829 F. Supp. 2d 979
D. Or.2011Background
- Handanovic, a Bosnia and Herzegovina and United States dual citizen, is sought for extradition by B&H for war crimes alleged to have occurred in 1993 in Trusina and Gaj, Bosnia.
- Extradition is sought under the 1902 U.S.-Yugoslavia treaty, as continued by the successor-state doctrine to apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- The United States extradition proceedings allege extraditable offenses (War Crimes against Civilians and War Crimes against Prisoners of War) under Article 173(l)(a)-(b) and 175(l)(a) of the B&H Criminal Code, in conjunction with the treaty.
- Handanovic contests (a) treaty validity, (b) compliance with treaty formalities (arrest warrant, charging document, limitations, dual criminality, and specialty), and (c) sufficiency of probable cause.
- A September 29, 2011 extradition hearing yielded evidence from documents and witnesses; the court concludes Handanovic is extraditable only for first-degree murder offenses that qualify as war crimes under the treaty.
- The court ultimately certifies extradition for War Crimes against Civilians and War Crimes against Prisoners of War that constitute first-degree murder, while non-capital offenses are barred by statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a valid extradition treaty with B&H | Handanovic argues no valid treaty or successor-state link exists. | Handanovic asserts no treaty coverage due to lack of continuity with Yugoslavia. | Treaty valid; Bosnia and Herzegovina is a successor to Yugoslavia for 1902 treaty purposes. |
| Arrest warrant compliance with treaty requirements | Warrant defects render extradition improper. | Corrigendum fixes biographic defects; warrant sufficiently described Handanovic. | Corrigendum cures deficiencies; arrest warrant is not defective. |
| Extraditable offenses under the treaty and dual criminality | Only named offenses in treaty can be extraditable; war crimes not listed are non-extraditable. | Underlying conduct (murder/attempted murder) falls under listed offenses or is extraditable by underlying conduct rule. | War crimes conduct underlying Handanovic’s acts is extraditable; dual criminality satisfied for murder-based offenses; conspiracy theory not determinative. |
| Rule of Specialty and prosecutorial scope | Handanovic could be tried only for offenses specifically surrendered for. | The rule is procedural and the defendant lacks standing before extradition. | Handanovic lacks standing to raise specialty at this stage; secure extradition subject to Secretary of State decisions. |
| Statutes of limitations tolling | Limitations period tolled by flee-from-justice theories. | No tolling for capital offense; noncapital offenses barred; ICTY events cited. | No tolling for first-degree murder; only first-degree murder offenses are extraditable due to no statute of limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Emami v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 834 F.2d 1444 (9th Cir. 1987) (formal charging not required if arrest warrant and evidence exist)
- Assarsson v. Assarsson (In re Assarsson), 635 F.2d 1242 (7th Cir. 1980) (treaty language construed to avoid insisting on formal charging document)
- Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986) (liberal interpretation of treaty provisions favors surrender)
- Caplan v. Vokes, 649 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1981) (probable cause standard; coherence between facts and offenses required)
- Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (extradition supported by arrest warrant and evidence, even without formal charges)
- Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985) (extradition offense scope determined by underlying conduct, not name)
- Artukovic v. Rison, 784 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1986) (war crimes within treaty scope when underlying conduct matches extraditable offenses)
- Vo v. Benov, 447 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2006) (state of extradition and probable cause standards; dual application of treaty)
- Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276 (1933) (treaty language refers to evidence required to establish charge)
- Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1922) (offense extraditable only if acts are criminal under both laws)