## Facts

- The United States presented an international claim against Mexico on behalf of Walter J. N. McCurdy, a U.S. national, seeking monetary compensation (reported as $50,000) for alleged wrongful treatment by officials in the State of Sonora.
- The claim was brought under the U.S.–Mexico General Claims Convention of 8 September 1923 before the General Claims Commission (U.S.–Mexico); the case is reported at 4 R.I.A.A. 418, with an award dated 21 March 1929.
- McCurdy had mining-related interests in Sonora. A neighboring mining interest was associated with W. P. Harlow, who was alleged to have substantial local influence.
- The United States alleged that Harlow used his influence to cause Sonora authorities to act against McCurdy, including by inducing McCurdy to travel to Sonora and then arranging for his arrest and prosecution.
- A central allegation of the claim was that Harlow corrupted or improperly influenced Sonora officials (including high state officials) to secure McCurdy’s detention and to pressure him to relinquish property rights; affidavits were submitted describing influence and relationships.
- The United States also alleged an attempted extortion: that McCurdy would be released if he paid money (reported as $5,000) and transferred his mining properties to Harlow, and that refusal led to continued prosecution and confinement.
- Mexican authorities arrested and detained McCurdy while investigating and pursuing criminal accusations (including an allegation characterized in the claim as involving attempted murder and related charges), with the detention lasting several months (often summarized as about eight months).
- The United States alleged denial of justice in the Sonora proceedings, describing unfair process and procedural misconduct, and also alleged harsh or inhumane prison conditions (including complaints tied to subsistence or an allowance during confinement).
- Mexico denied international responsibility, maintaining that the criminal proceedings were supported by sufficient information to justify prosecution, that the time taken was not excessive in context, and that the prison-mistreatment allegations were not proven.

## Issues

1. What evidentiary showing is required to attribute to Mexico an alleged scheme in which a private individual’s influence or corruption causes state officials to misuse criminal process?
2. Do the alleged defects in the Sonora criminal proceedings, taken as a whole, amount to denial of justice under international law?
3. Was McCurdy’s arrest, prosecution, and months-long detention internationally wrongful because it lacked probable cause or involved unreasonable delay?
4. Did the record establish prison mistreatment (including alleged inadequate subsistence/allowance) attributable to Mexico?

## Decision

- The Commission denied the claim and awarded no compensation.
- The Commission rejected the theory of official collusion or corruption because the record did not supply proof strong enough to establish that Sonora officials acted as alleged at the instigation of Harlow (including the asserted improper transfer of shares to an official).
- The Commission concluded that the asserted procedural complaints did not, on the showing made, establish a denial of justice under international law.
- The Commission found that the information before Mexican authorities was sufficient to justify criminal proceedings and detention pending investigation and process.
- The Commission held that the period of detention and investigation described in the record was not shown to be an unreasonable delay in the circumstances.
- The Commission rejected the prison-mistreatment component of the claim for lack of adequate proof that the complained-of conditions (including allegations relating to subsistence or allowance) rose to an internationally wrongful level and were established by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Allegations that state officials acted corruptly or in concert with a private actor to misuse governmental powers require highly convincing proof; affidavits and suspicion are not enough without solid supporting evidence.
- Denial of justice is not established by minor or formal defects; it requires a serious failure of judicial protection or process shown on the record.
- International responsibility for arrest, prosecution, and detention is not shown where domestic authorities had a reasonable basis to proceed and where the time taken for investigation and judicial action is not demonstrated to be excessive in context.
- Claims of inhumane or unlawful prison treatment must be proven with concrete, specific evidence and connected to state responsibility; unsupported assertions about conditions or allowances do not suffice.

## Conclusion

In McCurdy (U.S.) v. United Mexican States, the General Claims Commission (U.S.–Mexico) rejected the United States’ claim on McCurdy’s behalf because the evidence did not convincingly establish corrupt official action or a coercive scheme, did not prove denial of justice in the Sonora proceedings, did not show prosecution and detention without a sufficient basis or with unreasonable delay, and did not substantiate the alleged prison mistreatment.


McCurdy (U.S.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A. 418 (Gen. Claims Comm’n U.S.-Mex. 1929).