## Facts

- John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian-born U.S. naturalized citizen, was later denaturalized after findings that he procured citizenship through willful misrepresentation by concealing wartime activities.
- Israel sought Demjanjuk’s extradition under the 1962 U.S.–Israel Extradition Treaty to prosecute him under Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law for alleged participation in killings at the Treblinka death camp as a guard known as “Ivan”/“Ivan the Terrible.”
- Evidence presented in the extradition record included documentary materials linking Demjanjuk to SS-related training/assignment and survivor and other identifications placing him at Treblinka.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, a federal judge conducted extradition proceedings and issued a certificate of extraditability and commitment.
- Because extradition certification is not directly appealable, Demjanjuk petitioned for habeas corpus to challenge the certificate; the district court denied habeas relief and declined to stay extradition.
- Demjanjuk appealed the habeas denial to the Sixth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the charged conduct fell within extraditable offenses under the U.S.–Israel Extradition Treaty, including the treaty term “murder.”
2. Whether the treaty’s double-criminality requirement was satisfied where Israel charged under a specialized Nazi-crimes statute while U.S. law would punish the conduct under homicide and related concepts.
3. Whether Israel could exercise jurisdiction over alleged war crimes/crimes against humanity committed in occupied Poland before Israel existed and by a non-Israeli national.
4. What scope of review applies on habeas in an international extradition case, including whether federal courts may reweigh evidence or only test for jurisdiction, treaty coverage, and competent evidence of probable cause.
5. Whether asserted due process, evidentiary, and procedural objections warranted habeas relief.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.
- The court held the treaty’s “murder” offense encompassed the alleged mass killings at Treblinka and was therefore extraditable.
- The court held double criminality was satisfied because the underlying conduct was criminal in both countries, notwithstanding differences in statutory labels.
- The court held Israel’s prosecution was consistent with universal jurisdiction principles applicable to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- The court concluded the extradition court had statutory/treaty jurisdiction and that the record contained competent evidence supporting probable cause; habeas review did not permit reweighing credibility or resolving factual disputes about identity.

## Legal Principles

- Extradition treaties are construed in a broad and liberal manner to effectuate surrender for covered offenses.
- Double criminality focuses on the underlying conduct, not identical statutory wording or the requesting state’s choice of charging statute.
- Certain international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, may be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction; a state may act on behalf of the international community even when the crimes occurred outside its territory and before its creation.
- Habeas review of an extradition certification is narrowly confined to (1) the extradition court’s jurisdiction, (2) whether the offense is within the treaty, and (3) whether there is any competent evidence supporting a finding of probable cause.
- In extradition habeas proceedings, federal courts do not retry the case or reweigh conflicting evidence; credibility disputes are generally left to the extradition judge and the requesting state’s courts.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Demjanjuk’s extraditability and denied habeas relief, ruling that the treaty covered the alleged Treblinka killings as “murder,” double criminality was met based on conduct, Israel could proceed under universal jurisdiction, and the limited habeas standard was satisfied by competent evidence supporting probable cause.


Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985)