,000 Indian Rupees (approximately € 2,143,000) from the Allahabad Bank in 1994 and 1995. G. was arrested at Munich Airport on 15 December 2002.

On 30 April 2003, the Munich Higher Regional Court approved the extradition of G. to India because there was no risk that he would not be treated in accordance with international standards, more specifically, that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. In addition, the Court held that the expected punishment of life imprisonment was not ‘absolutely unreasonable’ having in mind the amount of money stolen by Mr. G.

The Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision to extradite G. to India, in particular because there was no evidence suggesting that he would be subjected to torture.

In 1990, several Mexican nationals, executing an assignment from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, abducted one of the persons suspected of involvement in the murder of a DEA official. He was eventually acquitted of all charges by an American Court and returned to Mexico. Alvarez-Machain attempted to take legal action against the Mexican nationals involved in his arrest, and against the United States. Although the Court of Appeals had confirmed both the government’s and Sosa’s liability, the Supreme Court rejected it. Regarding the government’s liability, it argued that the US could not be held responsible for actions committed abroad, even though Alvarez-Machain’s arrest had been planned in California. Regarding Sosa, the Supreme Court held that Alvarez-Machain’s arbitrary detention was not a violation of the law of nations. The latter term, according to the Supreme Court, should be defined narrowly. It considered arbitrary detention not specific enough to be within the scope of the law of nations. 

In June 1993, Houshang Bouzari was in Tehran for business when he refused to accept the assistance offered by the then Iranian President for bringing into effect a project in an oil and gas field in Iran. Following Bouzari’s refusal to accept the offer, agents of the state of Iran entered his apartment, robbed and abducted him. He was put into prison where he was held for several months. After Bouzari was released in 1994, he and his family fled to Europe and eventually ended up in Canada in 1998.

On 24 November 2000, the Bouzari’s brought an action before the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario against the Islamic Republic of Iran and asked for compensation for damages suffered. On 1 May 2002, the Court dismissed the case because it did not have authority (jurisdiction) to hear the case as the claim was made against a foreign state.

On 30 June 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Justice.