U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence

(Reuters) - The top U.N. human rights official urged the governor of Texas on Friday to call off the execution next week of a Mexican citizen convicted of murder who was not told of his right to diplomatic advice when arrested.

Humberto Leal Garcia was convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl in Texas in February 1998 and his conviction was upheld the following year, a spokesman for United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said.

Click to expand...

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence | Reuters

On several fronts this is an interesting story. First we have the UN, and Mexico bitterly complaining this murderer was not aware of his "rights" nor told about them. I fail to grasp what talking to the Mexican consulate would do to change the fact. I'd say this is a failure of Mexico to educate their citizens as to their "rights" and they should look to changing their Education system.

While his death will not return the life of his victim, it will be Justice served.

MrVicchio said:

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence | Reuters

On several fronts this is an interesting story. First we have the UN, and Mexico bitterly complaining this murderer was not aware of his "rights" nor told about them. I fail to grasp what talking to the Mexican consulate would do to change the fact. I'd say this is a failure of Mexico to educate their citizens as to their "rights" and they should look to changing their Education system.

While his death will not return the life of his victim, it will be Justice served.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt they would accept that excuse from a foreigner in Mexico. Come here to commit a capital crime, get a hot shot needle like the rest.

They just don't understand Texas do they. In the words of comedian Ron White:

Texas has the death penalty and we use it! That's right. You kill somebody in Texas, we will kill you right back! That's our policy!

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state's putting in the express lane.

Ron White - Wikiquote

Click to expand...

The United States is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In accordance of that treaty, foreign nationals have the right to access to representatives of their government from an embassy and consulate and to be informed of that right. If he was not granted such access, the United States is in violation of that treaty. As I have said before in similar threads, this endangers the same rights the U.S. State Department rightfully demands when U.S. citizens are held in foreign countries for whatever reason. It is a standard and bedrock practice in the relations between and among states in the international system. It doesn't mean the U.S. can't try him and eventually execute him, but he DOES have the absolute right to assistance from his government.

ludahai said:

The United States is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In accordance of that treaty, foreign nationals have the right to access to representatives of their government from an embassy and consulate and to be informed of that right. If he was not granted such access, the United States is in violation of that treaty. As I have said before in similar threads, this endangers the same rights the U.S. State Department rightfully demands when U.S. citizens are held in foreign countries for whatever reason. It is a standard and bedrock practice in the relations between and among states in the international system. It doesn't mean the U.S. can't try him and eventually execute him, but he DOES have the absolute right to assistance from his government.

Click to expand...

Bla h blah blah let the killer go cause oh some murdering rapist Mexican didn't get told he could call the Mexican Consulate after being arrested.

NEVER MIND the devastated family, the dead girl or the fact said killer entered another country without tally or clue of his rights and decided to commit murder...

I say you enter another country, commit murder and have no clue what your "rights" are, you get what's coming to you.

MrVicchio said:

Bla h blah blah let the killer go cause oh some murdering rapist Mexican didn't get told he could call the Mexican Consulate after being arrested.

NEVER MIND the devastated family, the dead girl or the fact said killer entered another country without tally or clue of his rights and decided to commit murder...

I say you enter another country, commit murder and have no clue what your "rights" are, you get what's coming to you.

Click to expand...

it's not about the perp not knowing what his rights were
he was DENIED his right to mexican counsel

i have had to go thru American counsel to be able to access a friend held in mexican prison. but for that ability, that friend would still be languishing in mexican prison. if we deprive mexicans of this right of counsel then they will have basis to deny that same ability to American prisoners held in their jails. given their propensity for incarcerating our citizens on a whim, this is a right which needs to be preserved

MrVicchio said:

Bla h blah blah let the killer go cause oh some murdering rapist Mexican didn't get told he could call the Mexican Consulate after being arrested.

NEVER MIND the devastated family, the dead girl or the fact said killer entered another country without tally or clue of his rights and decided to commit murder...

I say you enter another country, commit murder and have no clue what your "rights" are, you get what's coming to you.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't a matter of letting him go free. It is a matter to ensure that all defendants are accorded all of the rights they have coming to them. The U.S. government insists that other states abide by international law, but why does the United States NOT have to abide by the same international laws it expects others to abide by. The State of Texas made a big blunder here. They should have allowed him access and THEN give him the trial and THEN execute him according to Texas law.

