The Coalition for Truth and Justice

Death Penalty Resources » Deat Penalty in Texas » Medellin executed

 

It was raining on and off because of the tropical storm that hit Texas this morning.  People started protesting before 5:00 PM.  At 6:00 PM we got our hopes up because no witnesses were crossing the street from the prison system's administration building into the death house.  That's how we know an execution is going to happen.  First 5 media people go across the street, which is blocked off at each corner with yellow crime scene tape.  Then the prisoner's family, friends or spiritual adviser or even lawyer, walk across the street, again five people. 

 

So when no one went across at 6:00, we started trying to find out what was happening.  Finally a woman with CNN told us the Supremes were considering an appeal and were holding it up. 

 

There were 30-40 people there protesting the execution.  In the rain!  The Mexican consulate was there and lots of lawyers and their friends as well as Robert Reyna, a well-known investigator.  People from Houston, Spring, Michigan, New Jersey, Norway, 2 from Illinois, El Paso and people from right in Huntsville had gathered.

 

There were about 6-7 TV satellite trucks in the parking lot by where we protest.There were many other reporters from radio and TV and newspapers.  CNN is almost never in Huntsville.  But besides CNN, there was Houston's NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, TV Azteca, Univision, and a TV station from Honduras. 

 

We thank KPF's Prison Program staffRay Hill and Elizabeth Stein, and Otis for doing the Execution Watch radio show from 6:00 to 7:00 PM on the HD2 Channel.  Too bad that it is so hard to find out how to listen.  I wish they could put it on their web page all day on the day of an execution.

 

So tonight Texas had lots of opportunity to show the world just how damn stupid they are.  Instead of grabbing the spotlight though, they shared it with the Supreme Court.  How nice that both Texas the the SCOTUS both fail to understand the significance of international law. 

 

Jose's family stayed in Houston.  His five witnesses included 4 attorneys and one friend.  Outside  with us were about a dozen family members of Heliberto Chi who will be the next foreign national to be executed this week.  His brother said there were still appeals pending in his case. 

 

When the witnesses came back out of the death house, I think around 10:00, we knew that Jose had been murdered.  One of his friends collapsed and was shrieking.  Heliberto's family was in tears.  It was awful.  Certainly none of us condone what Jose and the others did--it was horrific and unconscionable.  But what Texas did was just as unconscionable.

 

Jose's body was being taken back to Houston and to his family.  Unfortunately for the family of Jennifer Ertman and  Elizabeth Pena, this murder will never ease their pain or bring back their loved ones.  Perhaps they will be able to heal one day--I hope so.

 

It is now hard to think about being back in Huntsville the day after tomorrow.  Well, it is now early Wednesday morning, so I guess I should say tomorrow.  DAMN TEXAS!

 

In struggle,

Gloria

for the Abolition Movement

---

---

 USA : le Mexicain condamné pour meurtre exécuté
NOUVELOBS.COM | 06.08.2008 | 07:45

Le secrétaire général des Nations-Unies, Ban Ki-moon, avait pourtant 
exigé le respect d'une décision de la Cour internationale de justice, 
ordonnant à Washington de surseoir à l'exécution d'un Mexicain, 
condamné pour viol et meurtre en 1993.

Le Mexicain condamné pour meurtre a été exécuté au Texas mardi 5 août 
au soir, a annoncé un porte-parole de la prison, malgré l'appel de 
dernière minute du secrétaire général de l'Onu Ban Ki-moon.
L'exécution de Jose Ernesto Medellin, 33 ans, a eu lieu malgré 
l'appel de Ban Ki-moon à suivre la Cour internationale de Justice 
(CIJ) qui avait demandé un sursis à l'exécution du condamné, ainsi 
qu'une révision de son cas et de ceux d'autres Mexicain condamnés à 
mort.
"Toutes les décisions et ordonnances de la Cour internationale de 
justice doivent être respectées par les Etats", a dit Ban Ki-moon 
depuis Mexico où il assistait à la conférence mondiale sur le sida.

Refus de la Cour suprême

"Les Etats-Unis doivent prendre toutes les mesures pour garantir que 
l'on surseoira à l'exécution de ce citoyen mexicain", a-t-il ajouté 
dans un entretien avec une chaîne de télévision locale.
La Cour suprême des Etats-unis a refusé de surseoir à l'exécution du 
Mexicain condamné pour meurtre au Texas.
"La demande de sursis à l'exécution de la peine de mort est rejetée", 
avait dit la Cour suprême.
La majorité a fait valoir que Jose Ernesto Medellin, 33 ans, n'a pas 
subi de préjudice lorsque les autorités ne l'ont pas informé en temps 
voulu de son droit à une assistance consulaire.

