|
WashPost 2008 Apr 08: A Commitment to Consular Access
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802906.html?wpisrc=newsletter
---
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Vienna 1969 May 23
Into Force: 1980 27 January 27
UN Doc A/Conf 39/28,UKTS 58(1980),8 ILM 679
Depositary: United Nations: Article 85
Authentic texts: Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish: Article 85
---[FON/TXTcursor: (Western)CourierNew10/cols100!!(=INTERNET/NOT IBM'OLD"80"!!) -------
L.S.,
P.M.:
UN-ICJ/20030109_Avena and other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)
us.legal/Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:38:33 +0100; with the corr.: WARNING!!: Only This Title:
CORR["the 27 Januari 2001!!"] = x.. "the 27 June 2001!!" UN-ICJ_LaGrand-casus(, and x..
us.legal/Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:59:05 +0100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------::
UN-ICJ/20030109_Avena and other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)
[imus_iapplication_20030109.pdf; and Cf./Cfm. Press Release 2003/4 <www.icj-cij.org>]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactions ONLY!! > NEWSgroup "us.legal"
Evt.: Cf./Cfm. BBS/INTERNETpublications since ca1987;
Each(All)Article(s) being maintained~Delivering(s) to Accessprovider(s);
Evt.: FON/TXT: WesternEurope/CourierNew10/Notepad++/[exceptional: cols100!]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ad this UN-ICJ_"CASE CONCERNING THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS
(United Mexican States v. United States of America)
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES
9 JANUARY 2003"
:Ad: VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS, Art. 36 etc.:
Striking: 1. NOT xor NOT IN TIME (in)directly notifying "Mexico"_Consular Officers
- esp. causing: No (extra) legal protection/assistance
as to Mexicans ultimately ~ Death row -
ESP.?!: 2. UN-ICJ/document"imus_iapplication_20030109.pdf":
"C. Previous efforts to obtain relief
x..
1. Efforts by Mexico and its nationals before judicial authorities of
the United States
x..
[para.30:]
30. Furthermore, Mexico has been deprived of
its right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its nationals as shown below.
The rule of procedural default,
the need to show prejudice and
the interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution
followed by the United States tribunals
have rendered all actions before United States federal courts ineffective.
As international law requires,
the exercise of diplomatic protection by a State
must to be preceded by the exhaustion of local remedies.
Mexican nationals sentenced to death
must exhaust every single local remedy available under United States law.
However,
the time allotted between
the final ruling of the United States Supreme Court on a given case and
the execution is so minimum, sometimes only hours, that,
at the end, the Government of Mexico is prevented from exercising its diplomatic protection.
[UN-ICJ_consequences ~ Re_Proceduring]
-------------------------------------:
ad: x.. However,
the time allotted between
..the final ruling of the United States Supreme Court on a given case
and
..the execution is so minimum, sometimes only hours,
:at the end, the Government of Mexico is prevented from exercising its diplomatic protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------::
mrj.dw_Thinking of
..the cadre of such execution-preparations and.. time-lengths needed e.g. as to Observers etc.
and
..the role/scope/TIMING of the "United States Supreme Court", in advance and or backwards,
~ within context of
1. not only this UN-ICJ_Document,
2. but also within the context of esp.
the 27 June 2001!! UN-ICJ_LaGrand-casus(, and UN-ICJ_President's "Declaration" too)
[Cf.: My INTERNETpublications]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:
~IUS/~LEX
:UN_US-STATEs/"United States SUPREME Court" NOT checking "LEGAL" QUESTIONS related ~IUS/~LEX ?
At least marginally ?
Quod non ?
---mrj.dw----------------------------------------------------stop---Tue28Jan2003/14h:22CET---
20080409_P.S.,
Conclusions: UN-(fed)USoA-(fed)STATE/Vienna Treaty_High Party:
UN-(fed)USoA-(fed)STATE/Supreme Court as to such Capital Punishments shall/must/should be informed
to "control" etc (at least as to Procedural) INTERNATIONAL Duties/Rights fulfilments:
UN-(fed)USoA-(fed)STATE/Supreme Court (still?) not being "Equiped" ?
---mrj.dw----------------------------------------------------stop---Wed09Apr2008/13h:51CET(DST)---
|
| |
| |
|
