Execution Would Earn the US International Condemnation
Published in El Informador
(Mexico) on 22 January 2014
by Violeta Melendez (link to original)
Executing Mexican prisoner Edgar Tamayo Arias, even after international entities have asked for a review of the case, would earn the United States the condemnation of the international community because the death penalty is already a practice objected to in the West, thinks Nauhcatzin Bravo Aguilar, professor of the University of Guadalajara.
“It will have to face that condemnation as long as it does not adjust its vision to contemporary demands on human rights with respect to international reproach of the death penalty,” said the legal expert.
“The United States is one of the few countries that practice the death penalty, and in spite of calling itself a defender of human rights, it is on a par with countries in the Middle East that it disparages, such as China [sic], which goes against our Western concept of the rule of law.”
The execution of the Mexican citizen was scheduled for Wednesday at 6 pm, but one of the last appeals by his defense team was allowed to proceed at the last minute and the sentence was postponed six hours.
In Bravo Aguilar’s opinion, the United States engages in double speak regarding human rights: When it has to do with American citizens it is careful and demanding, but when dealing with foreigners in its territory, it is negligent and tramples their legal guarantees.
“Historically the United States has never complied with its international commitments, even though the country is scrupulously careful with the rights of its citizens in matters of criminal proceedings,” he criticizes.
Furthermore, he believes the case was plagued by irregularities against rights of the immigrant that were not granted to him and complicated his case, because since he was detained the authorities did not tell him he could receive defense assistance from his country, so that when the Consulate became involved things had already become complicated for Tamayo.
“When the Mexican authorities became aware of the accused it was because he was already under legal proceedings and his legal situation had been compromised, because his statements and confessions had been accepted as evidence and therefore it [was not productive] for the Mexican authorities to intervene,” said the expert.
*Editor’s note: All quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.
“It will have to face that condemnation as long as it does not adjust its vision to contemporary demands on human rights with respect to international reproach of the death penalty,” said the legal expert.
“The United States is one of the few countries that practice the death penalty, and in spite of calling itself a defender of human rights, it is on a par with countries in the Middle East that it disparages, such as China [sic], which goes against our Western concept of the rule of law.”
The execution of the Mexican citizen was scheduled for Wednesday at 6 pm, but one of the last appeals by his defense team was allowed to proceed at the last minute and the sentence was postponed six hours.
In Bravo Aguilar’s opinion, the United States engages in double speak regarding human rights: When it has to do with American citizens it is careful and demanding, but when dealing with foreigners in its territory, it is negligent and tramples their legal guarantees.
“Historically the United States has never complied with its international commitments, even though the country is scrupulously careful with the rights of its citizens in matters of criminal proceedings,” he criticizes.
Furthermore, he believes the case was plagued by irregularities against rights of the immigrant that were not granted to him and complicated his case, because since he was detained the authorities did not tell him he could receive defense assistance from his country, so that when the Consulate became involved things had already become complicated for Tamayo.
“When the Mexican authorities became aware of the accused it was because he was already under legal proceedings and his legal situation had been compromised, because his statements and confessions had been accepted as evidence and therefore it [was not productive] for the Mexican authorities to intervene,” said the expert.
*Editor’s note: All quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.