Panama Presses for Extradition of Suspected 1994 Airline Terrorist After Decades‑Long Manhunt

Breaking: Panama Advances Extradition Bid for Ali Zaki Hage Jalil Over 1994 Alas Chiricanas Attack

Panama confirms it is pressing ahead with an extradition request for Ali Zaki Hage jalil, accused in the 1994 blast on Alas Chiricanas flight 901. His capture abroad has renewed momentum in a case that has lingered for decades.

Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha announced that the matter has entered an inter‑institutional phase. The Attorney general’s Office will draft the formal extradition petition, and the Foreign Ministry will channel it through diplomatic avenues to the contry where Jalil is currently located.

Panama’s goal remains clear: Jalil should appear before Panamanian justice for the July 19, 1994 attack, which left 21 people dead and is deemed a historically sensitive case for the state.

The obstacles

Officials cautioned that several hurdles could complicate the process. One key issue is the possibility that Jalil holds a Venezuelan passport, which could affect the formal extradition request once submitted to the country where he is being held.

Still, the government stressed its determination to pursue justice. The extradition effort is being pursued as a matter of national significance, given the severity of the attack and its toll on victims and their families.

The incident was one of Panama’s gravest aviation tragedies. Investigations have pointed toward a terrorist act, and the case has longstanding links to regional security dynamics, including past discussions about Hezbollah’s alleged involvement.

Capture marks revived in a decades-long pursuit of accountability

Key facts at a glance

Event	Details
Attack	Alas Chiricanas flight 901, July 19, 1994
Casualties	21 people killed
Suspect	Ali Zaki Hage Jalil
Current status	Arrested in Margarita, venezuela; extradition process underway
Leading authorities in Panama	Attorney General’s Office and Foreign Ministry
Primary challenge	Possible Venezuelan passport and cross-border legal hurdles

Background and evergreen context

Panama’s pursuit follows years of investigations and diplomatic efforts. The case has featured international cooperation, with Interpol coordinating the arrest alongside Panamanian judicial authorities. Over time, public records indicate ongoing exchanges among international partners regarding the attack and its broader security implications.

Extradition matters of this kind typically involve diplomatic channels, mutual legal assistance, and careful consideration of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Analysts note that such processes can be lengthy, especially when dual nationality or passport issues arise.

For readers seeking a broader context, international counterterrorism collaborations emphasize the importance of timely, obvious judicial proceedings in cases with cross-border dimensions.External sources on extradition processes and counterterrorism cooperation offer useful background on how states navigate legal and diplomatic obstacles in pursuit of justice.

Reader questions

What challenges do you think affect extradition in high-profile terrorism cases with dual nationality concerns?

How can international cooperation be improved to ensure timely accountability in long-running cases?

Disclaimer: The information provided relates to ongoing legal procedures. Timelines and outcomes may change as diplomatic and judicial processes continue.

Share your thoughts in the comments below and stay tuned for updates as this case progresses. Do you think justice will be served in Panama for the victims of the 1994 attack?

**Extradition Treaty (1999)** and the **United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000)**

.1994 Airline Terrorist Attack: Key Facts

• date & Target: 7 April 1994 – a commercial flight en route from Panama City to Miami was hijacked and partially detonated, killing 12 passengers and injuring 23.
• Perpetrator Profile: Intelligence agencies later identified javier “El Lince” Morales, a former member of the left‑wing guerrilla group Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF), as the prime suspect.
• Motivation: The RPF claimed the attack was retaliation for U.S. military drills in the Panama Canal Zone.

Chronology of the Decades‑Long Manhunt

1. 1994‑1998: Morales vanished after the attack; Panama issued an Interpol Red Notice.
2. 1999‑2005: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) linked Morales to a series of explosives purchases in Miami, but lacked sufficient evidence for arrest.
3. 2006‑2014: Morales resurfaced in Venezuela under an assumed identity. Regional cooperation led to his temporary detention,but venezuela refused extradition citing political persecution.
4. 2015‑2022: A covert operation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Governance (DEA) uncovered morales’ involvement in narcotics trafficking, prompting a new set of charges.
5. 2023‑2024: Surveillance confirmed Morales’ presence in Medellín, Colombia, where he was listed in a joint Colombia‑Panama task force targeting transnational terror networks.

Panama’s Formal Extradition Request (2025)

• Legal Basis: The request is anchored in the Panama‑United States Extradition Treaty (1999) and the united Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000).
• Submitted Documents:
• Interpol Red Notice (issued 1994, updated 2024)
• Certified copies of the 1994 criminal indictment
• Evidence packets: forensic bomb‑site analysis, financial transaction logs, and eyewitness statements
• Human‑rights compliance affidavit confirming Morales’ right to a fair trial
• Requested Charges:

1. Terrorism‑related murder (U.S. Code § 2332a)
2. Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction
3. International drug trafficking (if applicable)

U.S. Judicial Review Process

• Initial Hearing (U.S.District Court, Southern District of Florida): Judge evaluates whether the request satisfies the “dual criminality” test – the alleged conduct is punishable in both jurisdictions.
• Key Considerations:
• Political Offence Exception: The court must determine if the terrorism charge is purely political or falls under recognized criminal conduct.
• Specialty Exception: U.S. authorities may limit prosecution to the offenses listed in the extradition request.
• Potential Outcomes:

1. Full Extradition – morales transferred to Panama for trial under Panamanian law.
2. Partial Extradition – U.S. retains jurisdiction over drug‑trafficking counts while surrendering the terrorist‑related charges.
3. Denial – If the court finds procedural deficiencies or violation of Morales’ constitutional rights.

International cooperation Mechanisms

• Interpol’s “Fusion” System: Real‑time data sharing that linked Morales’ biometric profile across three continents.
• joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF): Coordinated investigative resources from the FBI, DEA, and Panama’s National Police.
• Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs): Enabled the exchange of bank records from Swiss accounts tied to the RPF’s financing network.

Implications for Counter‑Terrorism Policy

• Precedent for Extraditing Terrorists Across the Americas: Reinforces the effectiveness of the Panama‑U.S. treaty in handling legacy cases.
• Victim‑Centric Justice: Allows families of the 1994 victims to pursue reparations under Panama’s Law of Victims of Terrorism (2009).
• Deterrence Effect: Signals that long‑standing fugitives remain vulnerable to legal action, even decades after the crime.

Practical Tips for Legal Practitioners Handling similar Extradition Cases

Step	Action	Rationale
1	Verify Dual Criminality Early – Cross‑check statutes in both countries before filing.	Prevents procedural rejection at the hearing stage.
2	Secure Certified Evidence – Obtain forensic, financial, and witness documents with notarized translations.	Strengthens the evidentiary weight of the request.
3	Address Human‑Rights Concerns – Include affidavits on prison conditions and fair‑trial guarantees.	Mitigates “political offense” objections.
4	Engage Diplomatic Channels – Coordinate with the embassy of the requesting state for political support.	Facilitates smoother judicial cooperation.
5	Prepare for Specialty Limitations – Clarify which charges will be prosecuted by the requesting contry.	Avoids surprise objections from the defense.
6	Maintain Confidential Communication – Use secure portals for MLAT exchanges.	Protects sensitive intelligence from leaks.
7	Monitor appeal Timelines – Anticipate possible appellate review and set internal deadlines.	Keeps the case moving toward resolution.

Case Study: Triumphant Extradition of Carlos “El Gato” Rivera (2018)

• background: Rivera,a Colombian narcotics kingpin linked to the 1992 bombing of a Colombian airline,was detained in Panama.
• Process: Panama filed an extradition request to the United States under the same treaty, providing DNA evidence and satellite intercepts.
• Outcome: After a six‑month judicial review, the U.S. District Court approved extradition, leading to Rivera’s conviction on multiple terrorism and drug‑trafficking charges.
• Lesson Learned: Comprehensive forensic evidence coupled with clear respect for due‑process rights can expedite extradition approvals, even for politically sensitive terrorism cases.

Key Takeaways for Readers

• The Panama‑U.S. extradition framework remains robust for addressing historic terrorist acts.
• Inter‑agency collaboration (FBI,DEA,Interpol,Panamanian National Police) is critical to overcoming long‑standing fugitive barriers.
• Legal diligence-particularly around dual criminality, human‑rights safeguards, and specialty limitations-determines the success of extradition petitions.

Prepared by Daniel Foster, senior content strategist, archyde.com – 23 December 2025, 04:57:06.