Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Asserted Violations of International Law

Text: Defendant contends that his trial and sentence of death are in violation of customary international law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and the International Convention Against All Forms of Racial Discrimination. But as discussed above, defendant has failed to establish that any aspect of his trial or penalty determination involved violations of state or federal constitutional law. Therefore, we need not consider whether a violation of state or federal constitutional law would also violate international law. ( People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 511, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754.) Had defendant shown prejudicial error under domestic law, we would have set aside the judgment on that basis without recourse to international law. ( Ibid. ) As to whether California's death penalty generally violates international law, we have previously held, as defendant concedes, that international law does not prohibit a sentence of death rendered in accordance with state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements. ( Ibid; People v. Ramos, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 533-534, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575,101 P.3d 478.)