Extradition

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 8-9

Page 8

In 1998, Venezuela extradited Cristobal Rodriguez Benitez (Petitioner), a Mexican citizen, to the U. S., where a California court convicted him of murder. Benitez allegedly shot and killed a man who got into a fracas with Defendant's brother in San Diego, California. The Supreme Court of Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided in the extradition decree for a sentence limitation to 30 years.

The U.S.-Venezuelan extradition treaty provides that: "[T]he Contracting Parties reserve the right to decline to grant extradition for crimes punishable by death and life imprisonment. Nevertheless, the Executive Authority of each of the Contracting Parties shall have the power to grant extradition for such crimes upon receipt of satisfactory assurances that in case of conviction the death penalty or imprisonment for life will not be infl icted." Treaty of Extradition, January 19-21, 1922; U.S.-Venezuela, Article IV, 43 Stat. 1698, T.S. No. 675; 49 U.N.T.S. 435 (in force April 14, 1923).

Page 9

The California State Court rejected Petitioner's claim that it should recognize Venezuela's condition on his receiving less than a life term; it sentenced him to serve an indeterminate term of fi fteen years to life. Petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus in state court. In it, he claimed that his sentence could not exceed thirty years based on the Venezuelan extradition decree.

The state courts denied his habeas petitions as not yet ripe because Defendant might not have to serve more than 30 years. Petitioner then sought the same remedy in federal court. The court found the matter ripe, but held that Petitioner failed to show that his sentence violated clearly established federal law.

The Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, reverses. It rules that federal courts have to respect reasonable conditions on extradition if they are within that country's rights under the extradition treaty. Thus, the district court's decision not to enforce the limitation in this case was objectively unreasonable.

"The clearly established federal law controlling this case comes from United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1886), and Johnson v. Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (1907), which set forth the principles of interpretation and international comity relevant to enforcing extradition treaties and the terms of specifi c extraditions. ... Rauscher and Browne are also clear that these expectations and rights are interpreted expansively in the...