The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area In the case of the Mexican national José Medellín, the State of Texas did not surrender to domestic and international pressure calling on the state to heed the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case of Avena and Other Mexican Nationals70. The 2004 decision ruled that the United States should provide judicial “review and reconsideration” of convictions and sentences in order to determine whether the defendants had been prejudiced by violations of Article 36(1) of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations71 The US Secretary of State and Attorney General 72, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe 73 and the UN Secretary General,74 among others, called on Texas to respect the decisions and orders of the International Court of Justice. Further, on 16 July 2008, the International Court of Justice issued “provisional measures” in the cases of Mr. Medellín (and four other Mexican nationals) facing execution in Texas. The International Court of Justice ordered the United States “to take all measures necessary” to ensure that these individuals “are not executed unless and until these five Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration”. Despite these joint efforts, Mr. Medellín was executed on 5 August 2008. Notwithstanding this development, the US Federal Government continues efforts to implement the Avena and Other Mexican Nationals decision.75 Pardon or commutation For federal death row inmates, the President has the power to grant pardon. At the state level, the clemency process varies from state to state, but usually involves the governor, a board of advisors or both. A formal petition for clemency must be filed in all 70  Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, Mexico v. United States of America, 31 March 2004. 71  Background note: On 31 March 2004, in a case brought by Mexico, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the United States had violated its obligation to inform foreign nationals without delay of their right to have their consulate notified of their detention in 51 cases regarding Mexican nationals. On 28 February 2005, the US President issued a memorandum to the US Attorney General affirming that the United States would comply with the ICJ judgement. As a result, a number of cases have gone before US courts for review and reconsideration of the imposition of the death penalty. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that this presidential determination did not constitute binding federal law and, thus, did not pre-empt the state’s prohibition against the filing of successive habeas petitions. In a decision handed down on 25 March 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that, while the ICJ’s decision constituted an international law obligation on the part of the United States, neither the decision nor the President’s determination constituted binding federal law, enforceable in United States courts, that could pre-empt state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions. 72  “Condolezza Rice asks Perry to stop execution of Jose Medellin”, Texas Death Penalty Blog, 29 July 2008, <http:// texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2008/07/condoleezza-rice-asks-perry-to-stop.html>. 73  “Execution in Texas: US should end its pick and choose attitude towards international law”, Statement by Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis, Strasbourg, 6 August 2009, < https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc. jsp?id=1330555&Site=CM>. 74  “José Medellín henrettet”, Amnesty International Norway, 7 August 2009, <http://www.amnesty.no/web.nsf/pages/ AD43F81669FCC7BBC125749E003D8068>. 75  Response from the United States Mission to the OSCE, op. cit., note 56. 13