Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

World Court Tells U.S. to Freeze Mexican Executions
Reuters ^ | 2/05/03 | Abigail Levene

Posted on 02/05/2003 1:14:48 PM PST by kattracks

THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The World Court ordered the United States Wednesday to stay executions of three Mexicans -- two on death row in President Bush's state of Texas -- and reserved the right to intervene in dozens more cases.

Mexico took Washington to the International Court of Justice at the Hague last month, saying more than 50 of its nationals on death row should get retrials because U.S. authorities breached an international treaty by failing to tell them of their rights to consular help after their arrests.

With the whole case likely to be lengthy, Mexico asked the highest U.N. court to instruct urgent stays of execution for 51 men. Judges ruled that just three were at imminent risk, though said it might order similar stays for others "if appropriate" before issuing its final judgment in the proceedings.

Mexico's court action reflects deep disquiet among some of Washington's closest allies over capital punishment, which has led to protests from leading European states and Pope John Paul.

The United States and Japan are the only rich industrialized nations to execute convicted criminals. The last person executed in the European Union was guillotined in France in 1977.

The case is the highest level bout of a long-running fight between the United States and its poorer southern neighbor over the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The international treaty obliges local authorities to inform an arrested person without delay of his right to speak to consular officials from his country.

"I wouldn't look at it as a defeat or a victory," U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands Clifford Sobel told Reuters after the decision. "The order clearly does not address the merits of the case."

TWO DECADES ON DEATH ROW

Mexico wants retrials for all its 54 nationals -- four of them mentally ill or retarded -- who were sentenced to death in 10 states in the United States. Three of the 54 were condemned in Illinois, however, where the state governor last month commuted all death sentences in his state.

"The United States of America must take all measures necessary to ensure Mr. Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera are not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings," Court President Gilbert Guillaume said in the binding order Wednesday.

The three men -- two of whom were being held in Texas and the third in Oklahoma -- "are at risk of execution in the coming months or possibly even weeks," Guillaume said.

Fierro Reyna has been on death row since 1980.

"The decision is welcome, certainly. It comes in the line we have asked for and it certainly reinforces international law," said Santiago Onate, Mexico's ambassador to the Netherlands.

"We are looking for full redress. That we haven't had now. What we have now is...an order from the court that will prevent any execution until the court decides on the merits," Onate told reporters after the sitting.

The United States argued that Mexico neither proved its rights under the Vienna Convention were harmed nor that there was an urgent need for the emergency injunction.

Such an injunction would interfere with the United States' sovereign right to administer its criminal justice system and would mark an unwarranted intrusion by the court into U.S. affairs, it argued at a World Court hearing on January 21.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: kattracks
How about the U.S. telling Mexico "Keep your lawbreakers at home or they will be Incarcerated and even put to death"
21 posted on 02/05/2003 1:49:35 PM PST by usnret99 (I served! Have You?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"World Court Tells U.S. to Freeze Mexican Executions"

--Boot Hill

22 posted on 02/05/2003 1:50:51 PM PST by Boot Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole; MotleyGirl70
Freeze them? Well, that's a little unorthodox, but if they insist...

Can't do it. It would be cool and unusual punishment.

-archy-/-

23 posted on 02/05/2003 1:51:26 PM PST by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Really. This from a country where cops are probably involved in as many gangland style executions as drug taffickers.
24 posted on 02/05/2003 1:56:39 PM PST by germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The world court is on display in the UN. All of the crazies on the planet are falling all over themselves to flog the United States where equal justice prevails.
25 posted on 02/05/2003 2:00:02 PM PST by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I'm shocked I tell you, simply shocked. The U.S. can't just simply ignore the United World Constitution. It plainly states in Amendment 12 - uh, wait a sec till I find my copy. I know it was around here a minute ago. I'll have to get back with this later.
26 posted on 02/05/2003 2:03:09 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Time to get out of the U.N. and away from the "World Court."
27 posted on 02/05/2003 2:12:43 PM PST by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
I believe the governor of Texas answers to a few people other than God, such as the voters of Texas and the President of the United States of America. But that's a mior disagreement I suppose.

