Title	Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Publisher	United States Supreme Court
Publication Date	23 May 2005
Country	Mexico | United States of America
Topics	Habeas corpus
Citation / Document Symbol	125 S.Ct. 2088 (2005); 544 U. S. ____ (2005)
Type of Decision	04–5928
Cite as	Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, 125 S.Ct. 2088 (2005); 544 U. S. ____ (2005), United States Supreme Court, 23 May 2005, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,USSCT,429c2dfd4.html [accessed 5 November 2019]
Comments	On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This case concerns the federal habeas corpus petition of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, for review of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (the "Convention"). Medillin was tried and sentenced to death, a sentence which was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Medillin then filed a state habeas corpus action, claiming that he had not been notified of his right to consular access under the Convention. The trial court, as well as the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas rejected this claim. Subsequently Medillin filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which was rejected by the District Court. The Court of Appeals denied the application for appealability, shortly after the Avena judgment was handed down by the International Court of Justice ("ICJ"), in which it held that the United States had breached its obligation under the Convention to inform 51 Mexican nationals (including Medilla), all of whom had been sentenced to death, of the right to consular notification. Few days before the oral argument at the Supreme Court, Medillin filed another state habeas corpus petition based on the Avena judgment as well as a memorandum filed by President Bush, which stated that the United States would discharge its international obligations under the Avena judgment "by having State courts give effect to the ICJ decision in accordance with general principles of comity." Stating that the "state proceeding may provide Medellin with the review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ required," the Supreme Court dismissed the writ as "improvidently granted." Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer, filed a dissenting opinion in which she stated that she would "vacate the Court of Appeals' decision to deny Medellin a certificate of appealability" and "remand for further proceedings."
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.