US vs Mexico, General Claims Commission (Chattin Case 1927) Facts:
B.E. Chattin is an American in Mexico working. He is arrested and charged with theft. He was prosecuted & sentenced to to 2 years in jai. He did not not get credit for the ! months months he was in jai awaiting awaiting tria. "he prison is attacked #y re#es and he runs away and escapes to $.%. $.%. sues Mexico on his #ehaf for poor treatment due to Mexican judicia system. He coud not confront his accusers and witnesses. internationa standards of care. Issue: hether or not the Mexican authorities 'ioated the internationa
el!:
(es. "he )nternationa standards 'ioations committed * +.
"he proceed proceedings ings of of Mexican Mexican authorit authorities ies were were insuffici insufficient ent and unjus unjust. t.
2.
"he treatment treatment of of Mr. Mr. Chattin Chattin was a denia denia of justi justice. ce.
Bringing the proceedings of Mexican authorities against Chattin to the test of internationa standards , there can #e no dou#t of their #eing highy insufficient. )n-uiring whether there is con'incing e'idence of these these unjust unjust proceedi proceedings ngs,, the the answer answer must #e in the the affir affirmat mati'e i'e.. %ince %ince this this is a case case of aege aeged d responsi#iity of Mexico for injustice committed #y its judiciary, it is necessary to in-uire whether the treatment of Chattin amounts e'en to an outrage, to #ad faith, to wifu negect of duty, or to an insufficiency of go'ernmenta action recognia#e #y e'ery un#iased man/ and the answer here again can ony #e in the affirmati'e. An iega arrest of Chattin is not pro'en. Irre"ularit# o$ court %rocee!in"s is %roven with reference to a#sence of proper in'estigations, insufficiency of confrontations, withhoding from the accused the opportunity to know a of the charges #rought against him, undue deay of the proceedings, making the hearings in open court a mere formaity, and a continued a#sence of seriousness on the part of the Court. )nsufficie )nsufficiency ncy of the e'idence e'idence against against Chattin Chattin is not con'incin con'incingy gy pro'en/ intentional severit# o$ the %unishment is %roven, without its #eing shown that the expanation is to #e found in un fair0mindedness of the 1udge. Mistreatment in prison is not pro'en. "aking "aking into consideration, on the one hand, that this is a case of direct go'ernmenta responsi#iity, and, on the other hand, that Chattin, #ecause of his escape, has stayed in jai for ee'en months instead of for two years, it woud seem prope to aow in #ehaf of this caimant damages in the sum of 3,444.44, without interest "he court rued in Chattin5s fa'or and he is awarded 3,444 doars due to faiure to pro'ide remedy re medy..