MrVicchio said:

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence | Reuters

On several fronts this is an interesting story. First we have the UN, and Mexico bitterly complaining this murderer was not aware of his "rights" nor told about them. I fail to grasp what talking to the Mexican consulate would do to change the fact. I'd say this is a failure of Mexico to educate their citizens as to their "rights" and they should look to changing their Education system.

While his death will not return the life of his victim, it will be Justice served.

Click to expand...

This is not the first time Texas executed a scumbag regardless of what some rats in Mexico say. Texas will execute the scumbag regardless of what some globalist trash say.


EXECUTED - Jose Medellin - Texas Death Row - Scheduled Execution : Pro Death Penalty Information - Scheduled Executions
Victims: Jennifer Ertmen and Elizabeth Pena

The Crime: Medellin was convicted of the raping and killing 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena and 15-year-old Jennifer Ertman in June, 1993. His case has since gained notoriety as Mexico sued the United states in the International Court of Justice and on behalf of 54 Mexican nationals asserting that, in these cases, the US had violated the Vienna Convention, to which it is signatory, which requires that local authorities inform foreign nationals being held on criminal charges of the right to consult with their country’s diplomats. That court ruled that the United States was obliged to have the defendants’ cases reopened and reconsidered. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case on May 1, 2007. On March 25, 2008, the US Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's arguments and cleared the way for Texas to execute his sentence.

ludahai said:

No, it isn't a matter of letting him go free. It is a matter to ensure that all defendants are accorded all of the rights they have coming to them. The U.S. government insists that other states abide by international law, but why does the United States NOT have to abide by the same international laws it expects others to abide by. The State of Texas made a big blunder here. They should have allowed him access and THEN give him the trial and THEN execute him according to Texas law.

Click to expand...

Here is why states do not have to abide by a lot of international laws.Humberto Leal Garcia will be executed just like Jose Medellín was.

Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]

1)

US Constitution Article 6 said:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

2) The Vienna Convention on Consular Rights was ratified by the United States in 1969.

3) Therefore, the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights, per the Constitution of the United States, is the law of the land, and any act to circumvent it is unconstitutional. Doesn't mean that we cannot eventually do the execution. What it means is that we must use due process, according to our own laws.

danarhea said:

1)



2) The Vienna Convention on Consular Rights was ratified by the United States in 1969.

3) Therefore, the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights, per the Constitution of the United States, is the law of the land, and any act to circumvent it is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

The Supreme court made a decision on this. Treaties are not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing".


Funny how your opinion was different back then.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/33567-texas-still-plans-execute-killer-despite-u-n-order.html
Screw the UN. This punk raped and murdered two teenage girls.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/34428-texas-executes-illegal-immigrant-honduras.html
For the second time in a week, the State of Texas has given the middle finger to the World Court at the Hague, and executed a murderer. Heliberto Chi had robbed and murdered his former employer in 2001.

This execution, and the one earlier this week, when the state put to death someone who had raped and murdered two little girls, is a statement that rings loud and clear. The World Court and the UN do not own Texas. Texans do, and if Texas decides that it should execute illegal scumbags, it is going to do so. Illegal scumbags have NO rights here. If they needed someone from their own consulate, then they should have thought of that BEFORE they illegally entered the United States. It's too late for that now. If you do the crime, be prepared to pay the price. That is what happens to American citizens, and illegal aliens don't get a pass either.

To illegal immigrants looking to game America's legal system, we have a message for you. You are NOT special, and you will get NO special treatment over and above what our own citizens get. Rape and murder little girls, rob and murder someone, or commit ANY kind of capital offense in Texas, you are going to die. Death house. No consulate, no special break, no nothing. Just death. Period. End of discussion. Now go take a hike in hell.

jamesrage said:

This is not the first time Texas executed a scumbag regardless of what some rats in Mexico say. Texas will execute the scumbag regardless of what some globalist trash say.


