The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area 77 ican nationals whose cases were affected by the ICJ ruling may file petitions in state courts seeking review and reconsideration.193 The US government subsequently filed briefs with the US Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a case involving Ernesto Medellin, one of the individuals named in Mexico v. United States of America. The government’s amicus briefs argue that the president’s decision is binding on state courts and, consistent with the US government’s longstanding interpretation of the VCCR, that the VCCR does not grant a foreign national the right to challenge his or her conviction or sentence in the United States. On 13 May 2004, Governor Henry of Oklahoma commuted the death sentence of Mexican national Osvaldo Torres, whose case was one of those before the ICJ, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The governor noted that Torres had been denied his consular rights under the VCCR. That same day, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals remanded Mr. Torres’ case for an evidentiary hearing on whether Mr. Torres was prejudiced by the state’s violation of his rights under the VCCR and by his ineffective assistance by claim of counsel. The hearing was conducted on 29 November 2004, and on 18 March 2005, the district court judge found that Mr. Torres had suffered prejudice because he was not adequately informed of his rights under the VCCR. On 6 September 2005, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that Mr. Torres had actually suffered prejudice by the failure to inform him of his rights under the VCCR, but only in the context of his capital sentence. In light of the governor’s granting of clemency and limitation of Torres’ sentence to life without the possibility of parole, the court found that no further relief was required.194 On 23 May 2005, the US Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Medellin’s writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, noting that he had filed a successive state application for a writ of habeas corpus just four days before oral arguments, and “that state proceeding may provide Medellin with the review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that the ICJ required”.195 In September 2005, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral arguments in Ex Parte Jose Ernesto Medellin. On 28 June 2006, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in two cases involving breaches of the VCCR regarding Mexican nationals, Moises Sanchez-Llamas and Mario Bustillo, whose cases were addressed by the ICJ decision in Mexico v. United States of America. Both cases involved failures to inform arrested or detained foreign nationals that they could request consular notification and access. The Court did not 193 State courts will be expected to give effect to the ICJ judgement in accordance with general principles of comity. Consistent with the Mexico v. United States of America judgement, the president’s decision to provide review and reconsideration in these cases does not mean that there must be a different outcome. 194 195 Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17. Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S., 23 May 2005.