United Nations human rights offi­cials have urged the gov­ern­ment of the United States to halt the immi­nent exe­cu­tion of a Mexican nation­al who was tried and sen­tenced to death in Texas in vio­la­tion of U.S. treaty oblig­a­tions. Texas is sched­uled to exe­cute Roberto Moreno Ramos (pic­tured) on November 14, in an action an inter­na­tion­al human rights court has said would vio­late the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Agnes Callamard, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, and Seong-Phil Hong, the Chair-Rapporteur of the Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, cau­tioned that “[a]ny death sen­tence car­ried out in con­tra­ven­tion of a Government’s inter­na­tion­al oblig­a­tions amounts to an arbi­trary exe­cu­tion.” The human rights experts called for Ramos’s death sen­tence ​“to be annulled and for [him] to be re-tried in com­pli­ance with due process and inter­na­tion­al fair trial standards.”

The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the United States had breached its treaty oblig­a­tions under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by allow­ing states to impose death sen­tences on fifty-two for­eign nation­als — includ­ing Ramos — with­out per­mit­ting them to noti­fy their gov­ern­ments and obtain con­sular assis­tance in prepa­ra­tion for tri­al. Under the Vienna Convention, indi­vid­u­als arrest­ed out­side their home coun­try must be noti­fied of their right to request legal assis­tance from their con­sulate. Ramos, a Mexican cit­i­zen, was not noti­fied of this right and, his cur­rent lawyers allege, received ​“abysmal” legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion as a result. Although Ramos request­ed a lawyer, no one was appoint­ed to defend him until three months after his arrest. During the pun­ish­ment phase of his tri­al, his appoint­ed coun­sel did not cross-exam­ine pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness­es, pre­sent­ed no mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence, and did not even ask the jury to reject a death sen­tence. Ramos’s appel­late lawyers argue that a com­pe­tent attor­ney could have pre­sent­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of Ramos’s abu­sive child­hood, brain dys­func­tion, bipo­lar dis­or­der, and low IQ and that, if he had received the legal assis­tance that the Mexican gov­ern­ment offers in cap­i­tal cas­es, the out­come of his case would have been dif­fer­ent. In their state­ment, the U.N. experts said that inter­na­tion­al human rights stan­dards pro­hib­it apply­ing the death penal­ty to indi­vid­u­als like Ramos with seri­ous men­tal health and intel­lec­tu­al impair­ments. Executing him, they said, would vio­late those inter­na­tion­al human rights norms.

In 2005, President George W. Bush declared that ​“the United States will dis­charge its inter­na­tion­al oblig­a­tions under the deci­sion of the International Court of Justice” and issued an exec­u­tive order direct­ing the state courts to review the cas­es. They did not. In Medellin v. Texas, a case brought by anoth­er of the pris­on­ers whose Vienna Convention rights Texas had vio­lat­ed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the President lacks con­sti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty to direct states courts to com­ply with a rul­ing from the International Court of Justice. It also ruled that the treaty was not bind­ing on U.S. states absent leg­is­la­tion from Congress requir­ing state com­pli­ance. Medellin was sub­se­quent­ly exe­cut­ed. In November 2017, Texas also exe­cut­ed Mexican nation­al Ruben Ramírez Cárdenas in vio­la­tion of U.S. treaty oblig­a­tions. If Ramos is exe­cut­ed, he will be the 21st per­son exe­cut­ed in the U.S. in 2018, and the 11th in Texas.

(UN experts urge US to halt Texas exe­cu­tion of Mexican Roberto Ramos Moreno, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, November 13, 2018; Keri Blakinger, Mexican nation­al sched­uled for exe­cu­tion in Texas despite claims of treaty vio­la­tions, Houston Chronicle, September 1, 2018; Joseph Brown, Mexican nation­al set to be exe­cut­ed next week, The Huntsville Item, November 11, 2018.) Read the International Court of Justice’s opin­ion in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mar. 31, 2004) and the U.S. Supreme Court deci­sion in Medellin v. Texas, No. 06 – 984 (March 25, 2008). See International and Foreign Nationals.

Tags
Citation Guide