The execution of a Mexican national by the U.S. defied an International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision according to an ICJ ruling emitted today.In 2004, the ICJ decided that the U.S. should review the sentences of 51 Mexicans facing the death penalty. Despite pressure from the U.N., the Bush administration, and legal maneuvers by the Mexican government Jose Medellin (image) was executed in August 2008 in Texas. Texan authorities got the green light to execute Medellin last July after the U.S. Supreme Court decision claimed that President George W. Bush lacked the power to delay the pending executions.
Medellin was convicted along with five other teen gang members for the rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. The others involved with Medellin were convicted and are serving sentences ranging from forty years in jail to being on death row.
In anticipation of today’s ICJ decision, the State Department said that they can do nothing to help other foreigners on death row:
The U.S. State Department's chief advocate said Sunday the ruling will not help other inmates on death row because Washington cannot force individual states to comply…Image- BBC News
State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III said Bush had done all he could, and it was up to Congress to enact legislation giving precedence to international law over U.S. state law…
"The court has no enforcement powers," he told a small group of reporters. "It is not the role of the court" to issue a reprimand.
Online Sources- The Latin Americanist, AP, Guardian UK, The Australian, AFP,
"and it was up to Congress to enact legislation giving precedence to international law over U.S. state law"
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I'll bet that even if congress would pass such a law, it would be declared unconstitutional.
One thing the ICJ, somehow, missed was that the violation of the VC was made prior to the execution.
ReplyDeleteUgh, to re state
ReplyDeleteOne thing the ICJ, somehow, missed was that the violation of the VC was reviewed by the courts prior to the execution, thus satisfying their ruling.
Well lets see, if he didn't want to be executed in the United States he should not have committed a murder here, some of our states still execute murderers and Texas is the leader. Bad choice on HIS part, he did the crime and he paid for it. Oh and if the UN don't like let em move out of this country.
ReplyDeleteGood riddance.
ReplyDeleteUlises –
ReplyDeleteYou’re probably right in that the Supreme Court would most likely find it unconstitutional. The court wouldn’t overturn its own decision (in July 2008 against the White House).
Dudley –
Forgive my ignorance but what do you mean by “VC”?
Anon #1 –
Technically, the U.N. headquarters are considered international territory. So how can they “move out”?
Anon #2 –
“Good riddance” who? Medellin? President Bush? Certainly not the victims of the crime in Houston?!
They should exume the animal Medellin and execute him again for good measure! The borders need to be strengthend to keep animals like this out of the US!
ReplyDeleteErwin:
ReplyDeleteVC stands for Vienna Convention, which was the treaty that the US violated.
Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated!
ReplyDeleteFirst, if he didn't want to be prosecuted under US/TX law then he should have stayed the f&#k out of the country. Second, as far as most people are concerned unless the ICJ and UN want to start patrolling the border they really don't have much legitimatcy in the eyes of anyone in the US. As a matter of fact much of the force behind the UN is the US military or other US organizations so if they don't like it too bad. Dudley, which VC do you think the US is violating? Here is something to think about, if it is the VC of 1969 the US Senate has not confirmed official advice and consent to this treaty and because of that is not considered a signatory to that. As such we are not held liable for violations to such treaties. I'm sure you have an answer for that from the far left so let's hear it.
ReplyDeleterandyashby:
ReplyDeleteIt is not unusual for the US not to ratify a treaty, but still say they will abide by it.
All US legal parties have conceded that they violated the VC.
So, that has never been the dispute. The dispute was remedy.
Some detail.
A Review of the Vienna Convention and US detention of foreign nationals
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
RE: The International Court of Justice's (hereinafter ICJ) decision in the case of US violations of the Vienna Convention (hereinafter VC), in a case brought by Mexico re: 52 Mexican nationals on US death row. http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm
1. The ICJ decision violates the specific, unequivocal directive of the Vienna Convention that the Convention in:
"Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States"
2. This directive is given specific, additional support, within the subject Article 36 of the VC: within the opening and dominant directive of Paragraph 1:
"With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State" http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/consul.htm
3. The ICJ completely dismisses this unequivocal directive of the VC. Put bluntly, the ICJ has no respect for the spirit and specific directives of the VC, in this regard. Had the ICJ honored the specific directives of the VC, this case would have been dismissed.
4. The ICJ circumvents their own precedents. Go to Separate opinion of Judge Vereshchetin (PDF 30 Kb)
As well as other comments.
