Case: Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980; 2d) [pp.

17-]

Parties: Plaintiff - Filartiga (citizens of Paraguay)

Defendant -

Procedural History: District court dismissed for lack of SMJ. On appeal.

Facts: Filartiga's 17yrold 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 Filártiga and (separately) D (Peña) came to the US. Dolly applied
for political asylum, while Peña stayed under a visitor's visa. Dolly learned of
Peña's presence and reported it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who
arrested and deported Peña for staying past the expiration of his visa. When Peña
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 punich 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 Peña'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 Filártigas, 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,
Peña 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 didn’t 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?
 ○ Idea is that if you commit such a heinous crime, then any tribunal should
be able to try you because the whole world would agree how bad the crime was
• Law of nations is both treaty law, and customary international law
○ No clear cut prohibition on torture like there is now
§ So court looks at:
○ Law professors determinations of the law
○ Public law
○ General usage
○ United nations charter
○ Universal declaration of human rights (not a binding treaty)
§ Aspirational document - what we spire for the world
§ Can still be used to show custom
○ Declaration on torture - again not binding, but evidence of
how custom would evolve
○ European convention outlaws torture
○ Inter-American convention on human rights (again, custom)
○ Domestic laws - many countries have banned torture
• Enforcement - family was supposed to get damages
○ Not enforced - problem with international law
○ US wont send troops to Paraguay to get them to pay
○ Still victory for P, legal recognition of torture being wrong was
meaningful to them, etc.
§ Made a political statement
○ So, if we cant enforce, then we can sanction?
• This is a tort claim, should be a criminal case. But no international court for
criminal cases, but recent development for an international criminal court (which
US hasn’t become a member f, problems with it)
• Has the world become so small that US can try citizens of other countries?
○ Reciprocity - what other states hold Americans responsible for if they
commit certain acts
○ American courts enforce international law (not domestic law)