## Facts

- Roy M. Belfast, Jr. (also known as “Chuckie Taylor” and “Charles McArthur Emmanuel”) is a U.S.-born citizen and the son of Liberia’s former president, Charles Taylor.
- After moving to Liberia, Belfast became head of an elite presidential security force known as the Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU).
- Between 1999 and 2003, Belfast allegedly organized, commanded, and personally participated in torture and severe violence at the Gbatala military base and other locations in Liberia.
- Victim testimony described extreme mistreatment, including severe beatings, burning, electric shocks, and other acts causing severe physical and mental pain.
- On March 30, 2006, Belfast was arrested at Miami International Airport after attempting to enter the United States using a false passport.
- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida charged Belfast with multiple counts of torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(a) and with firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 924(o).
- A jury convicted Belfast on all counts, and the district court imposed an aggregate sentence of 97 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress had constitutional authority, through the Necessary and Proper Clause in implementation of the Convention Against Torture, to enact 18 U.S.C. § 2340A with presence-based jurisdiction over torture committed abroad.
2. Whether applying § 2340A to conduct occurring entirely outside the United States violated constitutional limits, including due process and fair-notice requirements.
3. Whether § 2340A exceeded the scope of the Convention Against Torture by authorizing broad extraterritorial jurisdiction when the alleged torturer is later found in the United States.
4. Whether the evidence and trial rulings (including application of the statutory definition of “torture”) supported the torture and related firearm convictions and the resulting sentence.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and the 97-year sentence.
- The court held that the Convention Against Torture was validly adopted under Article II and that Congress acted within its Necessary and Proper Clause authority in criminalizing torture and providing for jurisdiction when an alleged offender is present in the United States.
- The court rejected challenges to § 2340A’s extraterritorial application, concluding that presence-based jurisdiction for torture is consistent with the treaty’s framework and recognized jurisdictional principles.
- The court held that applying § 2340A to Belfast did not violate due process because torture is universally condemned and the statute provided adequate notice.
- The court found the trial evidence sufficient to establish statutory “torture” and upheld the § 924(c) and § 924(o) firearm convictions and the sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may enact legislation necessary and proper to implement a valid treaty, including criminal statutes addressing conduct outside the United States when tied to treaty obligations.
- The federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, permissibly authorizes jurisdiction over torture committed abroad when the alleged offender is present in the United States, regardless of the nationality of the offender or victims.
- Due process fair-notice requirements are satisfied where the statute defines prohibited conduct and the charged acts (torture) are universally understood to be criminal.
- “Torture” under 18 U.S.C. § 2340 requires intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a person acting under color of law.
- Torture may serve as a predicate “crime of violence” for firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(o) where the statutory elements and trial proof are met.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality and extraterritorial reach of the federal torture statute as treaty-implementing legislation, affirmed presence-based jurisdiction over torture committed abroad, and sustained Belfast’s torture and firearm convictions and 97-year sentence based on sufficient evidence and adequate constitutional notice.


United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010)