|
''Medellín v. Texas'', , is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing." Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.〔''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984).〕 ==History== The United States ratified the United Nations Charter on October 24, 1945.〔''United Nations Charter,'' 59 Stat. 1051, T.S. No. 993 (1945).〕 Article 92 of the Charter established the International Court of Justice.〔''Statute of the International Court of Justice,'' 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. No. 993 (1945).〕 The ICJ Statute, which established the procedures and jurisdiction of the ICJ and was attached to the U.N. Charter, delineates two ways in which a nation may consent to ICJ jurisdiction: It may consent generally to jurisdiction on any question arising under a treaty or general international law, or it may consent specifically to jurisdiction over a particular category of cases or disputes pursuant to a separate treaty.〔''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 4.〕 In 1969, the United States ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963,〔''Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,'' 21 U.S.T. 77, T.I.A.S. No. 6820 (1970).〕 and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963.〔''Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention,'' 21 U.S.T. 325, T.I.A.S. No. 6820 (1970).〕 Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice "without delay" of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. The Optional Protocol provides that disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention "shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice".〔Article I, ''Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention,'' ''cited in'' ''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 3.〕 The United States withdrew from general ICJ jurisdiction on October 7, 1985.〔U.S. Department of State Letter and Statement Concerning Termination of Acceptance of ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction, October 7, 1985, ''cited in'' ''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 4.〕 On June 24, 1993, José Ernesto Medellín (an 18-year-old Mexican citizen) and several other gang members participated in the murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, when they raped a 14-year-old and 16-year-old girl for an hour in Houston, Texas. Both girls were killed to prevent them from identifying their assailants. Medellín strangled one of the girls with her own shoelaces.〔(David Stout, "Justices Rule Against Bush on Death Penalty Case," ''The New York Times,'' March 25, 2008. )〕〔(Mark Sherman, "Court Backs Texas in Dispute With Bush," ''Associated Press,'' March 25, 2008. )〕 Hours after Medellin's arrest he admitted to his part in the crime and boasted of having "virgin blood" on his underpants.〔(Allen Turner, "Medellin executed for rape, murder of Houston teens," ''Houston Chronicle,'' August 6, 2008. )〕 Medellín was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda warning. Texas authorities did not, however, advise him of his right to contact his consulate under the terms of the Vienna Convention.〔〔 Medellín was convicted of rape and murder, and sentenced to death in 1997. He appealed, and raised the issue of his Vienna Convention rights as part of his appeal, but his conviction was upheld by the trial court and by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.〔''Medellín v. State,'' No. 71,997 (Tex. Crim. App., May 16, 1997); ''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 5-6.〕 In 2003, Medellín filed a petition for habeas corpus in United States district court. The district court denied relief, holding that Medellín's Vienna Convention claim should have been raised at trial (not on appeal) and he had failed to show prejudice against his case arising from the Vienna Convention violation.〔''Medellín v. Cockrell,'' Civ. Action No. H–01–4078 (SD Tex., June 26, 2003).〕 Also in 2003, Mexico brought suit against the United States in the ICJ, claiming that the United States had failed to notify 51 defendants (all Mexican citizens having been accused in state courts of committing crimes in the U.S.) of their Vienna Convention right to notify their consulate. Medellín was one of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the suit. The following year, the ICJ ruled in ''Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.),'' 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Judgment of March 31) (''Avena'') that the 51 Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences.〔''In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.),'' 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Judgment of March 31).〕 Medellín's appeal now found its way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Medellín raised the ICJ's ruling in ''Avena'' before the Fifth Circuit, but the federal appellate court denied relief.〔''Medellín v. Dretke,'' 371 F. 3d 270 (2004).〕 On March 7, 2005, after the ICJ's judgment in ''Avena'', the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87288.pdf ) ''cited in'' ''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 4.〕〔(Charles Lane, "U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases," ''The Washington Post,'' March 9, 2005. )〕 Medellín appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari.〔''Medellín v. Dretke,'' 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (per curiam) (''Medellín I'').〕 Before the Supreme Court could hear the case, however, President George W. Bush issued a Memorandum to the United States Attorney General.〔''Memorandum to the Attorney General,'' February 28, 2005, ''cited in'' ''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 7.〕 In the Memorandum, President Bush asserted authority under the Constitution and the various laws of the United States to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals who had not been advised of their Vienna Convention rights. Because of the President's Memorandum, Medellín filed a second case in state court for habeas corpus.〔''Ex parte Medellín,'' 223 S.W. 3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).〕 The U.S. Supreme Court then dismissed Medellín's first petition for certiorari in a ''per curiam'' decision, ''Medellín v. Dretke'', 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (''Medellín I'').〔''Medellín v. Texas'', 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (No. 06-984), p. 7.〕 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín's second appeal,〔 and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time.〔''Medellín v. Texas'', 550 U. S. ___ (2007) (''Medellín II'').〕 As Medellín's second appeal was under consideration in Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decided ''Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon'', 548 U.S. 331 (2006). Although the decision did not involve individuals named in the ''Avena'' judgment, the Court held the ICJ's ruling in ''Avena'' to be in error. Absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in either the Vienna Convention and the Optional Protocol, the Court held in ''Sanchez-Llamas'', the procedural rules of each nation govern the implementation of the treaty. Since Sanchez-Llamas' rights had been observed under both state and federal law as well as various rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court upheld his conviction.〔''Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,'' 548 U.S. 331 (2006).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Medellín v. Texas」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|