Report No. 44 (2014) IACHR. Case No. 12.873 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Case Number: 12.873
• Year: 2014
• Report Number: 44
• Respondent State: United States
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Edgar Tamayo Arias

REPORT No. 44/14

CASE 12.873

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

EDGAR TAMAYO ARIAS

UNITED STATES

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.151

Doc. 9

17 July 2014

Original: English

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 1986 held on July 17, 2014.
151 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 44/14, C. 12.873. Merits (Publication). Edgar Tamayo Arias. United States. J. 17, 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT NO. 44/14

CASE 12.873

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

EDGAR TAMAYO ARIAS

UNITED STATES ^

JULY 17, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY 2

II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 73/12 3

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 3

A. Position of the petitioner 3

1. R. to consular notification 4

2. I. assistance of counsel 5

3. Mental disability 7

4. D. row confinement conditions 7

5. Method of execution 8

B. Position of the State 9

1. R. to consular notification 10

2. I. assistance of counsel 11

3. Mental disability 11

4. D. row confinement conditions 12

5. Method of execution 12

IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS 13

A. Vienna Convention claim 15

1. Court-appointed defense counsel 18

2. Mental disability 20

3. D. row confinement conditions 22

4. Method of execution 23

V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 24

A. Preliminary matters 24

B. Right to a fair trial and right to due process of law (Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration) 25

1. Right to consular notification and assistance 26

2. I. assistance of court-appointed counsel 28

C....... .......R. of every person with mental or intellectual disabilities not to be subjected to the death penalty (Articles I and XXVI of the American Declaration) 30

D. Right to humane treatment during custody and not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment (Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration) 33

1. Death row confinement conditions 33

2. Method of execution 35

VI. ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 1/14 37

VII. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41

VIII. PUBLICATION 43

REPORT No. 44/14

CASE 12.873

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

EDGAR TAMAYO ARIAS

UNITED STATES ^

JULY 17, 2014

I. SUMMARY

1. On January 6, 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition and request for precautionary measures filed by S.L.B. from Northwestern University School of Law (“the petitioner”) against the United States of America (“the State” or “the United States”). The petition was lodged on behalf of E.T.A. (“the alleged victim” or “Mr. T.”) who was deprived of his liberty on death row in the state of Texas. Mr. T. was executed on January 22, 2014.

2. The petitioner contends that Mr. Tamayo’s trial failed to meet minimum standards of fairness in violation of international law. In particular, she alleges that Mr. Tamayo was deprived of any opportunity to seek consular assistance as a result of Texas’ failure to notify him of his right to contact a consular official under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The petitioner also claims that the alleged victim’s court-appointed trial counsel failed to investigate and present substantial, readily available evidence in mitigation of the death penalty. According to the petitioner, if the jury had heard such mitigating evidence, Mr. T. would probably have received a life sentence. F., the petitioner asserts that the alleged victim has been denied any opportunity to present evidence regarding his mental and intellectual disability. F., the petitioner holds that the conditions of confinement on death row are inhumane and that the method of execution would subject Mr. T. to excessive and avoidable pain and suffering.

3. The State does not contest the fact that it violated the Vienna Convention in Mr. Tamayo’s case but argues that consular notification is not a human right and that the Inter-American Commission lacks competence to review claims under the Vienna Convention. The State also affirms that Mr. Tamayo was afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial, and that assigned counsel made reasonable and strategic choices. According to the S., the petitioner has not proven sufficiently severe “mental impairment” such that Mr. Tamayo’s death sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the rights recognized in the American Declaration. Regarding conditions of detention on death row, the State argues that they do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. F., the State asserts that petitioner has not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to the method of execution. It notes, however, that U.S. courts have carefully reviewed and rejected other claims alleging that states’ lethal injection protocols constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In this respect, the State concludes that the method of legal injection currently being used by Texas is humane, and carefully administered.

4. On July 17, 2012, during its 145^th regular sessions, the IACHR examined the contentions of the petitioner on the question of admissibility, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, decided to admit the claims in the present petition pertaining to Articles I (Right to life, liberty and personal security), XVIII (Right to a fair trial), XXV (Right to protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (Right to due process of law) of the American Declaration; and to continue with the analysis of the merits of the case. It also resolved to publish Admissibility Report N° 73/12 and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. The petition was then registered as Case No. 12.873.

5. In the instant report, after analyzing the position of the petitioner and the State, and the available information, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the United States is responsible for violating Articles I, XVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration with respect to E.T.A.. C., should the S. carry out the execution of Mr. T., it would also be committing a serious and irreparable violation of the basic right to life recognized in Article I of the American Declaration.

II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 73/12

6. On July 24, 2012, the IACHR forwarded Admissibility Report No. 73/12 to the State and to the petitioner. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure in force at the time, the Inter-American Commission set a deadline of three months for the petitioner to submit additional observations on the merits and, at the same time, made itself available to the parties with a view to initiating a possible friendly settlement of the matter.

7. On December 28, 2012, the petitioner submitted additional observations on the merits, the pertinent parts of which were duly forwarded to the S. on February 20, 2013. On October 8, 2013, the petitioner presented supplemental observations. On November 11, 2013, the IACHR forwarded the relevant parts to the State, and set a time period of one month to submit its observations.

8. On December 26, 2013, the IACHR received the observations on the merits from the State, the pertinent parts of which were duly forwarded to the petitioner on January 3, 2014.

Precautionary Measures

9. On January 18, 2012, the IACHR notified the State that precautionary measures had been granted on behalf of the alleged victim, and requested a stay of execution until such time as it would be able to pronounce on the merits of the petition. In light of the imminent execution of Mr. T., scheduled for January 22, 2014, the Inter-American Commission, by note dated November 26, 2013, reiterated the request to the State.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioner

10. According to the information available, on January 31, 1994, shortly after 3:30 a.m., M.T., a M. national, was arrested and charged with capital murder in connection with the death of Officer Guy Gaddis in Houston, Texas, earlier that same evening. The petitioner argues that at the time, Mr. T. was heavily intoxicated and was high on heroin and phencyclidine (PCP). He was allegedly confused and disoriented from a night spent drinking and taking drugs. N., the police allegedly began to interrogate him. At the end of the interrogation, Mr. Tamayo allegedly gave two incriminating statements in which he admitted that he killed Officer Gaddis. On October 31, 1994, the...