She referred to a longstanding American legal doctrine, which stipulates that a court's right to hold a trial is not impaired if the suspect has been the subject of a forceful abduction.

"This rule rests on the principle that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of a crime after a fair trial and in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards," said the judge.

"Put differently, there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will."

In her ruling, the judge said there were two exceptions to that doctrine.

One would apply if Marimi had been brought before the court through the US government's "deliberate, unnecessary and unreasonable invasion" of his constitutional rights.

For that exception to be triggered, the challenged conduct had to be carried out by, or at the direction of, US officials.

The judge said Marimi's allegations "at best suggest that US government officials exerted pressure on Libyan officials to facilitate a rendition, not that US government officials directed or controlled the challenged conduct."

The second exception to the doctrine would apply if the US government had violated an extradition agreement which was the only way a suspect could be transferred between the two countries.

The judge said the US government had invoked two conventions to secure Marimi's appearance in a US court.