Oyez Project

Oyez Project

Introduction

This paper discusses the Medellin v. Dretke case and the attitude of U.S. courts vis-à-vis international law and decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in particular. In this case a Mexican sentenced to death invoked the violation of his rights under the Vienna Convention of 1963. Court opposes to the non-justiciability of the Convention, despite the contrary decision of the ICJ in Avena. The Supreme Court then refused to hear the case, U.S. courts do not consider themselves as bound by the decisions of the international court (www.oyez.org).

Discussion

Typically, the sovereign has jurisdiction to exercise its authority with respect to all persons within its territory. However, the coexistence of states and their interdependence have created real exceptions to the principle of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, highlighting the principle that the waiver of a free State sovereignty is a way of the exercise. Indeed, the international commitments made by the state can transform into the discretionary powers circumscribed. However, States remain free to some extent the implementation of international standards in their domestic legal system, which can enable them to qualify their submission to international law. Thus the refusal of the United States to recognize the justiciability of the Vienna Convention in this case has destroyed the rights that this standard intended to protect. While in principle, nationals in a foreign State are subject to territorial sovereignty, plenary and exclusive of that State, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, came few nuances. Under paragraph b) of paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Convention, the authorities of the State shall, without delay the consular post of a national subject to arrest.

In this case, Medellin, a Mexican national was sentenced to death by a court of the State of Texas, for participating in the rape and murder of two young women in the United States. The sentence was upheld on appeal. Medellin then made an application for habeas corpus arguing for the first time that the court which sentenced had not notified of his right to receive consular assistance under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention entered in force in the United States December 24, 1969. The request was first rejected by the district court, then by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refuses to grant special leave to appeal (certificate of appealibility) stating that the Vienna Convention did not create rights direct to individuals and that the plaintiff's motion clashed in any case the theory of procedural default (www.americanbar.org). The rejection of the Appeal Court is even more radical as it conflicts with a judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States. U.S.) that Mexico was challenging violations of the Vienna Convention by the United States vis-à-vis Medellin and fifty-one other citizens Mexican sentenced to death in the United States (www.oyez.org). According to the ICJ, the Vienna Convention confers rights directly enforceable by ...