Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:17:35.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cornejo-Barreto v. Seifert

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Jacques Semmelman
Jacques Semmelman*
Affiliation:
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 435 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 218 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000).

2 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984,1465 UNTS 85, 23 ILM 1027 (1984), modified in 24 ILM 535 (1985) (entered into force for the United States Nov. 20, 1994) [hereinafter Torture Convention or Convention].

3 Id., Art. 3(1). “Torture” is defined in the Convention as any act committed by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity “by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for” such purposes as obtaining a confession, punishing the person, or intimidating the person. Id., Art. 1(1).

4 136 CONG. REC. SI 7486-01, *S17491-92 (1990), 1990 WL 168442; see also Marian, Nash Leich, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 85 AJIL 334, 335-37 (1991).Google Scholar

5 See Semmelman, Jacques, Federal Courts, the Constitution and the Rule of Non-Inquiry in International Extradition Proceedings, 76 Cornelll. Rev. 1198 (1991)Google Scholar; cf. Quigley, John, The Rule of Non-Inquiry and Human Rights Treaties, 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1213 (1996)Google Scholar (arguing that human rights treaties supersede rule of noninquiry).

6 See, e.g., Emami v. District Court, 834 F.2d 1444, 1454 (9th Cir. 1987); Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 584 (6th Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 475 U.S. 1016 (1986).

7 18U.S.C. §3186 (1994).

8 See, e.g., Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1105 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 1036 (1980); Peroff v. Hylton, 563 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (4th Cir. 1977); Shapiro v. Sec’y of State, 499 F.2d 527, 531 (D.C. Cir. 1974), aff’d sub nom. Commissioner v. Shapiro, 424 U.S. 614 (1976).

9 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, §2242, 1999 U.S.C.C.A.N. (112 Stat. 2681) 871 [hereinafter FARR Act or Act].

10 Id. §2242(b) (emphasis added).

11 Id. §2242(d). The exception is “as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1252).” Id.

12 Id.

13 22 C.F.R. §§95.1-95.4 (2000).

14 Id. §95.4.

15 Cornejo-Barreto, 218 F.3d at 1007.

16 5 U.S.C. §§551-559, 701-706 (1994) [hereinafter APA].

17 Id. §704.

18 Id. §701 (a).

19 Cornejo-Barreto, 218 F.3d at 1013 (quoting FARR Act, supra note 9, §2242(d)).

20 Id. at 1014.

21 7d.

22 Id. at 1016-17.

23 M a t 1015 (quoting 5 U.S.C. §706(2) (a) (1994)).

24 Sandhu v. Burke, No. 97 Civ. 4608 (JGK), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3584 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2000).

25 FARR Act, supra note 9, §2242(d).

26 See Bowen v. Mich. Acad, of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 671 (1986); Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 345 (1984); Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 (1967).