US high court says US states can ignore ICJ rulings

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US state courts need not comply with International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions, even if the US president orders them to, the US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in the case of a Mexican sentenced to death.

The Hague-based ICJ on March 2004 ordered trial revisions in the United States of 51 Mexicans sentenced to death, because they had not been timely informed of their right to consular assistance.

One of them, 33-year-old Jose Medellin -- convicted of raping and murdering two teenagers in Texas in 1993 -- demanded Texas courts acknowledge that the omission pointed out by the ICJ warranted a retrial.

President George W. Bush, exercising his prerrogative in applying international treaties, ordered state judges to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether any of the 51 Mexicans merited a retrial.

While some states complied with his order, Texas judges refused to examine Medellin's appeal on grounds they were not bound by ICJ decisions nor by presidential orders on the principle of separation of powers.

The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Texas' magistrates.

"We conclude that neither (the ICJ) nor the president's memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations," Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's opinion.

Bush "has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one is not among them," he added.

"We're disappointed with the decision," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

She stressed however that US arguments in the case "in no way condoned or defended the heinous crimes of which Jose Medellin was convicted."

The Bush administration had from the start criticized the International Court of Justice trial revision ruling, and later it withdrew from the ICJ treaty it had supported to avoid similar appeals.

"The Supreme Court recognized that there was an international obligation to comply with a legally ratified treaty of the United States. But their point was that the president of the United States does not have the authority, under current law, to compel a state to act," Perino said.

The Mexican Embassy in Washington said it was "concerned" by the high court's decision, which the Mexican government was studying before issuing an "official response."

The People for the American Way Foundation said called the Supreme Court's ruling a "deeply troubling opinion ... signaling that the United States can simply ignore its obligations under international treaties."

"We can and must enforce our laws and defend our borders without abandoning the treaties we have signed," the group added in a statement.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFj ... mA1uMUFJtQ