[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-11907 OCT 27, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-21504-MGC
TELMO HURTADO HURTADO,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Eric Holder,
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE,
Hillary Clinton,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 27, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Telmo Hurtado Hurtado appeals the district court’s denial of
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and its earlier issuance of a
Certificate of Extraditability pursuant to a valid treaty with Peru. See Extradition
Treaty with Peru, U.S.-Peru, July 26, 2001, S. Treaty Doc. No. 107-6 (“Extradition
Treaty”).
On appeal, Hurtado first argues that the implicit language and legislative
intent of the applicable treaty barred the extradition of an individual, like him, who
was previously acquitted of similar charges in the Requesting State, in this case
Peru. Second, he argues that Article 14(7) of the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) bars his extradition on double jeopardy grounds.
Third, relying on Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir. 1960), Hurtado
argues that extraditing him to Peru would be fundamentally unfair, because
Peruvian authorities previously acquitted him of similar charges to the ones
charged in the United States.1
I.
1
We note that Hurtado does not challenge the district court’s finding that there was
probable cause to establish that he committed the crimes charged and that he could be extradited
for the crimes charged. Consequently, these claims are abandoned. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swann,
27 F.3d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1994) (claims not raised in the initial brief on appeal are
abandoned).
2
“On review of a denial of a habeas petition regarding the issuance of a
certification of extraditability, we review [the district court’s] factual findings for
clear error and questions of law de novo.” Noriega v. Pastrana, 564 F.3d 1290,
1294 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1002 (2010). The availability of
habeas corpus relief under § 2241 is a question of law that we review de novo.
Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944 (11th Cir. 2005).
Generally, “[t]here is no right to appeal extradition certification
determinations, and collateral review of an extradition determination by means of
a petition for writ of habeas corpus [under § 2241] is generally limited to
determining whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged
is within the treaty and whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that
there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.” Noriega, 564 F.3d at
1295 (internal quotation marks, ellipses, and citation omitted). However, “[t]he
issue of whether the treaty of extradition has no force because another treaty or
law prevents its operation” is a fundamental one that is within the class of
reviewable challenges to extradition. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562, 1565-66 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the
court was still required to interpret a provision of the applicable extradition treaty
3
regardless of the limited scope of habeas corpus review in extradition
proceedings).
“When interpreting a treaty, we begin with the text of the treaty and the
context in which the written words are used.” Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499
U.S. 530, 534, 111 S. Ct. 1489, 1993, 113 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1991). If the language
of the treaty is clear and unambiguous, our analysis ends there, and we apply the
words of the treaty as written. United States v. Duarte-Acero, 208 F.3d 1281,
1285 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Duarte-Acero I”); see also Chan v. Korean Air Lines,
Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 135, 109 S. Ct. 1676, 1684, 104 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1989) (“[T]o
alter, amend, or add to any treaty, by inserting any clause, whether small or great,
important or trivial, would be on our part an usurpation of power, and not an
exercise of judicial functions. It would be to make, and not to construe a treaty.”).
“[A]lthough treaties are to be liberally construed, [t]his does not mean . . .
that treaty provisions are construed broadly. Rather, this ‘liberal’ approach to
treaty interpretation merely reflects . . . the willingness of courts, when
interpreting difficult or ambiguous treaty provisions, to look beyond the written
words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction
adopted by the parties.” Duarte-Acero I, 208 F.3d at 1285 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis added). A well-established canon of statutory
4
construction is that the inclusion of a term in one section of a statute implies the
intentional exclusion of other terms. See, e.g., Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498
U.S. 395, 403-404, 111 S. Ct. 840, 846-47, 112 L. Ed. 2d 919 (1991); United
States v. Koonce, 991 F.2d 693, 698 (11th Cir. 1993).
Article IV of the Extradition Treaty sets forth several specific bases for
denying an extradition request, including the mandatory denial of extradition if:
the person sought has been convicted or acquitted in the Requested
State for the offense for which extradition is requested. However,
extradition shall not be precluded by the fact that the authorities in the
Requested States have decided not to prosecute the person sought for
the same acts for which extradition is requested, or to discontinue any
criminal proceedings that have been instituted against the person
sought for those acts.
