http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_us/texas_execution
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf
Key excerpt:
.With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have
access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to
communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the
consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or
committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication
addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded
by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without
delay of his rights under this subparagraph;
***
To me, if he didn't ask, he didn't have the right to Mexican consulars AND, according to the treaty, it didn't warrant review by the World Court because the treaty mentions that the laws of the receiving state (Texas/U.S. in this case) apply.
I'm opposed to the death penalty, but that is another issue.
Tags: