International Court
of Justice again orders "precautionary measures" to protect
César Fierro's life
On July 16, 2008, the International Court of Justice
responded to Mexico's emergency request for an interpretation of the Avena Judgment on consular rights
and remedies by issuing the following order:
"The United States of America shall take all measures
necessary to ensure that Messrs. José Ernesto Medellín
Rojas, César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Rubén Ramírez
Cárdenas, Humberto Leal García, and Roberto Moreno Ramos
are not executed pending judgment on the Request for interpretation
submitted by the United Mexican States, unless and until these five
Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration consistent with
paragraphs 138 to 141 of the Court’s Judgment delivered on 31 March
2004 in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico
v. United States of America)." To read the full text of the
Court's order, click
here
Congressional
legislation would provide access to legal remedy for consular treaty
violation in Fierro case
On July 14, 2008, legislation was introduced in the
U.S. House of Representatives to implement the United States' binding
obligations under the International Court of Justice decision in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals. The "Avena Case
Implementation Act of 2008" (H.R. 6481) is
intended to “create a civil action to provide judicial remedies to
carry out
certain treaty obligations of the
Fifth Circuit
denies Fierro's request for continuing a stay of the proceedings in his
case
On June 2, 2008, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied Mr. Fierro's request for an extension of the stay of
proceedings granted by the Court in 2007 so that the U.S. Supreme Court
could consider the claim that the International Court of Justice
decision in Avena is
enforceable in the domestic courts. Noting that the Supreme Court
had "decided adversely to Fierro the issues that he seeks permission to
raise in a successive federal habeas petition," the Court
concluded that there was no further basis for continuing the stay.
Supreme Court
decides that the Avena
decision is not enforceable in the domestic courts
On March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United
States held in Medellin v. Texas
that the ICJ decision in Avena was
not directly enforceable domestic federal law that preempted state
limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions, and that the
directive from
President Bush did not independently require states to provide
reconsideration and review of the claims of the Mexican citizens
involved in the Avena
case. Although unanimously agreeing that Avena is binding on the
United States under international law and that there are "plainly
compelling" reasons for complying with its requirements, the Court
concluded that the responsibility for implementing Avena rests with the U.S. Congress.
Texas Lawyer article details the Fierro Case
On May 2, 2005, Texas Lawyer
magazine
published an article entitled "Stuck in Habeas Hell: Bush Breathes New
Life Into Texas Death-Row Inmate's Case." Written by Prof. David
Dow, one of César
Fierro's
attorneys, the article describes the latest developments in the
case--along
with the shocking disintegration in César's
mental health in recent years. To read the full article, click
here.
President Bush determines that Texas courts must review the Fierro Case
On February 28, 2005, President Bush determined that state courts are required to provide judicial review of the consular rights violations in the cases of 51 death-sentenced Mexican nationals, including the Fierro case. The President's determination reads:
The White House
February 28 [2005]
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: Compliance With the International Court of Justice in Avena
The United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the "Convention") and the Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol), which gives the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction to decide disputes concerning the "interpretation and application" of the Convention.
I have determined, pursuant to the
authority
vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United
States
of America, that the United States will discharge its international
obligations
under the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Case
Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United
States
of America) (Avena), 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31), by having State
courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general
principles
of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that
decision.
International Court of Justice orders remedies for CésarFierro
On March 31, 2004, the International
Court
of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the United States had violated the consular
rights of 51 death-sentenced Mexican nationals, including César
Fierro. As the remedy for the treaty violation, the ICJ ordered the
United
States to provide effective judicial "review and reconsideration" of
each
case to determine if the consular rights violations had a harmful
effect
on the convictions or sentences. Mr. Fierro's case was one of
just
three in which the ICJ held that the USA had violated every
provision
of
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Despite
the fact that Mr. Fierro has exhausted all available avenues of appeal,
the ICJ nonetheless determined that the United States must "find an
appropriate
remedy having the nature of review and reconsideration", consistent
with
the criteria outlined in its binding decision.
Inter-American Commission recommends new trial
On 29 December 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the violation of consular rights in the Fierro case requires the remedy of a new trial. The IACHR ruling has now been posted at:
Merits: Cesar Fierro v. United States
The Commission concludes:
"Mr. Fierro's right to information under Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations constituted a fundamental component of the due process standards to which he was entitled under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration [of the Rights and Duties of Man], and that the State's failure to respect and ensure this obligation constituted serious violations of Mr. Fierro's rights to due process and to a fair trial under these provisions of the Declaration.
Accordingly, should the State execute Mr. Fierro based upon the criminal proceedings for which he is presently convicted and sentenced, the Commission finds that this will constitute an arbitrary deprivation of Mr. Fierro's life contrary to Article I of the Declaration.
In a case such as the present, where a
defendant's conviction has occurred as a result of proceedings that
fail
to satisfy the minimal requirements of fairness and due process, the
Commission
considers that the appropriate remedy includes a re-trial in
accordance with the due process and fair trial protections prescribed
under
Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration or, where a re
trial
in compliance with these protections is not possible, Mr. Fierro's
release.
International Court of Justice Orders Temporary Stay of Execution
On 5 February 2003, the
International
Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously adopted an Order indicating
provisional
measures (a form of temporary injunction). In that Order, it decided
that
the United States of America should take "all measures necessary" to
ensure
that César Fierro Reyna and two other Mexican nationals are not
executed pending a final judgment of the Court concerning Mexico's case
against the USA (see below). As the ICJ previously determined in
the LaGrand Case, its provisional measures orders are legally
binding.
The Court is the judicial arm of the United Nations and is frequently
called
on to resolve treaty disputes between member States.
Mexico Seeks Remedies
at
World Court
On January 9, 2003, the Government of Mexico instituted proceedings against the USA at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in the cases of more than 50 Mexican nationals under sentence of death in the United States (including Mr. Fierro). The final decision of the ICJ on Mexico's claims will be compulsory, binding on both nations and without appeal.
Case
Materials on the ICJ website
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Fierro Case
Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Fifth Circuit, Cesar Fierro asked the United States Supreme Court on September 7, 2002 to grant certiorari (a full review of the Circuit Court decision). On October 11, the Government of Mexico filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Mr. Fierro's petition.
Read the petition to the US Supreme Court
The State of Texas filed a response to the petition on November 6, opposing the granting of full review. On November 18, attorneys for Mr. Fierro replied to the state's response.
Read the reply brief filed to answer Texas' objections
The
United States Supreme Court had scheduled the Fierro case for
discussion
during its conference on December 6, 2002. Following that conference,
the
Court was expected to issue its decision on whether or not it would
agree
to hear the case. On March 31, 2003, the Court decided not to
hear
the Fierro case, giving no reasons for its decision.
Earlier Legal Developments
July 1, 2002. César Fierro petitions the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for a ruling on the merits of his claim that Texas violated his fundamental human rights.
Read the petition to the Inter-American Commission
June 13, 2002. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rules that César Fierro's habeas corpus petition was filed too late and dismisses it without consideration of its merits.
Read
the entire Fifth Circuit Opinion
HOME | SUMMARY | CASE MATERIALS | EN ESPANOL | PRESS ROOM | LINKS | CONTACT | TAKE ACTION