Sandhu v. Burke 2000 WL 191707

Sandhu v Burke, was decided on February 10, 2000 and is currently not reported in the federal reporters. The case can be found online at 2000 WL 191707.

In Sandhu v. Burke the plaintiffs, Sukhminder Singh Sandhu and Ranjit Singh Gill were both attempting to prevent extradition to India. Sandhu was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery of a national bank in Ahmedabad, India. Mr. Gill was charged with murder, attempted murder and murder in furtherance of a common intention in connection with the shooting deaths on July 31, 1985 of a member of the Indian Parliament, his wife, and a constituent in Delhi, India.

The case history spans over a decade and had numerous procedural issues. Throughout the case the petitioners were attempting to prevent an extradition to India claiming that upon extradition they would face torture, false imprisonment and other harms.

The court heard oral arguments stating that the principles of international law preclude extradition to India even if Article 3 of the Convention (Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) is not self-executing . Sandhu v. Burke 2000 WL 191707-10. The plaintiffs contend that under jus cogens norms of international law, the right to bodily integrity as well as the right to be free from torture and extradjudicial execution are rights that are judicially enforceable independent of any treaty. Id. The court did not agree holding that jus cogens is only applicable when there is no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision. Id.

In regards to Filartiga, the court held in a footnote that the reliance on Filartiga is misplaced. Filartiga concerned tort claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute...the case currently before this Court, however, arises not in the realm of torts but in the context of extradition. In the extradition context, there is no equivalent to the ATS. Id at ft.10