Certified Translation Services for Extradition from the United States
How U.S. Embassies and Courts Treat Obsolete Extradition Treaties and Authenticate Foreign Evidence
Legal document translation services, legal interpreter services, and certified translation services are crucial for ensuring foreign language documents are admissible in both civil and criminal cases. In the world of international law, few topics tread the line between diplomacy and due process as delicately as extradition. When a foreign government seeks the return of a fugitive from the United States, it triggers a legal process governed not by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure but by treaty obligations and executive discretion. A recent case— United States v. Nedzad Kahrimanovic, Case No. 2:24-mj-00573-BAT, 2025 WL 1248705 (W.D. Wash. April 30, 2025)— brings into sharp focus two vital aspects of this process: the U.S. embassy’s role in authenticating foreign documents and how courts interpret extradition treaties signed over a century ago with now-defunct nations.
The Diplomatic-Executive Nature of Extradition
The extradition of Nedzad Kahrimanovic— sought by Bosnia and Herzegovina for a war crime conviction— proceeded under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and an 1902 treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Serbia. The treaty, though dated, continues to shape legal obligations across generations of state succession. But extradition under such a treaty isn’t a straightforward legal proceeding— it’s a diplomatic process in which the judiciary plays a limited procedural role.
The court emphasized that its job was not to retry Kahrimanovic or evaluate the fairness of his conviction in Bosnia, but rather to determine whether the statutory and treaty criteria for extradition were met. These include: the existence of a valid treaty, the proper identification of the individual, jurisdiction, an extraditable offense, probable cause, and properly authenticated evidence.
Embassy Authentication: The First Link in the Chain
One of the most crucial components of any extradition request is the submission of evidence— certified documents that form the foundation for a probable cause finding. In extradition cases, these documents originate from foreign courts or prosecutors and often would be inadmissible in a U.S. courtroom if evaluated under standard evidentiary rules. However, extradition hearings allow for far greater flexibility. Foreign records— be they transcripts, arrest warrants, or trial judgments— can be admitted into evidence so long as they are properly authenticated by a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer.
This is where the U.S. Embassy in the requesting nation plays an essential role. In Kahrimanovic, the initial packet of evidence was provisionally admitted after certification by a U.S. consular official in Bosnia. Later, the authenticated originals were submitted, and their admissibility was not opposed. This type of consular certification is considered sufficient authentication under 18 U.S.C. § 3190, which relaxes the standards typically applied to documentary evidence.
This embassy-level authentication ensures that the documents are indeed what the foreign government claims they are— a judgment, a warrant, a transcript— and helps to protect the integrity of the process. U.S. judges rely on these certifications to trust the provenance of documents, even if the content is hearsay or unsigned.
The Treaty Question: Does the 1902 Pact Still Apply?
The far more controversial legal issue in the Kahrimanovic case was the continued applicability of the 1902 extradition treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Serbia, the historical precursor to several modern Balkan states.
Kahrimanovic challenged the notion that Bosnia— a sovereign nation that emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia— could benefit from a treaty signed over a century ago with a long-defunct monarchy. He argued that applying the treaty to Bosnia without a new Senate-ratified agreement violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which governs treaty-making authority.
But this argument ran headfirst into both legal precedent and executive practice. The United States government, speaking through the Department of Justice, took the position that no new ratification was necessary. Both the U.S. and Bosnian governments have continued to treat the 1902 treaty as valid and enforceable. That executive recognition— absent any action by the Senate or a formal amendment— is legally sufficient under current law.
Then v. Melendez and the Singapore Precedent
The Court leaned heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Then v. Melendez, a 2006 case involving an extradition to Singapore. In that case, the court held that Singapore, although not an original signatory to the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, could nonetheless benefit from that treaty as a successor state. The court emphasized that the issue of whether a treaty continues to apply after changes in sovereignty or national identity is a political question, not a legal one— meaning it is left to the discretion of the executive branch, not the courts.
Applying that precedent, the Court in Kahrimanovic concluded that Bosnia’s status as a successor state entitled it to invoke the 1902 treaty. Although the U.S. has not formally amended the treaty to name Bosnia, the ongoing recognition by both governments provided a sufficient legal basis. This approach avoids the need for courts to wade into diplomatic recognition or treaty renegotiation—sensitive matters traditionally left to the State Department. Although the court acknowledged constitutional concerns under Article II, it found itself bound by Then and held that the 1902 treaty remains valid and applicable to Bosnia due to consistent executive recognition.
The Court also dismissed the Defendant’s reference to a 2016 extradition treaty between the United States and Serbia, finding it irrelevant. Serbia’s modern treaty does not affect Bosnia, which is a distinct sovereign entity. The existence of a newer treaty with one successor state does not invalidate the continuing application of an older treaty with another.
