## Facts

- The U.N. Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
- Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Rwandan pastor residing in Texas, was indicted by the ICTR for genocide and crimes against humanity based on alleged conduct in Rwanda, including transporting militia and ordering killings of Tutsi survivors.
- The United States entered into a presidential executive agreement committing to cooperate with the ICTR and to surrender indicted persons.
- Congress enacted statutes authorizing cooperation with and transfers to international tribunals, including 18 U.S.C. § 3181(b) and 22 U.S.C. § 287d-4.
- U.S. authorities arrested Ntakirutimana in Texas at the ICTR’s request and initiated proceedings to surrender him to the ICTR without relying on a bilateral extradition treaty.

## Issues

1. Whether the Treaty Clause requires a Senate-ratified treaty as the exclusive means for extraditing or surrendering a person from the United States to an international tribunal.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3181(b) and 22 U.S.C. § 287d-4 authorized the executive branch to surrender Ntakirutimana to the ICTR.
3. Whether the surrender process violated constitutional limits, including due process and separation-of-powers constraints.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.
- The court held the Constitution does not make a Senate-ratified treaty the exclusive mechanism for extradition or surrender.
- The court held Congress provided sufficient domestic legal authority for surrender to the ICTR through 18 U.S.C. § 3181(b) and 22 U.S.C. § 287d-4, together with the executive agreement.
- The court rejected due process and separation-of-powers challenges to the surrender.

## Legal Principles

- The Treaty Clause is a grant of authority to make treaties, not a constitutional mandate that international surrender may occur only through Senate-ratified treaties.
- Executive agreements supported by congressional authorization may create enforceable domestic authority comparable to treaty-based authority for purposes of surrender to an international tribunal.
- Where Congress expressly authorizes cooperation and transfer to a specified international tribunal, the executive may carry out surrender consistent with those statutes.
- In extradition/surrender contexts, due process protections are limited to the procedures required by the governing domestic legal framework, rather than full trial-right protections applicable in U.S. criminal prosecutions.
- When the executive acts pursuant to clear statutory authorization, cooperation with an international tribunal does not violate separation-of-powers principles.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Ntakirutimana could be surrendered to the ICTR under an executive agreement implemented by congressional statutes, and that neither the Treaty Clause nor due process or separation-of-powers principles barred the transfer.


Ntakirutimana v. Reno, 184 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1999)