The United States chose to sign a treaty. What good is a treaty if we can break it whenever we feel like it? If we informed the convicted murderers of their right to contact the Mexican consul, then we're good to go. If not, we violated a treaty that we signed. That's not an issue of sovereignty. It's an issue of keeping our word.
28 posted on 02/05/2003 2:14:39 PM PST by Buckeye Bomber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Since when does the government of Mexico care about its citizens? It usually doesn't, except if they've snuck into the U.S. Then they can send money back to Mexico. This aspect of their "economy" totalled $10 billion last year. Well, if you electrocute 3 Mexican criminals, that's so much less that gets shipped back to Mexico. Follow the money.
29 posted on 02/05/2003 2:17:13 PM PST by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
To the best of my recollection...I'm sure I heard the L.E.O. apprise those guys of their right to have help from the Mexican Consulate. Yup! I pretty darn sure.
30 posted on 02/05/2003 2:29:30 PM PST by xfmrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Is Ashcroft gonna ask the Supremes for a Stay?
I have no idea what Ashcroft might do. I'm not part of the psychic Network. That is why I said let's follow this case.

(We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
As long as the UN and the liberals okay it.
The Hegemon has no teeth.

31 posted on 02/05/2003 2:40:47 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Exactly what authority (or Jurisdiction for that matter) does the world court have in these cases?
32 posted on 02/05/2003 2:41:51 PM PST by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
Somewhat Conservative??? Let's fry them and that's the Law of the Land and It's people...be careful in Ohio it is a border line case of Rat-dumb!
33 posted on 02/05/2003 2:57:09 PM PST by iopscusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
. If not, we violated a treaty that we signed. That's not an issue of sovereignty. It's an issue of keeping our word.

I'm going to grant you that one, but it seems that if it were important, the defense attorney could have brought it up. In fact, the defense attorney could have made the phone call to the consulate himself.

I do wonder if the treaty in question was ever ratified... or if similar to Kyoto and the International Criminal Court it was simply signed by the (previous) president, but then tabled by the Senate, leaving it null and void. It was not necessary to "withdraw" from Kyoto and ICC, for example, because they never went into effect.

If this one is in effect, we should look at the other clauses, to see if and in what way our sovereignty is limited, and if it goes beyond what is reasonable and in our interest, it should certainly be abrogated.

And finally, the whole purpose of a murder trial is to determine guilt, and to deliver justice on behalf of the victim. The step of notifying the consulate would allow the Mexicans to assure themselves that the accused had adequate counsel. I'm not opposed to this. But we should not allow them to politicize the process. If Mexico wants to represent the accused, are they also prepared to make the victims whole?

34 posted on 02/05/2003 2:58:59 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Mexico wants this to cover illegal immigrants from the threat of the death penalty - a huge psychological detterent to murder.

Fox proves once again his disdain for Bush - the timing is perfect - right before we go to war.

35 posted on 02/05/2003 3:02:35 PM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Laugh all you want, folks. Here's the bad news:

US Constitution. Article VI, sentence 2:

"The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Persuance thereof; and all Treaties made, and which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Since the US foolishly signed away its sovereignty to the World Court by means of a treaty, the WC's ruling trumps any state law and the Judges in TX and OK are bound by the treaty. This precisely why some of us are against signing treaties in general: they undermine our constitutional freedoms. Sadly, since the majority of the population has been indoctrinated in government-run schools for the past 35 years or so, many folks have no idea of what has actually taken place. The only ways the stays could be stopped would be for the Bush State Dept. to defy the treaty (unlikely in the extreme) or for Congress to repeal the treaty (even less likely).
36 posted on 02/05/2003 3:12:43 PM PST by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski
Was it ratified?
37 posted on 02/05/2003 3:23:50 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Thud
The Hague Court picked the wrong time to be pulling such foolishness.
38 posted on 02/05/2003 3:25:40 PM PST by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marron
You can only abrogate a treaty in advance. You can't abrogate a treaty after the fact. At that point, I believe it would be know as "breaking" a treaty.

Do you honestly think a public defender with too many cases to count on his docket has any understanding of international law or knows about a 40 year old treaty? Yes, 40 years old. This wasn't Clinton's doing, although if it was I'd be highly suspicious of it from the start. The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Rights was signed and ratified by these United States.
39 posted on 02/05/2003 3:35:13 PM PST by Buckeye Bomber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: usnret99
The article doesn't mention what crimes these criminals committed. Whatever they did wrong, the victims or their families should sue Mexico. The US should also sue Mexico for all the illegal immigrants coming over their border. I'm sure we can prove a financial harm what with all the costs of arresting them, trying them, housing them, processing costs. Plus the costs to the INS to capture them and send them back. I'm sure there's more. I bet it all adds up to a lot of money.
40 posted on 02/05/2003 3:36:24 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson