Article 36 would apply to the denial of access of the Diplomats, not to the execution of a foreign national.

That is correct. It is my understanding access was denied at all times prior to execution. Had access been granted as required by the convention, the results may have been different. Perhaps not, but perhaps - who knows how things would have turned out had effective counsel been afforded - I'm not talking about a walk, but certainly an outcome other than the death penalty. Again, any way you slice it, Texas violated a treaty the US had agreed to abide by, opening up possibility of retaliation by other nations holding US citizens in custody whether they are being held justifiably or not.

My feeling is that timing was the issue: had the State of Texas granted access prior to the appeals stage, all conventions would have been adhered to, and if we are to judge by the sentences of the other 5 defendants, the result would have been unlikely to change.

Once the World Court started trying to give Texas, and by definition, the US its edicts, then the issue became one of jurisdiction in the big picture and not in the case of one individual...a slippery slope.

Did he kill...yes: was he tried, sentenced and executed according to the laws of the state within which the crime was committed...yes: will there be negative connotations for Americans abroad in future...probably: does Mexico hold its Law Enforcement and Courts systems to the same high standards that the USA does.....that would require a whole other thread!

I seem to remember, from years back, a term "Mexican Justice". It was used to describe execution on the spot for anyone caught in various criminal acts. IMHOP, justice was done in this case.

*note to self..... don't mess up in a foreign country*

...and that includes Texas

Well, since I live here, I might have SOME leeway in that regards. However, "eye for eye, Tooth for tooth I say"....

Reading the article again, I see the name of the victim, "Pena". Hmm, Mexican descent most likely. Legal or illegal? What difference does that make? ABSOLUTELY NONE. Why should it make any difference in his case? One more scumbag responsible for his actions. This is just political fodder. I see people arguing about his "rights", I see no one concerned about the victims rights. Oh, yeah, she is dead. Now he is also dead.

pug, I would agree - it is an issue of timing. The request was that since the state of Texas had not followed the treaty agreed to by the US government before starting the legal process, the process should begin again, with all of the rules being followed. That is no different from what is required by any court in this nation when our own legal rules are not followed. Why should it have been any different simply because the US or a US state did not author the Vienna Convention? We did after all promise to abide by it. Since when do we judge our own conduct by the conduct of others? Now that is a slippery slope.

As for the use of the death penalty in general, I think it is extremely simplistic to say one executed "got what he deserved." You know absolutely nothing about this person, his potential for change and contribution, his level of culpability in the offenses, and as it is my guess you have never witnessed an execution, you have no idea the brutality entailed, irrespective of the method used. Another human being - one of us - died. That did not bring back his victim, it did not offer any long-term comfort to the victim's family, it left another family of victims to grieve the loss of their child, and all without the benefit of having done what we as a nation promised we would do. Exactly when is it ok to go back on your word? As long as the ends justifies the means? As I stated initially, a sad commentary all around...