The case of Nicolas Maduro – Past Precedent Revisited

During the last week, Nicolas Maduro, when he was President of Venezuela, was abducted by U.S. DELTA Special Forces from his official residence. His arrest was authorised by the U.S. Government pursuant to an indictment issued by a New York Federal Court in a drug trafficking investigation. Subsequent to his arrest, he was briefly detained on the USS Gerald Ford flown to New York and produced before a competent judge, who remanded him to judicial custody in the Brooklyn Prison, New York. His arrest has received mixed reactions.
Countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Brazil, and Colombia have condemned the arrest. Countries like France, the United Kingdom, and Germany were very cautious in their reaction. These European countries have no sympathy for Mr. Maduro, But still, even for them, the blatant violation of international law by the U.S., in its transgression of the territorial integrity of Venezuela accompanied by the brutal use of armed violence, was too much to gulp.
The Federal Judge had remanded Mr. Maduro and his wife to judicial custody till 6th March,2026. Hopefully, the trial would begin very soon, because the DEA would have completed the investigation before authorising an extraterritorial arrest or abduction. Considering the overall efficiency of US Justice Administration, DEA would have made sure that all the evidence needed to secure the conviction of a high-profile accused like Nicolas Maduro was in place.
Now, it would be interesting to look up some of the past precedents involving South American citizens who committed offences outside the jurisdiction of the United States, yet having a debilitating impact in the territories of the USA.
At least two cases come to my mind.
The first case is that of Alvarez-Machain (504 U.S. 655, 1992). In 1985, E.C. Salazar, an agent of the DEA, was captured in Mexico and was taken to Guadalajara and kept in illegal detention for two days. The drug mafia tortured him to get the plans of the DEA against the drug cartel. The drug cartel wanted to prolong the life of Salazar so that he could be tortured again to extract further information. The accused, H. Alvarez, a Mexican physician, was engaged by the drug cartel for prolonging the life of Salazar.
In 1990, a Federal Grand Jury indicted Alvarez for the murder of Salazar. A Californian court issued a warrant of arrest. The DEA even formally demanded the Mexican Government’s help in getting Alvarez extradited to the USA. However, these efforts could not succeed. The DEA approved a plan to hire Mexican bounty hunters to seize (detain) Alvarez and bring him to the USA for facing the trial. One J.F. Sosa abducted Alvarez from his house, held him overnight in a motel, and brought him by a private plane to El Paso, Texas, where he was arrested by Federal Officers.
On the face of it, the act of authorising the arrest by the DEA in Mexican territory violated the extradition treaty between the USA and Mexico. However, despite the affirmation of the District Court and the confirmation by the federal court affirming the argument of Alvarez-Machain, and the Court of Appeal (9th Circuit) confirming the federal court order that demanded the abatement of prosecution against Machain, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the unlawful arrest, the accused should face a trial in USA for establishing his innocence.
The case was tried in 1992, and the District Court granted Alvarez-Machain a judgment of acquittal because the DEA did not have any credible proof to hold Alvarez guilty. Dr. Alvarez-Machain, after his return to Mexico, filed a case against Mr. Sosa (who unlawfully arrested Machain) and the DEA for wrongful arrest, unjustified prosecution, etc.
The Federal Judge granted him a summary judgment for USD 25,000 but declined to award compensation against the DEA under the Alien Tort Act. Both Sosa and Dr. Machain appealed to the Federal Courts of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and even felt that the DEA should also be tried under the Alien Tort Act. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, though the summary judgment against Sosa for USD 25,000 was not explicitly reversed, Dr. Alvarez-Machain’s claim against Sosa and the DEA was rejected.
This case would show that the Supreme Court of the United States is not so keen to bring its own government to book, even when the instrumentalities of the USA blatantly violate the principles of public international law relating to jurisdiction and wrongful extradition. In fact, as a learner of law, I felt that the federal court and the Court of Appeal were more legally correct than the U.S. Supreme Court, which by its nature is more political. I would not be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court were to reverse the judgments of the lower courts in the infamous Donald Trump selective tariff matter.
