Neer Claim (US v. Mexico) Digest
Neer Claim (US v. Mexico) Digest
Neer Claim (US v. Mexico) Digest
15, 1926)
Proceeding before the American-Mexican Claims Commission, constituted under the terms of the General Claims
Convention, signed September 8, 1923, in Washington D.C. by the United States and the Mexico.
FACTS
Paul Neer lived with his wife (private claimant Fay Neer) near the village of Guanacevi, Durango State,
Mexico, where he worked as a mine superintendent.
Nov. 16, 1924, about 8:00 PM While Paul and Fay were travelling home on horseback, they were stopped
by some armed men, who talked to Paul in a language that Fay did not understand, after which bullets were
fired and Paul was killed.
Mexican authorities examined Paul's corpse shortly after the incident and found 3 bullets which penetrated his
body. The next day, the Guanacevi district judge examined some witnesses, including Fay.
The investigation proceeded; arrests were made, but no one was prosecuted or punished for the death of
Paul. The United States of America, representing Fay and her daughter Pauline, now come before the
American-Mexican Claims Commission claiming $100,000 in damages for the death of Paul.
ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE (from Commissioner Nielsens separate opinion)
UNITED STATES
o Among the evidence submitted by the United States were affidavits executed by Fay, a resident of
Guanacevi, and an employee of a mining company located in the area.
o Their statements allege that the Mexican authorities made no special effort or did not exert great care
in investigating the incident, and had the Mexican authorities done so, the culprits could have been
found.
o USA argues that there was an unwarranted delay in steps taken to apprehend the persons who killed
Neer; that the proceedings of investigation were of such a public character as to put persons
implicated in the crime on guard and to enable them to escape; [and] that detectives might have been
employed to apprehend the offenders.
o Mexican authorities showed an unwarrantable lack of diligence or intelligent investigation, which
amounted to a denial of justice.
MEXICO
o The Mexican government submitted, together with their Answer, a record of proceedings carried on
before the Judge of the First Instance of Guanacevi. This record shows: that on November 17, 1924,
the Judge ordered an investigation into the incident; that on the same day members of the Court
inspected the crime scene and the corpse; that the examination of witnesses (including Fay) were
conducted over several days; and that arrests were made but such arrested persons were
subsequently released for lack of evidence.
o Mexico argues that the investigation was conducted in compliance with the forms of Mexican law, and
that the efficacy of the law had been proven in the light of experience.
ISSUES & RULING
1) The nationality of the claim (Pauline and Fay are American citizens)
The commission adopts the principles referred to in an earlier decision (Case of William A. Parker, Mar. 31, 1926) and
finds that Pauline and Fay have been American nationals since birth.
2) W/N the Mexican government lacked diligence in investigating and prosecuting the culprits (NO)
While the Commission concedes that the Mexican authorities could have been more enthusiastic in
investigating the case, the fact that the only eyewitness of the murder was unable to furnish them any
helpful information greatly hampered the investigation and ultimately no suspect was found. There might
have been reason for the higher authorities of the State to intervene in the matter, as they apparently did. But
it is one thing to say that the Mexican authorities could have done better and another thing to say that they
were exhibited unwarranted lack of diligence as to make them liable for damages.
ON THE CONCEPT OF DENIAL OF JUSTICE; STANDARDS
The Commission recognized the difficulty of precise delineation of state responsibility in cases of a denial of
justice to an alien. The problem lay in determining the boundary between an international delinquency of [the
denial of justice] type and an unsatisfactory use of power included in national sovereignty. Citing Bassett
Moore and De Lapradelle and Politis, the Commission conceded the evasive and complex character of a
denial of justice claim. It therefore refused to lay down a precise formulation for denial of justice.
It however, said that the breadth by which the sense of denial of justice was taken is immaterial, as it
includes governmental acts regardless of whether it was judicial, legislative, or executive.
Thus the Commission confined itself to laying down these standards:
o the propriety of governmental acts should be put to the test of international standards
o the treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an international delinquency, should amount to an outrage,
to bad faith, to wilful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action so far short of
international standards that every reasonable and impartial man would readily recognize its insufficiency.
Whether the insufficiency proceeds from deficient execution of an intelligent law or from the fact that the
laws of the country do not empower the authorities to measure up to international standards is immaterial.
CASE AT BAR: The Commission found no evidence in the record to show that Mexico fell short of these
standards. On the contrary, it was found that the Mexican authorities promptly (but maybe not enthusiastically)
investigated the incident and came up empty-handed [see facts]; neither was it shown that Mexican law made
it impossible for the investigating authorities to complete their task.
o