The extent of those rights and freedoms is debatable,
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case brief
summary (2)
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
Citation: 630 F.2d 876 (1980)
Quick Synopsis
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala was a lawsuit that charged former
Paraguayan official Americo Peña-Irala with the
wrongful death of Joelito Filártiga.
Facts of the Case
 Filártiga was a Paraguayan dissident. His son
was tortured and later murdered by an official
of Paraguay named Peña-Irala. These events
happened in Paraguay.
 The murder was said to be politically motivated.
 Filártiga attempted to get justice for the acts of
Peña-Irala in the state of Paraguay, however, he
was unsuccessful.
 Peña-Irala traveled to the United States for
vacation and while in the US, he was sued by
Filártiga, who at the time, lived in the United
States.
 Filártiga sued under the Alien Torts Statute.
Procedural History
 The trial court dismissed the claim and Filártiga
appealed.
 The trial court said that the law of nations, as
used in the Alien Torts Statute does not govern
a state’s treatment of its own people.
 The trial court was basically stating that it
lacked jurisdiction over what other state’s
officials did to its own citizens on its own soil.
Issue
Can an individual sue for a murder that happened
outside of the United States that was politically
motivated?
Holding
Yes, torture by an official is prohibited under the law of
nations.
Rules of Law
The Alien Torts Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350) states
that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of any civil action by an alien for tort only, committed
in violation of the law of nations or a treaty with the
United States.
Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute
to give foreign citizens the right to seek remedies in the
courts of the United States for human-rights violations
for conduct that has been committed outside of the
United States.
Discussion
The appellate court reversed the holding of the trial
court, looking to The Paquete Habana (175 U.S. 677
(1900)).
The Paquete Habana stated that the law of nations
should be interpreted as customary international law,
under which exists a set of human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
however, they surely include the right to not be tortured
and the right to not be killed.
Under the Alien Tort Statute, Filartiga had a claim since
Pena-Iralia was accused of violating the laws of nations.
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case brief,
630 F.2d 876 (1980)
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
630 F.2d 876 (1980)
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (28 U.S.C. §1350) provides: "
the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in
violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United
States."
This law was pretty much never used between the time
it was enacted (1789), and during the 1980s.
FACTS
Filartiga was a Paraguayan dissident. Filartiga's son was
tortured and murdered by a Paraguayan official named
Pena-Irala (where does one get a name like that!?) in the
state of Paraguay.
The killing was politically motivated.
Filartigia tried to get justice in Paraguay, was
unsuccessful. :(
Pena-Irala came to the US on vacation, and was sued by
Filartiga (who lived in the US) under the ATS. (Maybe he
will get some justice now!)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Trial Court dismissed the claim. Filartiga appealed.
Trial Court found that the "law of nations" as used in
the ATS does not govern a State's treatment of its own
citizens. The Court was stating that they did not have
jurisdiction over what Paraguayan officials did to
Paraguayan citizens on Paraguayan soil.
Appellate Court reversed: (looks like he will get some
justice after all!)
The Appellate Court looked to [The Paquette
Habana (175 U.S. 677 (1900))], and stated that "the law
of nations" should be interpreted as customary
international law.
The Court found that under customary international
law, there exists a set of "human rights and fundamental
freedoms."
The Court also noted that the extent of those rights and
freedoms is debatable, but surely includes the right to
not to be tortured and killed.
Official torture is prohibited by the law of nations. (this
is a good thing!)
The Court found that Filartigia actually did have a claim
under the ATS since Pena-Iralia was accused of violating
the law of nations.