Opinion ID: 2968430
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The CAT and the FARR Act

Text: A central issue in this appeal is whether the Secretary’s discretion in extradition matters has been constrained by Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), see United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, art. 3, 23 I.L.M. 1027, 1028, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 114, and § 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (the FARR Act) of 1998, see Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note). As is relevant here, Article 3 of the CAT provides: 1. No State Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 23 I.L.M. at 1028.1 President Reagan signed the CAT on April 18, 1 The CAT defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession[,] punishing him for an act he or a third person has commitMIRONESCU v. COSTNER 5 1988. The Senate adopted a resolution of advice and consent to the Convention in 1990 but conditioned that consent on its declaration that the provisions of Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing. 136 Cong. Rec. S17486-01, S17492 (1990). And, the President ratified the CAT for the United States subject to this same declaration. See Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 207, 211-12 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2003) (recounting ratification history of the CAT). In light of the Senate’s determination that the CAT was not selfexecuting, Congress enacted the FARR Act to implement the treaty. The FARR Act provides that [i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States. Section 2242(a). It also directs heads of the appropriate agencies to prescribe regulations to implement the obligations of the United States under Article 3. Section 2242(b). The applicable State Department regulations identify the Secretary as the U.S. official responsible for determining whether to surrender a fugitive to a foreign country by means of extradition. 22 C.F.R. § 95.2(b) (2006). They provide that to implement the obligation assumed by the United States pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention, the Department considers the question of whether a person facing extradition from the U.S. ‘is more likely than not’ to be tortured in the State requesting extradition when appropriate in making this determination. Id. They further state that in each case in which there is an allegation relating to torture, appropriate policy and legal offices [shall] review and analyze information relevant to the case in ted or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Id. at 1027. 6 MIRONESCU v. COSTNER preparing a recommendation to the Secretary as to whether or not to sign the surrender warrant. 22 C.F.R. § 95.3(a) (2006). And, they provide that [d]ecisions of the Secretary concerning surrender of fugitives for extradition are matters of executive discretion not subject to judicial review. 22 C.F.R. § 95.4 (2006).