## Facts

- Juan Raúl Garza, a U.S. citizen, was convicted in federal court of drug-related offenses, including three homicides committed during a continuing criminal enterprise.
- At the capital sentencing phase, prosecutors introduced evidence alleging Garza committed four additional homicides in Mexico.
- The Mexican homicide allegations had not been adjudicated in any court and were presented as aggravating evidence in support of a death sentence.
- Garza challenged the sentencing process before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission), not the underlying convictions.
- A petition was filed on December 20, 1999, alleging violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, including the right to life, fair trial, and due process.
- The Commission requested precautionary measures on January 27, 2000, seeking a stay of an execution scheduled for August 5, 2000.
- The execution date was postponed through temporary presidential reprieves in August 2000 and December 2000.
- The Commission admitted the case on the merits as to alleged violations of Articles I, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration, and declared inadmissible later-raised additional claims under Articles I and II.

## Issues

1. Whether using evidence of four unadjudicated foreign homicides as aggravating factors in a federal capital sentencing proceeding violated Articles XVIII (fair trial) and XXVI (due process) of the American Declaration due to insufficient reliability and procedural safeguards.
2. Whether imposing a death sentence through a procedure that relied on such unadjudicated allegations constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of Article I of the American Declaration.
3. Whether the sentencing and review procedures applied in the case satisfied the heightened procedural rigor required when the death penalty may be imposed.

## Decision

- The Commission found the United States responsible for violations of Articles I, XVIII, and XXVI of the American Declaration in connection with the procedure used to sentence Garza to death.
- The Commission concluded that the use of unadjudicated Mexican homicide allegations as aggravating evidence, under the circumstances, failed to satisfy the stringent fairness and reliability requirements applicable in capital cases.
- The Commission determined that deficiencies in procedural guarantees at sentencing rendered the death sentence incompatible with fair-trial and due-process protections.
- The Commission reasoned that because the death penalty was imposed through procedures that violated Articles XVIII and XXVI, the resulting deprivation of life also violated Article I.
- The Commission issued recommendations aimed at preventing execution under the defective sentence and aligning capital sentencing procedures with the American Declaration’s requirements.

## Legal Principles

- The death penalty is not per se prohibited under the American Declaration, but any process leading to its imposition is subject to especially strict scrutiny due to its irreversible nature.
- In capital sentencing, aggravating evidence that bears directly on whether the defendant will live or die must meet high standards of reliability, supported by robust procedural safeguards.
- Articles XVIII and XXVI require a meaningful opportunity to contest critical evidence, including adequate procedural guarantees and equality of arms, with heightened protection when the penalty is death.
- A death sentence imposed through procedures that fall short of fair-trial and due-process guarantees constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life under Article I, read in conjunction with Articles XVIII and XXVI.
- Claims not properly presented within the Commission’s admissibility requirements may be declared inadmissible and not considered on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Commission concluded that the United States violated the American Declaration by allowing a federal death sentence to rest in part on unadjudicated foreign homicide allegations introduced without procedural protections sufficient for capital sentencing, thereby breaching fair-trial and due-process guarantees and resulting in an arbitrary deprivation of life.


Garza v. United States, Case No. 12.243, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. Report No. 52/01 (Apr. 4, 2001)