-------------------------------------------
Practicalities of The Vienna Convention
1. The primary violation of the VC, from which all others are dependent, is that the US did not inform arrested foreign nationals of their right to contact their own consulate.
The police didn't say:
"You have the right to contact your consulate, if you want to."
That's it.
2. It is very important to point out that
a. all detainees could have contacted their consulates whenever they wanted to, absent that notification and
b. all 52 detainees had attorneys who all knew they could contact the consular offices, at any time, had they believed such contact could have been helpful. They didn't.
c. No one prevented anyone from contacting their embassy
The main issue of this ICJ court case was not the violation of notification, which both parties had conceded to for some time, but one of the remedy for such violation.
Ignoring the fact that the VC states that the VC has nothing to do with individual rights, and the fact that the ICJ doesn't care what the VC says on that issue, the ICJ stated that the US must provide new hearings in these cases.
In the US, hearings are based upon meeting a threshold of evidence which can support the call for a hearing. If that threshold is not met, then the appellate courts will rule against a hearing. Overwhelmingly, the VC issues have been reviewed by courts and the claims have been dismissed.
They have been barred because of time limitations on originating the appeal or not preserving it at trial, properly, or that the VC issue resulted in harmless error, meaning that neither the sentence nor the verdict would have changed, had the VC been properly administered.
Many appellate claims for US citizens are denied in US courts for the exact same reasons.
It is important to note that THE ICJ DIRECTIVE IS ASKING FOR A SPECIAL HEARING OVER AND ABOVE THAT WHICH US CITIZEN DETAINEES ARE GRANTED WITHIN THE US.
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO PROVISION WITHIN THE VC WHICH REQUIRES OR DIRECTS THAT THE TAKING AUTHORITY MUST VIOLATE THEIR OWN LAWS AND PRECEDENTS IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE VC.
Paragraph 2, article 36 states:
"2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended. "
The appeals, as reviewed above, have, already, fulfilled this requirement. The notification issued had been reviewed by both state and federal courts.
In Reuters, 1/19/09: "The United States accepts that the original 2004 ruling places on it a binding legal obligation, said John Bellinger, legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State, adding it was disappointing the court had held that Medellin's execution violated international law. 'Mr. Medellin has had numerous reviews of his case ... It is worth noting that his absence of consular notification was in fact specifically reviewed by a number of state and federal courts,' Bellinger said. "
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50I44I20090119
In the overwhelming majority of the 52 Mexican detainee cases, there is little doubt that the detainees received super due process and other protections within their cases.
Looking specifically at the dates of when these 52 detainees were originally arrested, and the history of Mexico's interest in Mexican nationals arrested in the US at such times, there is very little or no supportive evidence that Mexico would have provided any additional assistance, at all, or an additional assistance which would have impacted the end result in these cases, had their consulates been notified at that time.
------------------------------------------------
RE Mexico:
1. Former Mexican President Fox states that this is about International laws and rights. Nonsense. Mexico's claim is about the popularity of US bashing and about Fox wanting to be an international player in the anti death penalty movement.
2. Had this been about international rights, then
a) Mexico's claim would have been about all Mexican National detainees within the US, who had not been told about their right to contact their own consulate. It wasn't.
It was only about death row cases. Although the ICJ expanded Mexico's claim to all cases, Mexico didn't do that. It was specific to death row; and
b) Mexico would have, long ago, produced their own study as to how the VC enforcement had failed within Mexico since 1963 and what was being done to remedy that within Mexico. That has not occurred; and
c) Why didn't Mexico bring similar claims against all other countries that had detained Mexican Nationals, where such countries had not immediately informed the Mexican detainees of their rights under the VC? Because President Fox knows that US bashing is popular within Mexico.
3. Is there any evidence that Mexico has done a better job of enforcing the VC within their own borders? No.
4. President Fox has repeatedly stated that his opposition to the death penalty is based upon it being a human rights violation. He cannot defend that position any more than the European Union can.
The invalid argument goes like this. The right to life is a fundamental human right. To take it away is a human rights violation. Nonsense, again. All countries agree that they can take life away under certain circumstances -- a just war and self defense issues, etc. This is undisputed.
Furthermore, President Fox, the EU and all human rights organizations also state that freedom is a fundamental human right. However, they all also say that freedom may be taken away from persons who violate the laws. Therefore all agree that fundamental human rights may be taken away by due process when there is a violation of the law.
