The Surrender of Ntakirutimana Revisited

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 459-466

  Sluiter, Göran ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

extradition law; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; obligation to cooperate; United States

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750271010     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156500000327     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. In the matter of surrender of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Misc. No. L-96-5, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, 1997 US Dist. LEXIS 20714, 17 December 1997, decided.
2. G. Sluiter, To Cooperate or not to Cooperate?: The Case of the Failed Transfer of Ntakirutimana to the Rwanda Tribunal, 11 LJIL 383-395 (1998).
3. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janet Reno, Attomey General of the United States; Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State of the United States; Juan Garza, Sheriff of Webb County, Texas, Respondents-Appellees, No. 98-41597, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1999 US App. LEXIS 18253,5 August 1999, decided.
4. See the indictment: International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-96-10-1, The Prosecutor Of Tribunal Against Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Gerard Ntakirutimana, Obed Ruzindana, Charles Sikubwabo.
5. See the indictment: International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda 1.
6. 1995 United States-Rwanda Tribunal Agreement on Surrender of Persons, printed in Amnesty International, Intemational Criminal Tribunals: Handbook for Government Cooperation, August 1996, AI Index: lOR 40/07/96.
7. National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 104-106,110 Stat. 486 (1996), para. 1342.
8. See Sluiter, note 2, at 389-391.
9. For a more detailed discussion see id.
10. See decision For a more detailed discussion see id. note 1, at 12-13.
11. See in re Surrender of Ntakirutimana, 1998 US Dist. LEXIS 22173, No. CIV. A. L-98-43, 1998 WL 655708 (S.D. Tex. 6 Aug. 1998).
12. See id., at 9 and 30.
13. See id., at 9.
14. Valentine V. United States, 299 US 5, 57 S.Ct. 100,81 L. Ed. 5 (1936).
15. Decision, Valentine V. United States note 3, at 14 and 15.
16. See Hilario v. United States, 854 F. Supp. 165 (EDNY 1994), as cited at 18.
17. Decision, Hilario v. United States note 3, at 25. See also Escobedo, 623 F. 2d, 1102.
18. Decision, Hilario v. United States note 3 note 3, at 27.
19. See id., at 31, citing In re Extradition of Manzi, 888 F.2d 204, 206 (1st Cir. 1989), and Garcia-Guillem, 450 F.2d, 1192.
20. Decision, citing In re Extradition of Manzi note 3, at 32.
21. As far as the outcome of such scrutiny is concerned. Judge Parker has the following to say; “To the extent that it may be relevant to the Secretary's decision, I merely add, based on all the information in this record, viewed from the perspective of a judge who has served fifteen years on the trial bench and five years on the court of appeals, that I am persuaded that it is more likely than not that Ntakirutimana is actually innocent.” Decision, citing In re Extradition of Manzi note 3 note 3, at 33.
22. Id.
23. See my contribution, Id. note 2, at 394.
24. The surrender request actually ‘orders’ the US the hand over Ntakirutimana, using the word ‘direct’.
25. DeMoss labels such a question as a political issue, explicitly referring to Baker v, Carr, 369 US 186, 210-11, 82 S.Ct. 691, 706, 7 L.Ed. 2d 663 (1962).
26. The lawfulness of the ICTY has been firmly established in Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-I-AR72, A. Ch., 2 October 1995 (Tadi6 (1995) I ICTY JR 353, and KJip & Sluiter, DeMoss labels such a question as a political issue note 13, ALC-I-33 et seq.). The lawfulness of the creation of the ICTR was established, heavily relying on Tadic, in Decision on Jurisdiction, Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Case No. ICTR-96-15-T, Tr. Ch,, 18 June 1997.
27. This considered an order of the ICTY for the return of a detained witness to Bosnia (Order for the Return of a Detained Witness, Prosecutor v. Tadi6, Case No. IT-94-I-ST, IT-95-7-Misc.l, T.Ch.II, 27 May 1997; printed in Klip & Sluiter, The lawfulness of the ICTY has been firmly established in Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction note 13, ALC-I-211 et seq.). This witness, Opacic, challenged his return before a Dutch District Court alleging that he would face conditions of imprisonment in Bosnia violating the European Convention of Human Rights. The Dutch Judge found that the Netherlands is bound by the Tribunal order; fiirthermore, it found that decisions of the ICTY cannot be reviewed by the Dutch judicial authorities. See Dragan Opacic v. The Netherlands, KG 97/742, 30 May 1997.
28. See Way Clear for US to Deliver Rwanda War Crimes Suspect, New York Times, 25 January 2000.