Medellin v. Texas is a Supreme Court decision dealing with the obligation of the American states to comply with a judgment of the International Court of Justice concerning the legal rights of people convicted in those states. Hence, what is at stake here is the issue of whether or not international obligations resulting from a non-self-executing treaty should have an influence on American domestic law. After he was convicted, Medellin appealed relying on a violation of his Vienna Convention rights, but the trial court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction. Medellin then filed a petition for habeas corpus before a District Court, which rejected his demand. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) that the United States had violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform 51 defendants, including petitioner Medellin, of their Vienna Convention rights. Medellin raised this decision before the Firth Circuit, but the federal Appellate Court denied relief. In this respect, Medellin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The President of the United States issued a memorandum asserting that state courts would give effects to the Avena decision, in accordance with the United States' international obligations. In Medellin v. Dretke, the US Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's first petition for certiorari. Relying on both the memorandum and the ICJ ruling, the petitioner filed a second Texas state-court habeas application challenging his state capital murder conviction and death sentence arguing that he had not been informed of his Vienna Convention rights, to which Convention the United States are a party. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin's application, asserting that "neither Avena, nor the President's memorandum were binding federal law" which could interfere with the state's rule prohibiting to fill successive habeas applications. Once again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
[...] Cour suprême des États-Unis mars 2008, Medellín v. Texas - l'application aux États-Unis d'un jugement de la Cour internationale de Justice Facts Medellin v. Texas is a Supreme Court decision dealing with the obligation of American states to comply with a judgment of the International Court of Justice concerning the legal rights of people convicted in those states. Hence, what is at stake here is the issue of whether or not international obligations resulting from a non-self- executing treaty should have an influence on American domestic law. [...]
[...] In order to make this statement, the Court used the text of each treaty. This constitutes the first question that the court had to answer before considering the other legal issues. First of all, the Court highlighted that The Optional protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which concerns the compulsory settlement of disputes, did not determine precisely what effect should be given to the decisions issued by the ICJ. The Court asserted that the Optional Protocol only constituted a bare grant of jurisdiction” as it established that dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice In this respect, the implementation of an ICJ decision cannot be imposed on domestic courts, on the grounds of the provisions of the Optional protocol. [...]
[...] Moreover, the Court also established that the President had not either derived this power from the acquiescence of Congress. Hence, the president did not rely on “congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence”, and thus was not acting within the second category of the Youngstown framework, but the third. In this perspective, congressional acquiescence did not exist, and the President did not have the power to require the courts to give the Avena decision domestic effects, and to displace state procedural rules. [...]
[...] U.S.) that the United States had violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform 51 defendants, including petitioner Medellin, of their Vienna Convention rights. Medellin raised this decision before the Firth Circuit, but the federal Appellate Court denied relief. In this respect, Medellin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The President of the United States issued a memorandum asserting that state courts would give effects to the Avena decision, in accordance with the United States' international obligations. In Medellin v. Dretke, the US Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's first petition for certiorari. [...]
[...] This mechanism is governed by a “narrow set of circumstances” that was not met in this case. Considering that compelling the courts to reopen final criminal judgments does not constitute a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and never before questioned”, the Court reached the conclusion that this memorandum was not constituting a valid exercise President's authority. This case illustrates a restrictive approach of the effects a non self executing treaty in the absence of implementing legislation, on domestic law, asserting that such a treaty cannot be invoked before a domestic court, with a view to justifying that an obligation resulting from this treaty could overcome state's procedural rules. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