Treaties, Time, and the Law of Continuity
This issue— how long a treaty survives and who it binds— may seem obscure, but it is far from academic. International law recognizes a principle of treaty continuity, especially in criminal matters. When countries dissolve or reform— think Yugoslavia, the USSR, or colonial territories— successor states often inherit both rights and obligations. The practical need to honor prior agreements ensures stability in international relations.
In the extradition context, courts repeatedly uphold older treaties when both countries act as if the treaty still applies. In Kahrimanovic, the Court pointed out that no U.S. court has ever held that the 1902 Servia treaty ceased to exist with the fall of the monarchy. In fact, courts have routinely enforced it in extradition cases involving the former Yugoslavia and its successor states.
Political Offense Exception and Treaty Crimes
Another recurring theme in extradition law is the so-called “political offense exception,” which prohibits extradition for offenses that are politically motivated. Kahrimanovic attempted to invoke this doctrine by framing his conviction as related to wartime activities.
The Court flatly rejected this argument, noting that the victim was an unarmed civilian woman, and that Kahrimanovic’s trial defense in Bosnia was based on self-defense, not political motivation. U.S. courts have long held that war crimes and crimes against civilians do not qualify as political offenses. Under both treaty and U.S. law, murder is a standard extraditable offense.
Due Process and the Non-Inquiry Doctrine
Kahrimanovic also raised a slew of constitutional and humanitarian objections, including concerns about his health and the adequacy of legal representation he received in Bosnia. The Court acknowledged these concerns but noted that they fall outside the scope of a U.S. judge’s authority in an extradition proceeding.
Under the “non-inquiry doctrine,” U.S. courts avoid delving into the fairness or human rights implications of the foreign legal system. Those are matters for the Secretary of State, who has final discretion on whether to surrender the fugitive after judicial certification. This separation of roles preserves the diplomatic character of extradition and avoids turning U.S. courts into de facto international tribunals.
Certification and the Final Step
Ultimately, the Court certified Kahrimanovic’s extradition under § 3184, sending the case to the Secretary of State for a final decision. Although he was initially released under supervision, he may be taken into custody pending surrender. His only remaining avenue of challenge is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he must file by mid-May 2025.
Judicial Certification of Extradition Was Proper Where the Executive Branch Recognized a Treaty’s Continuity from Kingdom of Serbia to Bosnia and Documents Were Authenticated by U.S. Consular Officials
For attorneys and compliance professionals navigating international criminal law or immigration-related matters, the Kahrimanovic decision offers several critical takeaways.
First, the authentication of evidence is paramount. The U.S. embassy’s role in certifying foreign documents is not a mere formality— it is often the key that unlocks admissibility in an extradition proceeding. Consular officers serve as gatekeepers of evidentiary legitimacy, ensuring that U.S. courts can rely on foreign records without applying traditional evidentiary rules.
Second, the case reinforces that treaty continuity matters. The mere fact that a treaty is old— or that the original signatory country no longer exists— does not render the agreement defunct. When the executive branch continues to recognize and apply a treaty, especially with respect to a successor state, that recognition carries significant legal weight and is generally not subject to judicial second-guessing.
Third, extradition is not a trial. Arguments based on innocence, due process, or humanitarian conditions in the requesting country will generally fall outside the court’s purview. These concerns, while important, are for the Secretary of State to consider, not the judiciary.
Finally, political questions— such as the validity of treaty recognition or the legitimacy of foreign governments— are not for judges to decide. Courts routinely defer to the executive branch on these matters, as underscored by the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Then v. Melendez, which upheld extradition to Singapore under a treaty with the United Kingdom.
Final Thoughts on Treaties, Embassies, and the Path to Extradition
In an increasingly interconnected world, legal mechanisms like extradition rely on a delicate balance between sovereignty, due process, and diplomacy. The Kahrimanovic decision reinforces that courts will honor even century-old treaties— so long as the political branches say they remain in force— and that U.S. embassies play a foundational role in validating foreign legal materials for use in U.S. courts. For those accused of crimes abroad, the age of the treaty or the geopolitical history of the requesting nation may matter less than the quiet stamp of a consular seal.
Get in touch with All Language Alliance, Inc. to obtain certified translation of foreign legal documents written in Bosnian; Czech; Serbian; Polish; Hungarian; Slovak; French; German; Japanese; Korean; Chinese; Romanian; Italian, and other foreign languages.
#alllanguagealliance #legaltranslation #legaltranslationservices #certifiedtranslation #certifiedtraslationservices #extradition #extraditiontranslationservices