I read the article, but don't understand what good you're referring to. Could you elaborate?
>>>The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.<<<
That is the opinion of a foreign court and it bears no legal weight nor sets any precedent in any United States court. And it nost assuredly cannot tell them what to do in a case.
... Justice Antonin Scalia, ... wondered whether American courts could hand the ultimate decision to a foreign court. "I'm rather jealous of that power," Scalia said. "I don't know on what basis we can allow some international court to decide what is the responsibility of this court, which is the meaning of the United States law." (Justice)Kennedy at one point suggested that Texas courts already have done what the world court had ordered. "I think Medellin did receive all the hearing that he's entitled to under the judgment anyway," Kennedy said. Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz did not dispute that Texas violated the Vienna Convention, but said: "Both the federal and state courts that looked at this concluded that there was no even arguable prejudice from the violation." Texas acknowledges that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argues that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state argues, the diplomats' intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case. In view of the above cited facts, the Court came to the correct decision. As I said, they "done good" -- at least enough of them did to carry the day.
???
Did the Court rule already?
Oh, ok. I didn’t understand that they had already made their decision. Thanks.