Pas d'assistance consulaire

La Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) avait ordonné le 16 juillet 
dernier à Washington la suspension de son exécution, ainsi que celle 
de quatre autres ressortissants mexicains, car ils n'avaient pu 
profiter en temps voulu d'une assistance consulaire pendant la 
procédure judiciaire, comme le prévoit la Convention de Vienne.
Les avocats avaient déposé une dernière requête devant la Cour 
suprême, la plus haute juridiction des Etats-Unis et seule à même 
d'obliger le Texas à surseoir à l'exécution.
Le Mexique s'est plaint que ses ressortissants dans le couloir de la 
mort n'étaient pas informés de leurs droits.
Après une première décision en 2004 de la CIJ demandant aux Etats-
Unis de réviser les procès de 51 Mexicains, dont cinq dans le couloir 
de la mort, le président Bush avait en effet demandé aux Etats 
concernés d'étudier les situations au cas par cas.

Séparation des pouvoirs

Mais les juges texans ont toujours refusé de se plier aux ordres de 
la CIJ et du président arguant de la séparation des pouvoirs et 
assurant qu'ils n'étaient pas liés par la décision de la CIJ, ce qu'a 
depuis confirmé la Cour suprême.
Le département d'Etat américain a dit mardi avoir fait tout son 
possible pour venir en aide à M. Medellin. "C'est une situation 
difficile", a dit un porte-parole Kurtis Cooper. "Nous avons une 
obligation légale internationale indiscutable qui entre en 
contradiction avec la loi de l'Etat" texan.
Lundi, le bureau des recours en grâce avait également rejeté la 
demande de M. Medellin, au grand dam de ses avocats qui ont estimé 
dans un communiqué sa décision "contre les intérêts de la Nation" 
puisqu'elle met en danger "la sécurité de milliers d'Américains 
voyageant et vivant à l'étranger".


http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/international/ameriques/
20080806.OBS6263/usa

Texas execution damages international law

By Philip Smet*

06-08-2008

According to professor of international law Geert-Jan Knoops, the
execution of a 31-year-old Mexican in the US state of Texas has
damaged the credibility of international law. Texas ignored calls by
US President George W. Bush, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) to review the case against José
Ernesto Medellín. The review was necessary, as it has been alleged
that there were procedural errors in the original case.

Medellín died at 21:57 local time after being given a lethal
injection. His death marked the conclusion of the sentence handed
down to Medellín for the rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl from
Houston in 1993.

Consular assistance
The proceedings against Medellín did not conform to international
agreements. In response, Mexico appealed against the execution to the
International Court of Justice in The Hague. In 2004, the UN body
ruled that the case against Medellín should come under juridical
review and reconsideration as the defendant had not been allowed to
request consular assistance from the Mexican authorities after his
arrest. Under the terms of a 1963 international agreement, anyone
arrested in a foreign country has the right to assistance from a
representative from his or her home nation.

Modern execution chamber
A modern execution chamber
"I was one of the judges in the 2004 Avena case," says Professor
Peter Kooijmans, a former foreign minister and until 2006, a judge at
the ICJ. Because the case is not yet closed, the court is not allowed
to respond. Professor Kooijmans confirms that Medellín was refused
the right to consular assistance: "There were 58 people, including
Medellín, who were refused consular assistance. In 2004, we ruled
that their death sentences had come under juridical review and
reconsideration. "

Texas did review the case against Medellín, though whether it
conformed to the 2004 ICJ ruling is questionable. According to
Professor Kooijmans, the problem lies with the fact that the US
interprets a juridical review and reconsideration far more liberally
then the ICJ. The professor again emphasises that he is not permitted
to talk about his old cases.

Absolute authority
Mexico concluded that the review of the case against Medellín did not
conform to international law and again challenged the sentence at the
International Court in order to prevent the execution. In June, the
ICJ ruled that Texas had to stay the execution until the request for
interpretation had been answered. However, today's execution makes it
clear that Texas ignored the court's ruling, though the governor of
Texas did refer the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour
of the execution by a narrow majority.

Professor of International Law Geert-Jan Knoops says,

"The US has disregarded ICJ rulings before. The US Supreme Court has
ruled that individual states have absolute authority in such cases."

Conservative
Professor Knoops says the execution is a bad omen for US citizens as
well as the international community: "The US is always the first to
support an international tribunal but when it comes to internal
questions, it is an extremely nationalistic and conservative
country". Mr Knoops says he is afraid that the reputation of the
International Court has been damaged.

Paper tiger
ICJ rulings are not binding, as the court, unlike the UN Security
Council, cannot impose sanctions. Professor Kooijmans says, "It is
unavoidable. Violations of international law will always occur. I'm
very disappointed that the US Supreme Court has allowed individual
states' rights to carry so much weight". However, it must be said
that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of allowing execution to go
ahead by a very narrow margin and that President George Bush also
agreed with the ICJ ruling. According to the professor, one can
conclude that ICJ rulings do have an affect: "the glass is more than
half full".

