Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,343 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Unusual Extradition Issue Determined by Court

Sacirbey v. Guccione, Case No. 06-5137 (C.A. 2, Dec. 9, 2009)

In this appeal we consider whether an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court that no longer has jurisdiction over the accused, nor the power to enforce the warrant, can provide an adequate basis for the extradition of a United States citizen. This is a question of first impression—and the fact that this issue has not been previously decided should not be surprising. It is a rare circumstance where the very document that provides the basis for an extradition request turns out to have been issued by an entity that no longer has lawful authority over the matter. While the factual and procedural history of this case is extraordinary, our resolution of it requires only that we apply the plain meaning of the provisions of the relevant treaty. The treaty authorizes the extradition of an individual who has been “charged” with a crime and requires that an arrest warrant and supporting materials be provided in order to obtain that extradition. Because the arrest warrant at issue in this case was issued by a court that neither has jurisdiction over the matter nor authority to enforce the warrant, the requirement of the treaty that an individual be “charged” with an extraditable offense has not been satisfied. This defect falls within the narrow category of issues that is cognizable on habeas review of an extradition order; we therefore reverse the order of the District Court denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Muhamed Sacirbey, also known as Muhamed Sacirbegovic, was born in 1956 in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia. At that time, the Communist regime led by Josip Broz (Tito) controlled Yugoslavia, and Sacirbey’s parents opposed Tito’s authoritarian government. For their dissenting political beliefs, Sacirbey’s parents were imprisoned for a time. In the 1960s, the Sacirbey family fled Yugoslavia and immigrated to the United States, where they settled in Ohio. On April 27, 1973, at the age of sixteen, Sacirbey became a naturalized citizen of the United States. During the years that followed, Sacirbey attended Tulane University on a football scholarship; he earned a bachelor’s degree and a degree in law at Tulane and a Master of Business Administration degree at Columbia University. After his admission to the Bar of the State of New York, Sacirbey worked as a lawyer for a New York law firm. In the 1980s, he left his law firm to work in the financial sector, first as a Vice President at Standard and Poor’s, the rating agency, and later as Vice President of an investment bank.

On April 5, 1992, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovinia (“Bosnia”) declared its independence from Yugoslavia. The United States officially recognized Bosnia’s independence two days later, and Bosnia was admitted to membership in the United Nations on May 22, 1992. Shortly thereafter, Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, a leader of the Muslim community of Bosnia, appointed Sacirbey to serve as Bosnia’s ambassador to the United Nations. Despite international recognition, Bosnian Serbs continued to oppose independence and, with the support of the government of Serbia—a neighboring province in the former Yugoslavia—launched a violent campaign to partition the country along ethnic lines. According to the United States Department of State, “[t]he conflict continued through most of 1995, and many atrocities were committed, including acts of genocide committed by members of the [Bosnian Serb armed forces] in and around Srebrenica from July 12-22, 1995, where approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed.” Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Background Note: Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009), available at www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm (last visited December 8, 2009). Sacirbey, appointed Bosnian Foreign Minister upon the assassination of his predecessor in 1995, represented Bosnia at peace talks held in 1995 outside of Dayton, Ohio.2 Those talks lead to the Dayton Peace Accords, which were formally signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris and which ended the war in Bosnia after more than three years and ensured Bosnia’s independence under the supervision of a High Representative selected by the United Nations Security Council. Id.
 

 

Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Circuit Court Judge(s)
José Cabranes
Amalya Kearse
Pierre Leval

 
Petitioner Lawyer(s) Petitioner Law Firm(s)
James McGuire Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

 
Respondent Lawyer(s) Respondent Law Firm(s)
Anjan Sahni US Attorney's Office

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
between the united states and bosnia, (2) the offense of abuse of office or authority for which the argument that an "intent to prosecute" is present. as a matter of law, we hold only that the multi-layered governance structure geared toward safeguarding the rights of the various ethnic the government of the united states and the government of servia [sic] mutually agree to equivalent to "embezzlement by public officers" to warrant extradition under the treaty, see id. at *45; judge kearse relies on bosnia's criminal procedure code to support her argument and22 bosnia-herzegovinia: overview, available at www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/countries/ba/ (last in a telephonic conference before magistrate judge maas, professor cherif bassiouni,12 cf. restatement (second) of contracts § 203(a) (1981) ("[a]n interpretation which gives a reasonable, a $1.8 million shortfall in an investment account over which sacirbey had signature authority. see7 of prior warrants . . . issued by cantonal prosecutors. term may be determined by reference to the terms it is associated with, and that where specific words 484-85 (2d cir. 1976) (" it is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising district of new york, new york, ny, for respondents- bosnian serbs continued to oppose independence and, with the support of the government of "charged" with a crime and requires that an arrest warrant and supporting materials be provided in sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *44 (emphasis in original). second, sacirbey challenged of those cases involve a situation where the issuing tribunal subsequently lost jurisdiction over the case warrant--issued by a court ousted of jurisdiction and no longer able to enforce it--cannot satisfy the produce evidence relating to the role of united states officials in preparing or pursuing the extradition possession of the case. the only state organ not denying possession of the case but rather affirming its . . . would be approved." id. at 960. this statement does not hint at how the bosnian court will is to test only the legality of the extradition proceedings." (internal quotation marks omitted)). investigate; (2) the cantonal court's december 5, 2001 decision for detention and international turning to the third claim cognizable on habeas review of an extradition order, the district fashion the arrest warrant. sacirbey v. guccione the story of ancient empires, modern states, and the quest for a global nation 306-07 (characterizing resources, including fees from his speaking engagements, and by soliciting contributions from sacirbey testified that the finances of the u.n. mission were haphazard during his tenure and that his josÉ a. cabranes, circuit judge: sacirbey v. guccione, no. 05 cv. 2949, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *4 (s.d.n.y. sept. 7, 2006) id. at *38-39. in the district court's judgment, "[t]his evidence clearly support[ed] [magistrate] judge code provisions in the way that she has chosen to interpret them, and her position is contradicted by a. standard of review at 1193 n.1. this statement is at odds with the determinations of the seventh, eighth and ninth of muhamed sacirbegovic, no. 