Opinion ID: 1423312
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Request for StayInter-American Human Rights Commission

Text: On April 2, 2004, Thompson filed a document entitled Notice of Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States Request of the United States to Take Precautionary Measures to Prevent the State of Tennessee from Carrying out the Execution of Gregory Thompson Presently Scheduled for August 19, 2004 and Request for Stay of Execution. By this document, Thompson requests that this Court issue a stay of his execution based on a petition filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission), asserting that his execution would violate the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Declaration) because of his mental illness and because of alleged irregularities in his criminal proceedings. [5] In his motion to this Court, Thompson asserts that the rules of the Commission allow the United States government two months to respond to his petition, and, assuming the United States government responds at the end of its allotted time, a stay is necessary to allow the Commission sufficient time to examine Thompson's case. As a general rule, international agreements, even those benefitting private parties, do not create rights privately enforceable in domestic courts. United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 389, 392 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that the Vienna Convention, and in particular Article 36, does not create in a detained foreign national a right of consular access). In fact, courts presume that the rights created by an international treaty belong to a state and that a private individual cannot enforce them. Id. at 389. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but an international agreement can be considered to create judicially-enforceable private rights only where such rights are contemplated in the agreement itself. Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918, 924 (7th Cir.2001) (citing Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir.1985)). The general rule that a treaty creates no rights privately enforceable in domestic courts clearly applies to Thompson's motion. In 1951, the United States ratified the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). [6] This treaty authorized creation of the Commission. See Garza, 253 F.3d at 924 (citing OAS Charter (Amended) Article 112, 21 U.S.T. 607). The Declaration, under which Thompson invokes the Commission's authority, creates no judicially cognizable rights for individuals. Rather, it is an aspirational document, imposing no enforceable obligations on any member nation of the Organization of American States. Garza, 253 F.3d at 923 (stating that the Declaration is an aspirational document that, in itself, creates no directly enforceable rights). The OAS Charter authorized the creation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which serves as an autonomous consultive organ to the OAS on human rights matters and a convention to determine the structure, competence, and procedure of the Commission. The resulting American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention) accomplished that purpose and, as well, created an Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose decisions are potentially binding on member nations. Garza, 253 F.3d at 925. While the United States has signed and ratified the OAS Charter, the United States has not ratified the American Convention. Id.; see also Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 390 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 L.Ed.2d 306 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting that Article 4(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights has been signed, but not ratified, by the United States). [7] Consequently, the American Convention does not qualify as a treaty of the United States and creates neither obligations binding on the United States government nor rights privately enforceable in domestic courts. See Garza, 253 F.3d at 925. Indeed, the Commission's governing document, the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, provides separate procedures for processing complaints against nations that have ratified the Convention and those, like the United States, that have not ratified the Convention. Under the Commission's governing statute, the Commission's authority as to complaints, such as Thompson's, against non-ratifying nations is limited to making recommendations for what it might consider more effective observance of human rights. Id. As to nations that have ratified the American Convention, the Commission's powers are extended to include action before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Under neither circumstance, however, does the Commission's authority as to member nations exceed simply making non-binding recommendations in response to complaints of human rights violations. Id. The Commission's request for precautionary measures in response to Thompson's petition, then, is simply a request which has no binding effect on either the United States government or this Court. See Garza, 253 F.3d at 925 (stating that the United States has not obligated itself to be bound by the Commission's decisions); Roach v. Aiken, 781 F.2d 379, 380 (4th Cir.1986) (denying a stay of execution where no treaty obligation would require enforcement of a decision of the Commission); Jamison v. Collins, 100 F. Supp. 2d 647, 766 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (same); see also Buell v. Mitchell, 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir.2001) (stating that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is not binding on the courts of the United States). As the Seventh Circuit recognized, non-binding recommendations to a government on how to conduct its affairs would appear to be addressed to the executive and legislative branches of the government, not to the courts. Garza, 253 F.3d at 926. In short, the Commission's decisions are in no way binding on domestic judicial proceedings. Thompson's motion requesting a stay of execution to allow the Commission time to consider his petition therefore is denied. See Philip R. Workman v. State, No. M1999-1334-SC-DPE-PD, Order (Tenn. filed Mar. 29, 2001) (denying death-row inmate's request to stay his execution pending resolution of his petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights); Workman v. Sundquist, 135 F.Supp.2d 871, 872 (M.D.Tenn. 2001) (concluding that death-row inmate was not entitled to temporary restraining order staying execution where inmate could not show decision of Inter-American Commission is enforceable in courts of the United States).