Manuel Noriega was the defacto ruler of Panama from 1983 to 1989. He was never officially elected as the President of Panama though he was the unelected military dictator. His staying in power for about 6 years in a country informally yet effectively controlled by USA. In fact, prior to his seizing power, he was among the most valued agents of CIA of USA. He was a conduit for illicit weapons, military equipment and monetary resources meant for US backed destabilising forces within Latin America. Normally intelligence agencies like Inter service Intelligence Agency of Pakistan , as a side business, do narcotics trade as well. Subsequently Noriega’s relationship with CIA and US Government soured. The US Government launched a full invasion of Panama, arrested him in his mansion, arrested him there, and flew him to Miami for facing trial of narcotrafficking and money laundering. After the trial he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to forty years in jail. He served 17 years of his sentence and the remaining sentence was reduced due to his good behaviour. Thereafter, in 2010, he was extradited to France where he again faced money laundering arising from narco trade. He was convicted for 7 more years in France. After serving the sentence he was deported to Panama, his own country. In Panama he was facing several trials. Earlier during the 1990s was even convicted in an “inabsentia trial”. He died in March 2017 after he was diagnosed with a brain tumour.
These two trials indicate clearly that if US Government wants to hold a criminal or suspect responsible for their misdeed, there is very little scope for escape. US Supreme Court is not going to reverse the U.S. President or State Department understanding of international law. It does not really matter even if the presence of the accused during trial was achieved in total violation of principles of international law. But mercifully, like Machain and Noriega, he would be first tried by a Federal Judge in a Jury Trial. Alvarez Machian was able to secure an acquittal. Noriega was convicted in an open trial and was sentenced to a long imprisonment. No one had accused United States of denying them a fair trial under law. I would not be surprised if Mr. Maduro is acquitted in the coming trial, forthcoming trial.
Unfortunately, the United States did not give the benefit of fair trial to the Islamist extremists from Middle East or Afghanistan. Many of these people were held in detention for years together and no charges were ever brought against them in any court of law. They were not even treated “prisoners of war” though at least some of them would have qualified as combatant soldiers under international laws of war. They were held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba detention facility.
In comparison, the Latin American suspects have received a preferential treatment from United States of America. Both Noriega and Maduro are people with very deep pockets. They would be in a position to pay the best criminal defense lawyers in USA. I would not be surprised if Mr. Maduro is able to secure an acquittal because his involvement in narco trade is not so blatant as that of Manuel Noriega or ISI of Pakistan. USA is now extra kind to the State of Pakistan notwithstanding the fact that Osama bin Laden was protected by ISI and Pakistani military establishment. A serious observer of international relations is well aware that big powers are not fair-handed and impartial when it comes to handling international offenders. Many of these dubious personalities are propped by imperialistic or dominant powers for protecting their own global interest. Of course, the U.S. State Department owes nothing to the despot. They can be dumped under a truck if the global interest of the patronizing power changes.
In fact, in the past US had got away from its established violations of international law that included international war crimes committed in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. That is why Karl Marx famously observed that law is an instrument of oppression. In high profile cases having political overtones the Judiciary often justifies the acts of executive / legislature even when they blatantly violate their own Constitutions or jus cogens norms of international laws.
Apparently, Maduro is a tough nut to crack. He enjoys the support of many Latin American countries besides European and Asian powers. His trial will be watched by the world. The American criminal defense lawyers will make a killing. The oil wealth of Venezuela will be a big incentive for the legal fraternity in USA. We all know how Lalith Modi, Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and Mehul Choski substantially enriched the legal fraternity in Europe.
USA today is not only the biggest global oil producer but also the largest consumer. USA in its global oil trade faces tough competition from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela. Saudi Arabia is an US ally as on today. The other countries have taken positions that are perceived as hostile by USA. Hence by manipulating international institutions, USA had been successful in imposing economic sanctions on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Venezuela. These countries have also desired the end of petro dollar. In fact more than half the problem of these countries arise out of their economic ambition of reducing the US dominance in global oil trade and making petrodollar a critically endangered or extinct monetary mechanism.
The trial had just begun. The situation will become more clear in the next three years. We can be sure that Maduro’s trial will attract global attention.
What will happen to Petro Dollar? This is a trillion Dollar question!!!