03 crim. misc. 01, 2005 u.s. dist. lexis 707, at *30-32 (s.d.n.y. jan. unreasonable, unlawful, or of no effect."). in addition, we have observed that "the meaning of one possession is the office of the national prosecutor." j.a. 910 (nov. 22, 2005 decl. of michael for the second circuit political-crimes exception did not apply to allegations of embezzlement, see id. at *58-61. on january developed in the proceedings before judge maas and on the two letters written by kosovic, the there is no forum available to us to approach for resolution, to petition for appropriate remedies, or to zlatko lagumdzija, a perceived political adversary of sacirbey and allegedly a former official in the similarly confirm only that sacirbey is under investigation in bosnia, not that the bosnian government declaration in opposition to the government's application to extradite sacirbey. the terzic declaration to the meaning of the letters unless that finding is clearly erroneous. we do not base our decision treaty. appellant's reply br. 11. national court."), but we need not decide whether this ruling was erroneous because it is irrelevant court system, and a new national criminal code was adopted." sacirbey, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577 consequence that "no [c]ourt in bosnia is currently seized of the matter." appellant's br. 24 (emphasis formally signed on december 14, 1995 in paris and which ended the war in bosnia after more than "cantons [are] similar to municipalities or counties in the united states." sacirbey v. guccione, no. 05 signature authority; (ii) sacirbey refused to explain certain non-routine expenditures to ministry (stating that courts should avoid readings that "render statutory language surplusage"). may occur in the requesting country is not within the purview of a habeas corpus judge."). individual must be "charged" with an offense in order to be extradited, while avoiding unwarranted briefly explaining the history of the treaty. see id. at *10-17; appellees' br. 7-8. jurisdiction over the investigation of sacirbey," j.a. 851 (tr. of proceedings 56:15-16, oct. 4, 2005), the neither has jurisdiction over the matter nor authority to enforce the warrant, the requirement of the ratification by the president), 32 stat. 1890, 12 bevans 1238. under article ii of the treaty, respondents-appellees. 29789, at *16-17 (s.d.n.y. jan. 31, 1986) ("[t]he reference to `persons . . . charged' in [the treaty] . . . is denying [extradition] is not appealable. an extraditee's sole remedy from an adverse decision is to treaty. see sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *21. discussion the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation. such an assumption would directly deemed satisfied where a subject is `accused,' or the requesting nation `intend[s] to prosecute' him." judicial document from the requesting state [i.e., bosnia] that confirms the ongoing validity responds that the treaty "does not condition extradition on formal charges," and "all that need be procedural regularity upon the transfer of custody over the accused. whether or not the united states testimony, as well as the testimony of paul robert williams, a former state department employee and sacirbey became a naturalized citizen of the united states. during the years that followed, sacirbey ground to believe the accused guilty of the charged offense, the district court denied sacirbey's very document that provides the basis for an extradition request turns out to have been issued by an sacirbey's liberty are vacated and he shall not be extradited to bosnia pursuant to the formal at *5 n.6. national levels[, and] a national court system was established, equivalent to the united states federal investigation of mr. muhamed sacirbegovic--was [not] abolished by the justice system reforms," and foreign tribunal. see emami, 834 f.2d at 1447 (arrest warrant issued by a german court); assarsson ii, judicial reforms. sacirbey, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *23 n.12. perhaps recognizing this fact, the discovery requests . . . because sacirbey's requests were directed not at exculpatory evidence, but rather 687 f.2d at 1158 (arrest declaration issued by swedish court); assarsson i, 635 f.2d at 1239 (arrest the government informs us that the reasoning of assarsson i and assarsson ii, has been adopted there is no indication that the bosnia national court re-issued, ratified, or acknowledged in any bar sacirbey's extradition, according to the district court, because the exception applied to "political sacirbey's parents were imprisoned for a time. in the 1960s, the sacirbey family fled yugoslavia and falls within the narrow category of issues that is cognizable on habeas review of an extradition order; subject is `accused,' or the requesting nation `intends to prosecute' him." id. at *21 (quoting in re added). bosnian [government] . . . neither the national nor cantonal court, nor the cantonal prosecutor, have ny, for petitioner-appellant muhamed sacirbey. lacking jurisdiction to enforce it--has been described in another context by the supreme court as a decl. of zlatan terzic ¶ 2). the hartmann declaration stated flatly that, "by the admissions of the bosnian embassy in washington, d.c. kosovic's first letter, dated october 11, 2005, stated that "[the an international arrest warrant for sacirbey. id. at *5-6. and subject matter." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). a basic canon of statutory political offense. accordingly, the district court concluded that the charged offense fell within the order to obtain that extradition. because the arrest warrant at issue in this case was issued by a court applicable treaty or convention does not obligate the united states to extradite its citizens to a foreign 4 what the treaty requires. even if it did, these letters are equivocal, at best, on the question of whether20 f. supp. at 508 (saarbrucken district court in germany); in re la salvia, 1986 u.s. dist. lexis 29789, marks omitted). our power, by contrast, is "limited to ensuring that the applicable provisions of the court and the government--"that there at least be a judicial body in the requesting state seized of the he is a u.s. citizen, the department of state is authorized by statute to extradite u.s. citizens who offenses--not political figures," id. at *34, and the financial misconduct at issue here did not constitute a another, and personal bank accounts were used to house those funds. see j.a. 11-12 (affidavit of united nations and the general consulate of bosnia in new york (the "u.n. mission"), promoted the discredit them for political reasons.'" id. at *19-20. that the defect in bosnia's application can be remedied by official statements indicating bosnia's intent efforts before the icty and icj were approved by president izetbegovic. see j.a. 10 (affidavit of the national court had jurisdiction over the case. kosovic's letter stated in relevant part: kolodner, assistant united states attorney, of counsel), law.14 indictment against [sacirbey] . . . has been brought before the municipal court sarajevo or the cantonal of the high contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects under the order to obtain that extradition. where, as here, the relevant arrest warrant was issued by a court that proceed--that is, whether by immediate prosecution or by permitting the prosecutor to undertake bosnian lawyer, zlatan terzic, and from michael hartmann, the same expert who had previously filed a are beyond the purview of habeas review."). question of first impression for our court, requiring us to examine a relatively undeveloped area of of justice dated january 29, 2002. bosnia's request was made pursuant to an extradition treaty executed (argued: february 26, 2008 decided: december 9, 2009) judge kearse dissents in a separate opinion. intent to prosecute sacirbey for abuse of authority. this determination was based on the record tenure as bosnia's first united nations ambassador, sacirbey opened the permanent mission to the anjan sahni, assistant united states attorney (michael j. the $1.8 million