KER VS ILLINIOSFACTS:Frederick M. Ker was kidnapped and brought to the United States against his will while he was in Peru. Such action was taken for Ker to face the charges for larceny instituted in the criminal court of Cook county which also included charges of embezzlement.The indictment started when Governor Hamilton of Illinois requested for Kers extradition which was granted by the US President who then directed Henry G. Julian, as messenger, to receive the defendant from Perus authorities. In accordance with the treaty between the United States and Peru, and upon the charge of larceny, Julian arrived in Peru with the necessary documents but did not present them to any officer of the Peruvian government and without making any request to surrender Ker. Ker was then forcibly arrested and was placed aboard the United States vessel Essex which took Ker to the US. After Ker arrived in the US, Governor Hamilton made another request that Ker be surrendered to him as a fugitive of justice and such request was granted.Ker alleges that he was denied due process after he was indicted directly from Peru to the US. Also, he contends that due to the treaty of extradition of Peru, he acquired a right of asylum by virtue of his residence in that country.ISSUE:(1) Whether Ker was denied Due Process.(2) Whether Ker has acquired asylum.HELD:(1) No. The due process of law is complied with in this case when the party is regularly indicted by the proper grand jury in the state court, has a trial according to the forms and modes prescribed for such trials, and when, in that trial and proceedings, he is deprived of no rights to which he is lawfully entitled. For mere irregularities in the manner in which he may be brought into custody of the law, Ker is not entitled to say that he should not be tried at all for the crime with which he is charged with regular indictment

(2) No. There is no language that was provided in the treaty, or any other treaty made by the US on the subject of extradition, which would state that a party fleeing from the US to escape punishment for their crime would thereby be entitled to an asylum of the country to which he has fled. The treaty is intended to limit the right of asylum in the case of one who is proved to be a criminal fleeing from justice, so that, on proper demand and proceedings that would follow, the government of the country of the asylum shall deliver him up to the country where the crime was committed.