EXECUTED - Jose Medellin - Texas Death Row - Scheduled Execution : Pro Death Penalty Information - Scheduled Executions
Victims: Jennifer Ertmen and Elizabeth Pena

The Crime: Medellin was convicted of the raping and killing 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena and 15-year-old Jennifer Ertman in June, 1993. His case has since gained notoriety as Mexico sued the United states in the International Court of Justice and on behalf of 54 Mexican nationals asserting that, in these cases, the US had violated the Vienna Convention, to which it is signatory, which requires that local authorities inform foreign nationals being held on criminal charges of the right to consult with their country’s diplomats. That court ruled that the United States was obliged to have the defendants’ cases reopened and reconsidered. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case on May 1, 2007. On March 25, 2008, the US Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's arguments and cleared the way for Texas to execute his sentence.

Click to expand...

note that Judge Stevens, recognizing that the law does not compel recognition of this treaty (because its implementation had not been properly effected by regulation), finds that ability to ignore the treaty undermines the interests of our nation

On the other hand, the costs of refusing to respect theICJ’s judgment are significant. The entire Court and the President agree that breach will jeopardize the United States’ “plainly compelling” interests in “ensuring thereciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of international law.” Ante, at
28. When the honor of the Nation is balanced against the modest cost of compliance, Texas would do well to recognize that more is at stake than whether judgments of the ICJ, and the principled admonitions of the President of the United States, trump state procedural rules in the absence of implementing legislation.
The Court’s judgment, which I join, does not foreclosefurther appropriate action by the State of Texas.

Click to expand...

they had the right to prosecute but was it right to prosecute. the affirming Judge thinks no
Stevens refused to be an activist Judge, but he recognized the wrong in proceeding in violation of the treaty

(page 49) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf

At this point the only right we should be concerned with is this piece of human excrements right to die. The sooner the better. There is a song by Ray Wylie Hubbard called "Screw You Were From Texas" this trash killed one of ours and he's gonna die for it and if you don't like it., well screw you, the UN and the corrupt Mexican government. Screw all ya'll and God Bless Texas for doing the right thing. Amen

justabubba said:

note that Judge Stevens, recognizing that the law does not compel recognition of this treaty (because its implementation had not been properly effected by regulation), finds that ability to ignore the treaty undermines the interests of our nation

they had the right to prosecute but was it right to prosecute. the affirming Judge thinks no
Stevens refused to be an activist Judge, but he recognized the wrong in proceeding in violation of the treaty

(page 49) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf

Click to expand...

How does ignoring a international law that is not enforceable undermine the interest of our nation? Mexico or France might deny some murderer the ability to see his or her consulate? Oh the horror.

jamesrage said:

How does ignoring a international law that is not enforceable undermine the interest of our nation? Mexico or France might deny some murderer the ability to see his consulate?

Click to expand...

read what Judge Steven had to say, expressing why it was harmful to our nation's interest to not uphold a treaty to which we obligated ourselves

your question reminds me of the outrage of the mistreatment of our soldiers by the terrorists
while simultaneously endorsing the waterboarding and other torture, and the practices of abu grahib

While I agree with the premise of the consular consultation as a right, the whole thing unfolded in the late 1990's. He's likely exhausted all his appeals as his execution is scheduled soon. This appears to be a delaying tactic or they would have brought it up much sooner. Unless they can come up with a compelling reason why that consultation would have materially altered the outcome of the case there's no reason to delay the execution. Apologize to Mexico and assure then that safeguard have been put in place to prevent it from happening again and move on. He raped and murdered a 16 yr old girl, he deserves the same as he gave to her and in the same manner. He's getting off easy by checking out with a shot.

justabubba said:

read what Judge Steven had to say, expressing why it was harmful to our nation's interest to not uphold a treaty to which we obligated ourselves

Click to expand...

Unless congress has enacted statutes implementing it or if it is self executing then we are not obligated ourselves to uphold it.

your question reminds me of the outrage of the mistreatment of our soldiers by the terrorists

Click to expand...

So now the United states is like Al Queda? And your saying that if terrorists had signed this treaty then they would have abide by it?

while simultaneously endorsing the waterboarding and other torture, and the practices of abu grahib

Click to expand...

Simulated drowning is not torture and it pales in comparison to anything to what the terrorist have done those they captured and killed.

Prof. Peabody said:

While I agree with the premise of the consular consultation as a right, the whole thing unfolded in the late 1990's. He's likely exhausted all his appeals as his execution is scheduled soon. This appears to be a delaying tactic or they would have brought it up much sooner. Unless they can come up with a compelling reason why that consultation would have materially altered the outcome of the case there's no reason to delay the execution.

Click to expand...