shortfall was determined by a commission that investigated the matter not7 proceedings before magistrate judge maas. first, sacirbey argued that the government's refusal to detention for a "not . . . longer than one month." j.a. 303 ("decision for detention," cantonal the other grounds for relief raised in his petition. this appeal followed. what happened is an intervening factor in which as far as we're concerned we do not know www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm (last visited december 8, 2009). sacirbey, appointed bosnian the bosnian government changed hands, and the new party, `which was the former communist party, in original). in sacirbey's view, the putative interest that bosnia asserted in correspondence cannot information regarding the political motivations, if any, behind [bosnia's] request for his extradition." provided, that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the of yugoslavia); ivancevic v. artukovic, 211 f.2d 565, 573 (9th cir. 1954) ("[t]he extradition treaty we are not at liberty to second guess the determination of the magistrate judge to issue an order this case by requesting sacireby's extradition. on march 17, 2003, the department of justice filed a 16 herzegovina was, in turn, divided into ten "cantons." see bureau of european and eurasian affairs, elizabeth rotenberg-schwartz, sean j. kirby, of counsel), investigate sacirbey on august 20, 2001, and later, on december 5, 2001, a decision for detention and bosnian embassy counselor, which demonstrated to the district court "a present intent to prosecute treaty that an individual be "charged" with an extraditable offense has not been satisfied. accordingly, relying on authority from the seventh circuit and a district court in our circuit, the district bevans 1238 ("neither of the high contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or the virtually illegible attachment to the october 2 letter also refers to an "investigation against any formal requests that have been made. district court. 385. provisions of the relevant treaty. the treaty authorizes the extradition of an individual who has been charged with or convicted of any of the crimes and offenses" (emphasis added), which are supplied in meaning." united states v. alvarez-machain, 504 u.s. 655, 663 (1992); see also kahn lucas lancaster v. lark sacirbey argues that he has not been "charged" with an extraditable offense pursuant to the warrant for his arrest was issued in 2001, but the issuing court was subsequently dissolved, with the request violated brady v. maryland, 373 u.s. 83 (1963). the district court disagreed, explaining that 3 days later, and bosnia was admitted to membership in the united nations on may 22, 1992. shortly of the treaty). it further held that the requirement of "dual criminality"--i.e., that the alleged conduct by contrast, the cantonal court's related order of detention authorizes sacirbey's9 our efforts in this regard are aided by the thorough and well-reasoned opinions of the14 provided a clear statement as to whether there is a prosecution now pending in a bosnian court; and as evidenced by the record." (emphasis added)); in re la salvia, no. 84 cr. misc. 1, 1986 u.s. dist. lexis terms of the treaty. on sacirbey's reading of the record, the evidence shows that an investigative15 sacirbey responds that one additional proposition follows from the cases cited by the district bosnia's extradition request, so that ground for habeas relief was effectively conceded. see id. at *19 [t]he [united states] government may be in a better position to save us all the time and the legal team in an action against yugoslavia for genocide in the international court of justice sacirbey has not been charged with an extraditable offense pursuant to the terms of the treaty. this between the united states and the federal peoples' republic of yugoslavia."). joseph r. guccione, united states marshal for the sdny; officer dennis spitzer, necessary requirements according to the [bosnian criminal procedure code are met]. as you 15 warrant. sacirbey, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *23 n.12. such a warrant--one issued by a court18 letters nevertheless demonstrated that "a bosnian court . . . would handle mr. sacirbey's proceeding ("sacirbey ii"). in response to the prosecutor's application, the cantonal court issued a decision to deliver up persons who, having been charged with or convicted of any of the crimes and warrant was issued . . . ." article iv provides that "in advance of the presentation of formal proofs, the requesting government to provide "a duly authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest in the country federation of bosnia and herzegovina and republika srpska. the federation of bosnia and scope of the treaty. 21 district of new york (barbara s. jones, judge) denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought from justice, u.s.-serb., art. v, mar. 7, 1902 (date of ratification by the president), 32 stat. 1890, 12 at tulane and a master of business administration degree at columbia university. after his admission against him." id. at *33. the political offense exception set forth in article vi of the treaty did not owing to a constitutional reorganization, regime change, or any other reason, such that the arrest something less than a formal charge: for example, the requirement has been deemed satisfied where a request. rejecting sacirbey's arguments, magistrate judge maas concluded that (1) bosnia had 1 not make a submission along the lines suggested by professor bassiouni. nullifying the arrest warrant for sacirbey. at oral argument before the district court, counsel for that neither has jurisdiction over the matter nor authority to enforce the warrant, the requirement of the with foreign criminal procedure" in the course of ordering extradition pursuant to a valid treaty, id. at sacirbey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted. the restrictions imposed on certifying a request for extradition. under our precedents, "[h]abeas corpus is not a writ of error, and it sacirbey resigned from his ambassadorship and returned to private life in the united states in in keeping with that limited authority, we examine the requirements of the extradition treaty in f.2d at 1066; accord garcia-guillern v. united states, 450 f.2d 1189, 1192-93 (5th cir. 1971) ("a writ of in the instant case, our review focuses on "whether the offense charged is extraditable under the secure extradition of a "fugitive [who] is merely charged with crime," article iii of the treaty requires further support in a letter, dated march 3, 2005, from the cantonal court in sarajevo stating that "no current professor of law, and the declaration of michael hartmann, then an adviser to the state foundational principle that the states parties "mutually agree to deliver up persons who[ ] hav[e] been at *21 (federal court of first instance in penal and correctional matters in argentina). based on this 18 j.a. 405-06 (tr. of proceedings 13:12-22, 14:22-15:1, nov. 3, 2003). the bosnian government did bombings of u.s. embassies in e. afr., 552 f.3d 157, 171 n.8 (2d cir. 2008) (describing the power order, see cheung, 213 f.3d at 88, and we therefore grant sacirbey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. my client was charged has disappeared." j.a. 845 (tr. of proceedings 50:1-4, oct. 4, 2005). in light of following the dayton peace accords, bosnia was divided into two sub-divisions: the6 charged with a crime, but only the target of an investigation.12 reviewing court can consider only three issues: "(1) whether the judge below had jurisdiction; (2) incursions into the fine details of foreign criminal procedure. see, e.g., jhirad v. ferrandina, 536 f.2d 478, prosecute is sufficient to satisfy the terms of the treaty. appellees' br. 44. requirements of german criminal procedure [with respect to the filing of a public charge] both out of with these principles in mind, we review the factual findings of the district court for clear united states and [bosnia]."); see generally 767 third ave. assocs. v. consulate gen. of the socialist fed. that, where an extradition treaty does not condition extradition on the filing of formal charges, it would treaty for mutual extradition of fugitives from justice, u.s.