*RNW translation (jirc)

http://www.radionet herlands. nl/currentaffair s/region/ northamerica/

---

---

Jose Medellin execution fails to ignite outrage in Mexico
 Wed, Aug 06, 2008
Jacquielynn Floyd

Texas' most recently executed Death Row inmate, Jose Medellin, became
a focal point for a lot of issues: illegal immigration (he was
brought to the US by his parents as a child); US-Mexico relations
(the Mexican government has long condemned capital punishment in
general and US execution of its nationals in particular); the
prerogatives of states vs. federal imperatives (US officials,
including President George Bush, had asked Texas to delay the
execution because of concerns that failure to give Medellin access to
consular advice at the time of his arrest may have violated a 45-year-
old treaty), and, of course, for the death penalty itself.

Yet there are suggestions that this execution didn't turn into the
political hand grenade that had been anticipated. This AP story found
a singular lack of outrage from the average man-on-the-street in
Mexico City.

Why? Because the death penalty is an emotional issue - but so is crime.

Mexicans, the AP report says, are reeling over an escalating spiral
of grotesque crimes of their own; at least two recent child murders
there have received extensive publicity.

And while lawyers may split hairs over whether Texas technically
violated international agreement by failing to dial up the Mexican
consulate all those years ago, it's hard to muster any sympathy at
all for Mr. Medellin, whose crime has been reduced in many news
accounts to a single boilerplate sentence. This account includes more
of the horrifying details of the torture, repeated gang rape, and
strangulation of two teenage girls for which he was convicted.

So, yes, this case was about politics. But no amount of after-the-
fact political interpretation can separate the emotional impact of
the crime itself.

http://metrocolumni stsblog.dallasne ws.com/archives/ 2008/08/jose-
medellin-execution- fails.html

---

---

Medellin postscript

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court allowed Jose Medellin's execution to 
move forward last night despite opposition from the World Court and 
the Bush administration.

I hope Medellin's death will bring the victims' family closure - 
whatever that means. But since his execution cannot bring back their 
lost loved ones, I doubt seriously those painful memories are 
"closed" for the victims' family and friends any more this morning 
than at this time yesterday. Such indescribable loss can never be 
cured IMO via mere retribution, however satisfying the idea may seem 
to contemplate. The promise of "closure" to me is one of the cruelest 
aspects of the modern death penalty advocacy - executions may 
accomplish many things but "closure" for victim families is rarely 
one of them. Some tragedies just haunt you forever.

Given that the only possible enforcement for Vienna violations would 
be action by the United Nations Security Council, in which the United 
States has a veto, it's hard to predict what will happen going 
forward. The legal debate over Medellin may end here for now, waiting 
to be renewed the first time some American is held incommunicado 
overseas and our government complains their Vienna rights were violated.

You can almost hear future officials from some corrupt government 
telling the United States "I'm sorry Mr. Ambassador ... local 
authorities made the decision to violate your citizens' rights, so 
even though we have a treaty saying she could speak to the consulate, 
they didn't tell her she could do so and we have to abide by their 
decision. Our hands are tied." That's essentially what last night's 
SCOTUS decision said to the rest of the world. "We may enter 
treaties, but we'll pick and choose when we will abide by them.

In what strikes me as an oddity, the SCOTUS majority offered an 
unsigned per curiam opinion while we're treated to four different 
dissents. Though we obviously know which five approved of the 
opinion, apparently nobody wanted their name on this one.

The court had held 6-3 earlier this year that Texas was not bound by 
the Vienna Convention - a 45 year old treaty guaranteeing foreign 
nationals arrested will be told of their right to notify their 
country's consular authorities - because Congress had not passed 
enabling legislation. Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the 
majority in the earlier ruling but switched to a dissent because he 
felt Texas has not lived up to its responsibility. This paragraph of 
Stevens' summed up my own views on the question:

    As I explained in my separate opinion in March, the cost to 
Texas of complying with the ICJ judgment “would be minimal, 
particularly given the remote likelihood that the violation of the 
Vienna Convention actually prejudiced” this petitioner. 552 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 5) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). “On the 
other hand, the costs of refusing to respect the ICJ’s judgment are 
significant. The entire Court and the President agree that breach 
will jeopardize the United States’ ‘plainly compelling’ interests in 
‘ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, 
protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating 
commitment to the role of international law.’ ”

The most interesting and extensive dissent came from Justice Breyer, 
who was also part of the earlier minority on Medellin:

    In my view, several factors counsel in favor of delay. First, 
since this Court handed down Medellín, Mexico has returned to the ICJ 
requesting this Nation’s compliance with its international 
obligations; and the ICJ has asked that the United States “take all 
measures necessary to ensure that [the Mexican nationals] are not 
executed” unless and until they “receive review and reconsideration 
consistent” with the ICJ’s earlier Avena decision. See Request for 
Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case 
Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2008 I. 
C. J. No. 139, ¶80 (Order of July 16).

