Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:52:24.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation of Avena Decision by Oklahoma Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , July 2004 , pp. 581 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) (Mar. 31, 2004), 43 ILM 581 (2004); see Shelton, Dinah L., Case Report: Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), in 98 AJIL 559 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (this issue). For background on the case, see Murphy, Sean D., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 98 AJIL 364 (2004)Google ScholarPubMed.

2 Apr. 24, 1963, Art. 36(1) (b), (2), 21 UST 77, 101, 596 UNTS 261, 292 [hereinafter Vienna Convention].

3 Avena, supra note 1, para. 153(9).

4 Id., paras. 139, 141.

5 Id., para. 143.

6 Torres v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2003), cert, denied, 124 S.Ct. 562 (2003). For Justice Breyer’s dissent regarding the denial of the petition for certiorari, see 124 S.Ct. at 562 (“This case raises important questions concerning the relation between, on the one hand, the domestic law of the United States, and, on the other, decisions of the International Court ofjustice interpreting the Convention.”).

7 Letter of Taft, William H. IV, U.S. Dep’t of State Legal Adviser, to Susan B. Loving, chairperson, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board (Apr. 23, 2004)Google Scholar (on file at GWU).

8 Office of Governor Brad Henry, Press Release: Governor Henry Grants Clemency to Death Row Inmate Torres (May 13, 2004), at <http://www.governor.state.ok.us/>.

9 Letter of U.S. Dep’t of State Legal Adviser William H. Taft IV to Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma (May 11, 2004) (on file at GWU).

10 Office of Governor, supra note 8.

11 [Editor’s Note: U.S. CONST. Art. VI.]

12 [Editor’s Note: United States v. Carrillo, 70 F.Supp.2d 854, 860 (N.D. Ill. 1999).]

13 Torres v. Oklahoma, No. PCD–04–442, slip. op. at 2–5, 8–12 (Ct. Crim. App. May 13, 2004) (Chapel, J., concurring) (footnotes omitted). The opinion appears to have drawn heavily on an amicus brief submitted in the case on April 30 by several international law experts and former diplomats.