-serb., art. i, mar. 7, 1902 (date of becoming a candidate for eu membership. however, ethnic tensions and a largely dysfunctional, law. specifically, the prosecutor alleged that (1) sacirbey had embezzled $610,982.46 and (2) there was established by the affidavits submitted in support of the extradition request, see id. at *57; and (5) the with respect to the second claim cognizable on habeas review, sacirbey failed to persuade the she confirms that the "court exists and hears all cases that are within its jurisdiction." j.a 961. of shown is that the requesting nation intends to prosecute the extraditee." appellees' br. 34-35. under "charged" for the purposes of an extradition treaty, holding that a demonstrated intent to prosecute on extraditable offense pursuant to the terms of the extradition treaty between the united states and the evidence actually in the record: the cantonal court was dissolved; no bosnian authority has pursuant to the district court's authorization, sacirbey submitted declarations from his for the extradition of a united states citizen. this is a question of first impression--and the fact that that the cantonal prosecutors office in sarajevo investigate alleged financial irregularities at the u.n.6 conclusion articles v and vi of the treaty provide additional limitations on article i's general17 sacirbey's involvement in the bosnian peace process has been described in the memoirs of2 authority. to prosecute by the bosnian government--a contention for which she provides no supporting at 1448 ("whether a treaty conditions extradition upon the filing of formal charges is a question sacirbey should be extradited pursuant to bosnia's request. see in re the extradition of muhamed extradition for the offenses listed . . . on the existence of formal charges.'" (quoting assarsson i, 635 sacirbey" but does not indicate an intention to prosecute, rather than merely investigate, him. id. at demand against sacirbey," the district court found that "the investigative functions which had been sacirbey" and that the bosnian government sought extradition to further that investigation. j.a 383. case, the government urges us to conclude that, because the treaty requires that an individual be citizen whose extradition has been requested by that country if the other requirements of that treaty or i"). judge maas held a hearing on december 23, 2003, during which the government introduced the united states court of appeals warrant issued by a magistrate in the united states would have force in mexico); see also in re terrorist before judge jones, sacirbey abandoned his argument that bosnia did not succeed to the11 sacirbey also claims that he was authorized to reallocate funds in this fashion, and that his5 j.a. 961 (nov. 10, 2005 letter of amra kosovic) (emphasis added). recognizing that these letters and herzegovina (the "national court") "has been seized of the case against . . . sacirbey. therefore, by the united nations security council. id. investigation to the cantonal court, alleging that sacirbey had abused his office in violation of bosnian sacirbey could not appeal magistrate judge maas's decision because "[a]n order granting or10 "do[ ] not elaborate on the relationship between the cantonal court, which originally issued the arrest branch of government, not the judiciary. background approved by the appropriate authorities of [the] united states." j.a. 960 (oct. 11, 2005 letter of amra 1963) (marshall, j.); see also murphy, 199 f.3d at 601-02 ("the function of habeas review in this context mission during sacirbey's tenure. on april 11, 2001, the cantonal prosecutor submitted a demand for www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm (last visited may 27, 2009). as the district court observed, remedy the inadequacy of the warrant that underlies bosnia's extradition request. the government petitioner-appellant, explained above, the treaty requires a valid arrest warrant as proof that an individual sought for the cantonal court . . . exists and hears all cases that are within its jurisdiction. during the privatizing state-owned industry, fighting corruption, and making meaningful progress in the rule of bosnia. he is therefore entitled to habeas relief. that letter, she states that the "cantonal court--the one that issued the warrant and demand for we also note, in passing, that, if bosnia renews its request to extradite sacirbey, the department sacirbey's tenure as united nations ambassador is motivated by a political vendetta, or that sacirbey f. supp. 2d at 127 (proceedings before a swiss examining magistrate); in re extradition of lehming, 951 this issue has not been previously decided should not be surprising. it is a rare circumstance where the the government interprets these precedents to stand for the following proposition: when friend," and detailing sacirbey's role in the dayton peace talks); strobe talbott, the great experiment: any justification for declining to extradite u.s. citizens. see treaty for mutual extradition of fugitives article iii of the treaty imposes a requirement that when "[a] fugitive is merely charged with crime, a assarsson, 635 f.2d 1237, 1242 (7th cir. 1980) ("assarsson i"); borodin v. ashcroft, 136 f. supp. 2d 125, the letters from amra kosovic, counselor to the bosnian embassy in washington dc, the government's concession that "[t]here is ambiguity" as to whether the cantonal court has conflict with the principle of comity upon which extradition is based."). applying that teaching to this 1980s, he left his law firm to work in the financial sector, first as a vice president at standard and treaty that an individual be "charged" with an extraditable offense has not been satisfied. this defect in assarsson i. in re assarsson, 687 f.2d 1157 (8th cir. 1982) ("assarsson ii"). the eighth circuit 1160 ("`the existence of formal charges can be reviewable, then, only if the treaty itself conditions in re la salvia, 1986 u.s. dist. lexis 29789, at *21 (arrest warrant issued by argentine court). none further investigation. kosovic's letter of november 10, 2005 does nothing to clarify the matter. in district court, because "[a]ll that is required is that sacirbey be `charged,' which he had been at the groups still hinder development. reforms, such as establishing strong state-level institutions, government and attached to it are judicial documents. when bosnia filed its request, it had a lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms is preferred to an interpretation which leaves a part district court in sweden); assarsson i, 635 f.2d at 1239 (malmo district court in sweden); borodin, 136 preparatory committee of the international criminal court. while the treaty expressly authorizes the united states to decline to extradite sacirbey because 7 the district court also determined that the charged offense, "abuse of authority," fell within whether the offense charged is extraditable under the relevant treaty; and (3) whether the evidence in other words, the "warrant of arrest" is a formal legal instrument that is required by the treaty to extradition of sacirbey pursuant to an "international arrest warrant" issued by the cantonal court in cognizable on appeal from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus."); assarsson ii, 687 f.2d at these provisions to mean that the proof required under the treaty to establish that an individual has in any event, whether bosnia has "intent to prosecute" sacirbey is not the relevant inquiry. as 5 maas's determination that a finder of fact reasonably could conclude that sacirbey embezzled funds saudi arabia and therefore did not belong to the ministry. sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, extraditee] was charged under the terms of the treaty." assarsson ii, 687 f.2d at 1160 (quoting assarsson we take no position on what showing is required when an extradition treaty does not20 v. has been placed "in custody in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of the united states." 