That reasoning works equally with both incarceration and execution.
Execution does not violate a fundamental human right to life anymore that incarceration violates the fundamental human right to freedom. Both of those rights are not absolute but are conditional upon abiding by the law.
Violations of the law may cause a loss of certain rights by the criminal. That is the nature of law and violations of it.
5. Instead, of ONLY concentrating on protecting horrendous Mexican national murderers, possibly President Fox should consider reimbursing all the murder victims families for all their cost related to the murders, including pain and suffering. as well as individual contact to express his sorrow and that of Mexico's sorrow over the murders,
President Fox would have done this long, ago, had human rights been a major issue for him. He seems to have forgotten that it was the innocent murder victims who truly did have their human rights violated
President Fox should see that Mexico reimburses all US jurisdictions for their costs related to these cases and make contributions to all victim compensation agencies within the various jurisdictions.
That would truly show a dedication to human rights.
copyright 1997-2009 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Dudley,
ReplyDeleteI apologize that I misread the intent of what you were trying to communicate. I see that you concur with the position that the IJC was pretty much trying to screw with the US just for the sake of screwing with the US. As I see it many countries focus on the US because they like to poke at the giant, while they ignore the 400 pound gorilla in the room; most countries in the world conduct what others would consider atrocious, they just don't happen to be as big of a player as the US is. I hope that you accept my misunderstanding of your previous statements as a matter of context in this case. I appreciate the clarification as well as the official supporting evidence that you provided.
randyashy:
ReplyDeleteNo big deal. Who hasn't jumped to a premature conclusion? We all have.
Heck, I used to be anti death penalty.
Erwin, Thanks for a very well written post. Are you opposed to capital punishment yourself? I haven't read enough of your blog to know that. And I realize today's news is not about capital punishment, per se, but really about international law and whether or not the US needs to comply.
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to the "anonymous" member of the US military. You are entitled to your opinions and freedom of speech. That is what you have sworn to defend. As a member of the military for 12 years I know what you are saying about the rules we follow.
ReplyDeletePlease read the previous posts. It is common knowledge to most foreigners that they can contact their embassy in the event of trouble. These inmates did not take advantage of that opportunity. The whole issue is that they were not informed. Its not a human rights issue, its a technicality.
On a more personal note, if you are so willing to throw your fellow troops under the bus, and feel that strongly about the US, perhaps you should show some ethical courage and not hide behind "Anonymous". Your buddies might want to know who is in the foxhole with them.
mikeb302000 -
ReplyDeleteI'm strongly against the death penalty though not 100% opposed to it. I feel that there are certain crimes when capital punishment does apply such as high treason or premeditated mass murder (Ted Bundy comes to mind).
Anon 4.03am -
Per our comments policy your comment was deleted. Please refrain from personal attacks in future comments.
Thanks everyone for your perspectives and viewpoints. Keep 'em coming!
To (deleted) Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI received your post before it was deleted
You wrote: "I hope all US soldiers are captured by enemy countries and then executed for war crimes."
You are filled with hate and lack of reason.
Very few US soldiers commit war crimes. Your quote would have all US soldiers executed, guilty or not. Speak of war crimes, your philosophy is the definition of it.
The fact that you leave out that our current ememies intentionally target innocent civilians, may go to your strong hatred of both the US and the US military, over and above any reservations which you may have against their enemies.
Very few, if any countries, have the same laws regarding states rights that the US has. It is one of the greatnesses of our country.
Furthermore, the US never ratified the treaty at issue. Even so, we took all of the extra steps that we could, instaed of just saying, hey we never ratified it.
In fact, both state and federal courts did review the notification issue, just as the ICJ ordered. Therefore, many of us believes that the US and Texas met both the spirit and the letter of the treaty.
I am sorry you served in the US military. The US deserves much better.
I am by no means a person of "my country right or wrong."
I support my country, period, and the spirit within which it was founded, which is when it is working properly, help keep it that way, when we screw up, speak up and help to change it.
Mexico is full of hypocrites!
ReplyDeleteTheir drug lords murder innocent citizens, police and even priests and they have the nerve to lecture another country on how to preserve law and order. What gall.
The United States treats illegal aliens far better than Mexico. What socal programs does Mexico offer their illegal aliens? How well are prisoners treated in Mexico?
I look forward to Mexico outspoken objections to honor killings in Muslim nations and genocide in Africa. With such high moral fiber they surely have so much to teach us lawless Americans.