consular relations and in that case the supreme court provided i had somewhat of a checklist of issues that could preclude federal relief however it did not decide that any of those relief mentioning that the state of texas had reopened the proceedings and that the president of the united states had issued a letter indicating that further review would be provided in the supreme court ultimately help that it was unwise to reach and resolve any of those possible obstacles nevertheless i would like to address some of those hospital o for that proposition the supreme court made reference to its decision read first it's far too late and read the defendant had complained that the state exceeded time restraints implodes by a multi stating greenman but he had obscure time prescription and had not objected until after the clock and run and for that reason the supreme court held that there was scarcely cause for collateral review but there is an interesting an obvious  case because the supreme court observed that it would hamper the purpose of that multistate agreement if state court decisions were totally insulated from federal section twenty two fifty four refill in this case it would obviously hamper treaties and the national uniformity required for treaties if state courts could say you know shows that the united states said we will not move the death penalty won't be subjected to the death penalty and there's no reference to what thirty year maximum imposed at the time the venezuelan supreme court granted the extradition request was the death penalty issue that it was ten months later that the venezuelan government through diplomatic no raise the issue with regard to the thirty subsequently added i believe it was clear from the very beginning fall from the decree of the then the swale and supreme court including counsel for the state of california has argued that we don't even need to look back to create so if the decree did not mention that point then it would be irrelevant what we do with the record from the state department or the letter from the state department to the county of san diego which essentially says you know we make this recommendation but but we're not demanding state and the department of justice which is where that letter comes from as to what the united states government's position is on an extradition matter are you suggesting that the district attorney for san diego county with not entitled to read that letter and act in conformity w that that the department of justice was mistaken in issuing that letter because of the clear conditions that were expressed both in the decree of extradition and there is also a notification but what what do we do i mean we're worth your now on air review we've got a factual determination by the courts full and you're essentially i think arguing the prong under  ed where you have the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that that that's wrong that the department of justice advice was incorrect and that the state courts error when they m custody and if that person pursuant to those decreased i believe that's somewhat in jan was to say well we never really promised you that we would apply abide by the second condition but you're asking us on  review to essentially i guess step into the shoes of the secretary of state and take a position a legal position that's different from the one that the secretary of state through the department of justice took and i'm wondering how we can do that under at where the question is whether or not the interpretation of the obligations under the specify ality both contrary to reasonable applications supreme court authority and i goes back to those express conditions which were mentioned twice before the extradition ever took place both  that we're talking about something that's even more fundamental than perhaps the treaty violation and the vienna convention and extradition treaty is the basis of mr rodriguez mumtaz being here in the first place saw it were not for that mention the fact that he hasn't served thirty years it's not really relevant there are numerous differences between a life sentence and a sentence for term of years including the fact that under the prisoner exchange treaty that that as justice o'connor suggested in her two cents in many years in the jurisdictional questions may be waived and are not open for review throughout the entire case i believe the state of california had an obligation to raise that argument before now and certainly by raising it eleven days before oral arguments in a twenty eight letter if this court wishes to entertain that question perhaps it should provide the opportunity for additional briefing i would like to turn also to the ad analysis which focused on the state court decision the portion of the state court decision in this case which facts that is materially indistinguishable from a decision of the supreme court that reaches a different result can meet that contrary to class and this case i would submit is indistinguishable from russia limit it to whether it's a charge or whether sent a sentence and in an international context a sentence a charge which brings a sentence for life or the death penalty name well be viewed as a separate charge th some salt the opinions of the courts in canada in determining whether or not there was a decent violation of the treaty in canada they had disapproved extradition on certain charges and approved them on others and when the united states accepted custody and went back and applied the first charges the only way of even knowing what the charges were or were not was to refer to something outside the four corners of the treaty and that was the decrease of the courts of the state of the country of canada and in what exactly was the the terms of the extradition and that's what's happened in this case a sovereign country has allowed extradition and yet on conditions that were known to the united states from the very beginning and yet this country has has not taken them into consideration and that is sort of the saw my summary of the widest an unreasonable application even if we give it the deference that it's due under therefore in this country the judiciary would determine whether or not extradition would learn and i submit that this court and other courts in this country with the very appropriately concerned if a foreign country simply ignore mark one of the express conditions that was placed on extradition but it's been part of the problem i have in all our tradition matters is to a certain extent you're talking about the state of our relations with a foreign country and we have to rely upon the executive branch and the president whose power in this area is quite broad in order to make that kind of a decision what you're asking us to to reach a conclusion that is different from the conclusion that the executive branch reached when this issue was presented to the department of state in just and i find that a little problem i don't deny that it is courts that ultimately decide the question the problem is under the we have to find that it is unreasonable under the standards contained in the statute when the department of justice is told us that the position you're advocating is not the position of the united states that the president of the united states has issued a letter or a memorandum indicating that review will be provided in those cases this case is not in a very much different position except for no plane has been brought in the international court of justice to this point however that is not iran i mean that is without possibility to be pursued but if we go back to the initial decision to allow if there's nothing in the record john i would admit that it's simply a matter those are the options that the country of scientists will have the treaty provides that it is not required to surrender a person for extradition in that i think the i think this case becomes easy venezuela we have the right under the treaty to request the assurance regarding no death penalty and regarding a life term the tre death penalty and the acceptance was made at that point and that the additional language regarding particular thirty years had no effect and that the state department seems to believe that that is he faced the possibility of life imprisonment and that was correctly conveyed to venezuela and the fact that they extradited him with the understanding at least the correct understanding of california law and the possibility of a life treaty i just wanted to let me clarify then the treaty mentions the death penalty and life imprisonment the united states with asked about to provide it insurances regarding the death penalty only but then of course the extradition documents refer wasn't their understanding and that they did not believe that they would be found by the thirty year limitation thank you thank you very much the case was very well argued and you give us a lot of think about well we'll try and pu