2003 from assistant united states attorney e. danya perry to magistrate judge mass states: "[t]he 9 december 2000. after his resignation, sacirbey claims to have learned that bosnian foreign minister for the southern district of new york. sacirbey was arrested in march 2003 and detained for over a complaint for arrest with a view towards extradition of sacirbey in the united states district court referred to the cantonal prosecutor's office sarajevo on 08/06/2003 for appropriate action." id. habeas corpus cannot be used to hear for a second time the findings of the court which conducted the intent to prosecute the individual in order to satisfy the requirement that he be "charged" with a crime. otherwise come within the scope of the relevant extradition treaty. see 18 u.s.c. § 3196 ("if the to prosecute sacirbey for his alleged crimes. the government points to letters from various bosnian held in 1995 outside of dayton, ohio. those talks lead to the dayton peace accords, which were2 governing american statutes are complied with." petrushansky v. marasco, 325 f.2d 562, 565 (2d cir. is therefore irrelevant to our holding. apparently, this change refers to bosnia's transition from a system of court-conducted13 following evidence in support of extradition: (1) the cantonal court's august 20, 2001 decision to [and their interpretation] must account for the . . . full text, language as well as punctuation, structure intent to prosecute. the necessary showing has not been made in this case. all of the "formal complaint on oath . . . shall be made by an agent of the government of servia [sic] before a judge or magistrate); in re extradition of lehming, 951 f. supp. at 508 (arrest warrant issued by a german court); declaration in response to an expert declaration submitted by the government. the district court continued through most of 1995, and many atrocities were committed, including acts of genocide judge). observing that the scope of its review was limited to determining whether (1) the magistrate10 having made these determinations, the district court denied sacribey's habeas corpus petition. provide any indication of how a requesting state must show that an accused has been "charged" cantonal prosecutor, mustafa bisic, confirmed that there is an ongoing criminal investigation against rejected the challenge because sacirbey failed to show prejudice. id. at *45-46. third, sacirbey urged faces mistreatment if he is delivered into bosnian custody, or for any of the other grounds available to sheppard, mullin, richter & hampton llp, new york, which is that the status of the charges against sacirbey are not reviewable on a habeas corpus sympathetic nations. as sacirbey concedes, funds earmarked for one project were often spent on treaty's requirement that bosnia demonstrate a "charge" by producing a valid arrest warrant. had jurisdiction over the investigation of sacirbey. the prosecutor's office of the canton sarajevo." id. again, the letter is devoid of any statement that of the record lead us to question the district court's determination. not read such a requirement into the treaty. that court explained, "we refrain from interpreting the legal reforms in bosnia had deprived the cantonal court of jurisdiction over this matter, thereby under 28 u.s.c. § 2241. in this case, a treaty authorizes the extradition of an individual who has been succeeded to the treaty, see id. at *33-34; (2) the offense of "abuse of authority" was sufficiently added). character. sacirbey i, 2005 u.s. dist. lexis 707, at *2. in support of his case, sacirbey offered his own this case. "in construing a treaty, as in construing a statute, we first look to its terms to determine its chief pretrial services for the southern district of new york, district court that he was not "charged" with an extraditable offense. sacirbey argued, inter alia, that11 the treaty's enumerated offenses--namely, the offense of embezzlement. see id. at *24 (citing art. ii 2 national court] will proceed in the matter of [sacirbey] if the request for extradition would be we therefore reverse the order of the district court denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 1995, where approximately 8,000 bosnian muslim men and boys were killed." bureau of european and in one of the cases on which the district court relied, assarsson i, the petitioner argued that in response, the government submitted two letters written by amra kosovic, counselor to the district court authorized the parties to submit additional briefing on the question of whether a court from the mission account and used them for his own personal needs." id. at *39 (internal quotation communist party, had launched an investigation of him. in early 2001, the foreign ministry requested foreign minister upon the assassination of his predecessor in 1995, represented bosnia at peace talks in her dissenting opinion, judge kearse asserts that "will proceed" reflects an active intent21 we reverse the order of the district court denying the petition, grant the petition for a writ of habeas extradition treaties state that an individual must be "charged" with a crime in order to be extradited, but constitute a criminal offense in both countries--was "easily satisfied" because "there are numerous with the treaty is . . . not appropriate for consideration [on habeas review]." garcia-guillern, 450 f.2d sacirbey served as bosnia's agent before the icj and later as a vice chairman of the4 august term, 2007 22 other magistrate authorized to issue warrants of arrest." in addition, the treaty provides that "[n]either e. dalton, the assistant legal adviser for treaty affairs at the united states department of state, 312 (1925)). garcia, united states attorney, on the brief, jonathan s. can, on request of the parties in a case, decide to hear this case of extradition or any other case if the charges" cases cited by the government indicate the existence of a valid arrest warrant issued by a american peace mission to bosnia and his role as "the eloquent public face of bosnia on american proceedings is "narrow" in scope. murphy v. united states, 199 f.3d 599, 601 (2d cir. 1999). a bosnian authorities intend to prosecute sacirbey for his alleged crimes. the letter dated october 2, the matter was assigned to magistrate judge frank maas for a determination of whether statement regarding the bosnian court's jurisdiction, kosovic reiterates, verbatim from her earlier letter, warrant. any other reading would ignore the express terms of article iii. cf. filler, 378 f.3d at 220 12 129 (e.d.n.y. 2001)) (brackets omitted). the district court held that the evidence showed bosnia's 25, 2005, judge maas issued a certification of extraditability and order of commitment. [a 794] evidence of an intent to prosecute exists making extradition proper under these circumstances.") (emphasis § 2241 in the united states district court for the southern district of new york (barbara s. jones, three years and ensured bosnia's independence under the supervision of a high representative selected interpretation, which is equally applicable to interpreting treaties, is to avoid readings that "render investigation of sacirbey in the prosecutor's office--rather than a prosecution in court --is pending in22 appellees' br. 38 ("[the treaty] does not require as a condition of extradition that an extraditee be cv. 2949, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *3 n.3 (s.d.n.y. sept. 7, 2006) ("sacirbey ii"). to political officers of a foreign country for arbitrary and potentially brutal prosecution." id. at 24. he prosecutions to an adversarial system with independent prosecutors and a neutral judge. it cannot this case is extraordinary, our resolution of it requires only that we apply the plain meaning of the [bosnia's] change from a civil law to a common law system[ ] since the issuance of the original13 been "charged" with a crime is a valid arrest warrant and the evidence submitted in order to obtain that "[e]ven if brady can be said to apply in the extradition context . . . brady would not extend to sacirbey's 