Does the Mexican Government know their names?
Jennifer Ertman (14 years old at the time of her death in 1993)
Elizabeth Pena (16 years old at the time of her death in 1993)
Those are two names that mean nothing in Mexico. They are unknown to the Mexican Government officials who protested the execution of Jose Medellin in Texas this past week.
Their names are not known and mean nothing to the International Court in The Hague that "ordered" the US Government to have the case of Jose Medellin reopened and reviewed because, at the time of Medellin's arrest in 1993, Mexican Consular officials were not notified.
Their names mean nothing to the ACLU.
Sorry to say, I'm not even sure their names are known to anyone in the Bush Administration that asked Texas to reopen and review the case.
In 1993, Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman were attacked by several gang members including Jose Medellin in a Texas park. They were raped and murdered. Medellin, a Mexican national, who was in the country illegally, was eventually convicted for the crime-and finally, thankfully executed.
The Mexican Government is outraged. Yet, apparently, the average Mexican citizen is too concerned about rampant violent crime south of the border to worry about the execution of a vicious murderer north of the border. Indeed, many in Mexico are calling for the death penalty in their own country.
What the Mexican Government chooses to ignore is its own failures. Failures such as failing to provide any decent education to its masses, which leads to lack of jobs and opportunities for the Mexican people. It is not surprising that millions of Mexicans choose to enter the US to find work. Unfortunately, we also get many thousands of Mexico's criminal element.
One of the great myths is that Mexico is a poor country. Not true. In fact, Mexico is a very wealthy country inhabited by millions of poor people. Consider this: The nation of Mexico has historically been rich in natural resources; gold, silver, tin, copper, petroleum and 4 beautiful coastlines that draw in millions of tourists. The problem is that all the wealth stays in the hands of the ruling oligarchy and corrupt government officials. Nothing is left for the average Mexican.
In addition, Mexico possesses what is probably the most corrupt and brutal police force in the world-both at the national and local level. When DEA Agent, Enrique Camarena was kidnapped in Mexico by drug dealers and tortured to death in 1985, it was discovered that Mexican police officers were themselves involved. As a US Customs and later DEA agent, I had a few "opportunities" to work cases with Mexican police. In my last years before retirement in 1995, I participated in two training seminars for new federal police agents at the Mexican National Police Academy in Mexico City. I also taught in another Mexican police training course in the Washington DC area after my retirement. It was an exercise in futility. No matter how many times Mexico introduced us to the so-called "new breed" of federal agents, the result has always been the same.
Sadly, the whole system in Mexico is incurably corrupt. I am afraid the only thing that might change it would be a revolution. I also think that the wave of millions of poor Mexicans who are in the US, had they been in Mexico, might have revolted by now.
Mexico's outrage against the US is misdirected. That nation and its leaders need to look themselves in the mirror. They should ask themselves why people like Jose Medellin are so important to them while people like Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman are not. Mexico owes a formal apology to the US and to the Pena and Ertman families for the outrages committed by some of their citizens who are in our country.
4 comments:
Well done Mr. Fouse...well said and well done.
Thank you, Ralph. It gives me no pleasure to write that piece. My wife is Mexican, and I genuinely like the Mexican people. The overwhelming majority are good and decent people. But there is a cancer in that country that only they can cure.
The execution of Jose Medellin: Texas fulfilled their obligations to the law
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
The only treaty violation was that Texas failed to notify the rapist/torturer/murderer, Jose Medellin, "you can contact your consulate if you wish", as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VC) (1963) (1).
Some may ask "Is that it?" Such a reaction is understandable.
One or all of the following errors have marked the coverage of this case.
1) "The US/Texas denied Medellin consular access" or
2)"The US/Texas failed to notify the Mexican consulate of the detention" or
3) "The US/Texas denied Medellin a hearing on the notification issue"
As to the first claim, Medellin was never prevented from contacting his consulate. Medellin and his attorneys were free to contact the consulate or consulate attorneys, whenever they so desired. Medellin and his attorneys chose not to contact the Mexican consulate for 4 years.
The US admitted its error, that it violated the VC, by not informing Medellin that he could contact his consulate. As a simple matter of practicality, who doesn't know they can contact their own consulate?
In addition, Medellin grew up in Texas and spent his later 15 years in Texas, prior to committing these heinous acts when he was age 18. He attended Texas schools and spoke fluent English. Texas did not know Medellin was a Mexican national. (2)
The second claim would, specifically, violate the intent of the VC. In the debate, prior to VC ratification, it was decided that only the detained party (Medellin) should be given the option of contacting their consulate. I suspect this was done in order to protect the detained party, in case they were in trouble in their own country. There is no obligation for the taking party (in this case, Texas), to notify a foreign nationals consulate that one of their citizens has been detained.
