Baseball, NFL Wait to Play Ball

For the first time, a federal appeals court has ruled that a U.S. government-instigated kidnapping of an individual from another country violates international human rights law and that violation can be redressed in a U.S. court.

The 3-0 ruling this week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco stems from the April 1990 abduction of Mexican physician Humberto Alvarez Machain. Alvarez had been indicted in Los Angeles three months earlier on charges that he was involved in the 1985 kidnapping and murder of U.S. DEA Agent Enrique Camarena in Guadalajara.

The kidnapping occurred after the Mexican government refused to extradite Alvarez, who was later acquitted in the Camarena case.

The decision Tuesday means that Alvarez is entitled to recover a limited amount of damages. The Justice Department, however, is likely to appeal the ruling. In an earlier case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Alvarez could be put on trial in the United States despite the fact that he had been brought here as a result of a kidnapping.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents based in Los Angeles, using operatives in Mexico, orchestrated the kidnapping. The agency paid about $60,000 to several Mexicans who abducted the doctor and brought him to El Paso and then to Los Angeles, according to testimony by a DEA operative.

In 1992 a federal judge here acquitted Alvarez, who was then permitted to return to Mexico--after more than two years of incarceration in the United States. Several other men have been convicted of involvement in the federal drug agent’s murder and sentenced to long prison terms.

The ruling Tuesday was praised by Los Angeles civil liberties lawyer Paul Hoffman, who has represented the doctor for more than a decade. “We have been fighting for a U.S. court to rule that a kidnapping like this was a violation of international law,” Hoffman said.

Justice Department attorney Robert Loeb said the agency is considering seeking a rehearing from a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alvarez’s kidnapping precipitated strained relations between the United States and Mexico and spawned considerable litigation.

The decision this week evolved from a federal damage suit that Alvarez filed in Los Angeles a year after he was acquitted on the criminal charges. Alvarez, now 53, sued the U.S. government; DEA agents in Los Angeles and Washington; Francisco Sosa, a former Mexican policeman; and five other Mexican nationals, all of whom are now in the U.S. witness protection program.

The case involves important and complicated issues involving how far the government can go in attempting to apprehend a suspect abroad. On most of the major issues, the appeals court ruled against the United States.

In one of the most significant parts of the decision, the 9th Circuit rejected the government’s claim that as a sovereign nation it was immune from such a suit.

“The government admits that it knew of and acquiesced in the plan to kidnap Alvarez and bring him to the United States,” Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in a decision joined by jurists Mary M. Schroeder and Samuel P. King.

“Sosa performed the search to assist the DEA agents. Sosa had no individual interest in kidnapping Alvarez other than to curry favor with the DEA agents in the hopes that they would reward him. Therefore, because Sosa acted merely as an agent or instrument for ‘law enforcement officers,’ the United States has waived sovereign immunity,” the appellate judges said.

These conclusions were praised by an attorney who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several human rights groups. “The 9th Circuit decision is significant because it recognizes that international law applies to the United States government,” said California Western School of Law professor William J. Aceves.

The 9th Circuit also rejected the government’s argument that the DEA has the power to implement U.S. law overseas even if it overrides international law.

“If this assertion [by the government] is an accurate statement of United States law, then it reinforces the critics of American imperialism in the international community,” wrote Goodwin, an appointee of President Gerald Ford.

The court also ruled that “Alvarez’s kidnapping violated his right to freedom of movement, to remain in his country and to security in his person, which are part of the ‘law of nations.’ ”

Moreover, the court ruled, the United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a “false arrest,” the basic law that permits a person to file personal injury claims against the federal government or its agents.

The appeals court sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson for a determination of the government’s monetary liability.

In earlier proceedings, Alvarez was awarded $25,000 against Sosa, a ruling that Sosa appealed unsuccessfully. The 9th Circuit upheld Alvarez’s right to recover against Sosa under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a law enacted in 1789 which permits a foreigner to sue for damages in a U.S. court.

Sosa’s attorney, Charles S. Leeper of Washington, D.C., said he was disturbed by “the court’s conclusion that Alvarez’s detention in Mexico was arbitrary and unlawful and that he is entitled to damages for that.” Leeper added, “We are especially troubled by the court’s conclusion that U.S. law enforcement agents have to obtain a warrant or permission from foreign countries harboring fugitives or other individuals for whom warrants have been issued in the U.S.”

The 9th Circuit upheld Wilson’s ruling that Alvarez can recover damages only for the brief period--about 24 hours--that he was detained in Mexico, not for the 2 1/2 years he was in U.S. custody.