100%(8)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (8 Abstimmungen)
4K Ansichten2 Seiten
1) Three American citizens working in Mexico were killed by a mob and Mexican military forces.
2) The Mexican military failed to protect the Americans from the mob and instead opened fire on the Americans, encouraging further attack from the mob.
3) The Mexican government was found liable because evidence showed a lack of diligence in punishing those involved in the killings and that soldiers participated in the attack on the Americans.
1) Three American citizens working in Mexico were killed by a mob and Mexican military forces.
2) The Mexican military failed to protect the Americans from the mob and instead opened fire on the Americans, encouraging further attack from the mob.
3) The Mexican government was found liable because evidence showed a lack of diligence in punishing those involved in the killings and that soldiers participated in the attack on the Americans.
1) Three American citizens working in Mexico were killed by a mob and Mexican military forces.
2) The Mexican military failed to protect the Americans from the mob and instead opened fire on the Americans, encouraging further attack from the mob.
3) The Mexican government was found liable because evidence showed a lack of diligence in punishing those involved in the killings and that soldiers participated in the attack on the Americans.
Connelly undertook to surrender to police authorities
but failed to do so as he was driven back to the house Thomas H. Youmans v. United Mexican States by the mob. (November 23, 1926) 7. Their employer then requested the Mayor to endeavor to protect the Americans, but he was unable to quiet RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF FORCES.DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY. the mob. The Mayor then ordered the Lieutenant of the MOB Michoacan forces to quell the riot. VIOLENCE.DENIAL OF JUSTICE.FAILURE TO APPREHEND OR 8. However, the troops, upon arriving at the scene, PUNISH. instead of dispersing the mob, opened fire in the FAILURE TO PROTECT. Mexican military forces, under command of officer, instead of protecting American citizens attacked by mob, opened house, causing the death of Arnold. fire on Americans, as a result of which all were killed either by armed 9. The mob renewed their attack against the Americans forces or by mob. No one appeared to have been punished for the and set fire to the roof forcing Connelly and Youmans crime, though some prosecutions were begun. Claim allowed. to leave, and as they did so, they were killed by the troops and members of the mob. FACTS: 10. Their bodies were dragged through the streets 1. Claim for damages in the amount of $50,000.00 is and left under the pile of stones by the side of the road made in this case by the United States of America so mutilated as scarcely to be recognizable. against the United Mexican States in behalf of Thomas 11. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT H. Youmans, the son of Henry Youmans, an American GOVERNMENT: citizen, who, together with two other Americans, John It is not proved by evidence in the record that the A. Connelly and George Arnold, was killed at the hands Mexican authorities were chargeable with negligence of a mob in Mexico. in the matter of protecting the men who were killed; or 2. Henry Youmans, Connelly, and Arnold were employees that soldiers participated in the assault on the men; or engaged in the construction of the San Hilario Tunnel that proper efforts were not made to apprehend and in the town of Angangueo in the State of Michoacn, punish the persons participating in the attack. Mexico. The construction was being done by Mexican 12. However, as per the communications sent to the laborers resident in the town under the supervision of Legation by the Director of the company, there had the Americans. been witnesses who saw the soldiers later on fire on 3. On March 14, 1880, Connelly, the Managing Engineer the Americans. Moreover, the American Consul in the construction, had a controversy with a laborer, General, who concealed his official character and Cayentano Medina, over a sum of money the latter conducted an investigation, obtained evidence from insisted was due to him as wages. Connelly, however, eye witnesses, and established that the appearance ejected Medina from his house. alone of the soldier troops have been sufficient to have 4. Subsequently after, Medina, along with several quelled the riot but instead they opened fire on the companions began to throw stones at Connelly and Americans in the house which then encouraged the approached him with a drawn machete. Connelly, mob to reopen their attack. trying to frighten the assailants, fired shots in the air 13. The Department of the State called the and then went inside his house where Youmans and attention of the Mexican government stating that on Arnold also reside. the plainest principles of international law and 5. Medina and his companions attempted to enter, and independent of the treaty stipulations between the two Connelly thereupon fired at Medina wounding his legs. nations, which are contravened by such proceedings, Soon, the house was surrounded by threatening mob. renders the Government in whose services they (soldiers) are employed, justly liable to the Apart from the question whether the acts of officials referred Government of the men who were murdered. to in this discussion have any relation to the rule of 14. The Minister of Foreign Affairs challenged the international law with regard to responsibility for acts of right of the United States to intervene in the cases on soldiers, it seems clear that the passage to which particular the ground that the murdered men had not been attention is called in the Mexican Government's brief is matriculated (registered) under the Mexican law. The concerned solely with the question of the authority of an Minister, in his reply, stated that the soldiers confessed officer as defined by domestic law to act for his Government to having participated in the riot, alleging in excuse with reference to some particular subject. Clearly it is not that they feared the vengeance of the mob had they intended by the rule asserted to say that no wrongful act of acted otherwise. an official acting in the discharge of duties entrusted to him ISSUE: can impose responsibility on a Government under Whether there is liability on the part of the Mexican international law because any such wrongful act must be Government considered to be "outside the scope of his competency.
HELD: Citation is also made in the Mexican brief to an opinion
YES. rendered by Umpire Lieber in which effect is evidently given The liability on the part of the Mexican Government was to the well-recognized rule of international law that a sustained by the evidence in the record. The record shows a Government is not responsible for malicious acts of soldiers lack of diligence in the punishment of the persons implicated committed in their private capacity. But the General Claims in the crime. Citations have been made to evidence with Commission do not consider that the participation of the respect to the participation of the soldiers in the killing of the soldiers in the murder at Angangueo can be regarded as acts three Americans. The judicial record also shows that some of soldiers committed in their private capacity when it is clear soldiers were arrested but were not sentenced. Evidence that at the time of the commission of these acts the men before the commission does not disclose whose weapons were on duty under the immediate supervision and in the killed the Americans, but the participation of the soldiers with presence of a commanding officer. Soldiers inflicting personal the members of the mob is established. injuries or committing wanton destruction or looting always act in disobedience of some rules laid down by superior With respect to the question of responsibility for the acts of authority. There could be no liability whatever for such soldiers there are citations in the Mexican Government's brief misdeeds if the view were taken of extracts from a discussion of a subcommittee of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive The Commission therefore decides that the Codification of International Law. The passage quoted, which Government of the United deals with the responsibility of a State for illegal acts of Mexican States must pay to the Government of the officials resulting in damages to foreigners, begins with a United States of America the sum of 520,000.00 statement relative to the acts of an official accomplished (twenty thousand dollars) without interest on behalf "outside the scope of his competency, that is to say, if he has of Thomas H. Youmans. exceeded his powers." An illegal act of this kind, it is stated in the quotation, is one that cannot be imputed to the State.