For the third claim, there is this:
As the US never denied violating the notification provision, the real issue before the The Internal Court of Justice (ICJ) was "what remedy exists for that violation?"
The ICJ instructed: "(Texas/US must) provide, by means of its "own" choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the [affected] Mexican nationals," "with a view to ascertaining" whether the failure to provide proper notice to consular officials "caused actual prejudice to the defendant in the process of administration of criminal justice,"
Texas did, exactly, that.
Several courts (3) and judges thoroughly reviewed the notification claims, including extensive oral arguments. The did this, even though there were procedural bars, because of the timing of the claim. No prejudice was found.
An additional formal hearing wasn't held because a claim has to reach a certain level of credibility or weight before a hearing is granted. The appellate considerations found that there was no prejudice and that the error was harmless, Therefore, a formal hearing was not held. In fact, as a matter of law, it was also barred.
Texas said no to the ICJ and all other denouncers, for three reasons: 1) Texas had. already, conducted a review of it's own choosing, as directed by ICJ and found no prejudice; 2) there was no need to repeat a process that had already taken place. An additional review of the same material in the same case would have had the same result; 3) The US Supreme Court stated that the ICJ could not force Texas to have an additional hearing - The Vienna Convention was not an obligation on Texas.
However, Texas met the ICJ and VC burden in the three court reviews, inclusive of the oral arguments.
Texas did so, in response to its own due process.
A violation of a treaty occurred. A remedy was prescribed and carried out. The Texas/US treaty obligation was fulfilled.
Medellin was justly executed and had 15 years of extraordinary due process protections.
Some say that US citizens may be subject to additional abuse because of Texas' decision to execute this rapist/torturer/murderer. Why?
An equal "abuse" would be that a non-US nation would (1) arrest US citizens for just cause; (2) fail to tell them "you can contact your consulate, if you wish to"; and (3) give them the extraordinary due process provided to Jose Medellin.
While all citizens would like to get consul notification and those party to the treaty are entitled to it, did all the States (parties to the treaty) give such notification to all detained US citizens and other detained foreign nationals since 1967? Of course not.
Texas didn't know Medellin was a Mexican national. Even if it did, almost no US police officers had even heard of the Vienna Convention, prior to 1997.
Were many police, anywhere in the world, aware of the Vienna Convention since 1967? Unlikely. Did they recite it when they didn't know the detainee was a foreign national? (2) Also unlikely.
Would the world condemn the US and punish US citizens for the same violations they have committed, only because their violations have not been adjudicated? Some parts of it will, some won't.
That said, the treaty should be honored and all States should provide such notification.
My opinion is that Mexico brought this case to the ICJ, as an anti death penalty cause, and, possibly, with a wee hint of anti-Americanism, and not as a principled stance in support of consular rights within the Vienna Convention.
Fact: Mexico, intentionally, included only death penalty cases and avoided all other non death cases of detained Mexican nationals within the US.
Fact: Had this really been about consular rights and the honoring of treaties, Mexico would have filed ICJ lawsuits against every country that had violated the rights of Mexican Nationals under the VC. I suspect that would have involved all countries party to the VC since 1967. Mexico didn't do that.
Fact: Mexico only singled out the US, strictly avoiding non death penalty cases. The VC applies to all cases of detention. Any lawsuit, based upon principle, would have been directed at all violators and for all cases. Mexico went out of their way, only filing action against US death penalty cases.
In other words, absent the death penalty, Mexico never would have filed the lawsuit.
Wouldn't we all like to see what percentage of foreign nationals, detained in Mexico, since 1967, had been properly notified: "you have the right to contact your consulate, if you wish." What do you think? 1% or less?
NOTE: The VC specifically states that it does not infer individual rights, but is intended to facilitate consular relations.
The only human rights violation in this case was the hour long gang rape/torture/murder of two wonderful girls, Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14.
Remember them?
Take a look. http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html
(1) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Article 36, paragraph b, last sentence
(2) From a practical standpoint, is there no obligation on the part of the detained party to notify the authorities of their foreign national status? Or, are all the world's police supposed to be clairvoyant?
copyright 1999-2008 Dudley Sharp
Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is approved with proper attribution.
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Mr Sharp,
Thank you for your insight on this issue.
Post a Comment