A federal judge last month declined to dismiss multiple criminal charges in the unique prosecution of a West African man living in Denver, whose alleged acts of torture in his home country could violate U.S. law.

Michael Sang Correa faces seven torture-related counts for his involvement in the investigation of an unsuccessful 2006 coup attempt against then-President Yahya Jammeh in The Gambia. Correa was allegedly part of an armed unit under Jammeh’s control that tortured multiple coup suspects.

In December, Correa moved to dismiss his 2020 indictment by a federal grand jury in Colorado. He argued it violated his constitutional right to due process to be prosecuted for alleged crimes that took place outside the United States, had nothing to do with the U.S. and were The Gambia’s responsibility to prosecute.

In a Feb. 28 order, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello acknowledged the case was treading new ground.

“The parties agree that there is no case, persuasive or precedential, which addresses the exact question at issue in this Motion: whether the prosecution of a noncitizen under the Torture Act for crimes committed entirely within the jurisdiction of another sovereign state, comports with the Due Process Clause,” she wrote.

However, Arguello declined to dismiss the case for three reasons: Correa was on notice his alleged conduct violated U.S. law, torture is a “universally condemned” activity, and Correa’s decision to flee The Gambia and remain in the U.S. established a sufficient enough connection for the justice system.

Lindsay Bailey, a staff attorney with the Center for Justice and Accountability who represents multiple of Correa’s alleged victims, said Correa’s decision to come to the U.S. opened him up to prosecution.

“We believe that Judge Arguello correctly rejected Mr. Correa’s allegations that this prosecution violates his right to due process,” she said. “Due process protects individuals from unfair and arbitrary criminal prosecution. Congress’s decision to create extraterritorial jurisdiction over torture, so long as the defendant was a U.S. citizen or found in the United States, was neither arbitrary nor unfair.”

TRIAL International, a nongovernmental organization based in Geneva, previously reported that Correa’s prosecution is one of a small number of similar cases since Congress enacted the Torture Act in 1994. Last year, another member of Jammeh’s paramilitary unit, known as the “Junglers,” received life in prison following his conviction in a German court.

According to the federal indictment, Correa, who lived in Denver prior to his arrest, participated in the torture of six victims who were suspects in the unsuccessful coup against Jammeh’s government. Allegedly, the torture included beatings, dripping molten plastic onto extremities, extinguishing cigarettes on victims’ bodies, electrocution and stabbing.

“It was the object of the conspiracy to maintain, preserve, protect, and strengthen the power and authority of President Yahya Jammeh, and to intimidate, neutralize, punish, weaken, and eliminate actual and perceived opponents of Yahya Jammeh’s government, by means of torture,” read the indictment.

Under the Torture Act, a person in the United States can be imprisoned for up to 20 years for acts of torture that take place outside the country. In his motion to dismiss the indictment, Correa argued the limited number of court decisions involving crimes outside of the country have generally required there to be a “sufficient nexus” between a defendant and the U.S.

“This is a most unusual indictment,” wrote public defender Matthew K. Belcher. “Whether the allegations of torture following the March 2006 coup in The Gambia are true or false, one thing is clear – these actions had nothing to do with the United States.”

Belcher elaborated Correa did not have notice he would be subject to prosecution, would not receive a jury of his peers and would not be tried in a community affected by the alleged crimes if the case in Colorado proceeded.

The government countered that anyone who commits torture should expect to be prosecuted criminally. Further, a nexus did exist between Correa and the United States: Jammeh’s 2016 election loss prompted Correa to flee to the U.S. and remain in the country illegally. Further, one of his alleged victims was a dual Gambian-U.S. citizen.

In her decision, Arguello sided with the government in finding Correa had notice he could be prosecuted for torture.

“The Court agrees that the universal condemnation of torture and/or self-evidently criminal nature of the acts Mr. Correa is alleged to have engaged in, are sufficient to satisfy the Due Process Clause’s fair warning requirement,” she wrote. “The Supreme Court and circuit courts have discussed the universal repugnancy of torture, placing it on par with genocide and slavery.”

Even if a nexus was required between Correa and the U.S., Arguello found his decision to relocate from The Gambia made him subject to U.S. laws, including the Torture Act.

Correa also argued the Torture Act itself is unconstitutional because Congress’ authority to pass the law in response to a treaty — the Convention against Torture — is questionable. However, Correa acknowledged a 104-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld Congress’ authority to implement treaty terms and has not been overruled since. Consequently, Correa only objected to the Torture Act’s constitutionality to possibly raise it “for future Supreme Court review.”

The case is United States v. Correa.