Filartiga v.

Pena-Irala (1980; 2d)

Parties: Plaintiff - Filartiga (citizens of Paraguay) Defendant Pena-Irala (chief of police) Procedural History: District court dismissed for lack of SMJ. On appeal. Facts: Filartiga's 17 yr old son Joelito was kidnapped and tortured to death by D, Pena, in Paraguay. P claims this was done in retaliation for his father's political activities and beliefs. P brought a criminal case in Paraguayan court, but his attorney was arrested , threatened with death, and supposedly disbarred without just cause. Four years later, another man confessed to the murder, claiming he found Joelito and his wife together, and said the crime was one of passion, but he was never convicted, and also the evidence showed that Joelito's death "was the result of professional methods of torture." In 1978, Dolly Filrtiga and (separately) D (Pea) came to the US. Dolly applied for political asylum, while Pea stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of Pea's presence and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who arrested and deported Pea for staying past the expiration of his visa. When Pea was taken to the Brooklyn Navy Yard pending deportation, Dolly lodged a civil complaint in U.S. courts for Joelito's wrongful death by torture, asking for damages in the amount of $10 million. Issue: Whether U.S. courts can punish non-U.S. citizens for tortious acts committed outside the U.S. that were in violation of the law of nations or any treaties to which the U.S. is a party. Holding: Yes. This case extended the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. Reasoning: The appellants argued that Pea's actions had violated wrongful death statutes, the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and other customary international law. Petitioner claimed the U.S. courts had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants district courts original jurisdiction to hear

tort claims brought by an alien that have been "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." This case interpreted that statute to grant jurisdiction over claims for torts committed both within the United States and abroad. The U.S. courts eventually ruled in favor of the Filrtigas, rewarding them roughly $10.4 million. Torture was clearly a violation of international law (aka "the law of nations"), and the U.S. did have jurisdiction over the case since the claim was lodged when both parties were inside the United States. Additionally, Pea had sought to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens (saying that Paraguay was a more convenient location for the trial), but did not succeed. Notes Now a convention against torture, but didnt come about until after this case Recently, under the alien tort statute, has been narrowed Law of Nations - an older term for international law Alien tort statute established jurisdiction for anyone with a colorable claim under international law People had forgotten about this statute, so this is a big case that asserted U.S. jurisdictional right to enforce human rights law domestically (very controversial) Should US be a world police by trying foreign citizens in US?

9/29/2012 12:26:00 PM

9/29/2012 12:26:00 PM