Tx Court tell UN off... Dismisses order for stay in execution of mexican national

Hometown » Texas

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tx Court tell UN off... Dismisses order for stay in execution of mexican national

Posted: 7/17/2008 4:49:27 PM EDT

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5890690.html

Texas still plans to execute killer despite U.N. order

By ALLAN TURNER and ROSANNA RUIZ
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
TOOLS
Email

Get section feed
Print

Recommend
Comments (1361)
Yahoo! Buzz
RESOURCES

CHRONOLOGY

• March 31, 2004: The United Nation's International Court of Justice issued an order that U.S. courts must review the cases of 51 condemned Mexican prisoners. The court ruled the prisoners' rights to speak with Mexican consular officials after their arrests had been violated.

• Feb. 28, 2005 : President Bush directed state courts to abide by the world court's decision. He also asked Texas specifically to review the case of Jose Medellin, now scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 5.

• March 25, 2008 : The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush could not compel Texas to review Medellin's case. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot unilaterally carry out an international treaty without concurrence of the legislative branch.

• June 20: The Mexican government made an emergency appeal to the U.N.'s highest court to block the executions of its citizens on death row in the U.S.

• July 16 : The world court ordered the U.S. to halt the five pending executions of Mexican nationals on Texas' death row.
WORLD COURT

Some facts about the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court:

• Established: 1945

• Location: The Hague, Netherlands

• Role: Judicial arm of the United Nations.

• Decisions: Binding on member countries. No appeal, the court cannot enforce judgments.

• Justices: 15 justices, each elected to nine-year terms by the U.N. General Assembly or the U.N. Security Council.

• Lawsuits: Court acts on matters brought by member states; individuals cannot bring suits.

Source: New York Times Almanac

Texas will go ahead with the scheduled Aug. 5 execution of Houston rapist-killer Jose Medellin despite Wednesday's United Nations world court order for a stay, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry said.

The U.N.'s International Court of Justice's call for stays in the cases of Medellin and four other Mexican nationals awaiting execution in Texas came in response to a petition filed last month by the Mexican government.

The petition sought to halt executions to allow for review of the killers' cases to determine whether denying them access to the Mexican Consulate after arrest impaired their trial defenses.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulates that, upon request, an alien offender's national consulate must be notified of his arrest.

In its order, the world court quotes the Mexican government's argument that "Texas has made clear that unless restrained, it will go forward with the execution without providing Mr. Medellin the mandated review and reconsideration," which will "irreparably" breach the U.S. government's obligations to the court's 2004 order.

The Mexican government reasons that "the paramount interest in human life is at stake," according to the court's order. If Medellin and the other nationals are executed without additional court reviews, "Mexico would forever be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate its rights and those of the nationals concerned."

Perry's office dismissed the argument.

"The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "It is easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

But international law expert Sarah Cleveland, a professor of human and constitutional rights at New York City's Columbia Law School, said if the U.S. fails to act on the world court order, other countries may follow suit.

"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."

Deadly gang initiation
Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Peña, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in northwest Houston.

One of Medellin's accomplices, Derrick O'Brien, was executed in July 2006. Also sentenced to die is gang leader Peter Anthony Cantu. Three other accomplices are serving prison sentences. Medellin was the only non-American involved in the murders.

Wednesday's U.N. court decision in The Hague, Netherlands, was the latest development in an ongoing legal wrangle that has involved President Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Mexican government.

In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.

In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order such court reviews without congressional concurrence.

On Monday, U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., filed a bill providing for such reviews. As of Wednesday, it was in committee.

Weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey jointly wrote Perry asking for his help in obtaining the reviews.

The United States, they wrote, continues to be bound by the world court's decision under international law.

Girls' fathers adamant
Meanwhile, Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, hotly denounced the world court's order for stays.

"The world court don't mean diddly," he said. "This business belongs in the state of Texas. The people of the state of Texas support the execution. We thank them. The rest of them can go to hell."

Adolfo Peña, father of Elizabeth Peña, agreed.

"I believe we've been through all the red tape we can go through," he said. "It's time to rock and roll."

[email protected]
[email protected]

Posted: 7/17/2008 5:00:35 PM EDT

[#1]

It really doesn't matter what the world court decides the US isn't a part of the world court Nato yes world court no. The main reason they can detain US troops for crimes abroad and we will handle our own retards accordingly by the UCMJ. I am glad the us said to F off where was the UN when we made our decision to go into a few countries? Backing the US they didn't and heck the main reason they exist is because the US backed them in two wars I can think of.

Posted: 7/17/2008 5:01:30 PM EDT

[#2]

World Court can pound sand.....To put it nicely.

Posted: 7/17/2008 9:35:36 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

World Court can pound sand.....To put it nicely.

+1

Posted: 7/18/2008 12:19:24 AM EDT

[#4]

I was living in Houston at the time those girls were killed. Glad it's time to pay the piper.

Posted: 7/18/2008 3:08:35 AM EDT

[#5]

I think we should play by their rules. Allow them access to the Mexican consulate 30 minutes before we haul them off to the death chamber.

"Ok, you can see your citizen but make it quick!"

Posted: 7/18/2008 3:59:05 AM EDT

[#6]

Does no-one else realize that the UN headquarters rests on some very high dollar real estate? I say move their happy asses to Belgium. And then withdraw from that waste of oxygen. We got along just fine without them. They have never accomplished anything. When was the last time they sent in UN security forces that they didn't call on the USA to bail their asses out afterwords?

Any group without a standing military has no authority over anyone. Liberal morons. Only thing they are good for is entertainment, and I have over 300 channels of tv to watch, so entertainment is taken care of.

They think they can ban our small arms as well.

Posted: 7/18/2008 7:24:06 AM EDT

[#7]

I see a simple solution for this problem. The Mexicans need to build their own wall to keep their people in their country then they wouldn't have this problem. I love how they cry to the UN to save a criminal. Without the US there would be no UN to cry to.

Posted: 7/18/2008 9:04:08 AM EDT

[#8]

Perry did this one right at least.

Posted: 7/18/2008 9:12:18 AM EDT

[#9]

Good deal, if only we could speed up the process of the death penalty on people that are without a shadow of a doubt guilty.

Posted: 7/18/2008 10:16:46 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Perry did this one right at least.

+1

Posted: 7/18/2008 4:36:50 PM EDT

[#11]

Don't screw with TEXAS. Fry 'em.

Posted: 7/18/2008 10:23:08 PM EDT

[#12]

State's rights RULES!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 7/19/2008 9:54:03 AM EDT

[#13]

Aug 5. Mark your calendars.

Posted: 7/20/2008 1:27:14 PM EDT

[#14]

I should go up to Lake Livingston to BBQ and celebrate Texas telling the "world court" to pound sand and to see the POS "get his".

Posted: 7/20/2008 2:26:13 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Perry did this one right at least.

Im rather surprised Perry did this.

Regardless, this is good news. At least this isnt Komifornia yet.

With that said, this calls for a celebration, Texas style

Posted: 7/20/2008 2:33:06 PM EDT

[#16]

This is the part that does NOT surprise me... I just love W, like a bad case of hemorrhoids!

In 2004, the U.N. court ordered a review of the cases of 51 Mexican nationals facing execution in the United States because they had not been allowed to speak with their nation's consular officials.

In February 2005, Bush directed state courts to abide by the U.N. court decision, specifically asking Texas to review Medellin's case.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his authority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president cannot order such court reviews without congressional concurrence.