Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, North America

RIGHTS: Doubts in Mexico that U.S. Will Heed World Court Ruling

Diego Cevallos

MEXICO CITY, Mar 31 2004 (IPS) - The Mexican government potentially has set a global precedent, scoring a victory with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Wednesday that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans who are sitting on death row in that country.

“By not informing, without delay upon their detention, the 51 Mexican nationals… of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of Apr. 24 1963, the United States of America breached the obligations incumbent upon it,” states the ruling.

But political observers in Mexico warn that this victory may not produce concrete results, as they predict that the United States will not heed the ruling, particularly if past U.S. actions are any indication. The Mexican government has not ruled out the possibility of U.S. non-compliance either.

The ICJ ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the consular rights of 51 Mexicans condemned to death in that country because it did not guarantee their right to assistance from their government from the time they were arrested.

“The United States should provide by means of its own choosing a meaningful review of the conviction and sentences,” said presiding judge Shi Jiuyong.

Mexican President Vicente Fox said the country is pleased with the ruling by the court based in The Hague, and that it is a triumph for international law and human rights.

The Mexican Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, said that the decision of the highest judicial body of the United Nations “will constitute a unique juridical tool” for other countries that seek to defend the rights of their citizens abroad.

Though recognising that the ICJ ruling is “definitive and unappealable”, a government source, who preferred not to be named, told IPS that the United States might not comply with it.

If that is the case, the issue would be brought to the U.N. Security Council, as stipulated by ICJ rules, said the source.

Mexico brought the case against the United States to the international court in January 2003 for alleged non-compliance with the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, saying that Mexican nationals arrested in that country had not been permitted to seek consular assistance after being arrested.

The team of U.S. lawyers, led by William Taft, legal counsel for the State Department, and Elihu Lauterpacht, honorary professor of Cambridge University, strenuously argued that Mexico’s accusations were unfounded.

Although in some cases consular assistance may have been lacking, even if it were provided it would not have changed the death sentences handed down by the judges in the U.S. courts, said the attorneys.

Taft, former U.S. ambassador to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), told the international court that the Mexican case represented an intrusion into the U.S. justice system and an attack on its sovereignty, as well as interference in decisions that were the exclusive domain of U.S. states, and not of the federal government.

But in its ruling, the ICJ said, “the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the United States of America to provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals.”

It also states that in future cases the United States must ensure respect for the right to consular assistance. However, the court did recognise the U.S. “commitment undertaken” in this regard.

Because the case revolved around the general application of the Vienna Convention, the court’s decision could benefit other foreigners facing the death penalty in the United States, according to the Mexican Foreign Ministry.

Mexican political scientist Alfonso Zárate says that despite the ICJ decision, he thinks Washington will follow its unilateral line and will ignore the ruling.

In 2002 the ICJ ordered the United States to stop the execution of German national Walter La Grand, arguing that he had not been apprised of his right to consular assistance. But the U.S. state of Arizona went forward with the execution.

In February 2003, Mexico convinced the World Court to order the United States to halt the execution of three Mexicans on death row.

But the cases were not affected in any way, and one of the three already has a date set for his execution: Osvaldo Torres could be put to death in May in the state of Oklahoma.

Mexico’s original filing against the United States in The Hague was on behalf of 54 Mexicans, but because of pardons or other issues, the number was reduced to 51.

Human rights activist Patricio Torres said that even though the ICJ ruling carries important moral weight, it is unlikely that the United States will heed it.

The United States was the first country to voluntarily recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The court did not issue any rulings against that country until 1986, when it ordered an end to aggression against Nicaragua, which prompted Washington to denounce the court.

“It is almost impossible that the United States would order the governments and courts of one or several of its states to review the cases of the Mexicans sentenced to death, because there is a very strong federalist tradition in that country,” Torres told IPS.

The most recent execution of a Mexican national in the United States was in August 2002 in the southern state of Texas. Javier Suárez, confessed killer of a government anti-narcotics agent, was the fifth Mexican to be put to death since the United States reinstated the maximum penalty in 1976.