26 essentially recloaked, had a very specific motive in going after members of the former regime to 1244. the eighth circuit reached the same conclusion in a case involving the brother of the petitioner bosnia sought the extradition of sacirbey in a formal request to the united states department at *23 n.12. the district court concluded that, "by the time the united states government filed the sarajevo. however, as the district court found, the cantonal court currently lacks jurisdiction over treaty requires a valid arrest warrant; there is no valid warrant in the present case; and the terms of matter, to which the extraditee can petition for relief." appellant's reply br. 8. sacirbey observes that, sacirbey emphasized, "the cantonal court is done. it does not exist . . . . the old system under which in all of these cases, an "instituted judicial proceeding," id. was underway in the requesting country. see request for extradition would be approved." id. (emphasis added). in addition, she observes that the docket nos. 06-5137-pr (l), 07-0018-pr (con) law principles." id. at 1449.16 a prerequisite to extradition," id. at 1242; and (2) u.s. courts are not empowered to "review compliance "charged" with a crime but does not require that formal charges be brought, a "clear intent" to seeks to prosecute him. her letter of october 11, 2005 states ambiguously that "the court of bosnia u.s. dep't of state, background note: bosnia and herzegovina (2009), available at executed by and between the united states and serbia in 1902 is a present, valid and effective treaty with a crime. immigrated to the united states, where they settled in ohio. on april 27, 1973, at the age of sixteen, the basis for sacirbey's petition for habeas corpus is that, by means of the extradition and herzegovina will proceed in the matter of mohamed sacirbegovic if the request for extradition 27 accordingly, the order of the district court denying the petition is reversed, and serbia--a neighboring province in the former yugoslavia--launched a violent campaign to partition wigen, 910 f.2d 1063, 1065 (2d cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). for a crime.23 sacirbey continued to represent bosnia at the united nations until 2000. during his eight-year by courts to require something less than a formal charge: for example, the requirement has been where the crime has been committed, and of the depositions or other evidence upon which such 8 "dead letter." united states v. verdugo-urquidez, 494 u.s. 259, 274 (1990) (rejecting an argument that a sacirbey in the national court [of bosnia]." sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *23 (emphasis 130 (e.d.n.y. 2001) ("american courts cannot become enmeshed in the technicalities of foreign in an opinion and order dated january 19, 2005, magistrate judge maas granted the extradition it is nevertheless "our duty . . . to ensur[e] that the applicable provisions of the treaty and the because the record contains no evidence of a valid warrant authorizing the arrest of sacirbey, on april 5, 1992, the republic of bosnia and herzegovinia ("bosnia") declared its error and its legal determinations de novo. see drake v. portuondo, 553 f.3d 230, 239 (2d cir. 2009) stated that, based on terzic's personal inquiries, neither the cantonal court nor the court of bosnia appeal from a september 7, 2006 order of the united states district court for the southern follow a general word, the specific words restrict application of the general term to things that are article ii. the remaining articles of the treaty define the contours of the broad agreement in article i, republic of yugo., 218 f.3d 152, 156 (2d cir. 2000) (noting that bosnia is among the successor states is not a means of rehearing what the [extradition] judge or magistrate already has decided." ahmad, 910 contention that [extraditee] has never been properly or legally charged with a crime in accordance arrest warrant for sacirbey; (3) the sworn statements of three witness; and (4) an affidavit from robert unless otherwise noted, the following facts are not in dispute.1 sacirbey opposed extradition on the grounds that (1) there was no valid extradition treaty on appeal, sacirbey reiterates the arguments that he presented to the district court, including in her dissent, judge kearse argues that the original warrant for sacirbey's arrest was19 19, 2005) ("sacirbey i") ("[t]he united states . . . consider[s] the treaty to be in effect between the by the ninth circuit as well. appellees' br. 35; see emami v. u.s. dist. court for the n. dist. of cal., 834 consistent with its interpretation of the precedents discussed above, the government maintains [bosnian] funds on the icj and icty cases; (iv) sacirbey represented that he would be able to adopted the seventh circuit's holding that, where "[t]he filing of formal charges is not stated anywhere testifying on behalf of sacirbey, suggested that it was within bosnia's power to dispel any ambiguity ambiguity which makes us unable to derive from them an active intent to prosecute. bosnia. citing the "well-entrenched rule of non-inquiry" into the legal procedures of a country hartmann ¶ 25). sacirbey argued that, because no court had jurisdiction over his case, he was not warrant and demand for investigation against mr. sacirbey, and the [national court], which now has jurisdiction over the accused, nor the power to enforce the warrant, can provide an adequate basis the government also relies on the conclusory statement of the fifth circuit that "[the]16 emami, 834 f.2d at 1447 (bochum local court in germany); assarsson ii, 687 f.2d at 1158 (malmo proceedings against him in the united states district court for the southern district of new york, he should contain provisions ensuring that a judicial body in the requesting country stand ready to ensure the part of the country requesting extradition is sufficient. see borodin v. ashcroft, 136 f. supp. 2d 125, f.2d at 1241)). we note that the fifth circuit's statement is broader than the government's position, muhamed sacirbey, also known as muhamed sacirbegovic, was born in 1956 in sarajevo, sacirbey's parents opposed tito's authoritarian government. for their dissenting political beliefs, b. sacirbey was not charged with an extraditable offense under the treaty. restore some of the missing funds, but then failed to do so; (v) he may have evaded the efforts observation, sacirbey argues that the treaty should be read to require a showing of "[t]he presence of a (i) there were significant shortfalls in the [u.n.] mission's account, over which sacirbey had intention to prosecute sacirbey. id. at 35. as noted above, the district court agreed with the the district court to consider the danger and deprivation of due process he would face if extradited to effort to have to argue what is the intent of this new bosnian law by getting some official of state is authorized by the extradition treaty and by statute to refrain from extraditing sacirbey independence from yugoslavia. the united states officially recognized bosnia's independence two "prosecutor's office of bosnia and herzegovina . . . took the investigation which was previously held by the government's reading of the record, "bosnia has repeatedly and unambiguously" indicated its offenses specified in the following article, committed within the jurisdiction of one of the high bosnia. based on our review of this evidence, we are dubious that bosnia seeks to prosecute sacirbey no indication, through bosnian precedent or otherwise, that bosnian courts would interpret the the country along ethnic lines. according to the united states department of state, "[t]he conflict yugoslavia, which was, in turn, a successor state to the kingdom of serbia. see in re the extradition judge kearse argues further that we cannot overturn the district court's "factual finding" as duly authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest in the country where the crime has been committed, and of the depositions other treaties, the district court observed that "[t]he term `charge,' in this context, has been interpreted account properly for personal advances that he had taken against the mission account. law, require continued effort."). 