Filartiga v. Peña-Irala
630 F. 2d 876 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, grants federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions brought by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations. Deliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of international law and is therefore actionable under this statute.
Facts:
- Dr. Joel Filartiga was a long-time political opponent of the government of President Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay.
- On March 29, 1976, in Asuncion, Paraguay, Dr. Filartiga's seventeen-year-old son, Joelito Filartiga, was kidnapped and tortured to death.
- The alleged perpetrator, Americo Norberto Pena-Irala (Pena), was the Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at the time of the incident.
- On the same day, police brought Joelito's sister, Dolly Filartiga, to Pena's home where she was confronted with her brother's body, which showed marks of severe torture.
- As Dolly fled the house, Pena followed her, shouting, "Here you have what you have been looking for for so long and what you deserve. Now shut up."
- The Filartigas claimed Joelito was tortured and killed in retaliation for his father's political activities and beliefs.
- In July 1978, Pena entered the United States on a visitor's visa and overstayed, living in Brooklyn, New York.
- Dolly Filartiga, who was also in the United States, learned of Pena's presence in the U.S.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Joel Filartiga and Dolly Filartiga sued Americo Norberto Pena-Irala in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for wrongful death by torture.
- Jurisdiction was claimed principally under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
- Pena moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- The District Court granted Pena's motion and dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
- The District Court, feeling bound by precedent, held that the 'law of nations' did not regulate a state's treatment of its own citizens and thus the claim was not covered by the statute.
- The Filartigas, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, grant a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over a tort claim brought by Paraguayan citizens against another Paraguayan citizen for an act of torture committed in Paraguay?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kaufman
Yes. The Alien Tort Statute provides federal jurisdiction over torts committed in violation of the law of nations, and official torture is a clear violation of modern international law. The court reasoned that the 'law of nations' is an evolving body of law that must be interpreted as it exists today, not as it was in 1789. To determine its current content, courts should consult the works of jurists, the general usage and practice of nations, and judicial decisions. The court found a universal consensus against torture, evidenced by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous other international agreements and national constitutions. This universal condemnation establishes that freedom from official torture is a fundamental human right and a binding norm of customary international law. The court rejected the older view that international law does not govern a state's treatment of its own citizens, stating that this idea is 'clearly out of tune with the current usage and practice of international law.' Therefore, when an alien sues for the tort of official torture, even if committed abroad, § 1350 provides a basis for federal court jurisdiction as long as personal jurisdiction is established over the defendant.
Analysis:
This landmark decision revived the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, transforming it into a vital tool for international human rights litigation in U.S. courts. By holding that official torture violates the 'law of nations,' the court opened the door for victims of egregious human rights abuses committed abroad to seek civil remedies against perpetrators found within the United States. The case established that certain fundamental human rights norms are part of customary international law and are actionable under the ATS, regardless of the nationality of the parties involved. This precedent significantly expanded the scope of transnational litigation and positioned U.S. federal courts as a potential forum for holding individuals accountable for atrocities committed anywhere in the world.
