disappointment

Rep Gallego is very concerned about President Fox’s disappointment

By Emilio D. Santos

I am writing in reference to the Associate Press article written by Jim Vertuno about Mexico’s President Vicente Fox's decision to cancel his trip to Texas. Fox canceled the trip to protest the execution of Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican drug-trafficker who confessed and was convicted in 1989 of the murder of a Dallas Police undercover narcotics officer.

On the article Rep. Pete Gallego, a Democrat and chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus stated, “Perry must take steps to repair any damage.” The governor of Texas has nothing to repair with President Fox as suggested Gallego.

In addition Gallego said Perry could help heal any wound with an executive order promising that the law enforcement officers will abide by the treaty when arresting Mexican Citizens.

Gallegos is not very well educated about the international law and maybe he easily believes all the unfounded statements and complains, usually published and broadcasted before an execution.

In death row cases of Mexican or Canadian nationals, some civil and religious liberal organizations contended that Texas ignored the mandatory notification clause of the multilateral Vienna Convention of Consular Relations (VCCR). The VCCR rights afforded to detained foreigners do not mitigate their crimes but are indented to ensure a due process.

If there is a violation of the VCCR, there is not necessary any executive order as suggested Rep. Gallego, But there is no violation of the international treaty. The VCCR has the status of treaty for purposes of international law and Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States. (all treaties made . . . shall be the supreme law of the land) They are binding on federal, state and local government officials.

The VCCR is in force between the United States and other countries and shall be followed by all federal, state or local official who may, in the performance of their official functions, have contact with a foreign national in a situation of detain or arrest.

Detained foreign nationals are entitled to communicate with their consular Officials. Foreign consular officers must be given access to their nationals and permitted to communicate with them. The above requirements are set out in Article 36 of the VCCR. Additional requirements may apply to particular countries because of bilateral agreements.

Bilateral consular agreements require that consular officials be notified of the arrest and/or detention of one of their national's. The mandatory notification requirement pertains to over 50 counties, whatever the United States bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada have not mandatory consular notifications.

For the protection of a citizen arrested in a far country the mandatory notification is extremely necessary. For citizens of contiguous counties it is not really necessary. If a notification is implemented, the consular offices in North American countries may require large storage facilities for the hundreds of thousands of arrests of alien’s notifications.

In Mexico, Canada and the United States the defense or court appointed attorney should inform their clients about their right to contact the consulate. The arrested alien has plenty of opportunity to inform his family and friends about his situation, but not in far countries where the notification is required. In my opinion it is impossible to believe that in a murder case with a lot of media exposure, a Canadian or Mexican consular office, may not notice that one of its nationals has been arrested and may be sent to death row.

Some organizations suggest that the state simplify the process by always notifying consular officials, instead of worrying about which countries are optional and which are mandatory. Under international law, the state of Texas should not adopt a policy of notifying consular officers in every case. The VCCR provides for giving the suspect the option of having consular officials notified. In some cases, a foreign national may be afraid of his /her government and may wish to apply for asylum in the United States. The privacy wishes of the foreign national should be respected unless is a mandatory notification requirement. Only in mandatory notification cases should the state notify consular regardless of the alien's wishes.

President Fox has no legal or moral authority to protest for the enforcement of the Texas death penalty. The article 22 of the Mexican Constitution authorizes and regulates the death penalty in Mexico, The Mexican states has not recently execute any convict, but the death penalty isn’t forbidden and is a legal criminal punishment in Mexico. Any state may resume the punishment at any time. President Vicente Fox sworn to protect and enforce the Constitution, he can’t attack his own Mexican constitution provisions publicly.

In a pool by national Mexican TV, 85 percent of the Mexicans agree to re-enforce the death penalty in Mexico in order to stop the highest rate of violent crime and impunity. It is not the concern of Texas if president Fox ignores the pool and the Mexican constitution. It is not the concern of Texas if Mexico enforces the death penalty, like it isn’t Fox business the enforcement of the laws in Texas.

Rep Gallego is very concerned about President Fox’s disappointment for the execution of the Mexican drug trafficker killer, but what about the case of the December 1998 murder of San Antonio Express journalist Philip True, murdered in an indigenous area of the west-central state of Nayarit? The alleged murderers had been incarcerated awaiting a verdict, but were released in August 2001, apparently for disappearance of evidence.

Some activist even religious ministers affirm that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime. Overall crime in Texas, in the decade of the ‘90s is trending down, including murder offenses. During calendar year 2000, the Texas violent crime decreased 2.9 percent from the previous year, and Texas Murder rate decreased 3.3 percent during said period. In Texas, those who commit heinous crimes know fully well the likely consequences. The violent crime decreed figures shows that knowledge serves as a deterrent.

More Texans support the death penalty now than they did 20 years ago. No Texas candidate platform includes the elimination of the capital punishment. Whether you favor or oppose the capital punishment let’s agree that under our current system, some mistakes are possible and they should be minimized. The legal system needs revision, but rhetoric full of lies isn’t the correct way to improve it.