Whether a criminal defendant has prudential standing to enforce an extradition decree that is issued for his own benefit where the government concedes that the decree codifies a promise made to the defendant by a judge in the surrendering nation

1. Whether a criminal defendant has prudential standing to enforce an extradition decree that is issued for his own benefit where the government concedes that the decree codifies a promise made to the defendant by a judge in the surrendering nation . The Second Circuit held in this case that such a decree, and the promise it codifies, is not within the defendant’s “own rights and interests” and that he therefore lacks prudential standing to enforce it . 2. Whether, under this Court’s precedent in United States v. Rauscher , 119 U.S. 407 (1886), a criminal defendant has standing to assert violations of the rule of specialty without requiring the surrendering nation to intervene .