25 that nothing more than a criminal investigation of sacirbey is now pending in bosnia finds complaint, the investigative office of the cantonal court that had issued the warrant order no longer 17 against him, he [could not] be extradited." 635 f.2d at 1239. the seventh circuit rejected this int'l, 186 f.3d 210, 215 (2d cir. 1999) ("treaties are construed in much the same manner as statutes[,] as a prerequisite to extradition . . . , we may not review the magistrate's determination that [the "charged" with a crime and requires that an arrest warrant and supporting materials be provided in formally with an extraditable offense; (4) bosnia had failed to establish probable cause to believe that muhamed sacirbey, mar. 17, 2005, at ¶ 18). several united states officials. see bill clinton, my life 668 (describing sacirbey's involvement in the because "a formal document, called a `charge' in the swedish criminal code, . . . ha[d] not yet been filed as described ante, the district court reached the opposite conclusion, see sacirbey, 2006 u.s.23 television"); richard holbrooke, to end a war 34-35 (stating that sacirbey was his "first bosnian the treaty were, accordingly, not met. whether an intent to prosecute can be proven by the letters court observed that "[t]he term `charge,' in this context, has been interpreted by courts to require (3) a formal criminal charge is not required by the treaty, see id. at *47-48, (4) probable cause had been while formal charges are not required to grant an extradition request, this letter corroborates that an show that a person has been charged with an extraditable crime. see art. iv (describing the article iii upon his extradition." j.a. 958 (nov. 22, 2005 letter of assistant united states attorney anjan sahni). i, 635 f.2d 1242). dist. lexis 64577, at *23 ("the letters plainly indicate a present intent to prosecute sacirbey in the 6 circuits that they have jurisdiction to consider this question on habeas review. see emami, 834 f.2d ("icj"). for much of this period, the finances of the u.n. mission were in disarray. sacirbey claims4 the government does not argue that the district court's findings of fact on the18 crimes, id. at art. vi. court in sarajevo." id. at 749. this letter states that the "criminal investigation against [him] . . . was in this appeal we consider whether an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court that no longer constitutional challenges to the adequacy of the proceedings before magistrate judge maas. treaty and the governing american statutes are complied with." petrushansky, 325 f.2d at 565. 20 seek a writ of habeas corpus; the government's sole remedy is to file a new complaint." ahmad v. judge had jurisdiction, (2) the charged offense fell within the treaty and (3) there was a reasonable extradition remains for the executive branch to decide." murphy, 199 f.3d at 602 (internal quotation conferred by a valid search warrant). the arrest warrant for sacirbey was never re-issued--or otherwise argument on the grounds that (1) "[t]he filing of formal charges is not stated anywhere [in the treaty] as the district court also rejected sacirbey's constitutional challenges to the adequacy of the judicial authority conducting proceedings toward prosecution of the potential extraditee." appellant's appears to be . . . seized of jurisdiction over mr. sacirbey's case," the government argued that these james j. mcguire (kesari ruza, timothy j. mccarthy, ("[s]pecific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language."). in a case, decide to hear this case of extradition." j.a. 961 (emphasis added). contradicting this conditional investigation which was previous[ly] held by [the] prosecutor's office of canton sarajevo. 82, 88 (2d cir. 2000); see also fernandez, 268 u.s. at 312. had any power to enforce it." id. these developments were "quite beside the point," in the view of the sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *21 (internal citations omitted). petition because the treaty does not require formal charges as a condition of extradition. see criminal processes, and . . . the `charge' requirement is satisfied by a requesting nation's intent to prosecute sacirbey is sought for prosecution in bosnia.21 country, the secretary of state may, nevertheless, order the surrender to that country of a united states including certain limitations on the breadth of the term "charged." most important to the instant case, statutory language surplusage" or "redundant." filler v. hanvit bank, 378 f.3d 213, 220 (2d cir. 2004); a generic term referring to those persons whose extradition is sought so that they may be brought to trial." petition. see sacirbey ii, 2006 u.s. dist. lexis 64577, at *19 (citing fernandez v. phillips, 268 u.s. 311, in this circuit. these courts have also addressed the question of how to establish that a crime has been sacirbegovic, no. 03 crim. misc. 01, 2005 u.s. dist. lexis 707, at *1 (s.d.n.y. jan. 19, 2005) ("sacirbey 06-5137-pr political adversaries were using a criminal investigation to retaliate against him. id. at *20-25. professor sacirbey to serve as bosnia's ambassador to the united nations. despite international recognition, corpus, vacate the restrictions on sacirbey's liberty, and hold that he may not be extradited pursuant to vested in [bosnia's] civil law courts were transferred to independent prosecutors at the cantonal and or other evidence upon which such warrant was issued, shall be produced." treaty art. iii (emphases added).17 marks omitted). representatives, even though [bosnian] procedures do not allow for confidential expenditures; extradition under the treaty, id. at art. vi. similar "formal-charge" arguments have been rejected by other courts, including district courts contracting parties, shall seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other: 14 similar to those enumerated." city of new york v. beretta u.s.a. corp., 524 f.3d 384, 401 (2d cir. 2008) "charged" with a crime only if it can provide, inter alia, a valid warrant for his arrest. bosnia seeks the be gainsaid that the current administrative and political situation in bosnia is uncertain. see usaid, her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense had been committed there. transferred to the national court. however, she provides no evidence or citations to the record government's view of the evidence. relying on non-binding precedents construing similar language in responsibility for his prosecution or protection," he has not been "charged" with a crime under the 89, 96 (2d cir. 2006) (reviewing de novo a petitioner's legal arguments--raised under 28 u.s.c. § to the bar of the state of new york, sacirbey worked as a lawyer for a new york law firm. in the stabilization and association agreement with [bosnia] in 2008, the first step in the process of br. 23. in the absence of such a requirement, sacirbey fears that "an extraditee may . . . be handed over statutes). judicial branch in accordance with the treaty and in accordance with international practice. federal crimes for which sacirbey could have been charged in the united states based on the allegations poor's, the rating agency, and later as vice president of an investment bank. the district court agreed with the government. explaining that the "issue arises because of caused by the changes its legal system. he testified as follows: kosovic). a second letter, dated november 10, 2005, was more equivocal on the question of whether for the reasons stated above, we conclude that sacirbey has not been "charged" with an under this construction of the treaty, bosnia can satisfy the requirement that sacirbey be (emphasis added)); cf. in re extradition of lehming, 951 f. supp. 505, 512 (d. del. 1996) ("[s]ufficient also to infer the functions and the jurisdictional reach of the national court. however, she provides as a matter of formal submissions[,] when an extradition is submitted[,] it is submitted by a that would support this interpretation. even assuming arguendo that sacirbey's case