    Second, legislation has been introduced in Congress seeking to 
provide the legislative approval necessary to transform our 
international legal obligations into binding domestic law. See Avena 
Case Implementation Act of 2008, H. R. 6481, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. 
(2008) (referred to committee, July 14, 2008).

    Third, prior to Medellín, Congress may not have understood the 
legal need for further legislation of this kind. That fact, along 
with the approaching election, means that more than a few days or 
weeks are likely necessary for Congress to determine whether to enact 
the proposed legislation.

    Fourth, to permit this execution to proceed forthwith places the 
United States irremediably in violation of international law and 
breaks our treaty promises.

    Fifth, the President of the United States has emphasized the 
importance of carrying out our treaty-based obligations in this case; 
this fact, along with the President’s responsibility for foreign 
affairs, makes the Executive’s views of the matter pertinent.

    Sixth, different Members of this Court seem to have very 
different views of what this case is about. In my view, the issue in 
this suit—what the majority describe as the “beginning premise”—is 
not whether a confession was unlawfully obtained from petitioner. Cf. 
ante, at . Rather, the question before us is whether the United 
States will carry out its international legal obligation to enforce 
the decision of the ICJ. That decision requires a further hearing to 
determine whether a conceded violation of the Vienna Convention 
(Texas’ failure to inform petitioner of his rights under the Vienna 
Convention) was or was not harmless. Nor do I believe the majority is 
correct insofar as it implies that Congress has had four years to 
consider the matter. See ibid. (“Congress has not progressed beyond 
the bare introduction of a bill in the four years since the ICJ 
ruling and the four months since our ruling in Medellín v. Texas”). 
To the contrary, until this Court's decision in Medellín a few months 
ago, a member of Congress might reasonably have believed there was no 
need for legislation because the relevant treaty provisions were self-
executing. It is not realistic to believe Congress could act to 
provide the necessary legislative approval in
    only a few weeks’ time.

Breyer's final point - that people disagree what the case is really 
about - strikes me as a fundamentally true statement not just about 
the court but the public debate surrounding the whole case. Like 
Breyer, I was startled to see the majority's reference to challenging 
the confession as the only valid reason to allow review of the 
consular notification requirement. That's not correct at all from my 
perspective, and clearly Breyer's - the reason to hold such a hearing 
is because the United States agreed to abide by the treaty, not 
because of any specific aspect of Medellin's case in particular.

This sets an odd precedent going forward - that states are not bound 
by federal treaties without specific enabling legislation. I wonder 
how many other treaties this might implicate where states are now 
free to violate agreements the President entered into on the nation's 
behalf? What does it mean when the federal government undertakes 
international treaty obligations that states intentionally violate? 
Given the Supemacy Clause, it's hard for me to understand how a 
single state can initiate such a dispute with foreign nations in 
violation of treaties that the US Consitution makes "the supreme Law 
of the land."

Finally, Julian Ku over at Opinio Juri identified an oddity in Texas' 
final pleading to SCOTUS in which the Lone Star State promises to 
give future defendants hearings as mandated by the ICJ, but out of 
"comity" not because of any legal obligation. Ku notes:

    it is not clear from the brief whether Texas is also undertaking 
to give the type of “review and reconsideration” required by the ICJ. 
I have to assume that there is some difference between what Texas 
thinks “review and reconsideration” means via the Vienna Convention, 
and what the ICJ thinks, since it is executing Medellin with the 
claim that he got all the review and reconsideration required. But 
plainly, the ICJ does not believe Medellin’s habeas hearing satisfies 
the “review and reconsideration” requirement. And since the ICJ is 
the institution that basically invented this requirement, why 
shouldn’t their views on what “review and reconsideration” means 
prevails?

I agree with Ku that when Texas promised "review and 
reconsideration," they weren't remotely promising to comply with the 
ICJ ruling but with their own Texas version of cursory review to be 
pulled out of the black-robed behinds of the Court of Criminal 
Appeals at some future date. IMO we shouldn't read too much into this 
promise.

This was a bizarre and complex case: I can't think of a single other 
instance where a state's actions violated a US treaty and it was 
allowed to stand by the federal courts at the end of the day. 
Yesterday's execution and the subsequent treaty violation it spawned 
will be the subject of intense debate and international controversy 
for many years, I'm sure, plus one suspects it may also show up as 
the topic of more than a few exam questions about international law.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/08/medellin-postscript.html