Extradition Treaty, art. IV, § 1(a).
Here, as noted by the parties, the Extradition Treaty does not explicitly
address the situation where an individual, such as Hurtado, has been acquitted in
the Requesting State – Peru, in this case. However, the language of the
Extradition Treaty is clear and unambiguous, and the express inclusion of the bar
to an individual’s extradition where he was acquitted in the Requested State
implies the exclusion of other situations, such as when the individual was
acquitted in the Requesting State or in a third state. There is no need to look
beyond the written words of the text, as Hurtado suggests, because the Extradition
5
Treaty’s language is not ambiguous. As a result, we conclude that the Extradition
Treaty does not bar Hurtado’s extradition to Peru.
II.
Article 14(7) of the ICCPR states that “[n]o one shall be liable to be tried or
punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or
acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.”2
ICCPR, Dec. 9, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (ratified June 8, 1992).
We have previously noted that Article 14(7) bars the successive prosecution
of an individual in the same country. Duarte-Acero I, 208 F.3d at 1286-87
(holding that the provision does not block the prosecution of an individual in
federal courts after he was convicted in a foreign country for the same conduct
alleged in the federal indictment). However, we also noted that the plain language
of the ICCPR indicates that its provisions govern the relationship between a State
and the individuals within the State’s territory, not the relationship between two
sovereign States. Id. at 1286.
Furthermore, the ICCPR does not create judicially-enforceable individual
rights, because the treaty is not self-executing and has not been given effect by
2
British spelling is used in the original, and retained here.
6
congressional legislation. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-35, 124 S.
Ct. 2739, 2767, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718 (2004) (stating that “the United States ratified
the [ICCPR] on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did
not itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts”); United States v.
Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Duarte-Acero II”) (noting
that Congress had not passed legislation implementing the ICCPR). “Therefore,
the ICCPR is not binding on federal courts.” Duarte-Acero II, 296 F.3d at 1283.
In the present case, Hurtado may use Article 14(7) as a defense before
Peruvian courts to prevent his prosecution there, as this provision governs his
relationship to that state. However, Article 14(7) is not a basis on which to bar his
extradition, because this provision has no effect in federal courts.
III.
We have recognized the rule of non-inquiry, “which precludes extradition
magistrates from assessing the investigative, judicial, and penal systems of foreign
nations when reviewing an extradition request.” Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Pen,
993 F.2d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d
103, 110 (1st Cir. 1997) (stating that the non-inquiry rule precludes a court from
investigating the fairness of a requesting state’s justice system). We have also
recognized that the United States may not force treaty partners to adhere to
7
guarantees afforded by the United States Constitution. Martin, 993 F.2d at 830.
In certifying an extradition order, a magistrate is limited to determining whether
there is sufficient evidence to support a charge under the applicable extradition
treaty and does not have the authority to consider other factors, such as
humanitarian considerations or foreign relations, in issuing a certificate of
extraditability. Id. at 829-30 & n.10 (noting that because after extradition is
uniquely an executive function only the Secretary of State has the authority to
consider such factors, not the magistrate).
We have expressly rejected the suggestion in Gallina, that the rule of non-
inquiry should be displaced when “a defendant faces procedures in a foreign
country ‘antipathetic to a federal court’s sense of decency.’” Id. at 830 n.10
(quoting Gallina, 278 F.2d at 79) (also noting that the Second Circuit has more
recently distanced itself from the language in Gallina, and that many other courts
have strictly adhered to the rule of non-inquiry). Additionally, we have explicitly
held that “judicial intervention in extradition proceedings based on humanitarian
considerations is inappropriate.” Id. (citing Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d
1098, 1107 (5th Cir. 1980)).
Here, because of the limited scope of a magistrate’s review concerning
certification of an extradition request, the rule of non-inquiry prevented the
8
magistrate from inquiring into the fairness of Peru’s criminal justice system or
denying the certificate based on fundamental fairness. Importantly, we have
expressly rejected the Gallina suggestion upon which Hurtado relies.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment
denying habeas corpus relief.
AFFIRMED.
9