was transferred, because we conclude that sacirbey's argument on this point has merit, we do not consider15 19 williams corroborated sacirbey's claims, testifying that "after sacirbey left office, the party controlling (providing the general standard for review of habeas corpus petitions); cf. armstrong v. guccione, 470 f.3d extradition agreement for a country's own citizens, id. at art. v, and for people accused of political court in sarajevo, dec. 5, 2001). yugoslavia. at that time, the communist regime led by josip broz (tito) controlled yugoslavia, and initial hearing. as has been said often, habeas corpus cannot take the place of a writ of error."). before: kearse, leval, and cabranes, circuit judges. declaration issued by swedish court); borodin, 136 f. supp. 2d at 127 (arrest warrant issued by swiss it is so ordered. laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his or that he was not charged with an extraditable offense under the treaty. this argument presents a three months later, sacirbey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c urges us to conclude that, "because no existing [c]ourt has issued a warrant for his arrest or assumed 10 appellees joseph r. guccione and dennis spitzer. subjects under the stipulations of this treaty."). that determination rests, of course, with the executive magistrate judge maas's refusal to reopen the extradition hearing to allow the submission of a reply the investigation of sacirbey's alleged crimes and "no longer ha[s] any power to enforce" the arrest creation of the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia (the "icty"), and managed3 28 u.s.c. § 2241(c)(3). our review of the denial of a petition for habeas corpus in extradition extradition was sought failed to meet the treaty requirements, (3) bosnia had failed to charge him 11 2241--that his confinement for civil contempt violated the fifth amendment and several federal office of the united states attorney for the southern bosnian authorities have issued only ambiguous letters regarding the status of sacirbey's case. requests that have been made. visited may 27, 2009) ("after extensive negotiations, the european union (eu) signed a not be read to disparage in any way whatsoever the conscientious handling of this case by the requesting extradition pursuant to a treaty, the district court did not entertain this challenge. id. at *47; 24 ratified--by a bosnian court with jurisdiction over this case. accordingly, the existence of this arrest19 entity that no longer has lawful authority over the matter. while the factual and procedural history of see ahmad v. wigen, 910 f.2d 1063, 1066 (2d cir. 1990) ("a consideration of the procedures that will or this treaty applies to bosnia as a successor state to the former federal peoples' republic of8 "[e]mbezzlement by public officers" is among the offenses specified for extradition. id. in order to department on matters of criminal prosecution in afghanistan, as an expert on bosnian criminal law. extradition has been charged with a crime. that requirement is not satisfied by a demonstration of this proposition appears reasonable insofar as it gives meaning to treaty language stating that an eurasian affairs, u.s. dep't of state, background note: bosnia and herzegovina (2009), available at muhamed sacirbey, document presented by its executive branch[,] attached to it were the documents by the in 1902 by the united states and the kingdom of serbia (the "treaty"), which provides, in part, that8 he committed any crimes, and (5) his conduct fell within a treaty exception for crimes of a political court determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe sacirbey was guilty of the charged we appreciate the force of sacirbey's concerns. indeed, he may be right that extradition treaties sacirbey as "the pugnacious, thoroughly americanized foreign minister of bosnia"). committed by members of the [bosnian serb armed forces] in and around srebrenica from july 12-22, letter notes that "the court of bosnia and herzegovina was established and . . . can, on request of the parties presented by the government established probable cause to extradite." cheung v. united states, 213 f.3d formally charged. accordingly, sacirbey's arguments regarding the status of his charges in bosnia that "[t]he court of bosnia and herzegovina will proceed in the matter of mohamed sacirbegovic if the stipulations of this treaty," id. at art. v, and that "offense[s] of a political character" may not lead to 23 not, however, a question over which this court has jurisdiction. "[t]he question of the wisdom of judges who have previously considered this matter. that our conclusion differs from theirs should course, we know that sacirbey's case is no longer within that court's jurisdiction pursuant to bosnia's warrant was no longer valid. 13 f.2d 1444, 1448-49 (9th cir. 1987). like the seventh and eighth circuits, the ninth circuit determined offense. the district court listed the evidence against sacirbey: challenge the propriety and legality of this allegedly ongoing investigation." j.a. 871-72 (nov. 22, 2005 the department to decline extradition--or, indeed, for no reason at all, as the treaty does not require (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); cf. restatement (second) of contracts § 203(c) (1981) convention are met."). the department of state appears to have chosen to exercise its discretion in on the meaning of the letters, however, and offer our interpretation of the letters only in response to time his extradition was sought, and continues to be." id. at *23. that he received no salary for his services and that he had to open the u.n. mission using his personal year until he was released on bail in july 2004.9 renews its extradition request and the department of state determines that the investigation into authority. although her interpretation is one feasible reading, the letters are ambiguous. it is that much greater when we try to construe the law of a country whose legal system is not based on common officials that allegedly show an intention to prosecute sacirbey, but proof of such an intention is not were informed, [the] prosecutor's office of bosnia . . . has sent notice that [it] took the muhamed sacirbey, mar. 17, 2005, at ¶¶ 21-27).5 its implications which says the person who issued that original warrant no longer ha[s] that warrant requirement as a "presentation of formal proofs" (emphasis added)). accordingly, we interpret (iii) president izetbegovic expressly denied that sacirbey had been authorized to spend period of justice system reforms, the [national court] was established and the [national] court because he is a citizen of the united states. an exercise of that discretion might be warranted if bosnia n.10. instead, he pressed the two other claims cognizable on habeas review, and made several jurisdiction of the cantonal court are erroneous, much less clearly erroneous, nor does our review to be part of the u.n. mission's deficit because those funds had been donated by the government of respect for german sovereignty and because we recognize the chance of erroneous interpretation is to sacirbey's extradition. of [bosnian] authorities to question him about the accounting problems; and (vi) he failed to a. factual overview1 b. procedural history should condition extradition--particularly the extradition of its own citizens--on such safeguards is thereafter, bosnian president alija izetbegovic, a leader of the muslim community of bosnia, appointed defect falls within the narrow category of issues that is cognizable on habeas review of an extradition do not require the filing of an accusatory instrument, a state seeking extradition need show only an sacirbey also served as bosnia's representative to the icty.3 relevant treaty." cheung, 213 f.3d at 88 (emphasis added). article i of the treaty sets forth a in his habeas petition, sacirbey did not challenge magistrate judge maas's jurisdiction over attended tulane university on a football scholarship; he earned a bachelor's degree and a degree in law


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise