Report No. 90 (2009) IACHR. Case No. 12.644 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Case Number: 12.644
• Report Number: 90
• Year: 2009
• Respondent State: United States
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Medellín, Ramírez Cárdenas y Leal García

REPORT Nº 90/09 CASE 12.644 ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS (PUBLICATION) MEDELLÍN, RAMÍREZ CARDENAS AND LEAL GARCÍA UNITED STATES August 7, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 22, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition from Sandra L. Babcock, Clinical Professor of Law of Northwestern University School of Law (hereinafter the “petitioner”), on behalf of Mr. José Ernesto Medellín, a citizen of Mexico, incarcerated on death row in the State of Texas, United States of America (hereinafter the “State” or “United States”). On December 12, 2006, the Commission received two petitions from the same petitioner, on behalf of two other citizens of Mexico incarcerated on death row in the State of Texas, Messrs. Rubén Ramírez Cardenas and Humberto Leal García. 2. The petitioner claimed that the United States is responsible for violations of Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García’s rights under Articles I, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “American Declaration” or the “Declaration”), based upon deficiencies in the fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. In particular, the petitioner alleges that, at the time of their arrest, they were not informed of their right to consular notification and access, in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (hereinafter “the Vienna Convention”); that they were not afforded competent legal representation by the State; that the mode of execution as currently practiced in Texas creates an unacceptable risk of excruciating pain; that they have been denied a meaningful opportunity to present their cases to a clemency authority prior to execution; and that the conditions in Texas’ death row violate the right to humane treatment. The petitioner also requested that the Commission issue precautionary measures calling upon the United States to ensure that Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García’s lives would be preserved while these claims were pending before the IACHR. 3. The Commission referred these petitions to the State separately for observations and granted precautionary measures requesting that the United States take measures to preserve Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García’s lives, pending the Commission’s investigation of the allegations in the petitions. In view of the impending risk of execution, on January 15, 2008, the Commission consolidated these three petitions into case 12.644 and informed the parties that it would examine the admissibility and merits of the case jointly. 4. In a hearing held before the Commission in March, 2008, the State claimed that Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The State contended that the Commission was barred from considering the issues raised in the case due to the duplication of proceedings vis-a-vis the decision of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter “the ICJ”) in the Avena Case. In a latter written submission the State argued that the case was inadmissible because the Commission lacked competence to review issues arising from the Vienna Convention and notification claims did not raise human rights violations. The State also contended that the petitioner’s due process claims were without merit. 5. In view of the information available and the contentions of the parties, the Commission concluded in Preliminary Report No. 45/08 on this case that the claims brought on behalf of Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García were admissible and that the State is responsible for violations of their rights under Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration in respect of the criminal proceedings leading to the imposition of the death penalty against them. It also concluded that should the State execute Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García, it would commit an irreparable violation of their right to life as guaranteed in the aforementioned provision. The Commission recommended that the State provide Messrs. Medellín, Cardenas and Leal García with an effective remedy, including new sentencing hearings in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections under the American Declaration. II PROCESSING 6. Following the receipt of Mr. Medellín’s petition –which was designated as P1323/06— the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the United States by means of a note dated December 6, 2006 with a request for observations within two months, as established by the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. On December 6, 2006, the Commission also granted precautionary measures in favor of Mr. Medellín, whose execution date was, at that time, to be scheduled shortly, given the refusal by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals to review his case. The Commission requested that the United States take the necessary measures to preserve Mr. Medellín’s life pending the Commission’s investigation of the allegations in his petition. 7. Following receipt of Messrs. Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García’s petitions –which were designated as P1388/06 and P1389/06, respectively— the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of their respective complaints to the United States on January 30, 2007 with a request for observations within two months, as established by the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Also on January 30, 2007, the Commission granted precautionary measures in favor of Messrs. Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García. The Commission requested that the United States take the necessary measures to preserve their lives pending the Commission’s investigation of the allegations in their petitions. 8. In a note dated February 22, 2007, the United States responded to the IACHR’s request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Medellín by reporting that it had communicated with the relevant state authorities by letter of January 12, 2007. The State enclosed copies of communications addressed to the Attorney General of Texas, the Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor of Texas. In the same note the State requested an extension of time to file its response to the petition. By communication to the State dated February 27, 2007, the Commission granted the State’s request for an extension of time. 9. In a note dated March 27, 2007, the United States informed the Commission that it had responded to the request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Ramírez Cardenas by communicating with the relevant state authorities on January 31, 2007. The State enclosed copies of communications addressed to the Attorney General of Texas, the Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor of Texas. 10. Also on March 27, 2007, the United States informed the Commission that it had responded to the request for precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Leal García by communicating with the relevant state authorities by letter of January 31, 2007. The State enclosed copies of communications addressed to the Attorney General of Texas, the Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Governor of Texas. 11. On January 7, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the petitioner requesting that the decision on the admissibility and the merits of the claims in petitions P1323/06, 1388/06 and 1389/06 be consolidated. The petitioner also requested a hearing and pointed out the risk that Messrs. Medellín, Ramírez Cardenas and Leal García could be executed before the Commission’s 2008 session and that “a hearing at the March [2008] session may be the only opportunity to hear these cases while the[y] [..] are still alive.” 12. On January 15, 2008, the Commission notified the parties that it had decided to consolidate the aforementioned petitions pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure in view of the fact that they addressed similar facts and revealed the same alleged pattern of conduct. The Commission also decided to defer the treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits, according to Article 37.7 of its Rules of Procedure, and examine the consolidated matter under number 12.644. 13. On February 7, 2008, the Commission convened a hearing scheduled for March 7, 2008, during the IACHR’s 131st period of sessions. In a note dated February 28, 2008, the United States indicated that the case presented two issues which were then pending before the Supreme Court of the United States and that therefore, “the Commission should not proceed with hearings on matters where the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has so clearly not been met.” The State added that the situation “would place US authorities in an extremely awkward position of attempting to present views before the Commission without taking into account the forthcoming judgments of the Supreme Court.” As a result, the State requested that the hearing be postponed to a future period of sessions. On March 7, 2008, the Commission held the public hearing on the case, as convened, with the participation of both parties. 14. On March 14, 2008, the Commission received the petitioners supplemental observations on admissibility and the merits. On March 17, 2008, the Commission forwarded to the State these observations, as well as additional documents submitted by the petitioner during the hearing, with two months to present a response. On March 26, 2008, the Commission transmitted to the State additional observations on the merits submitted by the petitioner. In a note dated May 7, 2008, the United States requested an extension of time to submit a response. The Commission granted the States request for an extension until...