It will fail miserably as a delaying tactic because of Medellín v. Texas.

Apologize to Mexico and assure then that safeguard have been put in place to prevent it from happening again and move on.

Click to expand...

The idea anyone should apologize to Mexico is laughable. The only one owed an apology is the victim's loved ones. The only one w ho owes the victim's loved ones an appology is the murderer for doing the deed and the US government for not doing its damn job to secure the border and crack down on illegals which resulted in this scumbag being able to be in the country in the first place. The only safeguard that should be in place is the government actually doing its damn job to secure the border and get rid of illegals.

jamesrage said:

Here is why states do not have to abide by a lot of international laws.Humberto Leal Garcia will be executed just like Jose Medellín was.

Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]

Click to expand...

And this places the United States in violation of an international treaty it is a party to AND reduces the ability of the United States to insist on the same rights for US citizens overseas. DUMB! DUMB! DUMB! You can still try and execute the guy while ABIDING by the treaty. The US insists on others following international law, but the US doesn't have to abide by it? Thanks for taking the U.S. off the high road on this issue, Texas. Even President Bush supported abiding by this treaty.

jamesrage said:

To illegal immigrants looking to game America's legal system, we have a message for you. You are NOT special, and you will get NO special treatment over and above what our own citizens get. Rape and murder little girls, rob and murder someone, or commit ANY kind of capital offense in Texas, you are going to die. Death house. No consulate, no special break, no nothing. Just death. Period. End of discussion. Now go take a hike in hell.

Click to expand...

Texas would still get to try and execute the cretin. However, that cretin DOES have the legal right to representation and to contact his consulate. That doesn't mean the consulate can override the justice system in the state of Texas. I know, the U.S. wants others to abide by their treaties, but the US can't abide by those that it signs. Conservatives like you make me want to puke.

jamesrage said:

How does ignoring a international law that is not enforceable undermine the interest of our nation? Mexico or France might deny some murderer the ability to see his or her consulate? Oh the horror.

Click to expand...

Not worried about France, but when states like China and Pakistan hold Americans who were not guilty of murder, the U.S. has been able to gain consular access to such people. Now, China can simply look at this denial by the State of Texas and say, sorry, you violate the treaty, so can we...

He needs to die as he was sentenced to die. We can't have people coming in this country thinking they can do whatever they want because they are not citizens. On the one hand they are screaming for the rights they do not deserve because they are not here legally. HERE we see the other hand-- the one screaming that they are not citizens and deserve other rights. They are all for using our American benefits until they get the death penalty?????

jamesrage said:

Unless congress has enacted statutes implementing it or if it is self executing then we are not obligated ourselves to uphold it.

Click to expand...

If the United States signs and ratifies a treaty, it is legally obligated to abide by that treaty. This is a basic tenant of international law. The U.S. insists other states abide by this treaty, it should as well.

krickitt said:

He needs to die as he was sentenced to die. We can't have people coming in this country thinking they can do whatever they want because they are not citizens. On the one hand they are screaming for the rights they do not deserve because they are not here legally. HERE we see the other hand-- the one screaming that they are not citizens and deserve other rights. They are all for using our American benefits until they get the death penalty?????

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but every defendant has rights. As a foreign national, he has a right to contact and request assistance from his embassy/consulate. This does NOT exempt him from the penalty of his crimes. However, the State of Texas, and by extention, the U.S. is in violation of international law and its own treaties by not according him consular access.

Well, that stinks. I am from Texas, and can't believe they would make such a mistake. Now what? We support him in jail that much longer, and do the whole thing over again? I wonder what will happen?? With Perry running, possibly, he really can't make a mistake now. Of course, Texas is Texas, and it is hard to guess what would make people mad there. Probably keeping him alive..

krickitt said:

Well, that stinks. I am from Texas, and can't believe they would make such a mistake. Now what? We support him in jail that much longer, and do the whole thing over again? I wonder what will happen?? With Perry running, possibly, he really can't make a mistake now. Of course, Texas is Texas, and it is hard to guess what would make people mad there. Probably keeping him alive..

Click to expand...

They should have gotten it right from the beginning, then it would be perfectly ok to execute him now. I have no problem with the trial and the punishment. My problem is the lack of consular access. It is a clear violation and it potentially makes it more difficult for the US to insist on the same rights if its nationals are held in a foreign country for whatever reason.