National Law Journal has a web-only report, "International court urges U.S. to prevent scheduled executions."
In the ongoing international legal dispute between Mexico and the United States over Mexican nationals on death row, the state of Texas once again moves to the fore.
In a 7-5 vote, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 16 directed the United States to take "all measures necessary" to prevent the executions of Jose Medellin and four other Mexican nationals on Texas' death row pending that court's final decision on Mexico's request last month for an interpretation of the so-called Avena judgment.
Medellin has an August 5 execution date.
"Coming on top of the legislation introduced on Monday in the House of Representatives, the ICJ's order adds yet another reason why the execution of Mr. Medellin must be postponed," said Sandra Babcock, director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law and counsel, along with Donald Donovan, partner at New York's Debevoise & Plimpton, to Medellin and Mexico. "It is now up to Texas to prevent an irreparable breach of the nation¹s treaty obligations."
The ICJ's latest order "has no bearing on the Texas criminal justice system," said Robert Black, press secretary to Texas Governor Rick Perry.
"The Supreme Court has already ruled that states are not bound by rulings from any foreign court."
The New York Times carries the Reuters filing, "World Court: U.S. Must Delay Mexican Death Sentences."
"Court Orders U.S. to Halt Execution of 5 Mexicans," is the Washington Post.
On Wednesday, Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa said she hoped U.S. authorities would abide by the World Court's decision and stay the executions.
The World Court ruled in 2004 that the Mexican nationals deserved to have their cases reviewed because of claims they did not to have an opportunity to seek legal help from Mexican consulates, a right granted under the 1963 Vienna Conventions. After the court's ruling, President Bush asked courts in Texas to comply. But they refused, setting off another round of legal fights. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court backed the Texas courts, saying that they were not bound by international rulings and that Bush could not force them to review the cases.
Attorneys for the Mexican government have argued that the United States is not living up to its international obligations. U.S. attorneys have countered that the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to comply with the World Court's ruling.
I also want to point to Lyle Denniston's excellent SCOTUS Blog post, "World Court seeks to block 5 U.S. executions," yesterday.
Leaving it up to the U.S. to choose the way to carry out the order, the international tribunal — formally, the International Court of Justice that sits in The Hague, Netherlands — told the U.S. only to “take all measures necessary to ensure” that Texas does not execute five individuals on its death row.
The World Court issued its order to assure that the Mexicans remain alive until the tribunal can resolve a new dispute over the global obligations of the U.S. government — a dispute that has already led to two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The text of the World Court decision (but not including three dissenting opinions) can be downloaded here. A press release summarizing the 21-page majority ruling is here.
The U.S. member of the tribunal, Thomas Buergenthal, dissented on all points of Wednesday’s ruling. On the key issue of the order to delay the Texas executions, Buergenthal was joined by judges from Japan, Slovakia, New Zealand and Russia.
Depending upon how the U.S. government and the state of Texas respond, the case could affect first the execution of Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas, scheduled for August 5. It also is meant to apply to the executions of Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, who may have an execution date set with 30 days’ notice, and of Ruben Ramirez Cardenas, Humberto Leal Garcia and Roberto Moreno Ramos, who may have execution dates set on 90 days’ notice.
Earlier coverage is here. More on Medellin I and Medellin II, via Oyez.org. Earlier coverage of Medellin v. Texas (Medellin II) is here.
Comments