1. Lamyaa NADIM 19-03-2014 International Business Law Pr. Jasper Kim
Case: Chattin v. Mexico

2. Case in Brief: V.

3. Mr. Chattin’s claims: Compensation of 50.000 US$.
1) Illegal arrest, trial and sentence.
2) Mistreatment in jail.
Compensation of US$.

4. Defining the Issue:
Whether the proceedings of the court of Mexico are wrongful acts in the eyes of International Standards.

5. Other questions: Was the arrest of Mr. Chattin in Mexico illegal?
Was he mistreated during his sojourn in jail in Mexico?

6. Facts: 1) Delay of the proceedings: Hearing: July, 09, 1910
August, 03, 1910
October, 28, 1910
January, 1911
February, 6, 1911

7. Facts: Appeal*: July, 11, 1910 September, 12, 1910 October 31, 1910
November, 12, 1910
*Emergency

8. Facts: 2) Withholding Information from Mr. Chattin.
3) Inconsistency of evidence
4) Lack of proper hearings in the court

9. Rule:
1) A delinquency* represents a violation of the international standards.
* if a mistreatment should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to willful neglect of duty or to an insufficiency of governmental action so far short of international standards that every reasonable and partial man would readily recognize its insufficiency.

10. Rule:
2) Equality of treatment doctrine states that “a state should treat an alien exactly as it treats its own nationals, no better no worse.”

11. Application: International standards violation:
The proceedings of Mexican authorities were insufficient and unjust.
The treatment of Mr. Chattin was a denial of justice.

12. Application
Proceeding
Denial of justice
Delinquency*

13. Application Illegal arrest:
Mr Chattin was treated fairly like other Mexican convicts.
Equality of Treatment

14. “A jail is a place for punishment and not a place of pleasure”
Application
Mistreatment in jail:
“A jail is a place for punishment and not a place of pleasure”

15. Conclusion
Mexican authorities violated the international standards of care.
Mr. Chattin’s arrest was not proven illegal.
Inhuman treatment in jail was not proven.

16. Compensation of the damages of 5.000 $
Court decision

17. International Standards care
Point of view:
Conflicting international laws:
Vs.
International Standards care
Equality of treatment doctrine

18. Point of view:
Verbal and anonymous writings accusations are not accurate evidence, yet the court considered them “unbiased”!
The court based its final decision on Mr. Chattin’s escape from prison!

19. Question
Would the outcome of the court of Mexico’s ruling have been different if the case of Mr Chattin was not consolidated* with other cases?
* Joining more than one accused for one trial.