The right to consul

IT ISN’T OFTEN that the Supreme Court can lend a helping hand to the president in easing international tensions. But that could be one result of the court’s welcome agreement to hear the appeal of Jose Medellin, a Mexican inmate on Texas’ death row whose rights under an international treaty have been violated.

If the court eventually rules -- as it should -- that Medellin is entitled to a new trial or sentencing hearing, it will be doing more than helping President Bush out of a diplomatic jam. It also will be sending the timely message that when the United States signs an international agreement, it actually means something.

Three years ago, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Medellin and 50 other Mexicans sentenced to death in this country -- including 28 in California -- were entitled to reconsideration of their convictions and sentences because they hadn’t been given access to representatives of their home countries. Such contacts are required under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty ratified by the U.S.

Medellin petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. But in 2005, the court dismissed the case after Bush, in a goodwill gesture to Mexico, promised that the U.S. “will discharge its international obligations ... by having state courts” adhere to World Court rules.

That promise put Bush, a former Texas governor and ardent capital punishment supporter, in the ironic position of asking the hard-line courts of his home state to accommodate convicted murderers on behalf of foreigners. Not surprisingly, the Texas courts declined the invitation, with one judge accusing the administration of “unprecedented, unnecessary and intrusive” interference.

Whether Medellin prevails at the Supreme Court may depend on how the justices rule on an issue that also has figured in debates about the Geneva Convention: When the United States violates a treaty, can an individual harmed by that violation go to court to vindicate his or her rights?

Common sense suggests that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. But in its last major ruling on the Vienna Convention, the court said that “we assume, without deciding” that the consular treaty “creates a judicially enforceable right.” It should use the Medellin case to make it clear that such a right exists.