Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:28:40.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Department of State Letter to U.S. Court After LaGrand Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 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 96 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 461 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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 Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261.

2 LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001), 40 ILM 1069 (2001), at <http://www.icj-cij.org> (discussed in William J. Aceves, Case Report: La Grand (Germany v. United States), 96 AJIL 210 (2002)). For background, see Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 95 AJIL 650 (2001).

3 For a discussion of the Court’s provisional order and the subsequent execution, see Murphy, Sean D.. Contemporary Practice of the United States, 93 AJIL 644 (1999)Google Scholar.

4 LaGrand, para. 128(7).

5 See Valdez v. Oklahoma, 900 P.2d 363 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 967 (1995). The court of criminal appeals of Oklahoma denied Valdez’s application for postconviction relief. See Valdez v. State, 933 P.2d 931 (1997). Valdez’s petition for federal habeas relief was denied by the district court in 1998; that denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2000. See Valdez v. Ward, 219 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000), cert, denied, 532 U.S. 979 (2001).

6 See Governor of Oklahoma Executive Order 2001-21 (June 18, 2001).

7 [Editor’s Note: Prior to issuance of the LaGrand judgment, Taft had sent letters to both the governor and the State Pardon and Parole Board noting that Valdez was not informed of his right to request consular notification and that the LaGrand case was pending before the International Court of Justice. Taft asked the board and governor to give careful consideration to the pending clemency request]

8 Letter from Taft, William H.. IV, U.S. Department of State Legal Adviser, to Frank Keating, Governor of Oklahoma (July 11, 2001)Google Scholar (on file at GWU).

9 See Governor of Oklahoma Executive Order 2001-24 (July 20, 2001).

10 Letter from Frank Keating, Governor of Oklahoma, to Vicente Fox Quesada, President of Mexico 1-3 (July 20, 2001) (on file at GWU).

11 See Governor of Oklahoma Executive Order 2001-28 (Aug. 17, 2001).

12 See Valdez v. Oklahoma, 2001 WL 1715885 (Okla. Crim. App. Sept. 10, 2001); see also Okla. Court Postpones Execution of Mexican, Wash. Post, Sept. 11, 2001,Google Scholar at A16; Masters, Brooke A.. U.S. Deprived Mexican of Fair Trial, Appeal Says, Wash. Post, Aug. 23, 2001,Google Scholar at A8.

13 See Valdez v. Oklahoma, 2002 WL 809243 (Okla. Crim. App. May 1, 2002).